I know this is PHP, so it might be expecting too much, but what ever happened to using vi?
I'm a semi-pro (all told I've probably made nearly $100k) web developer and I've never felt the need for all these fancy IDEs. I've tried them before and they just slow me down.
You haven't been involved in many listening tests, have you? It is a lot of work to complete a single package. You are probably not going to get good results at more than a package a day. It's a slow process, and your ears get fatigued quite quickly. Grabbing all of them is overkill.
And you'll probably be pleasantly surprised at just how good MP3 can sound at 128...
Other codecs have been tested previously. Blind testing codecs is very labour-intensive and these events do not happen frequently. This test is expressly centred around MP3. If you'd like, drop by Hydrogenaudio and come take a look at the other listening tests that have been co-ordinated. There have been many through the years.
I'm one of the moderators at Hydrogenaudio. The site hosting the clips is not Hydrogenaudio. However all the people rushing the topic seem to be overloading our already stressed server. Bad timing.:)
Wait, what about FF5 where any character could take on any job? The last FF with solid classes was FF4; at least FF6 had some unique abilities for each character. (Mmm, Sabin`s Blitz)
It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a change. Never has it been as easy to do it all yourself as it is now. I can produce, record, and master music all by myself. Right now, it is trendy to do it all yourself. Eventually these trends will shift. Music gains depth with multiple contributors, but it is never has the artistic integrity of a work produced by only one person.
What I'm talking about are two different production paradigms: individualistic production and group production. Each produces music of a different sort. To say one is objectively better or worse is asinine. Music is appreciated on a subjective level, not an objective level. I would have thought someone with as much experience behind him as Elton John might realize this. Then again, experience does not necessarily imply wisdom.
I'm as much an AMD fanboy as the next guy. I'm also a realist. Realistically, Intel's on top right now. I'd love to see AMD regain that dominance. Like you say, competition is good. However, Intel is also much bigger than AMD. Still though, with a GPU manufacturer in-house, I think AMD will offer some really fantastic technology in a couple years. It's just getting the two sides to work together that will likely prove to be difficult.
Hm. I'm also with Rogers. I signed up for 3 years at The Source (nee Radio Shack) and got a $30 Motorola V3t. No lock-in. Nothing. It's leagues above my experiences with Telus and Bell. I can do absolutely anything with this phone, even upload pirated games (though I don't do that any more).
I personally host several small projects of mine on my own personal website. I pay $10 a month out of my own pocket to have a web presence. In that $10/month, I get 3TB of bandwidth. Absolutely dirt cheap. I'm more than willing to give that 3TB away each month for free.
You make it sound as though serving a free site is difficult. It's not, especially if you keep it small-scale.
Type "sudo bash". Enter root password. Voila! Instant root shell access. If you couldn't figure that one out yourself, go back to Windows or Mac. You'll be happier there.
When I enter a password after executing sudo , that is for all practical purposes a root password. You can be pedantic if you like, but the thrust stays the same: no superuser access without password entry.
Apparently you've never used ubuntu. It does exactly what you're describing. All system functionality is accessed by entering the root password. Many configuration screens are inaccessible without it.
Just to simplify, here's the link to the first chapter of Matthew. Feel free to skip the genealogy and start at verse 18. The genealogy does not add much of merit to the rest of the contents.
For someone without religion, how can they devote enough time to objectively measure each in their ability to improve lives and disseminate truth?
Easy. Analyze the lives of the teachers. Analyze the cultural conditions that resulted in the formation of the religion. Analyze the teachings of the teachers. Compared to the vastness of scientific knowledge, knowledge about most religious teachers is quite limited. Finally, you can look in the lives of those who adhere to particular worldviews. Although this is subjective, you can learn a lot by seeing the ways in which religions and individuals interact.
Though my assertions of truth may not hold much authority, I make them nonetheless. Of all the religions I have studied, Christianity is the truest, and Christian faith does indeed do wonderful things.
I still cannot reconcile myself with the faith requirements that Christianity claims God has made.
