Are you telling me that Al Gore didn't create the Internet in six days?
If you insist:
Al never said he created the internet, he said he was the internet's father. He raised it (them laws and such making it open to the public) but he didn't "make it". : )
Depends what you mean by "god". If you mean "creator", then yes, you and I and the electric eel are the result of evolution's ability to create new organisms. Starting with the mysterious first organism, and reproducing and multyplying and diversifying and comingling and competing, etc.
If you mean something I worship, then no.
P.S. There's the intelligent design derivative "god created all things by intentionally cultivating a designed evolutionary path through miraculous mutations, but simultaneously allowed things go about randomly to enjoy the show while he worked" I kinda like. At least that belief limits itself to havig nothing to prove it, instead of requiring to disprove the very sound and reasonable evidence of evolution.
Both Jews and Christians believe that these laws were given by God to Moses
Yup. Unfortunatly, all we have as a basis to believe that is Moses' own word on it. And the guy, by his own account, held conversations with burning shrubbery...so his testimony is somewhat suspicious.
Because, really, its not the word of God: its Moses' word that it came from god.
Their book is less than two thousand years old and is still in the original Arabic.
What do you say to them?
That its all hearsay. AND its based on the older stuff that had already been edited a lot at the time, so the fact that they quote from a more recent revision doesn't really give it any more credibility.
It makes no difference if it comes from a bible/priest/iman/mollah/pope/preacher/etc. The point is that if people believe that all living organisms were created purposefully to be the way they are now (by an hyperintelligent superbeing), no amount of evidence that they actually evolved to be that way (over long periods of semi chaotic trial and error, punctualy interrupted by catastrophic massive extinctions) will do.
I really don't see the big fuss, whether God created the world one way or another, it doesn't affect the core basis of my beliefs.
That's the thing. How much of what the bible says has to be demonstrated to be pure distilled nonsense before no one can be expected to believe the rest of it? Its a hypothetical question, I'm not looking for a percentage number, but you see the problem here? Many people see scientific progress as an attack on the basis of their belief. These people get very emotional about it.
It does turn out to be a lively debate that can go on for hours between two opinionated people. And my guess is that those two people usually care more about looking smarter than the other, than they care about their beliefs and Morality.
I do believe that God created it all [...] I personally believe there is a God that created it all
And you believe that repeating this is essential?
Remember, Evolution (as well as Creation) are both Theories (the Theory of Evolution).
Actually no. Evolution is theory, but Creationism is dogma.
The theory of the evolution of species through natural selection is an attempt to understand the world as we know it. We observe facts, and try to make sense of it all. The tenets of creationism simply explain it away with the usual "gods did it". Its not the same.
"What is the pupose of the zebra being stripped like that?"
Creationism: God wanted to pretty up the place. Evolutionism: Makes it harder for predators to pick out individuals from the herd.
Now, however, if you'd be so kind as to assimilate evolution as part of your set of god-belief (say He arranged it that way), then the two can coexist. The problems we have is that when the findings of science do not match the holy writings of ancient texts, people who believe the ancient text go into violent denial and say that the science is wrong, because it is impossible for them to accept that they believed something that was wrong all along.
These people are guilty of a mortal sin: Pride. They refuse to admit that they could have believed something untrue. And they react emotionally. Hence all the flamewars.
Main Entry: fact Pronunciation: 'fakt Function: noun Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere 4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence 5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
or
Main Entry: belief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf Function: noun Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan 1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence synonyms BELIEF, FAITH,
"God exists" is a belief, not a fact. No matter how much you believe it, it doesn't make it a fact.
"if you find a watch on a beach, you assume someone made it"
eeeeeeew!
I have a vision of a beach where a lot of watches are mating, and after their sex orgy, they bury their eggs in the sand and crawl back to their drunken owner's' wrist and await the next mating season to subliminally induce thoughts of tourism to sunny beaches with their ticking, and blinking...
Where's my hammer? I need to have a "word" with my watch...
the intelligent design camp are not against "micro-evolution", but are instead against "macro-evolution"
In other words, they aren't against the parts that have been conclusively proven in repeated experiements, but are remarkably obtuse about allowing that what happens in small ways quickly can also happen in large ways slowly.
At this point, we have no reason to consider anything but his and al Qaeda's total destruction.
KILL THEM ALL is not a healthy mindset to have.
There is no other safe way to treat enemies so completely without honor.
