Your story did more to encourage my now new view that working in a large company is undesirable:) I'm not sure if you were actually trying to give balance to that idea, but the start of your post saying "Depends." made me think you were.
All these stories of working large companies sound quite ridiculous. My experience is with contract jobs with small companies, and there's no experience like this. Based on what is being said in this story, there's not much motivation for someone to work in a big company. Contracting work and small business seem like the path to sanity.
Yeah, those who are saying 80 hours is too much are not suggesting that you quit your job. They're saying: work a normal number of hours so you strike a _balance_.
Quick! Ban colour pencils so that people cannot make duplicate drawings of Marvel heroes! It is rumored that pencils can be used to "design characters that are virtual copies of its own superheros".
Right. Sometimes A may be provided through the scientific method. Sometimes not. This question is one that philosophy also deals with. For example, some believe there are foundational truths which are simply known to be true. Some others believe that every truth rests on another, forming a circle eventually.
But at any rate, these are questions which help us know what is truth but are outside the realm of science.
These things are mutually exclusive, so I see it as confusion on the part of some scientificly-minded people who still hold a believe for some sort of a deity.
Science is not necessarily naturalistic, it's just that the naturalistic philosophy dominates the minds of most scientists. If a method could be found by which to apply the scientific method to the supernatural, that would be acceptable. I don't know if any have tried yet or not. I do know that while I find the skeptics societies inability to apply skepticism to evolution fascinating, I appreciate greatly their efforts to disprove psychics, religious, healings, etc. There's far too much deception. My particular dislike is mediums like John Edward and James Van Praagh.
I don't believe in anything that cannot be proven and tested and the hell with unrepeatable anomalies. They are as good as fairy tales.
When I talked about whether there is a God, I was not talking about something that cannot be "proven". Any argument that follows this formula:
1. If A then B
2. A
therefore,
3. B
That is a philosophical proof, not a scientific one. Those are the sorts of proofs that exist for God. In fact, for science we should talk about 'evidences', while in philosophy (iirc) we talk about 'proofs'.
And this is important - after all, you can't prove that there is no God, but you can prove that there is one.
All I'm really saying is that science is not the sole determiner of truth. True knowledge (knowledge that is true;)) can be obtained through other means than just science, and science is almost always a probability rather than a proof.
is this a flamebait? Did you notice the moderation of my original comment? I don't care about moderation, it just shows something interesting
I missed the reason why you posted this. Were you saying mine was flamebait while yours isn't? Or were you just pointing it out as an interesting side note? You should try being a creationist. You can post on-topic defences to an attack and get modded flamebait or troll. It's disgusting. Moderations on this whole topic are warped. People should respond when they disagree, and reserve the negative moderations for specifically when something is a troll, offtopic, or flamebait - not just to promote a particular viewpoint.
Anyway, back to your answer. The problem was that if you first assume naturalism, there is no way to include the supernatural from the very beginning. So the existence of the supernatural must necesserily be determined independantly of naturalistic assumptions. I think it is highly likely that the supernatural cannot be tested empirically/scientifically. For example, let us suppose that God does heal someone - the elders of a church put oil on someone and pray, and miraculously they are healed. Now, in this example we are assuming this person was healed by God, and that God does exist. How would we test it? The next time those elders gather together God may not heal. The first time he did the only testimony may be that of the elders.
That is a case where science cannot test, and in fact the testimony won't last any further than that group. A second miracle example - Jesus feeds the 5000 with a few loaves of bread and some fish. Everyone present is able to observe the miracle. However, there is no way afterwards that the miracle can be tested repeatedly.
I should get to the point: An angel from heaven comes to earth, feeds 5000 people with nothing but a basket of 3 loaves and 2 fishes. The angel then ascends into heaven. All who witness the event have irrefutable proof for themselves that the miracle occurred. However, anyone outside that group will have no proof other than the accuracy of their testimony. Science would be unable to test any such event too. Yet it did happen. This leaves an important question - how can these people know something as truth that is not obtained through science? There is no doubt for those present that this was true. Yet science is unable to present that truth.
The answer is using logic. They used philosophical arguments/reasoning to determine truth. Philosophy is the method by which science is defined. Naturalism is a philosophy which hangs over science and is outside of science. Science is not the only method by which we can determine science, and in fact science itself rests on the foundations of philosophy.
So my point is that God's existence can be verified by methods outside of science. There is the axiological argument, teleological, and others. If justified these prove His existence.