Faith should not be viewed as a requirement. Faith is a comforting, strengthening element that adds significant meaning to religion. It is something that is intentionally built over time through walking with God. To determine whose faith is most blessed, compare Christian stories of faith with Islamic, Jewish, or any other religion. The end result of this search led to Christianity, although the relative availability does vary.
I think that acknowledgement of Christ's teaching and merely admitting the possibility that He may have been divine may be enough, as I've elaborated on before. Acts 2:21 records Peter (who Christ referred to as the rock on which the foundation of the church will be built): "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Mother Theresa once said "When He calls you, you will know it." I believe that by keeping an open mind about religion and acknowledging all possibilities, eventually you will find a sign, if you actively search for them. It worked for me.
There are two schools of thought about the random events of life. One is that the universe is impartial and obeys statistical laws. The other is that each choice and each situation is something new and novel, and that God works His plan in your life by directly influencing the outcome of each event. Like I explained before, if God's will and yours synchronize, He will do great things in your life. Where God's will contradicts yours, there are generally two possibilities: He is strengthening you, or He is teaching you. I admit that I've also incurred His punishment on occasion, though this is generally the result of repeated, habitual sin. By eliminating sin, your will is brought into alignment with God's, and you begin to live the life that He intended, which is absolutely optimal.
I propose an experiment that should be quick: Assume God exists for a moment. Pray, and ask God for wisdom, clarity, and understanding in your pursuit of truth. Then sit down and critically analyze the Gospels as deeply as you wish. Even concerted skimming may be sufficient. They are quite short, relatively. Biblegateway.com offers many translations, so pick the one that you're most comfortable with (they're roughly ordered by usefulness), and give it at least one pass through. Every time I've told a non-Christian to do this, they've been quite surprised by the picture that is painted of Jesus in the Gospels, and the responses tend to be quite unique.
I believe that is the single most valid method of evaluating Christianity that exists. Both the Old Testament and the remainder of the New Testament are reflected clearly in those four short books. If you still doubt, then just let it be. Accept your understanding and interpretation of the Gospel for what it is, and continue your process of knowledge gathering. You're not going to get any closer to understanding other religions without study in them as well!:) I do not mean to impose, I'm m
If you're including me in that we, I have to disagree.
Actually, now that I think about it, there are only 3 that I can say western society accepts without reservation. Poor example on my part. Nonetheless, our society definitely has a Christian slant to it. Almost all of Western culture descends from the harsh rule of monarchs backed by the Roman Catholic church, both of which were quite un-Christian.
As an example many Chinese have a strong sense of morality without religion.
They have Confucianism and Buddhism, both of which are quasi-religious, and most definitely moral. The real question is whether that morality is accurate.
I'm not going to say this statement is wrong, but I don't know if it's right.
I am not certain how to interpret this. Do you mean to say that you lack the information required to evaluate its truth? I cannot see how the example you give of Newton's laws relates. Like all physics, it is a model of the world that is useful for prediction, and its truth is easily evaluated by its usefulness. If pragmatism is the only factor involved in truth, then there is no question that Christianity is true, as it is very useful in bringing self-control to life and enriching overall quality of life, at least in my experience.
You can choose whether or not to believe in Newton's "laws". They do not imply that the universe is governed by them, they just happen to be very useful approximations of reality. What I was saying is that until you are given proof, you are able to believe what you wish. Indeed, even if you're given a 95% confidence interval, it is valid to believe that you are dealing with the one chance in twenty the interval fails, only in that instance, you're given a likelihood of accuracy.
For example, if I was to choose to believe that grass is blue, I could theoretically construct a metaphysics wherein my belief was true by definition and interpret all of my existence through that metaphysics. The only way to disprove such a belief would be to appeal to populism, and say that most people interpret the word "green" to include a definition involving the peak wavelength of light in the visible spectrum that is reflected by a blade of grass, while the interpretation of "blue" would disallow such a generic interpretation.