Seeing as how Al Quaeda's enemy has killed over eleven thousand civilians in a country that had nothing to do with them, destroyed that country's hospitals, sewers, bridges, and museums. Tortured its citizens, etc. I'm curious to know what you consider to be honourable actions.
Aside from, you know, "American's lives are worth something, foreigner's lives aren't".
Remember, when they blew you up in 2001, it was because you started it.
Your "kill them all" attitude is the kind of thing that leads to relesasing bioweapons. Its an endless circle of violence, you hit them, they hit you back, you hit them more, etc.
I believe that all Americans should unite behind our President, whoever he is in January, to continue and win this war for our security and the security of free people everywhere.
I believe the goal should be to take whatever steps are necessary to end the war. The thing with terrorism is that you can never win that war: For every terrorist killed in a surgical missile strike, ten more terrorist are created by the death of their family as collateral damage from that missile.
The more atrocities you commit, the more you motivate people to hit you back. And no matter how much security you havem there will ALWAYS be a way to strike back. You cannot have perfect security, you cannot kill all the terrorist because killing them creates more. The only intelligent thing to do would be to up security and stop motivating people to attack you.
I have no doubt that if Bin Laden could attack us like he did on 9/11 that he would. The fact that he hasn't been able to do this for over three years is why I am voting for Bush
This is the most incredibly stupid thing I've heard in a long while.
9/11 had no follow through, it was an all-or-nothing. If Osama had the means to actually do something else, he would have done it in late 2001 or early 2002, when everyone was still spooked and no one had time to organise any new counter-terrorism mesures.
You realise that you're voting for the president who let 9/11 happen because it only happened once, and so you figure he's been stopping its repeats ever since? I have a stick that repels tigers, I don't see any tigers around, so the stick obviously works. Wanna buy it? Fifty bucks, cheap to be forever safe from tigers...
But, I don't think a link belongs on slashdot, given that MANY people read/. from work (for better or worse).
So. Do what people usually do: DRTFA. Simple, easy, no one gets hurt.
Its a link about internet censorship! It belongs on slashdot more than most of the crap that gets posted (and then reposted a couple more times, for luck).
I also think it's unfortunate that a fair bit of the amateur porn out there is a bunch of desperate girls in college who can't afford their tuition
You're right, desperate girls should not have ways to make money. They should stay poor and fully clothed and uneducated... Sheesh. If you have no money, but a nice body, and people are willing to give you money to look at it: Its a way to make ends meet. Its not the ideal way, but its either that or no money, then I'm happy they have that option. It beats having no option.
So call me a prude and mod me as flamebait, but I vainly hope that Slashdot will show a little bit of social responsibility
Done, done, and the last part got you a "funny" mod : )
I submit that if a site is not suitable for work, there should not be a damn hot link to it on Slashdot's front page.
They say its porn, if you follow the link, you're obviously looking for porn. What's your problem? That there's porn out there, or that you can't resist looking at it?
I find the site offensive as an objectification of women
Yup, you went and looked. I wasn't gonna RTFA, but now, I just have to see what got your panties up in a notch... Ok, so the link up there points to a page devoid of porn, you'd have to keep on looking, in a site you know has porn, knowing you hate porn, to see the porn that so disturbs you.
You need counseling. You have some unhealthy impulse to go view pornographic images and then post message about how it offends you to be given the opportunity to view pornographic images. Go see a shrink, or a priest, someone that can help you being less of a troll. Don't wanna see porn? Don't dig in the site untill you get to the porn. Simple, easy. Its not like they lured you to goatse under false pretense. They say its a porn site, you clicked the link, then had to dig deeper. Slashdot is a site for nerds, not puritains. Go read "bibles and angels and resisting our urges dot com" or something, if this bothers you so much.
freedoms and consenting adults and such, I always wonder where one should begin to draw the line on such things.
Stop wondering, its straight forward: Your freedom ends where mine begins. And vice-versa.
Is anyone forcing to RTFA? Having read the FA, seing that it was devoid of pornographic imagery yet hosted on a pornographic site, was anyone forcing you to look deeper into the site to get to the naughty bits? Your freedom to not seing porn isn't infringed by the existance of porn sites. And when that sote makes the news, don't go see it and then complain about it. Just -don't clink the link-.
Clearly many would object to advertisement to sites that promote bestiality or child pornography.
