well, that knocks out a very large majority of the world's population from getting there, doesn't it.
Yes, exactly. There's no way I would ever believe almost my entire family will be going to some ill place. I would rather join my loved ones in hell than sit alone in heaven with the people who have always claimed my family will go to hell. Yes, I take that personally even if it's just implied.
I don't mind it when other people have different opinions, as long as their opinions don't entail patenting "good", i.e. trying to tell others what to do as they say or face Hell, etc. If I sound bitter, it's mostly against those people, not against the more tolerant/accepting religious people.
It should be known by religious people (or practically anybody who is completely convinced of his/her opinions) out to convert that many people may have had valuable life-changing positive experiences they associate with completely different things, i.e. one person may live a positive life by feeling close to Jesus, another person may live a positive life by believing something totally different. The important thing is that people don't get stuck in negative spirals and somewhat enjoy life without hurting eachother too much. It can be found very offensive to someone who has has maneged to get into a positive-thinking life that his/her views are "not good enough" or they are "sinners".
and depending on where you are in the united states,
Actually I'm not in the US at all;-) I live in The Netherlands. Most people here in Europe (at least in the north) aren't that religious or they follow some mild variant. When I do visit the US, I'm often surprised by how religion seems to play a much bigger role there. Perhaps it's a cultural thing.
Well, to be fair.. people's opinions can still vary wildly even if they follow the same set of beliefs. As is too common, it's mostly the ones making wild claims that get most of the attention, especially when what they are saying has political consequences for those who do not follow their beliefs.
My experience with christians has mostly been of the kind where they tell me they are going to heaven and if I don't become a believer too, I will - unfortunately - go to hell, or at least to some "lesser place". I firmly believe that NO human being (including myself) is in a position to make ANY claims about something "higher". I'm totally fine with people believing what they want, as long as they don't belittle the things I believe are right.
So anyway.. I'm sorry if I offended you. No ill will was intended. Your response was appreciated.
In reply to "Science is a crutch for most...", I'd like to say this: while you may see it as a crutch, it's certainly one that YOU are using to post your comment;-) Besides, it's a "crutch" that has enabled mass-communication, mass-transportation, construction of the place you live in, etc, etc, etc.
The reason science is useful and religion isn't is because science takes a "I'll believe it when I see (measure) it", whereas religion takes a completely opposite view: "I'll see it when I believe it" - I would like to state this: anything that allows every possible event to be attributed to the unmeasurable and ungraspable movements of a "higher being" is useless, other than comforting or motivating the believer. By definition, there is no predictive value. The only value it has is that it gives people a broader base on which they can put their already existing prejudiced.
Oh, btw... "is subject to... too" is a fallacy, since it doesn't invalidate your own flaws.
you could have done without the last paragraph, no need to be derogatory towards a whole group just because of a few bad apples
Well, I think that what made a bad situation WORSE was that these "bad apples" were structurally PROTECTED by the catholic church. What? Does the catholic church believe that child molestation should NOT be reported to police? Why should they stand above the law? Might it be that they claim to know "God's law" and therefore puny human laws are not important?
Since churches are so willing to try to keep a monopoly on their views or morality as the only true one, they SHOULD lead by example. It is EXACTLY the whole pedophile thing that shows that not only do they KNOWINGLY condone child molestation, they also have blatant disregard for the laws on this area.
This is surely just the tip of a very very big iceberg. The massive conflict between what is preached and what is done is grounds for some severe bitterness and increased scrutiny.
People can believe what they like. I'm not going to tell children there is no Santa, unless they try to push their believes onto me or try to convince me I'm a bad person for not believing in Santa too.
I have the theory that the way people use and experience religion is often a reflection of their already existing ideas and prejudices. Someone who is naturally tolerant will indeed pick up all the bits about not judging others, turning the other cheek, etc. On the other hand, the same religion is used as a basis for homophobia and xenophobia. I'm not amused with people who go "god hates gays", because they found several passages out of context. If you're going to nitpick over out-of-context passages, you could use the same argumentation style to defend a whole bunch of obviously wrong things.
You are apparently tolerant, but there are MANY passages in the bible which preach a severe form of INtolerance. Just look at Exodus, where all the firstborn kids in Egypt were slaughtered because of the decisions of their *unelected* leader. According to the bible, it is OK to murder people for a variety of trivial reasons. Such things rank high among the reasons that people like me cannot take the bible seriously as a guide on morality. I'm not unwilling to accept the concept of one or more gods, but I firmly refuse to accept such an insulting description of such a being.
In that case, it might be said that prayer DOES help -- it makes the people who DO the praying feel like they did something. That by itself may give them some sense of peace instead of a feeling of powerlessness.
Well, you descibe the problem with completely different opinions: persons A and B will have an entirely different opinion. Person A will see B as 'blind' and B will see A the same way. Both may be entirely decent and friendly people. Your analogy can be bent in several ways depending on what you find correct. Certainly the "the door cannot be opened" argument can also be used for people who try to prevent people from trying to study nature's workings.