The problem is that there are no logically viable techniques by which to judge or disprove a metaphysics. Even mathematics has been proven to be incomplete as a metaphysics, and it is the basis for all scientific knowledge. If the only technique we have for objectively judging is incomplete, how can we place such trust in it? Simple answer: faith. We place faith in science. It is not often misplaced, but it is faith nonetheless.
However, I can say sincerely that I have never misjudged placing faith in God. If His will and mine coincide, then I am made happy, and I praise Him. If His will and mine do not coincide, although I may be saddened, I console myself that it was not His will and search for where my judgement was in error. I have always found reasons and they always help me.
Science is another matter. Studies are not infallible and require expert judgement to assess. Expert judgement in a field can only come with many years of study, and our knowledge is so vast that one person cannot possibly hope to gain expert judgement in any thing more than a select few (mostly very specific) fields.
I think their argument is that it's possible to be moral without faith.
The beauty of Christian thought is that it is universal. Christians never need to even worry about morals and ethics, as God (or, I must cede, perhaps just religious devotion) writes them on their hearts. We (should) behave the same around adults and children, around potential partners or friends, around young and old alike. It is valid for those who are mentally capable of maintaining a logically-consistent metap
Some of your comments are best responded to in batches, so I've quoted you a little irregularly. Apologies, but I think it flows a little better this way...
I agree that sins of the heart are something one should work on ridding oneself of, but again, my objection is more fundamental. I don't agree that we should need forgiveness for them. It feels like a set-up. These sins are innate, so, while we initially have no control over them, we still need to ask for their forgiveness? I really hate being blammed for something I didn't do nor even will, which is also why I really dislike the concept of original sin.
Forgiveness is a very complex topic. The Lord's Prayer says "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us." It is kind of a mutual agreement, that God's forgiveness is akin to our ability to forgive others. The dogma of "original sin" seems peculiar to me as well. I think it is sufficient to acknowledge that we all sin, and are therefore sinful, and hence unworthy of communion with a perfect being. We may not be born sinful, but in our ignorance (as children, or as inexperienced adults), we often commit sins against others and against ourselves. There are entire books written on the topic of forgiveness, and many different opinions.
There are much worse ways in which to conduct yourself, and not many better ones.
I wasn't suggesting there is a better alternative to Christianity. I don't rank religions or moral views on a scale, instead they get a rating of good, bad and I don't know.
Perhaps I am misperceiving, but there is a bit of an incongruity between these two statements... Mind clarifying? I was asking specifically what you perceive the "better ones" to be. As you are arguing from an agnostic perspective, I would have to assume that you perceive your viewpoint to be superior, and I do not fault you for this. Is there any other that you'd place above Christianity?
I think a lot of Christ's teachings are valid simply because they make logical sense, someone could follow them and measure improvement in their life. There are other biblical teachings which require faith, not logic, to accept. Why are these more important than the logical ones? Or rather, why can't it all operate on logic? If God requires recognition, why doesn't He show Himself to me in a form/act I'd recognize as God?
I'd counter that with not everyone is equally mentally equipped to accept the idea that Christ was God's mortal form. So, that requirement still seems unjust to me.
Indeed, the modern world is much different than the world of the ancient Greeks. We have made great advances in thought since then. Agnosticism, as it currently exists, is also relatively new. Our knowledge has grown to the extent that we are now able to conceptualize the universe mostly without God. The first verse of John says something that's resonated with me: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The "Word" refers to Christ, but the interesting bit is the language used. The word we translate as "Word" is logos. Strong's dictionary defines it thus:
From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.
It is a complex and difficult thing to translate, but another alternate translation would be "Logic". Indeed, the word "logic" is based on the root word "logos". Between John 14:21 and this
My problem, again, is that I personally fail to see the justice how one can fail if they emulate Christ's life to best of their abilites, but don't accept he was God's son anymore than anyone else nor that his death was for one's salvation.