This is a messy post, I know, so I guess I'm saying two things:
1. I appreciate the difficulty in verifying the existence of the supernatural, but I don't think scientific requirements are suitable
2. God's existence can be proven, but not scientifically. Science is not the only method of obtaining truth.
Regarding instability: Christians practiced science because they believed in a rational God who created a consistent and rational universe. Interventions are seen as an exception, not a rule. Complaining about the instability introduced by a God is much the same as watching natural processes and seeing odd behaviour - we begin to look for outside sources. For example, scientists watching a local evosystem begin to see a particular species dying out without any natural predators. They can either find a natural explanation, or, in this case, they find out that local farmers have been spraying poison over the area to kill this species. That is the very same "instability" that God presents - when it appears, it should be obvious and able therefore to be accounted for.
Those who are Christians and believe in Darwin's evolution think that the Bible is not accurate on matters of historicity. In particular, the first 6 chapters of genesis, including the flood. To show this as true gives credence to the Bible as a historical source. It doesn't prove either side, but it increases the probability that creationism is correct.
I am tired of people telling me that I should have 'an open mind' for the possibility of the supernatural. I have an open mind. When you provide examples, collect data, create theory, test theory against data and provide statistically sound results that your theory supports the reality and when you publish your findings so that the rest of us can do the same thing on our own. Then I will accept your version of reality. Until then my mind is just that - open for a scientific process.
Just out of curiosity, are you a Darwinist who subscribes to the naturalistic philosophy? Let us assume that the supernatural exists. What method would you propose for testing it, given naturalistic assumptions?
But for goodness' sake, at least please take the time to understand the terms about which you're debating.
This is unfair, since the blurring of terms is as much the fault of evolutionists as it is creationists. Creationists have in the past used the terms micro and macro evolution to distinguish, which are now avoided because they imply that they are the same thing with longer time. Another way to distinguish is to use the title "Darwinist".
You are right that natural selection plays on us all the time, performing selection of beneficial traits and creating new species. The great issue is the question of common ancestry - whether all living things share a common ancestor or not. That is what creationists dispute, and that is what is commonly called "the theory of evolution" - shortened to evolution. Creationists do not deny natural selection, they just observe it from a different angle. So what do you think the theory of evolution that includes common ancestry should be called?
To use terminology that distinguishes between elements of this debate more accurate would help the creationists, because proof for each step would need to be provided by Darwinists - rather than just demonstrating proof for one definition of 'evolution' and then claiming that all aspects are thus justified.
If someone accuses you of being a pedofile it doesn't matter if you're guilty or not.. your life is over. And it doesn't matter what you say to defend yourself because you're a monster and a liar in the public's eye.
It's the same deal for someone who's accused of rape.
I don't believe that is a closer example. In this case the child hasn't risked anything real, and is only simulating the experience of gambling. Dare I say, similar to murdering in a computer game.
Killing an animal for the fun of it may be an indicator of future trends, since it involves doing something real and permanent. Doing it in a computer game is entirely different.
There are many things in life which involve 'gambling' - taking risks with a chance of loss. Sometimes simulated. Ever board game, including monopoly, includes a gamble whenever you roll the dice. Playing a simulation of gambling is more of an introduction to a topic than a beginning of future trends. I simply don't believe the parent acted too late in this case - that is completely unreasonable and unfair. They DID find out what their child was doing BEFORE it was too late. It's not like it had done the gambling equivalent of killing an animal (equivalent being gambling lunches at school or something).
So, it's like she would be a good parent to find her kid after he had shot the homeless guy? And the answer isn't to blame the kid or herself for not being active *sooner*. It's to pat herself on the back and blame the gun owner or the government for leaving homeless people in the streets.
It's nothing like this. It's more like the parent finding the child talking to people encouraging the murder of homeless people, or reading a document on the needs to eliminate homeless people violently.
The parent was worried that the child might develop a real, genuine gambling habit - not that the child was actually gambling.
Ultimately these systems mayb be many levels deep protected from the internet - but a clever hacker may still be able to get through with time. Or perhaps that information needs to be on a publicly accessable but 'secured' machine. It is important to note that there is no such thing as perfect security, hence the stupidit of saying:
it's their own fault if their security methods are weak and information can be accessed by hackers.
Is that why North Korea has a standing army of 1 million, and one of the most advanced armies in the world at that?
The country may be poor, but it's still far richer than you or I - I'm sure they could train 500 hackers if they can have such a large army already. Just starve a few more people.
Pornography is an elaborate fantasy, much like movies (some pornographic materials are movies). Therefore any depictions of human perfection to rival religious teachings should not be taken seriously.
After all as long as you have descendants a part of you (though probably not a soul) will live after you die, and it is a lot easier and (much more fun!, I think) to bring this about than going through a lifetime of religious worship and devotion.