Right. In this case, I hardly even stated an opinion - but rather a link to someone else's thoughts for those interested. I tried to exercise my right to not reply, as you say you sometimes don't - but then you are telling me that I should.
No, I was telling you that you shouldn't complain when people respond negatively or complain about people having done so in the past. Certainly you do not believe that your point of view is so immensely solid that no possible counterargument can be given? If that's the case, then there is no point in discussing the topic with you at all.
Off topic - one does not have to be religious to see that homosexuality is unnatural - and also something that nature would select against
Nope, it happens in nature as well. In fact, it's mostly among the more intelligent species where non-reproductive sexual interactions occur. Even if it did not occur in nature at all, then still it wouldn't be a guideline for what would be "moral" for humans (e.g. I don't walk around naked like most animals do). The fact that YOU cannot understand how two people of the same gender could ever possibly love eachother doesn't mean that their feelings aren't real and inferior to what heterosexual couples are feeling. (Note: no, I'm no homo but I'm not a homo-hater either).
Are you open at all to the idea that there may NOT be a "creator" at all.. or the idea that your religion (I'm assuming you are religious here) might be fundamentally flawed? I personally see theories of evolution as most likely right now, but I'm not "married" to the idea. I accept that there may be a more fitting theory... but it should be one that gives some "grip" on understanding reality.
Let us assume that there is actually a Creator that we cannot understand by definition. Ok, fine.. but how will our understanding of the working of nature have progressed then? A theory that says we cannot understand what we were trying to understand doesn't seem very helpful. An entirely valid creationist theory would be that aliens created humans and those aliens were created by an external Creator. After all, the reasoning of that Creator cannot be understood by us so any random action can be attributed to that Creator. Your counter-argument would be that it's "absurd" that this would happen or that "it's just not possible", but.. hey.. wouldn't that make you attempt to understand the Creator? In fact, you cannot disprove any variant on a creationist theory, unless you use religious texts as backup... which brings us to the following point:
It's the same for questions of creation or religion. When you don't believe it's hard for you to see the importance - but if you ever come to accept our views then you will suddenly see just how critical and life changing they are.
Okay, so are you telling me that the path YOU followed is the ONLY path the enlightenment? Who are you to tell me that the way I have developed my own views is in any way inferior to yours? I have experienced life-changing (enhancing) developments that might almost be described as spiritual... and they were *entirely* non-religious. It is EXACTLY that kind of arrogance and you-are-blind belittling that is common to organized religion. I accept that different people may have different paths to reaching a state of 'spiritual' contentment. You have convinced yourself that your own path is the only path. There are more doors in my hallway.
I would make the claim that the main purpose of Creationism is not in fact to provide any workable theory
Hi... it took you a while to reply, but I was not disappointed with your effort. As you have come to expect, I will not agree with the bulk of your points in my following reply;-)
1) "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" -- I pointed out (what I saw as) a fallacy, then you pointed out a fallacy in my post. Perhaps you need to show me some (online) references of your definition, because the ones I know about come down to (simply put): "you do it too". Even if what you say is true, my original claim about you using this fallacy (which means I sort of made the same fallacy) would perhaps be erroneous, but certainly not "out of nowhere".
2) Links about killing kids - in my view, the Bible contains mention of a LOT of violence, usually for reasons modern society would find petty and/or criminal. In MY view, telling people what THEIR OWN Holy Book (also) considers "correct behaviour" may not be entirely innocent, but it may encourage them to open their eyes to the entirity of their own religion and not just the passages that fit their own opinions or agendas, e.g. it's OK to say "it's in the Bible" if you want to hate homosexuals, but you're not allowed to stone your wife if you find out she wasn't a virgin. In my view, the proof of almost any religion's falsehood lies exactly in the inpracticality of that religion itself. Perhaps if would be a fallacy to generalize this, but as the child abuse in the Catholic Church has shown, simply the fact that people claim they are "good" or "close to God" or live in/close to the "house of God" does not make them immune to monstrous behaviour.
3) "telling him that he's wrong simply because you think he is" -- well, as a starting point of proof, I included at two links that can be independently examined on a pro-religion site. If this was seen as an attack, then indeed the Bible should be (partially) seen as an attack on our modern-day values.
4) How come I can write several messages that were seen are attacking and dismissive and I get rarely any negative replies at all? I do not complain about people attacking me because of my point of view. Even if I did get attacked, it would only strengthen me to better examine my views and find better reasoning to defend them when and where I choose. It is from that mindset that I do not understand that someone will complain about attacks immediately. I consider it evasive in a way. Perhaps the guy's actions and thoughts are entirely reasonable, but I perceive it as insecurity.
So let me end with one positive note... we have exchanged a few messages now. I do appreciate the fact that you take the effort to give replies to what I'm writing. I wouldn't bother replying anything if your posts were on the "u suck" level. It may be a minus point of course that you are in almost complete disagreement with me, but I'm convinced that I will never be able to have a remotely interesting discussion with anyone who will completely agree with me on all points;-)
Well, my view is this: if you believe in your opinions and you stand behind them, then any negativity from others should be deflectable. Sometimes I state my own opinions, knowing that I might most likely receive some criticism... I don't mind that.. sometimes I reply, sometimes I don't.