I believe there is a Biblical case to be made that one who followed Jesus' commandments will be accepted into the kingdom of God. John 14:21 states that Jesus says "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." Convincing one to deny Christ's divinity while obeying His commands would be a severe blow by the Deceiver, but it is possible. Nonetheless, if we take this verse to be true, if one starts out merely obeying Christ's commandments, eventually he will come to know the truth.
The problem is that Christ specifically targets sins of the heart, and condemns obedience in action but not in spirit. If one merely obeys His teaching outwardly but not inwardly, that is hypocrisy, which is fiercely condemned. It is very difficult (if not impossible) to rid yourself of sins of the heart without His intervention, at least in my personal experience. Perhaps you disagree.
Regardless, the kingdom of God is promised to believers, but it is not crystal clear what happens to non-believers. Those who revel in their sins are clearly destined for hell, but those who sincerely set their hearts to helping their fellow humans may be judged by a different standard. I suspect Christ will assess their hearts. In times such as these, where sincere people search for truth but are overwhelmed by the amount of information to digest, I suspect those who accept the mere possibility of Christ's divinity and strive for ethical conduct through Christ's teaching (which He oversimplifies down the Golden Rule at one point) will be saved. Nonetheless, these are just hypotheses, and we have been given a very clear path to salvation. It would be much less taxing to accept Christ's doctrine wholesale, as then the Holy Spirit can aid you in your quest to perfection. Even if the whole God thing is bogus (which my experience strongly contraindicates), you've at least got self-deception on your side! This works for non-Christian doctrine too, as the obvious example of Islamic extremists have shown.
Rewarding one because they did the best they could with what they were given.
Ah, but we all fall short of such a lofty goal, do we not? I cannot go a day without making suboptimal decisions (I personally use this as my internal definition of sin), and often I do not realize the error of my ways until long after I have taken action. How can one judge the effort of beings who fail so frequently? Of beings who are so often self-serving and utterly evil? And indeed, how can we as individuals even judge what is "best" without a metric by which to measure it? And then, whose metric do we use? I have looked deeply into this, and Christ's metric is, as far as I can ascertain, the best. Could you suggest a superior measurement?
There are much worse ways in which to conduct yourself, and not many better ones.
What would you regard as superior?
In a capitalist society people are rewarded for hard work and/or smart ideas. They are not rewarded simply because they accept capitalism. This, to me, is a just structure for the material realm, and I view the spiritual realm in a similar way.
In a capitalist society, people are also rewarded for having money [sarcasm]yay for feedback loops[/sarcasm], for abusing the system, for obeying unethical business practices, and more. It is true that occasionally you can earn a reward for hard work or smart ideas, but it is not that simple. I am aware you are merely making an analogy, but what you espouse, in the end, is also nothing more than belief. The authority behind your belief is your own understanding
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really like anything Joss Whedon has had significant creative input into. You're not the only one.
I know this is PHP, so it might be expecting too much, but what ever happened to using vi?
I'm a semi-pro (all told I've probably made nearly $100k) web developer and I've never felt the need for all these fancy IDEs. I've tried them before and they just slow me down.
You haven't been involved in many listening tests, have you? It is a lot of work to complete a single package. You are probably not going to get good results at more than a package a day. It's a slow process, and your ears get fatigued quite quickly. Grabbing all of them is overkill.
And you'll probably be pleasantly surprised at just how good MP3 can sound at 128...
Other codecs have been tested previously. Blind testing codecs is very labour-intensive and these events do not happen frequently. This test is expressly centred around MP3. If you'd like, drop by Hydrogenaudio and come take a look at the other listening tests that have been co-ordinated. There have been many through the years.
I'm one of the moderators at Hydrogenaudio. The site hosting the clips is not Hydrogenaudio. However all the people rushing the topic seem to be overloading our already stressed server. Bad timing. :)
Welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here.
I don't remember CD drives like that at all.
QED?
Thanks for the comments. Stuff like this makes me continue to bother with Slashdot comments!
No, but he may or may not have a cat. Care to take a look in this box for me?
I don't get why this is newsworthy. Pretty boring to me.
