The case is actually worse: if actually I send you a message after my death, will you believe that it happened? Most atheists would not believe it (seeking another, albeit wrong, explanation for the event). I'm an atheist but I'd believe it if you provably sent me a postmortem postcard. However I can also say with absolute confidence that that will never happen, so I don't have to worry about it.
Of course I'm also an agnostic, so maybe that's why.
Yes! That is absolutely true. The problem is that people tend to lump agnosticism in with atheism and theism as while it is really not the same thing. The best way to describe people's belief in god is not with a line such as:
atheism theism |-----|-----| agnosticism
A far more accurate model is a two dimensional graph:
If you look at it this way, you can see that atheists and theists alike can have faith or be agnostic. I myself am an atheistic agnostic. I have friends who are theist agnostics as well.
You seem to have missed the parents point completely. He was not commenting on the niceness of the situation, he was pointing out that the majority of people believe in a God only because it was pounded into them at a young age. It has nothing to do with the correctness of this belief because it is solely a matter of faith passed down through the ages.
Note how in other societies that believe in different gods you still see the same large percentage of the people are believers. They can't all be possibly be right and so correctness obviously has nothing to do with the belief.
I think that the OP is right actually. You're analogy is bad because when people break the law it's not because they don't believe in Democracy, it's because they think they can get away with it. With God, OTOH, you don't have the option of getting away with anything if you believe in the omnipotent, omniscient God of Abraham.
Consider for a moment how easy it is for most people to be on their best behavior when their mother is in the room. If they truly, deep down believed God was watching all the time I think you would have a lot more people behaving a lot better.
While it's true that the drug war is obviously far worse then DRM, what was wrong with the posters grammer? It was not unreadable by any standards, least of all by slashdot standards.
many of the newer copy-protected discs did not carry any of the logos that go along with the Phillips specifications How is that surprising? Producers of copy-protected discs can't use the Phillips owned logos so why would you expect otherwise?
OTOH, if you found that they were using the Enhanced CD logo instead of the Audio CD logo on discs that were in fact Redbook compliant, that would be interesting.
I bitch about how incompetent TSA is too, and I fly every month or so. It's actually the TSA policy I bitch about more than anything else. Bad policy is worse anyways, that means they are useless by design and not just because of poor training and whatnot.
It didn't really bother me until the stupid BS about fluids and plastic baggies started. First of all, tell me again why we are limiting fluids? Just because some people started planning to use a fluid explosive doesn't change the fact that their are still plenty of solid explosives they could use. Why not ban all solids too?
Okay, so lets take that vast leap of faith for a moment and assume that limiting the fluids people take on board does accomplishes something. So WTF is with the baggies? They say it all needs to fit in a baggy to limit how much you can take, but is there any doubt to anyone that if you just have one or two little shampoo bottles they would pass the lunch bag test? Stupid, inflexible bureaucratic BS, that's all that is. Why not a reasonable limit to the number of little bottles you can carry on? Say, if you have more than three they all need to fit in a bag. That would cover the needs of most travelers I'm sure, though it may need the TSA agents to brush up on their counting skills.
Of course all this ignores the fact that you can carry as much fluid as you want past security if it can fit in pockets in your clothes. Oh well. Hey, at least it looks like they are doing something.
I understand your viewpoint, but at the same time would you say that people who don't believe in Sasquatch are just as faith based as those who do? Most atheists I know of consider atheism the default viewpoint and don't consider it a matter of faith.
Also, agnosticism is really separate from atheism and theism. I would consider myself a weakly atheistic agnostic, i have friends who are theistic agnostics. I'm not sure what you mean with the reference to Unitarianism. That would be an altogether separate theistic division.
Sure water is pretty unique amongst chemicals, but the article is about "stuff that behaves a little bit outside the norm". Water, being among the most common materials on Earth, does not fit that description. It may be interesting, but it's in no way unfamiliar to anyone.