It should be noted that I absolutely do not agree at all with the AC guy making inappropriate comments. There's an AC trying to point out my own mistakes for some reason. That's okay. I will reply once in a while. It was my own initiative to post a comment after all.
I firmly believe that from an explorative point of view, any theory that has as a basis or conclusion that "some guy in the sky did it all" is useless, since the discussion will then shift to "ok, but who made the big guy in the sky". That is when suddenly it is pointed out that we as humans will never be able to understand the big guy, but we can try by having certain views on homosexuals and several political issues. (Note that I am putting this pretty bluntly to emphasize the perception) It just seems so much more reasonable to start exploring the universe without preconceived ideas on what the conclusion should look like.
I will respect that fact that others may have a different opinion. I do not believe that the fact that you and I have a different opinion will have an adverse effect on either of our lives, so although I strongly disagree with your opinions, I do wish you good luck in having constructive discussions about them in the future. As you have noted, it is a topic that evokes strong emotions with some people (like myself), so some patience is necessary;-)
Nope. Sorry to correct you AGAIN, but PERCEPTION is what it's all about. His complaint was related to how he was treated. He seems to have a structural problem with bumping into exactly the same treatment in different scenarios and with different people. I explained how he was most likely perceived.
My intention was to enlighten him about how he was perceived, so that he can try different routes in the future. I do not believe he is getting his point across by a) making claims he does not want to defend in the same public forum he posted it in and b) makes numerous statements in which he brands himself the victim of attack (thereby implicitly branding the ones with opposing opinions as aggressors). When they start posting polite refutations, he goes "ah, SEE how they are attacking me?!?". There have already been several well-written refutations of his claims, so I see no need to add to that.
Whenever I post my opinion, I am willing and able to defend (or at least explain) it in the same place where I sparked a discussion. I don't go e.g. to religious websites to post my anti-religion opinions and then tell them that they're so "mean" over there that I won't discuss my obviously true (i.e. presented as such) claims.
Perspective and perception are the keywords in this little tangential debate. Apparently, you've never heard of "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" (look it up;-)), because basically that's what you did when you pointed out that - in your view - I was guilty of the same behaviour (i.e. using a fallacy) as the person I myself was criticizing. The fact that you cannot follow my reasoning ("it came out of nowhere") perhaps indicates that the brilliance of my statement regarding the fallacy of pointing out fallacies of those who point out fallacies has (perhaps understandably) eluded you;-)
No fear, I seek only to enlighten. Sometimes kindly and sometimes harshly, even to those who are fearful of revealing their usernames;-) If you walk away from this discussion slightly more educated or stronger than before, then we are both winners today.
Ok, here's a question that might be totally obvious but doesn't seem to have been really asked before: isn't the fact that almost HALF A MILLION machines got broken into a punishable offence in itself? If people like Kevin Mitnick go to jail for cracking "just a few" machines, then certainly it would count as a MAJOR offence to have obtained illegal access to a number of computers that is at least several orders in magnitude higher??
If there really aren't any laws in Poland against such MAJOR abuse, then just trick them into going to the US for some "lucrative deal" and deal with them there;-) This is a trend that must be dealt with quickly and firmly.
Ironically, I see this as a major opportunity though - basically, they have made it trivially easy to detect massive amounts of compromised machines. Just keep resolving the spamvertised domains and you should be able to find at least a few thousand machines per day. What to do with this information? You could try the legal (good) route in contacting the ISPs and/or using such machines to trace origins of the crackers. On the other hand, it might be possible to somehow 'nuke' those machines if they are still exploitable.
I've seen the idea mentioned elsewhere... basically, what MIGHT be nice is government supported blacklisting facilities. I would gladly pay e.g. $10/year if it helped stamp out most of the spamming and DDoS activities. That way, it could be made certain that the blacklisting is fair (ok, assumption) and won't be easily DDoS'ed out of existence.
Dear Anonymous Coward, thank you for biting;-) Although it might not appear so at first glance, your post is in effect in support of mine. As an added bonus, both you and I experienced a positive sensation (laughing).
As I explained to the guy, in the *perception* of those by whom he felt attacked, he was bringing forward an opinion which they felt was "nonsense that came out of nowhere" as you but it. In his view, his opinion is 100% correct, so I had to give an extreme example that most parties (including you) would agree is absurd. This caught your attention to the point that you practically quoted me on it.
You also took the effort of pointing out my own fallacies, without actually discussing those two links at all. Pointing out other people's fallacies, i.e. "you do it too" is a fallacy in itself;-) Do you understand the mechanism now? You demonstrated EXACTLY the mechanism I was describing in my post by doing it yourself.