*rimshot*
*runs and hides from the angry mob*
Wait, what about FF5 where any character could take on any job? The last FF with solid classes was FF4; at least FF6 had some unique abilities for each character. (Mmm, Sabin`s Blitz)
It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a change. Never has it been as easy to do it all yourself as it is now. I can produce, record, and master music all by myself. Right now, it is trendy to do it all yourself. Eventually these trends will shift. Music gains depth with multiple contributors, but it is never has the artistic integrity of a work produced by only one person.
What I'm talking about are two different production paradigms: individualistic production and group production. Each produces music of a different sort. To say one is objectively better or worse is asinine. Music is appreciated on a subjective level, not an objective level. I would have thought someone with as much experience behind him as Elton John might realize this. Then again, experience does not necessarily imply wisdom.
I'm as much an AMD fanboy as the next guy. I'm also a realist. Realistically, Intel's on top right now. I'd love to see AMD regain that dominance. Like you say, competition is good. However, Intel is also much bigger than AMD. Still though, with a GPU manufacturer in-house, I think AMD will offer some really fantastic technology in a couple years. It's just getting the two sides to work together that will likely prove to be difficult.
Hm. I'm also with Rogers. I signed up for 3 years at The Source (nee Radio Shack) and got a $30 Motorola V3t. No lock-in. Nothing. It's leagues above my experiences with Telus and Bell. I can do absolutely anything with this phone, even upload pirated games (though I don't do that any more).
I personally host several small projects of mine on my own personal website. I pay $10 a month out of my own pocket to have a web presence. In that $10/month, I get 3TB of bandwidth. Absolutely dirt cheap. I'm more than willing to give that 3TB away each month for free.
You make it sound as though serving a free site is difficult. It's not, especially if you keep it small-scale.
Actually, record sales are up.
(BTW, Slashdot's "Slow down, cowboy" comment sucks)
Type "sudo bash". Enter root password. Voila! Instant root shell access. If you couldn't figure that one out yourself, go back to Windows or Mac. You'll be happier there.
When I enter a password after executing sudo , that is for all practical purposes a root password. You can be pedantic if you like, but the thrust stays the same: no superuser access without password entry.
Apparently you've never used ubuntu. It does exactly what you're describing. All system functionality is accessed by entering the root password. Many configuration screens are inaccessible without it.
Just to simplify, here's the link to the first chapter of Matthew. Feel free to skip the genealogy and start at verse 18. The genealogy does not add much of merit to the rest of the contents.
Easy. Analyze the lives of the teachers. Analyze the cultural conditions that resulted in the formation of the religion. Analyze the teachings of the teachers. Compared to the vastness of scientific knowledge, knowledge about most religious teachers is quite limited. Finally, you can look in the lives of those who adhere to particular worldviews. Although this is subjective, you can learn a lot by seeing the ways in which religions and individuals interact.
Though my assertions of truth may not hold much authority, I make them nonetheless. Of all the religions I have studied, Christianity is the truest, and Christian faith does indeed do wonderful things.
Faith should not be viewed as a requirement. Faith is a comforting, strengthening element that adds significant meaning to religion. It is something that is intentionally built over time through walking with God. To determine whose faith is most blessed, compare Christian stories of faith with Islamic, Jewish, or any other religion. The end result of this search led to Christianity, although the relative availability does vary.
:) I do not mean to impose, I'm m
I think that acknowledgement of Christ's teaching and merely admitting the possibility that He may have been divine may be enough, as I've elaborated on before. Acts 2:21 records Peter (who Christ referred to as the rock on which the foundation of the church will be built): "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Mother Theresa once said "When He calls you, you will know it." I believe that by keeping an open mind about religion and acknowledging all possibilities, eventually you will find a sign, if you actively search for them. It worked for me.
