Or is it simply that you don't like the conclusions - that God is not necessary for evolution to occur (origins of life being a completely separate matter - and one still pretty much unexplained)?
Allow me to jump in. You still have the laws of physics, and the mere existence of matter which follows those laws unconditionally. I don't think the belief in God is a particularly "dated" view at all; it will be much more difficult to create a theory that explains how you get to amino acids forming simple proteins than how you go from proteins to humans.
I think of it being similar to comuter code--you have data, and instructions to manipulate the data. I think the belief in God will always be a defendable one simply because your guess is as good as mine when it comes to how the data got there (and arranged itself), and how the instructions were designed. Even assuming existence is the norm, and not non-existence--and by this I mean the natural state of the universe is not a blank piece of paper but a mutating collection of stellar matter--I still think any explanation about what goes on behind the curtain is both plausible and non-falsifiable. Atheists may maintain that no explanation need exist, but I think we all wonder sometimes.
I personally find evolution as a fascinating way of describing the creation of man, but it requires the belief in a God to make sense. In my view, evolution provides a set of immutable rules that produce data that grows in intelligence over time, but does not provide a way for those immutable rules to improve over time. Hence, the principles of evolution are not only always the same, but work flawlessly (I'm not thinking in terms of appendices, but rather in terms of eventual system failure). Can you think of anyone who could sit down and write a similar computer program, first time through, without any bugs?
I should lay off the crack pipe. I should also re-read this and make sure I'm not saying something completely stupid, but I won't. I've found that no amount of double-checking and revision can prevent the Slashbot correction-nazis from unleashing their presumptuous and onery fury on me.
I would say that there is at least some notion of inheriting your neighbor's sins
You are drawing an erroneous conclusion based on the facts you see. Many Christian conservatives want to create laws that make illegal many actions they consider to be "sins," but this is because they fear the judgement God will bring down upon them if they powerlessly give in to the rapidly changing secular humanist culture.
The God of Isreal wouldn't touch Soddom and Gimmorah when there was even one devout follower, so I don't see what the big deal is, but hey, I am not a Christian conservative.
There is a difference between killing in a war and murder. The God of the Isrealites often used invading armies to punish the Isreals, and, according to Judeo-Christian tradition, often used miracles to provide overwhelming upsets when he favored the Jews. Jesus didn't rebuke the soldier for his choice of occupation when he praised his faith (more impressive than the Jews he was around at the time).
If a war is just, we don't call participation "murder." If the war is unjust (which I believe the war in Iraq is), let's blame our government for using our troops to accomplish unjust goals, not the troops for doing their job.
The exception of course is flagrant violations of the Geneva convention and whatnot.
Must admit, though my parents are full vegetarians, I've never been able to make the jump. Though, now I eat 5 servings of meat per week. I've been learning to cook more and more, and I often substitute soy for meat--just as much protein (I work out pretty often), but way better for you.
But what of the post about the post commenting about the ill-conceived moderation of a post complaining about the poster receiving poor moderation? If someone wants to mod me off-topic, I'd like them to tell me what the topic is.
The things the current US administration has done in the past 4 years have all but guaranteed that almost all Canadians, Europeans, and Americans (outside of rural folk, those living in southern states, and millions of fundamentalist xians) will cry your litany for decades to come.
It could be (just a hypothesis), that Bush is merely pandering to "fundamentalist xians" (whatever that means) in order to further his agenda. In which case, as things get worse, I imagine the "xians" might start getting upset as well.
If you think about it, very few of the policies the Bush administration has advanced has anything to do with religion--religion is merely a "tie in" to get people to stop thinking critically.
I think you have adopted a tone of "moral superiority" more than me. If you don't believe me, re-read your post. Besides, I was being sarcastic when I said,
I seriously got the impression here on Slashdot that the EU was a reasonable, progressive, and moral government, and that it was the United States that was corrupt and doomed for destruction.
At any rate, moral superiority be damned, your post denies the most basic responsibilities citizens have in a Democracy.
And then what? We'll all enroll in Philosophy 101 and get stoned?
Is that really what you think I suggested? My post did not suggest any action we take; I merely wanted people to come to agreement that the problems of greed and corruption are not limited to the United States--something many Europeans here are loathe to do. After that, everyone will have a different means of going about affecting change.
I seriously got the impression here on Slashdot that the EU was a reasonable, progressive, and moral government, and that it was the United States that was corrupt and doomed for destruction.