Ugh. Do you think Christians or other religious folk don't enjoy sex?
I'm sorry, but this 'argument' makes no sense. You haven't actually said anything logical. You've said simply that enjoying pornography requires imagination, and so is Jesus' atonement an imagination.
You haven't actually presented any arguments why, you've just stated your opinion of religion and clouded it in confusing sentences. The only people who will think you make sense is the choir. I read your post and think "this doesn't make any sense". I think to myself, "if I was an atheist, how would this make sense?" And it does, as I described above. So there is no persuasive content in your post at all - only opinion and assumption.
Slashdot Mirror
Why couldn't she be the other kind of mermaid? The one with the fish part at the top, and the lady part at the bottom!
By all means, go ahead and argue that.
It is already known that a good number of slashdotters think little of the Bible's authority. Give something new.
Your story did more to encourage my now new view that working in a large company is undesirable :) I'm not sure if you were actually trying to give balance to that idea, but the start of your post saying "Depends." made me think you were.
All these stories of working large companies sound quite ridiculous. My experience is with contract jobs with small companies, and there's no experience like this. Based on what is being said in this story, there's not much motivation for someone to work in a big company.
Contracting work and small business seem like the path to sanity.
Yeah, those who are saying 80 hours is too much are not suggesting that you quit your job. They're saying: work a normal number of hours so you strike a _balance_.
Quick! Ban colour pencils so that people cannot make duplicate drawings of Marvel heroes! It is rumored that pencils can be used to "design characters that are virtual copies of its own superheros".
Exactly. When I saw that story earlier I knew it was a waste of space. Half Life 2 is no different from every other game. There was no reason to fear.
But at any rate, these are questions which help us know what is truth but are outside the realm of science.
Science is not necessarily naturalistic, it's just that the naturalistic philosophy dominates the minds of most scientists. If a method could be found by which to apply the scientific method to the supernatural, that would be acceptable. I don't know if any have tried yet or not. I do know that while I find the skeptics societies inability to apply skepticism to evolution fascinating, I appreciate greatly their efforts to disprove psychics, religious, healings, etc. There's far too much deception. My particular dislike is mediums like John Edward and James Van Praagh.
When I talked about whether there is a God, I was not talking about something that cannot be "proven". Any argument that follows this formula:
1. If A then B
2. A
therefore,
3. B
That is a philosophical proof, not a scientific one. Those are the sorts of proofs that exist for God. In fact, for science we should talk about 'evidences', while in philosophy (iirc) we talk about 'proofs'.
And this is important - after all, you can't prove that there is no God, but you can prove that there is one.
All I'm really saying is that science is not the sole determiner of truth. True knowledge (knowledge that is true ;)) can be obtained through other means than just science, and science is almost always a probability rather than a proof.
I missed the reason why you posted this. Were you saying mine was flamebait while yours isn't? Or were you just pointing it out as an interesting side note? You should try being a creationist. You can post on-topic defences to an attack and get modded flamebait or troll. It's disgusting. Moderations on this whole topic are warped. People should respond when they disagree, and reserve the negative moderations for specifically when something is a troll, offtopic, or flamebait - not just to promote a particular viewpoint.
Anyway, back to your answer. The problem was that if you first assume naturalism, there is no way to include the supernatural from the very beginning. So the existence of the supernatural must necesserily be determined independantly of naturalistic assumptions. I think it is highly likely that the supernatural cannot be tested empirically/scientifically. For example, let us suppose that God does heal someone - the elders of a church put oil on someone and pray, and miraculously they are healed. Now, in this example we are assuming this person was healed by God, and that God does exist. How would we test it? The next time those elders gather together God may not heal. The first time he did the only testimony may be that of the elders.
That is a case where science cannot test, and in fact the testimony won't last any further than that group. A second miracle example - Jesus feeds the 5000 with a few loaves of bread and some fish. Everyone present is able to observe the miracle. However, there is no way afterwards that the miracle can be tested repeatedly.
I should get to the point: An angel from heaven comes to earth, feeds 5000 people with nothing but a basket of 3 loaves and 2 fishes. The angel then ascends into heaven. All who witness the event have irrefutable proof for themselves that the miracle occurred. However, anyone outside that group will have no proof other than the accuracy of their testimony. Science would be unable to test any such event too. Yet it did happen. This leaves an important question - how can these people know something as truth that is not obtained through science? There is no doubt for those present that this was true. Yet science is unable to present that truth.
The answer is using logic. They used philosophical arguments/reasoning to determine truth. Philosophy is the method by which science is defined. Naturalism is a philosophy which hangs over science and is outside of science. Science is not the only method by which we can determine science, and in fact science itself rests on the foundations of philosophy.