There are two schools of thought about the random events of life. One is that the universe is impartial and obeys statistical laws. The other is that each choice and each situation is something new and novel, and that God works His plan in your life by directly influencing the outcome of each event. Like I explained before, if God's will and yours synchronize, He will do great things in your life. Where God's will contradicts yours, there are generally two possibilities: He is strengthening you, or He is teaching you. I admit that I've also incurred His punishment on occasion, though this is generally the result of repeated, habitual sin. By eliminating sin, your will is brought into alignment with God's, and you begin to live the life that He intended, which is absolutely optimal.
I propose an experiment that should be quick: Assume God exists for a moment. Pray, and ask God for wisdom, clarity, and understanding in your pursuit of truth. Then sit down and critically analyze the Gospels as deeply as you wish. Even concerted skimming may be sufficient. They are quite short, relatively. Biblegateway.com offers many translations, so pick the one that you're most comfortable with (they're roughly ordered by usefulness), and give it at least one pass through. Every time I've told a non-Christian to do this, they've been quite surprised by the picture that is painted of Jesus in the Gospels, and the responses tend to be quite unique.
I believe that is the single most valid method of evaluating Christianity that exists. Both the Old Testament and the remainder of the New Testament are reflected clearly in those four short books. If you still doubt, then just let it be. Accept your understanding and interpretation of the Gospel for what it is, and continue your process of knowledge gathering. You're not going to get any closer to understanding other religions without study in them as well!
Actually, now that I think about it, there are only 3 that I can say western society accepts without reservation. Poor example on my part. Nonetheless, our society definitely has a Christian slant to it. Almost all of Western culture descends from the harsh rule of monarchs backed by the Roman Catholic church, both of which were quite un-Christian.
They have Confucianism and Buddhism, both of which are quasi-religious, and most definitely moral. The real question is whether that morality is accurate.
I am not certain how to interpret this. Do you mean to say that you lack the information required to evaluate its truth? I cannot see how the example you give of Newton's laws relates. Like all physics, it is a model of the world that is useful for prediction, and its truth is easily evaluated by its usefulness. If pragmatism is the only factor involved in truth, then there is no question that Christianity is true, as it is very useful in bringing self-control to life and enriching overall quality of life, at least in my experience.
You can choose whether or not to believe in Newton's "laws". They do not imply that the universe is governed by them, they just happen to be very useful approximations of reality. What I was saying is that until you are given proof, you are able to believe what you wish. Indeed, even if you're given a 95% confidence interval, it is valid to believe that you are dealing with the one chance in twenty the interval fails, only in that instance, you're given a likelihood of accuracy.
For example, if I was to choose to believe that grass is blue, I could theoretically construct a metaphysics wherein my belief was true by definition and interpret all of my existence through that metaphysics. The only way to disprove such a belief would be to appeal to populism, and say that most people interpret the word "green" to include a definition involving the peak wavelength of light in the visible spectrum that is reflected by a blade of grass, while the interpretation of "blue" would disallow such a generic interpretation.
The problem is that there are no logically viable techniques by which to judge or disprove a metaphysics. Even mathematics has been proven to be incomplete as a metaphysics, and it is the basis for all scientific knowledge. If the only technique we have for objectively judging is incomplete, how can we place such trust in it? Simple answer: faith. We place faith in science. It is not often misplaced, but it is faith nonetheless.
However, I can say sincerely that I have never misjudged placing faith in God. If His will and mine coincide, then I am made happy, and I praise Him. If His will and mine do not coincide, although I may be saddened, I console myself that it was not His will and search for where my judgement was in error. I have always found reasons and they always help me.
Science is another matter. Studies are not infallible and require expert judgement to assess. Expert judgement in a field can only come with many years of study, and our knowledge is so vast that one person cannot possibly hope to gain expert judgement in any thing more than a select few (mostly very specific) fields.
The beauty of Christian thought is that it is universal. Christians never need to even worry about morals and ethics, as God (or, I must cede, perhaps just religious devotion) writes them on their hearts. We (should) behave the same around adults and children, around potential partners or friends, around young and old alike. It is valid for those who are mentally capable of maintaining a logically-consistent metap
Some of your comments are best responded to in batches, so I've quoted you a little irregularly. Apologies, but I think it flows a little better this way...