You are wrong about the 'straw man' fallacy thing though. I was of course referring tho lines like "I'm not unwilling to discuss apparent weaknesses - just not on slashdot. I have boundaries, and I don't have an infinite amount of time to waste." -- he made ample mention in almost every one of his posts that he was not willing to defend his point of view in the forum where he posted it in the first place. If you don't want replies in place X, then don't mention it in place X. Simple as that. Except, of course, to someone who indirectly condones child abuse (oops, there's the straw man;-))
The counter-argument is of course: "God put those bones there to test our belief in Him";-) It's impossible to 'win' a debate from a religious fanatic, because every counter-argument will go like "God did it."
For some strange reason, God also appears to be in 100% agreement with their own personal prejudices.
Well, I am *assuming* here that creationism is somehow based in being religious, believing there is a God, etc.
I don't think the issue is so much about creationism vs. evolution, it's more about the general *perception* that religious people are very pushy with their views and so-called morals. It's not that non-religious people aren't pushy, but they are pushy in more diverse ways so to speak (i.e. organized pushiness of the same absurdity will always have stronger effects). They push forward 'fundamentally correct' beliefs that ride on a theory that is equivalent to "the Toothfairy exists" or "I saw Elvis!". People are intimidated with the prospect of going to Hell if they question the base essentials.
You want to know what's tiresome? It's people trying to push their anti-[whatever] positions on the basis of how they interpret The Bible. This has been going on forever, including to defend slavery, etc. In fact, the Catholic Church seems to disagree with the rest of the world that child abuse is a punishable offence.
Please excuse me (and many others) for wanting to go for less tainted theories! I'd rather be an ape.
If I go around claiming that Santa exists and that I impregnated alien hotties from Venus, I'd probably also get laughed at and I'd certainly have some trouble finding anyone to have a serious discussion with me. I'm sorry is this sounds a bit harsh, consider it honest feedback and my own personal opinion, etc.
If you're interested in a discussion, how about we talk about why The Bible depicts God as a cowardly Saddam-type figure who kills kids:
Let us also not forget that God is anti-democratic, encourages murder for 'moral' reasons, considers women inferior, etc, etc according to The Bible. Please excuse me while I find a less violent way of thinking about the universe, life and everything.
Yes, you may brand this as "shouting" or "being attacked". It's a classical "I'm always the victim so I won't waste my time defending my true claims" type fallacy. Don't bother, because it's totally obvious.
I use the Internet. The Internet is my medium. It is the basis upon which my thoughts ride. It is the mix of that which is I and that which is you. It is about souls without bodies. Purest form. I believe in Al Gore.
1) If a man marries a woman and discovers she is not a virgin, she is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13)
2) Do not wear clothing of two kinds of material (Lev. 19:19 and Deut. 22:11)
3) Do not eat ham, bacon, pork chops or ribs (Lev. 11:7)
4) At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon,.... etc (Exodus 12:29)
I'd say that if the Bible is followed to the letter, you'd very likely end up in prison on racism, sexism and murder charges. According to point (4), God murders defenseless INNOCENT children on the basis of decisions of their UNELECTED leader. That's like killing the first-born kids in Iraq to teach Saddam a lesson while he was killing off the rest of their families.
It's nice that people choose to be nice out of fear of "some big guy in the sky", but in my view, those people who are nice WITHOUT fear of divine punishment are the ones truly deserving eternal reward.
I think the point our friend 'sunspot' was trying to make that no institution or group of people has a patent (at least not at the USPTO) on morality and what is "good". Certainly an institution that believes child molestation should not be reported to police is not the prime candidate for teaching us morality?
Evolution is superior to "creationism" in the sense that it is falsifiable. It is possible to adjust or reject the theory if solid proof or arguments are found. It will always logically and practically win from theories along the lines of "it's in ". Just like we nowadays accept that the earth is indeed round and not flat.
1) I was just priding myself on using my old account with a very low user ID, thanks for 'spoiling' that for me;-) (note: added to friends list)
2) (personal point of view) No person or group holds a patent on "good" or "bad". The fact that someone is "devout" in one thing or another does not make that person immune to enthusiastically engaging in what is generally (i.e. across (non-)beliefs and cultures) considered to be bad behaviour.
3) You brought up an interesting angle... people should talk to his family, bishop, etc and get them to talk some sense into him. Also: if it can be proven through the courts that he was knowingly lying, would that be grounds for expelling him from his church?
Ok, so the line "and is a devout Mormon" caught my attention. Isn't there some kind of ethical code even in their branch of religion along the lines of "thou shalt not lie" or "thou shalt not extort"?? Either he's unaware of what he's doing or he's knowlingly paving his own path to the hell he believes in.
Slashdot Mirror
well, that knocks out a very large majority of the world's population from getting there, doesn't it.
;-) I live in The Netherlands. Most people here in Europe (at least in the north) aren't that religious or they follow some mild variant. When I do visit the US, I'm often surprised by how religion seems to play a much bigger role there. Perhaps it's a cultural thing.