I hope Europeans can stop complaining about our corrupt government, and Americans can stop whining about European governments in general, and we can all collectively recognize the lameness of basically all big world powers.
I agree with your sentiment, but I think that while corruption is always prevalent, it's always going to lead towards the politician gaining money and/or power. Dismantling civil liberties doesn't inherently provide those rewards, and I can't think of a compelling reason why it would in this case. Perhaps politicians would want to sell the information gathered through invasion of privacy, but that's just speculation.
Greed is the root of all kinds of other evils--it doesn't care if you think you're free or you think you're a slave; it only seeks to take your resources from you.
In my opinion OSS software needs to standardize how they build software--things like version numbering systems and adhering to the FHS. Libraries should all handle living side by side with earlier versions. Packages should be easily relocatable.
At that point, any sane package management system would work beautifully.
They're going to have throw out a few "dud" 4/1 stories if they want to fool us with the clever ones. People will think that only the "obvious" ones are jokes. Otherwise, readers would carefully inspect every article.
(care to back that up? not saying it can't be, just want to see fi you can)
I do elsewhere in this thread as an AC (this is pretty off-topic now). Basically, all Christians are under the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. Not even Jesus was under the Levitical Law being from Judah, though the Mosaic law did apply to him, which he fulfilled completely, Christians are not bound by the law, because they have the blood of Christ to atone for their sins.
It's not like "yay after Jesus God became all nice and sappy and that Old Testament stuff doesn't apply" -- the Law is very much still relevant, but more for studying how it gets completed in the New Testament.
Leviticus itself outlines the laws regulating the Levitical priesthood. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (actually, if you study his lineage, he even has a gentile in his bloodline, Ruth). Hebrews chapter 7 clearly states that all Christians (who are called into the priesthood) are positioned under the High Priesthood of Jesus, and are thus not bound by the Levitical law (nor the Mosaic law).
If you read Leviticus out of it's context (and intended audience), then you can get the impression that it condones such activity, but in reality, it only does for Jews living under Levitical Law, which, according to the Bible, shouldn't happen anymore, because if you accept either the Catholic or Protestant canons of Scripture, the Law is no longer of use to even the Jews, because the Law was put in to place in anticipation of the Messiah. Which is why my statement about it not applying to anyone except for 2,000+ year old Jews is correct.
If your kid has a problem defining fantasy vs reality, video games are the least of his concern...
I agree with your sentiment, but isn't that part of what being a kid is all about? I wasted a good year of my life on drugs to acheive exactly that, only to find out that drugs can only give a cheap imitation of the wonder of exploring the world AND exploring your imagination simultaneously, and being unable to separate the two.
I think the idea has been around a long time. The whole object oriented paradigm (in addition to providing useful functionality like dynamic function binding) is designed to shape code around human thought.
One of the things that really bothers me about Linux is the pervasiveness of languages like C that make no attempt to model higher thought and instead force the developer to constantly re-learn old unusable APIs and shove ancient hacks that are unreadable just to get drivers working. Objects in code need their a[tt]ributes to mirror real-word equivalents, otherwise reading the code is impossible because no one else can make sense of all the confusing acronyms and variable names.
I actually think that.NET is the right step for us. Mono is really the first sensible language (Java doesn't count; it's not free) that has any mindshare for Linux, and let's face it the Linux world needs it. Until writing software for Linux can just be a simple translation of designs in our heads to GUI design and implementation, Linux will lag behind the rest of the world because of how long it takes to write software for it.
Then start hacking, the gnu java compiler apparently need's some work.
I would, but OOo is not a piece of software I really use. I respect your sentiment though; free software users should be willing to invest blood sweat and tears when these kinds of situations arise.
The only way is top stop complaining and start hacking.
There is a tendency to lump everyone into two categories on Slashdot (and elsewhere)--everyone must be either a Republican or a Democrat, pro Linux or pro BSD, Java programmer or C++ programmer, etc. I'm really not complaining that there are people out there who will be using OOo on top of non-free java--those people don't value software freedom as much as I do. There's nothing inherently wrong about that.
The issue is that many distributions, built on the spirit of free software, refuse to bundle any non-free software into their releases. They have every right to make that decision, and I hope that both those distros and users who are interested in OOo 2.0 start working on gcj.
What bothered me about the post was that it implied that the free software community, which has spent years building its software base and community on a set of ideals, needs to abandon those ideals just so we can take over Windows and Office.