Those are illegal. Clearly, the jusdicial system has drawn that line. And BTW, there'a absolutly no reason for you to mention these, you have horse-dick-into-preteen-virgins on the brain buddy. You're kinda sick if you ask me. I wasn't picturing any of those things until you mentioned them. Its like saying to someone "don't think about elephants". Why are you thinking about bestiality? Why do you feel the need to talk about bestiality?
I reiterate the suggestion to go get some form of counseling to help you deal with these issues, you aren't supressing them well.
Actually, you can have the parts you need to make illegal child porn, without actually possessing it.
All you need is a picture of a kid, and a regular porno picture. Photoshop the kid's head onto the pic and instant child porn, just as illegal as the real stuff.
As soon as you save it, you're in possession of it though.
But I wasn't going for a discussion of what is "child porn", since a lot of crap gets lumped into that nebulous category. But rather, I was making a point to upping the ante of online extortion from DDOS to kiddy porn means you can get the cops and the press on your side much easier. So its not really that good a move for the extortionists to do this, IMO.
It would be almost trivial to prove to the FBI the "bad stuff" didn't come from them, but it would likely be a fair sight harder getting the luser recipients of said material to believe it.
Unless there is a very public investigation of a child pornography ring using legitimate businesses' name to distribute. Have the cops and the company's PR rep on the news saying how horrible these people are...etc.
It should, however, get the attentio of the authorities much more readily though. These guys admit to having illegal photographic material in their possession and are attempting to use it to make a buck. Catching these would be much better publicity for the enterprising copppers than some two-bit hackers.
Slashdot Mirror
If a religious person tells you "no, no, no, you are wrong! God exists IS a fact", how are you going to convince him/her?
I'm not gonna.
Once I've told them they are wrong and why, and they refuse to accept it, its about who's wrong, and their denial.
There's no point in reasoning with the unreasonable : )
Are you telling me that Al Gore didn't create the Internet in six days?
If you insist:
Al never said he created the internet, he said he was the internet's father.
He raised it (them laws and such making it open to the public) but he didn't "make it".
: )
That isn't the question. Is your god Evolution?
Depends what you mean by "god". If you mean "creator", then yes, you and I and the electric eel are the result of evolution's ability to create new organisms.
Starting with the mysterious first organism, and reproducing and multyplying and diversifying and comingling and competing, etc.
If you mean something I worship, then no.
P.S. There's the intelligent design derivative "god created all things by intentionally cultivating a designed evolutionary path through miraculous mutations, but simultaneously allowed things go about randomly to enjoy the show while he worked" I kinda like.
At least that belief limits itself to havig nothing to prove it, instead of requiring to disprove the very sound and reasonable evidence of evolution.
Maybe gods evolve too.
Well, if perfection is infinity, they have room to grow even if they are already perfect. So maybe.
Both Jews and Christians believe that these laws were given by God to Moses
Yup. Unfortunatly, all we have as a basis to believe that is Moses' own word on it. And the guy, by his own account, held conversations with burning shrubbery...so his testimony is somewhat suspicious.
Because, really, its not the word of God: its Moses' word that it came from god.
Their book is less than two thousand years old and is still in the original Arabic.
What do you say to them?
That its all hearsay.
AND its based on the older stuff that had already been edited a lot at the time, so the fact that they quote from a more recent revision doesn't really give it any more credibility.
It makes no difference if it comes from a bible/priest/iman/mollah/pope/preacher/etc. The point is that if people believe that all living organisms were created purposefully to be the way they are now (by an hyperintelligent superbeing), no amount of evidence that they actually evolved to be that way (over long periods of semi chaotic trial and error, punctualy interrupted by catastrophic massive extinctions) will do.
trying to start an argument for no reason.
;-)
Page views.
Flame wars bring in a lot of advertiseing revenue : )
The market place is the jungle man, its survival of the fittest! I wonder if adblock for firefox would be considered a parasite, or a symbiote?
Honestly, if you're not going to edit, why call yourselves editors?
Maybe Slashdot will evolve a spellchecker...
;-)
I really don't see the big fuss, whether God created the world one way or another, it doesn't affect the core basis of my beliefs.
That's the thing.
How much of what the bible says has to be demonstrated to be pure distilled nonsense before no one can be expected to believe the rest of it?
Its a hypothetical question, I'm not looking for a percentage number, but you see the problem here? Many people see scientific progress as an attack on the basis of their belief. These people get very emotional about it.