Yes, exactly. There's no way I would ever believe almost my entire family will be going to some ill place. I would rather join my loved ones in hell than sit alone in heaven with the people who have always claimed my family will go to hell. Yes, I take that personally even if it's just implied.
I don't mind it when other people have different opinions, as long as their opinions don't entail patenting "good", i.e. trying to tell others what to do as they say or face Hell, etc. If I sound bitter, it's mostly against those people, not against the more tolerant/accepting religious people.
It should be known by religious people (or practically anybody who is completely convinced of his/her opinions) out to convert that many people may have had valuable life-changing positive experiences they associate with completely different things, i.e. one person may live a positive life by feeling close to Jesus, another person may live a positive life by believing something totally different. The important thing is that people don't get stuck in negative spirals and somewhat enjoy life without hurting eachother too much. It can be found very offensive to someone who has has maneged to get into a positive-thinking life that his/her views are "not good enough" or they are "sinners".
and depending on where you are in the united states,
Actually I'm not in the US at all
Well, to be fair.. people's opinions can still vary wildly even if they follow the same set of beliefs. As is too common, it's mostly the ones making wild claims that get most of the attention, especially when what they are saying has political consequences for those who do not follow their beliefs.
My experience with christians has mostly been of the kind where they tell me they are going to heaven and if I don't become a believer too, I will - unfortunately - go to hell, or at least to some "lesser place". I firmly believe that NO human being (including myself) is in a position to make ANY claims about something "higher". I'm totally fine with people believing what they want, as long as they don't belittle the things I believe are right.
So anyway.. I'm sorry if I offended you. No ill will was intended. Your response was appreciated.
In reply to "Science is a crutch for most...", I'd like to say this: while you may see it as a crutch, it's certainly one that YOU are using to post your comment ;-) Besides, it's a "crutch" that has enabled mass-communication, mass-transportation, construction of the place you live in, etc, etc, etc.
The reason science is useful and religion isn't is because science takes a "I'll believe it when I see (measure) it", whereas religion takes a completely opposite view: "I'll see it when I believe it" - I would like to state this: anything that allows every possible event to be attributed to the unmeasurable and ungraspable movements of a "higher being" is useless, other than comforting or motivating the believer. By definition, there is no predictive value. The only value it has is that it gives people a broader base on which they can put their already existing prejudiced.
Oh, btw... "is subject to... too" is a fallacy, since it doesn't invalidate your own flaws.
No, it's putting the OTHER 2-year-old to the test who says you'll get a present if you believe in Santa.
you could have done without the last paragraph, no need to be derogatory towards a whole group just because of a few bad apples
Well, I think that what made a bad situation WORSE was that these "bad apples" were structurally PROTECTED by the catholic church. What? Does the catholic church believe that child molestation should NOT be reported to police? Why should they stand above the law? Might it be that they claim to know "God's law" and therefore puny human laws are not important?
Since churches are so willing to try to keep a monopoly on their views or morality as the only true one, they SHOULD lead by example. It is EXACTLY the whole pedophile thing that shows that not only do they KNOWINGLY condone child molestation, they also have blatant disregard for the laws on this area.
This is surely just the tip of a very very big iceberg. The massive conflict between what is preached and what is done is grounds for some severe bitterness and increased scrutiny.
People can believe what they like. I'm not going to tell children there is no Santa, unless they try to push their believes onto me or try to convince me I'm a bad person for not believing in Santa too.
if you've ever read the bible, you will notice many many many contradictions. which is why it is necessary to not take it literally.
I think you meant "which is why it is necessary to not take is SERIOUSLY"
Give me a book that tells me on EVERY page to be nice to people and not to kill them and I might take it seriously.
He sounds very tolerant with his wish to punish people, doesn't he?
I have the theory that the way people use and experience religion is often a reflection of their already existing ideas and prejudices. Someone who is naturally tolerant will indeed pick up all the bits about not judging others, turning the other cheek, etc. On the other hand, the same religion is used as a basis for homophobia and xenophobia. I'm not amused with people who go "god hates gays", because they found several passages out of context. If you're going to nitpick over out-of-context passages, you could use the same argumentation style to defend a whole bunch of obviously wrong things.
You are apparently tolerant, but there are MANY passages in the bible which preach a severe form of INtolerance. Just look at Exodus, where all the firstborn kids in Egypt were slaughtered because of the decisions of their *unelected* leader. According to the bible, it is OK to murder people for a variety of trivial reasons. Such things rank high among the reasons that people like me cannot take the bible seriously as a guide on morality. I'm not unwilling to accept the concept of one or more gods, but I firmly refuse to accept such an insulting description of such a being.
In that case, it might be said that prayer DOES help -- it makes the people who DO the praying feel like they did something. That by itself may give them some sense of peace instead of a feeling of powerlessness.
Well, you descibe the problem with completely different opinions: persons A and B will have an entirely different opinion. Person A will see B as 'blind' and B will see A the same way. Both may be entirely decent and friendly people. Your analogy can be bent in several ways depending on what you find correct. Certainly the "the door cannot be opened" argument can also be used for people who try to prevent people from trying to study nature's workings.