Slashdot Mirror
Or is it simply that you don't like the conclusions - that God is not necessary for evolution to occur (origins of life being a completely separate matter - and one still pretty much unexplained)?
Allow me to jump in. You still have the laws of physics, and the mere existence of matter which follows those laws unconditionally. I don't think the belief in God is a particularly "dated" view at all; it will be much more difficult to create a theory that explains how you get to amino acids forming simple proteins than how you go from proteins to humans.
I think of it being similar to comuter code--you have data, and instructions to manipulate the data. I think the belief in God will always be a defendable one simply because your guess is as good as mine when it comes to how the data got there (and arranged itself), and how the instructions were designed. Even assuming existence is the norm, and not non-existence--and by this I mean the natural state of the universe is not a blank piece of paper but a mutating collection of stellar matter--I still think any explanation about what goes on behind the curtain is both plausible and non-falsifiable. Atheists may maintain that no explanation need exist, but I think we all wonder sometimes.
I personally find evolution as a fascinating way of describing the creation of man, but it requires the belief in a God to make sense. In my view, evolution provides a set of immutable rules that produce data that grows in intelligence over time, but does not provide a way for those immutable rules to improve over time. Hence, the principles of evolution are not only always the same, but work flawlessly (I'm not thinking in terms of appendices, but rather in terms of eventual system failure). Can you think of anyone who could sit down and write a similar computer program, first time through, without any bugs?
I should lay off the crack pipe. I should also re-read this and make sure I'm not saying something completely stupid, but I won't. I've found that no amount of double-checking and revision can prevent the Slashbot correction-nazis from unleashing their presumptuous and onery fury on me.
I would say that there is at least some notion of inheriting your neighbor's sins
You are drawing an erroneous conclusion based on the facts you see. Many Christian conservatives want to create laws that make illegal many actions they consider to be "sins," but this is because they fear the judgement God will bring down upon them if they powerlessly give in to the rapidly changing secular humanist culture.
The God of Isreal wouldn't touch Soddom and Gimmorah when there was even one devout follower, so I don't see what the big deal is, but hey, I am not a Christian conservative.
There is a difference between killing in a war and murder. The God of the Isrealites often used invading armies to punish the Isreals, and, according to Judeo-Christian tradition, often used miracles to provide overwhelming upsets when he favored the Jews. Jesus didn't rebuke the soldier for his choice of occupation when he praised his faith (more impressive than the Jews he was around at the time).
If a war is just, we don't call participation "murder." If the war is unjust (which I believe the war in Iraq is), let's blame our government for using our troops to accomplish unjust goals, not the troops for doing their job.
The exception of course is flagrant violations of the Geneva convention and whatnot.
Must admit, though my parents are full vegetarians, I've never been able to make the jump. Though, now I eat 5 servings of meat per week. I've been learning to cook more and more, and I often substitute soy for meat--just as much protein (I work out pretty often), but way better for you.
Yup. I live in Austin Texas alright.
OT, but I had to read your sentence like 5 times just to figure out what it meant.
How about social security reform? Those figures run in the trillions, and honestly dwarf the war.
It was sad, too. I remember having a school assembly about it and getting really excited. I really wanted to be part of it one day.
But what of the post about the post commenting about the ill-conceived moderation of a post complaining about the poster receiving poor moderation? If someone wants to mod me off-topic, I'd like them to tell me what the topic is.
The things the current US administration has done in the past 4 years have all but guaranteed that almost all Canadians, Europeans, and Americans (outside of rural folk, those living in southern states, and millions of fundamentalist xians) will cry your litany for decades to come.
It could be (just a hypothesis), that Bush is merely pandering to "fundamentalist xians" (whatever that means) in order to further his agenda. In which case, as things get worse, I imagine the "xians" might start getting upset as well.
If you think about it, very few of the policies the Bush administration has advanced has anything to do with religion--religion is merely a "tie in" to get people to stop thinking critically.
That's all well and fine, but the fact is that the majority of us Americans lack a passport.
Umm, I'd say the numbers look a lot different when you look at Americans that actually travel internationally.
For those leaving the borders, a passport is a reasonable requirement.
I think you have adopted a tone of "moral superiority" more than me. If you don't believe me, re-read your post. Besides, I was being sarcastic when I said,
I seriously got the impression here on Slashdot that the EU was a reasonable, progressive, and moral government, and that it was the United States that was corrupt and doomed for destruction.
At any rate, moral superiority be damned, your post denies the most basic responsibilities citizens have in a Democracy.