It does turn out to be a lively debate that can go on for hours between two opinionated people. And my guess is that those two people usually care more about looking smarter than the other, than they care about their beliefs and Morality.
True, true.
I do believe that God created it all [...] I personally believe there is a God that created it all
And you believe that repeating this is essential?
Remember, Evolution (as well as Creation) are both Theories (the Theory of Evolution).
Actually no. Evolution is theory, but Creationism is dogma.
The theory of the evolution of species through natural selection is an attempt to understand the world as we know it. We observe facts, and try to make sense of it all. The tenets of creationism simply explain it away with the usual "gods did it". Its not the same.
"What is the pupose of the zebra being stripped like that?"
Creationism: God wanted to pretty up the place.
Evolutionism: Makes it harder for predators to pick out individuals from the herd.
Now, however, if you'd be so kind as to assimilate evolution as part of your set of god-belief (say He arranged it that way), then the two can coexist. The problems we have is that when the findings of science do not match the holy writings of ancient texts, people who believe the ancient text go into violent denial and say that the science is wrong, because it is impossible for them to accept that they believed something that was wrong all along.
These people are guilty of a mortal sin: Pride. They refuse to admit that they could have believed something untrue. And they react emotionally. Hence all the flamewars.
or
"God exists" is a belief, not a fact.
No matter how much you believe it, it doesn't make it a fact.
Why couldn't God have created Evolution? This is the most plausible solution.
Which god is he most plausible one to have created evolution?
Was it Vishnu? Or Jehova? How about Chronos?
"if you find a watch on a beach, you assume someone made it"
eeeeeeew!
I have a vision of a beach where a lot of watches are mating, and after their sex orgy, they bury their eggs in the sand and crawl back to their drunken owner's' wrist and await the next mating season to subliminally induce thoughts of tourism to sunny beaches with their ticking, and blinking...
Where's my hammer? I need to have a "word" with my watch...
the intelligent design camp are not against "micro-evolution", but are instead against "macro-evolution"
In other words, they aren't against the parts that have been conclusively proven in repeated experiements, but are remarkably obtuse about allowing that what happens in small ways quickly can also happen in large ways slowly.
You could expect at least this kind of guts (to openly denounce wrong policies) from the guy who wants to be the president.
Not in a democracy, when you choose the leader in a popularity contest, you can expect the candidates to not want to rock the boat.
Stand up for what America once meant: freedom.
Vote for who will give you that.
That's neither Bush nor Kerry...
At this point, we have no reason to consider anything but his and al Qaeda's total destruction.
KILL THEM ALL is not a healthy mindset to have.
There is no other safe way to treat enemies so completely without honor.
Seeing as how Al Quaeda's enemy has killed over eleven thousand civilians in a country that had nothing to do with them, destroyed that country's hospitals, sewers, bridges, and museums. Tortured its citizens, etc. I'm curious to know what you consider to be honourable actions.
Aside from, you know, "American's lives are worth something, foreigner's lives aren't".
Remember, when they blew you up in 2001, it was because you started it.
Your "kill them all" attitude is the kind of thing that leads to relesasing bioweapons. Its an endless circle of violence, you hit them, they hit you back, you hit them more, etc.
I believe that all Americans should unite behind our President, whoever he is in January, to continue and win this war for our security and the security of free people everywhere.
I believe the goal should be to take whatever steps are necessary to end the war. The thing with terrorism is that you can never win that war: For every terrorist killed in a surgical missile strike, ten more terrorist are created by the death of their family as collateral damage from that missile.
The more atrocities you commit, the more you motivate people to hit you back. And no matter how much security you havem there will ALWAYS be a way to strike back. You cannot have perfect security, you cannot kill all the terrorist because killing them creates more. The only intelligent thing to do would be to up security and stop motivating people to attack you.
I have no doubt that if Bin Laden could attack us like he did on 9/11 that he would. The fact that he hasn't been able to do this for over three years is why I am voting for Bush
This is the most incredibly stupid thing I've heard in a long while.
9/11 had no follow through, it was an all-or-nothing. If Osama had the means to actually do something else, he would have done it in late 2001 or early 2002, when everyone was still spooked and no one had time to organise any new counter-terrorism mesures.
You realise that you're voting for the president who let 9/11 happen because it only happened once, and so you figure he's been stopping its repeats ever since? I have a stick that repels tigers, I don't see any tigers around, so the stick obviously works. Wanna buy it? Fifty bucks, cheap to be forever safe from tigers...