Right. In this case, I hardly even stated an opinion - but rather a link to someone else's thoughts for those interested. I tried to exercise my right to not reply, as you say you sometimes don't - but then you are telling me that I should.
No, I was telling you that you shouldn't complain when people respond negatively or complain about people having done so in the past. Certainly you do not believe that your point of view is so immensely solid that no possible counterargument can be given? If that's the case, then there is no point in discussing the topic with you at all.
Off topic - one does not have to be religious to see that homosexuality is unnatural - and also something that nature would select against
Nope, it happens in nature as well. In fact, it's mostly among the more intelligent species where non-reproductive sexual interactions occur. Even if it did not occur in nature at all, then still it wouldn't be a guideline for what would be "moral" for humans (e.g. I don't walk around naked like most animals do). The fact that YOU cannot understand how two people of the same gender could ever possibly love eachother doesn't mean that their feelings aren't real and inferior to what heterosexual couples are feeling. (Note: no, I'm no homo but I'm not a homo-hater either).
Are you open at all to the idea that there may NOT be a "creator" at all.. or the idea that your religion (I'm assuming you are religious here) might be fundamentally flawed? I personally see theories of evolution as most likely right now, but I'm not "married" to the idea. I accept that there may be a more fitting theory... but it should be one that gives some "grip" on understanding reality.
Let us assume that there is actually a Creator that we cannot understand by definition. Ok, fine.. but how will our understanding of the working of nature have progressed then? A theory that says we cannot understand what we were trying to understand doesn't seem very helpful. An entirely valid creationist theory would be that aliens created humans and those aliens were created by an external Creator. After all, the reasoning of that Creator cannot be understood by us so any random action can be attributed to that Creator. Your counter-argument would be that it's "absurd" that this would happen or that "it's just not possible", but.. hey.. wouldn't that make you attempt to understand the Creator? In fact, you cannot disprove any variant on a creationist theory, unless you use religious texts as backup... which brings us to the following point:
It's the same for questions of creation or religion. When you don't believe it's hard for you to see the importance - but if you ever come to accept our views then you will suddenly see just how critical and life changing they are.
Okay, so are you telling me that the path YOU followed is the ONLY path the enlightenment? Who are you to tell me that the way I have developed my own views is in any way inferior to yours? I have experienced life-changing (enhancing) developments that might almost be described as spiritual... and they were *entirely* non-religious. It is EXACTLY that kind of arrogance and you-are-blind belittling that is common to organized religion. I accept that different people may have different paths to reaching a state of 'spiritual' contentment. You have convinced yourself that your own path is the only path. There are more doors in my hallway.
I would make the claim that the main purpose of Creationism is not in fact to provide any workable theory
Hi... it took you a while to reply, but I was not disappointed with your effort. As you have come to expect, I will not agree with the bulk of your points in my following reply ;-)
;-)
1) "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" -- I pointed out (what I saw as) a fallacy, then you pointed out a fallacy in my post. Perhaps you need to show me some (online) references of your definition, because the ones I know about come down to (simply put): "you do it too". Even if what you say is true, my original claim about you using this fallacy (which means I sort of made the same fallacy) would perhaps be erroneous, but certainly not "out of nowhere".
2) Links about killing kids - in my view, the Bible contains mention of a LOT of violence, usually for reasons modern society would find petty and/or criminal. In MY view, telling people what THEIR OWN Holy Book (also) considers "correct behaviour" may not be entirely innocent, but it may encourage them to open their eyes to the entirity of their own religion and not just the passages that fit their own opinions or agendas, e.g. it's OK to say "it's in the Bible" if you want to hate homosexuals, but you're not allowed to stone your wife if you find out she wasn't a virgin. In my view, the proof of almost any religion's falsehood lies exactly in the inpracticality of that religion itself. Perhaps if would be a fallacy to generalize this, but as the child abuse in the Catholic Church has shown, simply the fact that people claim they are "good" or "close to God" or live in/close to the "house of God" does not make them immune to monstrous behaviour.
3) "telling him that he's wrong simply because you think he is" -- well, as a starting point of proof, I included at two links that can be independently examined on a pro-religion site. If this was seen as an attack, then indeed the Bible should be (partially) seen as an attack on our modern-day values.
4) How come I can write several messages that were seen are attacking and dismissive and I get rarely any negative replies at all? I do not complain about people attacking me because of my point of view. Even if I did get attacked, it would only strengthen me to better examine my views and find better reasoning to defend them when and where I choose. It is from that mindset that I do not understand that someone will complain about attacks immediately. I consider it evasive in a way. Perhaps the guy's actions and thoughts are entirely reasonable, but I perceive it as insecurity.
So let me end with one positive note... we have exchanged a few messages now. I do appreciate the fact that you take the effort to give replies to what I'm writing. I wouldn't bother replying anything if your posts were on the "u suck" level. It may be a minus point of course that you are in almost complete disagreement with me, but I'm convinced that I will never be able to have a remotely interesting discussion with anyone who will completely agree with me on all points
Well, my view is this: if you believe in your opinions and you stand behind them, then any negativity from others should be deflectable. Sometimes I state my own opinions, knowing that I might most likely receive some criticism... I don't mind that.. sometimes I reply, sometimes I don't.