Re:why are the only interesting materials only flu
on
5 Strangest Materials
·
· Score: 1
People just want to think these weird flying things are aliens visiting us. But honestly, if YOU were an alien, with this fantastic technology to fly hundreds of light years to visit another planet with life on it, would you just fly by some stuff then go home? Hell, I wouldn't drive 60 miles look at something and turn around and come home. Maybe one of them had to take a leak and Earth just happened to be along the way? I wouldn't be at all surprised if Earth turned out to be some Galactic variant of McDonald's where the only good reason to ever stop in is for the free restrooms.
Well yes, clearly if it weren't for the law they wouldn't be criminals. That is always the case with any law but usually that which is illegal would be improper behavior regardless of the law. When laws are made to arbitrarily ban things which are not unethical then the laws are wrong.
Also the very idea of make something that grows in the ground illegal is patently stupid. Of course I think all prohibition is wrong for what should be obvious reasons, but banning weeds and fungi is a special kind of idiocy.
Oh, and yes, speeding is also breaking the law. People who lightly dismiss it as such demonstrate contempt for the rule of law. It could be argued that people who make laws banning plants which turn a large percent of the population into criminals are the ones who show contempt for the rule of law.
I think the documents will be very interesting to historians and other reality based types. Obviously it's not for the benefit of the conspiracy crowd since, as you observed, they believe what they want.
Right and if a food vendor wants to be permitted to operate in the state of New York that is between them and the state. It's also your right if you choose to eat at a restaurant that serves dog meat, but good luck finding one since that's illegal as well.
Damn, you had me up until the 9/11 comment. Granted I don't know your exact beliefs on it, but I've never seen a theory on 9/11 start like that and end with sound reason and evidence.
Either way, the greater point of your whole comment is right on.
Because it is far less reprehensible than murder. Far less even, than negligent homicide... Pharmaceutical companies are not blamed for people getting sick -- only for not providing medicines. "Crimes of omission" are almost always less reprehensible, than those actually committed. Is it really less reprehensible, or does it just lack that visceral feeling of wrongness because it's less personal. Say someone was sitting by your bedside with a pill that could save your life but wouldn't give it to you because you couldn't pay for it. That would be pretty reprehensible, wouldn't it? I would think so. So why is it not as bad for someone sitting in a board room to be doing the same thing to anonymous folks on the large scale?
Just a thought. I know quite well big pharma needs to money, just like everyone else. Even so, there are plenty of things they do that I can't personally condone.
Also by the way, in some jurisdictions there is such a things as Good Samaritan Laws which makes it illegal not to help someone when it is safe for you to do so. You're right they wouldn't be charged with murder, but they are legally responsible none the less.
Slashdot Mirror
Most atheists would not believe it (seeking another, albeit wrong, explanation for the event). I'm an atheist but I'd believe it if you provably sent me a postmortem postcard. However I can also say with absolute confidence that that will never happen, so I don't have to worry about it.
Of course I'm also an agnostic, so maybe that's why.
Yes! That is absolutely true. The problem is that people tend to lump agnosticism in with atheism and theism as while it is really not the same thing. The best way to describe people's belief in god is not with a line such as:
atheism theism
|-----|-----|
agnosticism
A far more accurate model is a two dimensional graph:
faith
|
|
atheism -----+----- theism
|
|
agnosticism
If you look at it this way, you can see that atheists and theists alike can have faith or be agnostic. I myself am an atheistic agnostic. I have friends who are theist agnostics as well.
You seem to have missed the parents point completely. He was not commenting on the niceness of the situation, he was pointing out that the majority of people believe in a God only because it was pounded into them at a young age. It has nothing to do with the correctness of this belief because it is solely a matter of faith passed down through the ages.
Note how in other societies that believe in different gods you still see the same large percentage of the people are believers. They can't all be possibly be right and so correctness obviously has nothing to do with the belief.
I think that the OP is right actually. You're analogy is bad because when people break the law it's not because they don't believe in Democracy, it's because they think they can get away with it. With God, OTOH, you don't have the option of getting away with anything if you believe in the omnipotent, omniscient God of Abraham.