And then what? We'll all enroll in Philosophy 101 and get stoned?
Is that really what you think I suggested? My post did not suggest any action we take; I merely wanted people to come to agreement that the problems of greed and corruption are not limited to the United States--something many Europeans here are loathe to do. After that, everyone will have a different means of going about affecting change.
I hope Europeans can stop complaining about our corrupt government, and Americans can stop whining about European governments in general, and we can all collectively recognize the lameness of basically all big world powers.
Unfortunately, there is anything like a grass political lobby in Washington, so he might not be heard.
I beg to differ.
I agree with your sentiment, but I think that while corruption is always prevalent, it's always going to lead towards the politician gaining money and/or power. Dismantling civil liberties doesn't inherently provide those rewards, and I can't think of a compelling reason why it would in this case. Perhaps politicians would want to sell the information gathered through invasion of privacy, but that's just speculation.
Greed is the root of all kinds of other evils--it doesn't care if you think you're free or you think you're a slave; it only seeks to take your resources from you.
If the cars were designed around having a 5 gallon tank, they might even be able to complete the Indy 500 circuit
At that point, any sane package management system would work beautifully.
They're going to have throw out a few "dud" 4/1 stories if they want to fool us with the clever ones. People will think that only the "obvious" ones are jokes. Otherwise, readers would carefully inspect every article.
(care to back that up? not saying it can't be, just want to see fi you can)
I do elsewhere in this thread as an AC (this is pretty off-topic now). Basically, all Christians are under the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. Not even Jesus was under the Levitical Law being from Judah, though the Mosaic law did apply to him, which he fulfilled completely, Christians are not bound by the law, because they have the blood of Christ to atone for their sins.
It's not like "yay after Jesus God became all nice and sappy and that Old Testament stuff doesn't apply" -- the Law is very much still relevant, but more for studying how it gets completed in the New Testament.
I feel the same way about Republicans, but wouldn't moving Libertarian be a more logical choice?
If you read Leviticus out of it's context (and intended audience), then you can get the impression that it condones such activity, but in reality, it only does for Jews living under Levitical Law, which, according to the Bible, shouldn't happen anymore, because if you accept either the Catholic or Protestant canons of Scripture, the Law is no longer of use to even the Jews, because the Law was put in to place in anticipation of the Messiah. Which is why my statement about it not applying to anyone except for 2,000+ year old Jews is correct.
If your kid has a problem defining fantasy vs reality, video games are the least of his concern...
I agree with your sentiment, but isn't that part of what being a kid is all about? I wasted a good year of my life on drugs to acheive exactly that, only to find out that drugs can only give a cheap imitation of the wonder of exploring the world AND exploring your imagination simultaneously, and being unable to separate the two.
The Bible doesn't command that anyone except for Jews over the age of 2,000 do any of those things.
One of the things that really bothers me about Linux is the pervasiveness of languages like C that make no attempt to model higher thought and instead force the developer to constantly re-learn old unusable APIs and shove ancient hacks that are unreadable just to get drivers working. Objects in code need their a[tt]ributes to mirror real-word equivalents, otherwise reading the code is impossible because no one else can make sense of all the confusing acronyms and variable names.
I actually think that .NET is the right step for us. Mono is really the first sensible language (Java doesn't count; it's not free) that has any mindshare for Linux, and let's face it the Linux world needs it. Until writing software for Linux can just be a simple translation of designs in our heads to GUI design and implementation, Linux will lag behind the rest of the world because of how long it takes to write software for it.
Then start hacking, the gnu java compiler apparently need's some work.
I would, but OOo is not a piece of software I really use. I respect your sentiment though; free software users should be willing to invest blood sweat and tears when these kinds of situations arise.
The only way is top stop complaining and start hacking.
There is a tendency to lump everyone into two categories on Slashdot (and elsewhere)--everyone must be either a Republican or a Democrat, pro Linux or pro BSD, Java programmer or C++ programmer, etc. I'm really not complaining that there are people out there who will be using OOo on top of non-free java--those people don't value software freedom as much as I do. There's nothing inherently wrong about that.
The issue is that many distributions, built on the spirit of free software, refuse to bundle any non-free software into their releases. They have every right to make that decision, and I hope that both those distros and users who are interested in OOo 2.0 start working on gcj.
What bothered me about the post was that it implied that the free software community, which has spent years building its software base and community on a set of ideals, needs to abandon those ideals just so we can take over Windows and Office.