;-)
It should be noted that I absolutely do not agree at all with the AC guy making inappropriate comments. There's an AC trying to point out my own mistakes for some reason. That's okay. I will reply once in a while. It was my own initiative to post a comment after all.
I firmly believe that from an explorative point of view, any theory that has as a basis or conclusion that "some guy in the sky did it all" is useless, since the discussion will then shift to "ok, but who made the big guy in the sky". That is when suddenly it is pointed out that we as humans will never be able to understand the big guy, but we can try by having certain views on homosexuals and several political issues. (Note that I am putting this pretty bluntly to emphasize the perception) It just seems so much more reasonable to start exploring the universe without preconceived ideas on what the conclusion should look like.
I will respect that fact that others may have a different opinion. I do not believe that the fact that you and I have a different opinion will have an adverse effect on either of our lives, so although I strongly disagree with your opinions, I do wish you good luck in having constructive discussions about them in the future. As you have noted, it is a topic that evokes strong emotions with some people (like myself), so some patience is necessary
Nope. Sorry to correct you AGAIN, but PERCEPTION is what it's all about. His complaint was related to how he was treated. He seems to have a structural problem with bumping into exactly the same treatment in different scenarios and with different people. I explained how he was most likely perceived.
;-)), because basically that's what you did when you pointed out that - in your view - I was guilty of the same behaviour (i.e. using a fallacy) as the person I myself was criticizing. The fact that you cannot follow my reasoning ("it came out of nowhere") perhaps indicates that the brilliance of my statement regarding the fallacy of pointing out fallacies of those who point out fallacies has (perhaps understandably) eluded you ;-)
;-) If you walk away from this discussion slightly more educated or stronger than before, then we are both winners today.
My intention was to enlighten him about how he was perceived, so that he can try different routes in the future. I do not believe he is getting his point across by a) making claims he does not want to defend in the same public forum he posted it in and b) makes numerous statements in which he brands himself the victim of attack (thereby implicitly branding the ones with opposing opinions as aggressors). When they start posting polite refutations, he goes "ah, SEE how they are attacking me?!?". There have already been several well-written refutations of his claims, so I see no need to add to that.
Whenever I post my opinion, I am willing and able to defend (or at least explain) it in the same place where I sparked a discussion. I don't go e.g. to religious websites to post my anti-religion opinions and then tell them that they're so "mean" over there that I won't discuss my obviously true (i.e. presented as such) claims.
Perspective and perception are the keywords in this little tangential debate. Apparently, you've never heard of "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" (look it up
No fear, I seek only to enlighten. Sometimes kindly and sometimes harshly, even to those who are fearful of revealing their usernames
Ok, here's a question that might be totally obvious but doesn't seem to have been really asked before: isn't the fact that almost HALF A MILLION machines got broken into a punishable offence in itself? If people like Kevin Mitnick go to jail for cracking "just a few" machines, then certainly it would count as a MAJOR offence to have obtained illegal access to a number of computers that is at least several orders in magnitude higher??
;-) This is a trend that must be dealt with quickly and firmly.
If there really aren't any laws in Poland against such MAJOR abuse, then just trick them into going to the US for some "lucrative deal" and deal with them there
Ironically, I see this as a major opportunity though - basically, they have made it trivially easy to detect massive amounts of compromised machines. Just keep resolving the spamvertised domains and you should be able to find at least a few thousand machines per day. What to do with this information? You could try the legal (good) route in contacting the ISPs and/or using such machines to trace origins of the crackers. On the other hand, it might be possible to somehow 'nuke' those machines if they are still exploitable.
I've seen the idea mentioned elsewhere... basically, what MIGHT be nice is government supported blacklisting facilities. I would gladly pay e.g. $10/year if it helped stamp out most of the spamming and DDoS activities. That way, it could be made certain that the blacklisting is fair (ok, assumption) and won't be easily DDoS'ed out of existence.
Dear Anonymous Coward, thank you for biting ;-) Although it might not appear so at first glance, your post is in effect in support of mine. As an added bonus, both you and I experienced a positive sensation (laughing).
;-) Do you understand the mechanism now? You demonstrated EXACTLY the mechanism I was describing in my post by doing it yourself.
;-))
As I explained to the guy, in the *perception* of those by whom he felt attacked, he was bringing forward an opinion which they felt was "nonsense that came out of nowhere" as you but it. In his view, his opinion is 100% correct, so I had to give an extreme example that most parties (including you) would agree is absurd. This caught your attention to the point that you practically quoted me on it.
