If you really are a violent criminal and it's only the existence of god that is stopping you from committing crimes then be prepared for an interesting future. There is only one real argument that I can see that you could take. One, that god will punish you with Hell if you do wrong. I really don't understand what you are saying about "People have souls, ergo, I don't steal from them". That is somewhat akin to saying "People have blood, hence I don't kill them", there is no rational there (unless in the later case you just don't like to get dirty), if at some point you could view a person as a piece of meat, then what difference is a soul going to make? You try and explain this statement with "And their soul is no different from mine". Firstly, the soul is a concept played with by Plato as a link each individual has to a higher plane, and at no point that I'm aware of, any significant religion claimed two people or more to have been from "same" soul. It has always been two different people, with two different souls, so therefore a soul is not going to be different than any other body part. Actually on the note of souls, the Buddhist view from what I understand carries the notion of a soul, but no notion of a god. So it is not necessary for you to believe in god just to allow your idealogy to let people have souls so that you can be nice to them.
So if this is your only reason for being nice to people, how is it that you treat dogs? cats even? how about cowboy Neil (does he have a soul)? Is it OK to treat animals to a life of misery and pain since under your religion (whatever that maybe) decides that only humans have souls. Or if you take the approach that animals have souls too, then I hope that you have never eaten meat, since I fail to see how you are morally going to be able to come to grips with eating something that has a soul that "their soul is no different from mine". Or are there two different souls, one for animals and one for humans? At what point of evolution did god create us a new soul? Or is evolution a four letter word in your vocabulary.
So by now you have probably realized that I'm an atheist. But I also consider myself quite well behaved. So under your opinion, I'm stupid. I don't act on my immediate desires, and since I don't believe in god, I can't possibly have a concept of future. On the contrary, I have a very good understanding of cause and effect and the future results of my actions. I also understand why it is that we have rules in society that dictates what we are not allowed to do to each other. In addition to that, I create my own rules based on my experiences in life and the outcomes that I have seen. One of which is to help people around me, since it not only gives me pleasure, but allows my "world view" to be brighter and perhaps a tiny bit more naive. Is it for my own pleasure? Yes in many ways but there is more than that. However this doesn't detract from it as much as you make out. A good deed is a good deed and regardless of how much you protest we are all acting within our own self interests.
What amazes me, is that you think that it better is to help people simply because they have a soul just as you do. Aren't the people without souls in need of more help:)
At first it seemed like an odd thing to say. Here is the owner of Microsoft not only admitting that Linux was going to be around in 10 years, but that it was going to be a leading OS. It struck me as kind of strange, and very unlike the MS FUD that I am used to. So why? What is the motive behind this? After a little thought it seemed obvious. Out of all the other OS's around Linux is the only one that they think that they have got a full proof plan to defeat. When it comes to MacOS and Sun they have trouble with a definite plan, but when it comes to Linux it is simple. So here are my thoughts. We all know the rule that there are only ever two options in computers, the first and second place in the software chain for any application are the only two real opportunities that a majority of companies look at. Now we are seeing that the two major players in the future are going to be Linux and Microsoft. So what does this mean? It means that Linux is going to help MS crush Apple and Sun, (especially Sun) and then when it comes down to the crunch, it will be Linux and MS as the major players left standing (I'm not trying to write off the other OS's, I'm just pointing out where we seems to be going now). So in my opinion what is going to happen is that MS is going to promote Linux as the alternative, MS is going to quietly and discretely push Linux as a serious threat and make people look closer at it and hopefully convert the MacOS and the Sun crowd across. When Linux starts to take a major foothold in the MS fort and starts to force other OS's out of the market they then turn around with a massive amount of patents and slam Linux into a legal nightmare, leaving users in limbo and scared. They then have no alternative but to turn to Windows, and the master plan has all been played out. Now am I being too pessimistic?
Minix makes an awesome unix OS to learn from.
You all must agree that it doesn't have to be used as a production machine, it's really quite suited to use for teaching students.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me someone else here has seen Bananas by Woody Allen
http://imdb.com/title/tt0066808/
I never thought someone would actually try something that funny.