Consider for a moment how easy it is for most people to be on their best behavior when their mother is in the room. If they truly, deep down believed God was watching all the time I think you would have a lot more people behaving a lot better.
While it's true that the drug war is obviously far worse then DRM, what was wrong with the posters grammer? It was not unreadable by any standards, least of all by slashdot standards.
OTOH, if you found that they were using the Enhanced CD logo instead of the Audio CD logo on discs that were in fact Redbook compliant, that would be interesting.
True, but Trent's also pretty far from the norm in the music industry.
Gotcha, thanks!
Leaving the ROC? I thought Taiwan was the ROC. Am I missing something?
He was just talking about visitors using IE7, not just any version of IE. To me 20% to 30% sounds more than reasonable.
I bitch about how incompetent TSA is too, and I fly every month or so. It's actually the TSA policy I bitch about more than anything else. Bad policy is worse anyways, that means they are useless by design and not just because of poor training and whatnot.
It didn't really bother me until the stupid BS about fluids and plastic baggies started. First of all, tell me again why we are limiting fluids? Just because some people started planning to use a fluid explosive doesn't change the fact that their are still plenty of solid explosives they could use. Why not ban all solids too?
Okay, so lets take that vast leap of faith for a moment and assume that limiting the fluids people take on board does accomplishes something. So WTF is with the baggies? They say it all needs to fit in a baggy to limit how much you can take, but is there any doubt to anyone that if you just have one or two little shampoo bottles they would pass the lunch bag test? Stupid, inflexible bureaucratic BS, that's all that is. Why not a reasonable limit to the number of little bottles you can carry on? Say, if you have more than three they all need to fit in a bag. That would cover the needs of most travelers I'm sure, though it may need the TSA agents to brush up on their counting skills.
Of course all this ignores the fact that you can carry as much fluid as you want past security if it can fit in pockets in your clothes. Oh well. Hey, at least it looks like they are doing something.
I understand your viewpoint, but at the same time would you say that people who don't believe in Sasquatch are just as faith based as those who do? Most atheists I know of consider atheism the default viewpoint and don't consider it a matter of faith.
Also, agnosticism is really separate from atheism and theism. I would consider myself a weakly atheistic agnostic, i have friends who are theistic agnostics. I'm not sure what you mean with the reference to Unitarianism. That would be an altogether separate theistic division.
Doesn't matter. Either way he's wholly unfit for office.
I believe the word you meant is misunderestimate.
Sure water is pretty unique amongst chemicals, but the article is about "stuff that behaves a little bit outside the norm". Water, being among the most common materials on Earth, does not fit that description. It may be interesting, but it's in no way unfamiliar to anyone.
Dry ice is not a fluid.
Well yes, clearly if it weren't for the law they wouldn't be criminals. That is always the case with any law but usually that which is illegal would be improper behavior regardless of the law. When laws are made to arbitrarily ban things which are not unethical then the laws are wrong.
Also the very idea of make something that grows in the ground illegal is patently stupid. Of course I think all prohibition is wrong for what should be obvious reasons, but banning weeds and fungi is a special kind of idiocy.
I think the documents will be very interesting to historians and other reality based types. Obviously it's not for the benefit of the conspiracy crowd since, as you observed, they believe what they want.
Right and if a food vendor wants to be permitted to operate in the state of New York that is between them and the state. It's also your right if you choose to eat at a restaurant that serves dog meat, but good luck finding one since that's illegal as well.
Damn, you had me up until the 9/11 comment. Granted I don't know your exact beliefs on it, but I've never seen a theory on 9/11 start like that and end with sound reason and evidence.
Either way, the greater point of your whole comment is right on.
Just a thought. I know quite well big pharma needs to money, just like everyone else. Even so, there are plenty of things they do that I can't personally condone.
Also by the way, in some jurisdictions there is such a things as Good Samaritan Laws which makes it illegal not to help someone when it is safe for you to do so. You're right they wouldn't be charged with murder, but they are legally responsible none the less.