You also took the effort of pointing out my own fallacies, without actually discussing those two links at all. Pointing out other people's fallacies, i.e. "you do it too" is a fallacy in itself
You are wrong about the 'straw man' fallacy thing though. I was of course referring tho lines like "I'm not unwilling to discuss apparent weaknesses - just not on slashdot. I have boundaries, and I don't have an infinite amount of time to waste." -- he made ample mention in almost every one of his posts that he was not willing to defend his point of view in the forum where he posted it in the first place. If you don't want replies in place X, then don't mention it in place X. Simple as that. Except, of course, to someone who indirectly condones child abuse (oops, there's the straw man
The counter-argument is of course: "God put those bones there to test our belief in Him" ;-) It's impossible to 'win' a debate from a religious fanatic, because every counter-argument will go like "God did it."
For some strange reason, God also appears to be in 100% agreement with their own personal prejudices.
Well, I am *assuming* here that creationism is somehow based in being religious, believing there is a God, etc.
I don't think the issue is so much about creationism vs. evolution, it's more about the general *perception* that religious people are very pushy with their views and so-called morals. It's not that non-religious people aren't pushy, but they are pushy in more diverse ways so to speak (i.e. organized pushiness of the same absurdity will always have stronger effects). They push forward 'fundamentally correct' beliefs that ride on a theory that is equivalent to "the Toothfairy exists" or "I saw Elvis!". People are intimidated with the prospect of going to Hell if they question the base essentials.
You want to know what's tiresome? It's people trying to push their anti-[whatever] positions on the basis of how they interpret The Bible. This has been going on forever, including to defend slavery, etc. In fact, the Catholic Church seems to disagree with the rest of the world that child abuse is a punishable offence.
Please excuse me (and many others) for wanting to go for less tainted theories! I'd rather be an ape.
If I go around claiming that Santa exists and that I impregnated alien hotties from Venus, I'd probably also get laughed at and I'd certainly have some trouble finding anyone to have a serious discussion with me. I'm sorry is this sounds a bit harsh, consider it honest feedback and my own personal opinion, etc.
If you're interested in a discussion, how about we talk about why The Bible depicts God as a cowardly Saddam-type figure who kills kids:
Kids executed by God over a minor offense
Kids being slaughtered for the behaviour of their non-democratically elected leader
Let us also not forget that God is anti-democratic, encourages murder for 'moral' reasons, considers women inferior, etc, etc according to The Bible. Please excuse me while I find a less violent way of thinking about the universe, life and everything.
Yes, you may brand this as "shouting" or "being attacked". It's a classical "I'm always the victim so I won't waste my time defending my true claims" type fallacy. Don't bother, because it's totally obvious.
I use the Internet. The Internet is my medium. It is the basis upon which my thoughts ride. It is the mix of that which is I and that which is you. It is about souls without bodies. Purest form. I believe in Al Gore.
Offtopic perhaps, but he has an interesting first name. I wonder how much he got teased with it in school.
Dearest fellow human "wrf3",
.... etc (Exodus 12:29)
I will quote you some things out of the Bible:
1) If a man marries a woman and discovers she is not a virgin, she is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13)
2) Do not wear clothing of two kinds of material (Lev. 19:19 and Deut. 22:11)
3) Do not eat ham, bacon, pork chops or ribs (Lev. 11:7)
4) At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon,
I'd say that if the Bible is followed to the letter, you'd very likely end up in prison on racism, sexism and murder charges. According to point (4), God murders defenseless INNOCENT children on the basis of decisions of their UNELECTED leader. That's like killing the first-born kids in Iraq to teach Saddam a lesson while he was killing off the rest of their families.
It's nice that people choose to be nice out of fear of "some big guy in the sky", but in my view, those people who are nice WITHOUT fear of divine punishment are the ones truly deserving eternal reward.
I think the point our friend 'sunspot' was trying to make that no institution or group of people has a patent (at least not at the USPTO) on morality and what is "good". Certainly an institution that believes child molestation should not be reported to police is not the prime candidate for teaching us morality?
Evolution is superior to "creationism" in the sense that it is falsifiable. It is possible to adjust or reject the theory if solid proof or arguments are found. It will always logically and practically win from theories along the lines of "it's in ". Just like we nowadays accept that the earth is indeed round and not flat.
That would indeed better fit the existing ideas about him ;-)
Hi, thanks for your reply... several points:
;-) (note: added to friends list)
1) I was just priding myself on using my old account with a very low user ID, thanks for 'spoiling' that for me
2) (personal point of view) No person or group holds a patent on "good" or "bad". The fact that someone is "devout" in one thing or another does not make that person immune to enthusiastically engaging in what is generally (i.e. across (non-)beliefs and cultures) considered to be bad behaviour.
3) You brought up an interesting angle... people should talk to his family, bishop, etc and get them to talk some sense into him. Also: if it can be proven through the courts that he was knowingly lying, would that be grounds for expelling him from his church?
Ok, so the line "and is a devout Mormon" caught my attention. Isn't there some kind of ethical code even in their branch of religion along the lines of "thou shalt not lie" or "thou shalt not extort"?? Either he's unaware of what he's doing or he's knowlingly paving his own path to the hell he believes in.