If you really are a violent criminal and it's only the existence of god that is stopping you from committing crimes then be prepared for an interesting future.
:)
There is only one real argument that I can see that you could take. One, that god will punish you with Hell if you do wrong.
I really don't understand what you are saying about "People have souls, ergo, I don't steal from them". That is somewhat akin to saying "People have blood, hence I don't kill them", there is no rational there (unless in the later case you just don't like to get dirty), if at some point you could view a person as a piece of meat, then what difference is a soul going to make? You try and explain this statement with "And their soul is no different from mine". Firstly, the soul is a concept played with by Plato as a link each individual has to a higher plane, and at no point that I'm aware of, any significant religion claimed two people or more to have been from "same" soul. It has always been two different people, with two different souls, so therefore a soul is not going to be different than any other body part. Actually on the note of souls, the Buddhist view from what I understand carries the notion of a soul, but no notion of a god. So it is not necessary for you to believe in god just to allow your idealogy to let people have souls so that you can be nice to them.
So if this is your only reason for being nice to people, how is it that you treat dogs? cats even? how about cowboy Neil (does he have a soul)? Is it OK to treat animals to a life of misery and pain since under your religion (whatever that maybe) decides that only humans have souls. Or if you take the approach that animals have souls too, then I hope that you have never eaten meat, since I fail to see how you are morally going to be able to come to grips with eating something that has a soul that "their soul is no different from mine". Or are there two different souls, one for animals and one for humans? At what point of evolution did god create us a new soul? Or is evolution a four letter word in your vocabulary.
So by now you have probably realized that I'm an atheist. But I also consider myself quite well behaved. So under your opinion, I'm stupid. I don't act on my immediate desires, and since I don't believe in god, I can't possibly have a concept of future. On the contrary, I have a very good understanding of cause and effect and the future results of my actions. I also understand why it is that we have rules in society that dictates what we are not allowed to do to each other. In addition to that, I create my own rules based on my experiences in life and the outcomes that I have seen. One of which is to help people around me, since it not only gives me pleasure, but allows my "world view" to be brighter and perhaps a tiny bit more naive. Is it for my own pleasure? Yes in many ways but there is more than that. However this doesn't detract from it as much as you make out. A good deed is a good deed and regardless of how much you protest we are all acting within our own self interests.
What amazes me, is that you think that it better is to help people simply because they have a soul just as you do. Aren't the people without souls in need of more help
At first it seemed like an odd thing to say. Here is the owner of Microsoft not only admitting that Linux was going to be around in 10 years, but that it was going to be a leading OS. It struck me as kind of strange, and very unlike the MS FUD that I am used to. So why? What is the motive behind this? After a little thought it seemed obvious. Out of all the other OS's around Linux is the only one that they think that they have got a full proof plan to defeat. When it comes to MacOS and Sun they have trouble with a definite plan, but when it comes to Linux it is simple. So here are my thoughts. We all know the rule that there are only ever two options in computers, the first and second place in the software chain for any application are the only two real opportunities that a majority of companies look at. Now we are seeing that the two major players in the future are going to be Linux and Microsoft. So what does this mean? It means that Linux is going to help MS crush Apple and Sun, (especially Sun) and then when it comes down to the crunch, it will be Linux and MS as the major players left standing (I'm not trying to write off the other OS's, I'm just pointing out where we seems to be going now). So in my opinion what is going to happen is that MS is going to promote Linux as the alternative, MS is going to quietly and discretely push Linux as a serious threat and make people look closer at it and hopefully convert the MacOS and the Sun crowd across. When Linux starts to take a major foothold in the MS fort and starts to force other OS's out of the market they then turn around with a massive amount of patents and slam Linux into a legal nightmare, leaving users in limbo and scared. They then have no alternative but to turn to Windows, and the master plan has all been played out. Now am I being too pessimistic?
And I now think that his dream of being a Jedi has come true. Remember Mall Rats? I wonder if he'll use the Circus Seal joke again.
Minix makes an awesome unix OS to learn from. You all must agree that it doesn't have to be used as a production machine, it's really quite suited to use for teaching students.