Forgiveness is a very complex topic. The Lord's Prayer says "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us." It is kind of a mutual agreement, that God's forgiveness is akin to our ability to forgive others. The dogma of "original sin" seems peculiar to me as well. I think it is sufficient to acknowledge that we all sin, and are therefore sinful, and hence unworthy of communion with a perfect being. We may not be born sinful, but in our ignorance (as children, or as inexperienced adults), we often commit sins against others and against ourselves. There are entire books written on the topic of forgiveness, and many different opinions.
Perhaps I am misperceiving, but there is a bit of an incongruity between these two statements... Mind clarifying? I was asking specifically what you perceive the "better ones" to be. As you are arguing from an agnostic perspective, I would have to assume that you perceive your viewpoint to be superior, and I do not fault you for this. Is there any other that you'd place above Christianity?
Indeed, the modern world is much different than the world of the ancient Greeks. We have made great advances in thought since then. Agnosticism, as it currently exists, is also relatively new. Our knowledge has grown to the extent that we are now able to conceptualize the universe mostly without God. The first verse of John says something that's resonated with me: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The "Word" refers to Christ, but the interesting bit is the language used. The word we translate as "Word" is logos. Strong's dictionary defines it thus:
It is a complex and difficult thing to translate, but another alternate translation would be "Logic". Indeed, the word "logic" is based on the root word "logos". Between John 14:21 and this
I believe there is a Biblical case to be made that one who followed Jesus' commandments will be accepted into the kingdom of God. John 14:21 states that Jesus says "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." Convincing one to deny Christ's divinity while obeying His commands would be a severe blow by the Deceiver, but it is possible. Nonetheless, if we take this verse to be true, if one starts out merely obeying Christ's commandments, eventually he will come to know the truth.
The problem is that Christ specifically targets sins of the heart, and condemns obedience in action but not in spirit. If one merely obeys His teaching outwardly but not inwardly, that is hypocrisy, which is fiercely condemned. It is very difficult (if not impossible) to rid yourself of sins of the heart without His intervention, at least in my personal experience. Perhaps you disagree.
Regardless, the kingdom of God is promised to believers, but it is not crystal clear what happens to non-believers. Those who revel in their sins are clearly destined for hell, but those who sincerely set their hearts to helping their fellow humans may be judged by a different standard. I suspect Christ will assess their hearts. In times such as these, where sincere people search for truth but are overwhelmed by the amount of information to digest, I suspect those who accept the mere possibility of Christ's divinity and strive for ethical conduct through Christ's teaching (which He oversimplifies down the Golden Rule at one point) will be saved. Nonetheless, these are just hypotheses, and we have been given a very clear path to salvation. It would be much less taxing to accept Christ's doctrine wholesale, as then the Holy Spirit can aid you in your quest to perfection. Even if the whole God thing is bogus (which my experience strongly contraindicates), you've at least got self-deception on your side! This works for non-Christian doctrine too, as the obvious example of Islamic extremists have shown.
Ah, but we all fall short of such a lofty goal, do we not? I cannot go a day without making suboptimal decisions (I personally use this as my internal definition of sin), and often I do not realize the error of my ways until long after I have taken action. How can one judge the effort of beings who fail so frequently? Of beings who are so often self-serving and utterly evil? And indeed, how can we as individuals even judge what is "best" without a metric by which to measure it? And then, whose metric do we use? I have looked deeply into this, and Christ's metric is, as far as I can ascertain, the best. Could you suggest a superior measurement?
What would you regard as superior?
In a capitalist society, people are also rewarded for having money [sarcasm]yay for feedback loops[/sarcasm], for abusing the system, for obeying unethical business practices, and more. It is true that occasionally you can earn a reward for hard work or smart ideas, but it is not that simple. I am aware you are merely making an analogy, but what you espouse, in the end, is also nothing more than belief. The authority behind your belief is your own understanding