At the time when this was done, Kerry agreed with Bush
That would be at he same time that disagreeing with the president was clear proof that you hated America (love it or leave it!)?
or hell, just go outside!
We're dowloading crappy video of a lunar eclipse. Clearly, "going outside" is not something we're even considering.
But, I don't think a link belongs on slashdot, given that MANY people read /. from work (for better or worse).
So. Do what people usually do: DRTFA.
Simple, easy, no one gets hurt.
Its a link about internet censorship! It belongs on slashdot more than most of the crap that gets posted (and then reposted a couple more times, for luck).
I also think it's unfortunate that a fair bit of the amateur porn out there is a bunch of desperate girls in college who can't afford their tuition
You're right, desperate girls should not have ways to make money. They should stay poor and fully clothed and uneducated... Sheesh. If you have no money, but a nice body, and people are willing to give you money to look at it: Its a way to make ends meet. Its not the ideal way, but its either that or no money, then I'm happy they have that option. It beats having no option.
So call me a prude and mod me as flamebait, but I vainly hope that Slashdot will show a little bit of social responsibility
Done, done, and the last part got you a "funny" mod : )
I submit that if a site is not suitable for work, there should not be a damn hot link to it on Slashdot's front page.
They say its porn, if you follow the link, you're obviously looking for porn.
What's your problem? That there's porn out there, or that you can't resist looking at it?
I find the site offensive as an objectification of women
Yup, you went and looked.
I wasn't gonna RTFA, but now, I just have to see what got your panties up in a notch...
Ok, so the link up there points to a page devoid of porn, you'd have to keep on looking, in a site you know has porn, knowing you hate porn, to see the porn that so disturbs you.
You need counseling. You have some unhealthy impulse to go view pornographic images and then post message about how it offends you to be given the opportunity to view pornographic images. Go see a shrink, or a priest, someone that can help you being less of a troll. Don't wanna see porn? Don't dig in the site untill you get to the porn. Simple, easy.
Its not like they lured you to goatse under false pretense. They say its a porn site, you clicked the link, then had to dig deeper. Slashdot is a site for nerds, not puritains. Go read "bibles and angels and resisting our urges dot com" or something, if this bothers you so much.
freedoms and consenting adults and such, I always wonder where one should begin to draw the line on such things.
Stop wondering, its straight forward: Your freedom ends where mine begins. And vice-versa.
Is anyone forcing to RTFA? Having read the FA, seing that it was devoid of pornographic imagery yet hosted on a pornographic site, was anyone forcing you to look deeper into the site to get to the naughty bits? Your freedom to not seing porn isn't infringed by the existance of porn sites. And when that sote makes the news, don't go see it and then complain about it. Just -don't clink the link-.
Clearly many would object to advertisement to sites that promote bestiality or child pornography.
Those are illegal. Clearly, the jusdicial system has drawn that line.
And BTW, there'a absolutly no reason for you to mention these, you have horse-dick-into-preteen-virgins on the brain buddy. You're kinda sick if you ask me. I wasn't picturing any of those things until you mentioned them. Its like saying to someone "don't think about elephants". Why are you thinking about bestiality? Why do you feel the need to talk about bestiality?
I reiterate the suggestion to go get some form of counseling to help you deal with these issues, you aren't supressing them well.
Actually, you can have the parts you need to make illegal child porn, without actually possessing it.
All you need is a picture of a kid, and a regular porno picture. Photoshop the kid's head onto the pic and instant child porn, just as illegal as the real stuff.
As soon as you save it, you're in possession of it though.
But I wasn't going for a discussion of what is "child porn", since a lot of crap gets lumped into that nebulous category. But rather, I was making a point to upping the ante of online extortion from DDOS to kiddy porn means you can get the cops and the press on your side much easier. So its not really that good a move for the extortionists to do this, IMO.
It would be almost trivial to prove to the FBI the "bad stuff" didn't come from them, but it would likely be a fair sight harder getting the luser recipients of said material to believe it.
Unless there is a very public investigation of a child pornography ring using legitimate businesses' name to distribute. Have the cops and the company's PR rep on the news saying how horrible these people are...etc.
It should, however, get the attentio of the authorities much more readily though.
These guys admit to having illegal photographic material in their possession and are attempting to use it to make a buck. Catching these would be much better publicity for the enterprising copppers than some two-bit hackers.