So my point is that God's existence can be verified by methods outside of science. There is the axiological argument, teleological, and others. If justified these prove His existence.
This is a messy post, I know, so I guess I'm saying two things:
1. I appreciate the difficulty in verifying the existence of the supernatural, but I don't think scientific requirements are suitable
2. God's existence can be proven, but not scientifically. Science is not the only method of obtaining truth.
Regarding instability: Christians practiced science because they believed in a rational God who created a consistent and rational universe. Interventions are seen as an exception, not a rule. Complaining about the instability introduced by a God is much the same as watching natural processes and seeing odd behaviour - we begin to look for outside sources. For example, scientists watching a local evosystem begin to see a particular species dying out without any natural predators. They can either find a natural explanation, or, in this case, they find out that local farmers have been spraying poison over the area to kill this species. That is the very same "instability" that God presents - when it appears, it should be obvious and able therefore to be accounted for.
Ugh, long and messy post :)
Those who are Christians and believe in Darwin's evolution think that the Bible is not accurate on matters of historicity. In particular, the first 6 chapters of genesis, including the flood. To show this as true gives credence to the Bible as a historical source. It doesn't prove either side, but it increases the probability that creationism is correct.
Just out of curiosity, are you a Darwinist who subscribes to the naturalistic philosophy? Let us assume that the supernatural exists. What method would you propose for testing it, given naturalistic assumptions?
This is unfair, since the blurring of terms is as much the fault of evolutionists as it is creationists. Creationists have in the past used the terms micro and macro evolution to distinguish, which are now avoided because they imply that they are the same thing with longer time. Another way to distinguish is to use the title "Darwinist".
You are right that natural selection plays on us all the time, performing selection of beneficial traits and creating new species. The great issue is the question of common ancestry - whether all living things share a common ancestor or not. That is what creationists dispute, and that is what is commonly called "the theory of evolution" - shortened to evolution. Creationists do not deny natural selection, they just observe it from a different angle. So what do you think the theory of evolution that includes common ancestry should be called?
To use terminology that distinguishes between elements of this debate more accurate would help the creationists, because proof for each step would need to be provided by Darwinists - rather than just demonstrating proof for one definition of 'evolution' and then claiming that all aspects are thus justified.
Killing an animal for the fun of it may be an indicator of future trends, since it involves doing something real and permanent. Doing it in a computer game is entirely different.
There are many things in life which involve 'gambling' - taking risks with a chance of loss. Sometimes simulated. Ever board game, including monopoly, includes a gamble whenever you roll the dice. Playing a simulation of gambling is more of an introduction to a topic than a beginning of future trends. I simply don't believe the parent acted too late in this case - that is completely unreasonable and unfair. They DID find out what their child was doing BEFORE it was too late. It's not like it had done the gambling equivalent of killing an animal (equivalent being gambling lunches at school or something).
It's nothing like this. It's more like the parent finding the child talking to people encouraging the murder of homeless people, or reading a document on the needs to eliminate homeless people violently.
The parent was worried that the child might develop a real, genuine gambling habit - not that the child was actually gambling.
Ultimately these systems mayb be many levels deep protected from the internet - but a clever hacker may still be able to get through with time. Or perhaps that information needs to be on a publicly accessable but 'secured' machine. It is important to note that there is no such thing as perfect security, hence the stupidit of saying:
it's their own fault if their security methods are weak and information can be accessed by hackers.
Where there's a will there's a way.
The country may be poor, but it's still far richer than you or I - I'm sure they could train 500 hackers if they can have such a large army already. Just starve a few more people.
Seems to run a bit worse in linux for me. Any ideas why that might by?
Esp in the more cpu intensive areas, rotating my view left or right has jolts, but moving forward and backwards doesn't.
After all as long as you have descendants a part of you (though probably not a soul) will live after you die, and it is a lot easier and (much more fun!, I think) to bring this about than going through a lifetime of religious worship and devotion.
Ugh. Do you think Christians or other religious folk don't enjoy sex?
You haven't actually presented any arguments why, you've just stated your opinion of religion and clouded it in confusing sentences. The only people who will think you make sense is the choir. I read your post and think "this doesn't make any sense". I think to myself, "if I was an atheist, how would this make sense?" And it does, as I described above. So there is no persuasive content in your post at all - only opinion and assumption.
Just because we're a fundamentalist, doesn't mean we agree on everything. So don't tell me to fuck off.
Yeah, that's kinda the point methinks.
Don't forget crators.
Your post brought a smile to my face. That was _exactly_ the point the parent post was trying to make. At least you helped drive his argument home.