Your logic fascinates me... and probably eludes understanding. Let me elaborate...
What is your definition of a "normal" house, or, said differently, what properties qualify a house as "normal?" Is it the purchase price? Must it fall somewhere within the "average" price range for a home within a specific geographic area?
By implying that [what you perceive as] lavish homes make the owner greedy, can't that same standard be used on *any* homeowner? If you (or your parents) own a home, aren't you/they guilty of being greedy for purchasing it as oppsed to a less expensive home in a poorer neighborhood? How dare you/they use money to raise your standard of living!
Should people with wealth be restricted as to what they can spend it on? Just as the average homeowner attempts to get the best value for their money, shouldn't wealthy people be entitle to same? Since when do you dictate how others should spend their money? In short... what you preceive as "lavish" is actually "expected" and "normal" for someone of that wealth class. How Jobs chooses to spend his money, or what lifestyle he chooses to lead, is irrelevant and immaterial to how others (including Gates and Ellison) should lead their lives.
In short, I think your comment is intellectually bankrupt and not thought out at all.
What do you do about the fact that most of your inserts contain SQL errors? Do you count the logged error (and the resultant lack of disk i/o) as one of those ~500,000 inserts/updates per day per server?
The reason I ask is because I don't believe you are capable of writing proper queries in SQL. As far as I recall, mySQL doesn't yet offer a built-in spell checker. As a result, your queries would be as full of typos as your comment here on SlashDot.
DesktopBSD - That's nice. I'd like my computer to be practical, however. I don't mind replacing Windows XP, but the replacement better justify itself... if I can't run my preferred programs, then there's no point to any of it.
With that in mind, how do I run AVID DV on this KDE system? If the answer is "through an emulator"... then there's no point in switching. How do I run the barrage of applications (Adobe Suite, Sorensen Encoder, Media Cleaner Pro, etc) that I've mastered over the years?
Hmm... DesktopBSD... a nice play toy. Well, excuse me now... time to get back to *work*.
|| what is drupal, what happened to their server, and why should i care?
Are you just too stupid to use Google, or did you not bother to read the very post you responded to, which clearly said Drupal is a content management system. Retard.
|| Also that sex won't be associated with love but rather just used in a physical manner.
That's a fine pollyanna bromide you espouse, but it has nothing to do with reality. In a country where the divorce rate is 50%+, and teen pregnancy abounds, it is painfully obvious that the notion of [romantic] love is but a lost platitude.
Rather than live under the delusion of a polylyanna, why not garner a step back to reality and accept the fact that our current and future generation's notion of "love" is already warped and distorted. Replacing violence with sex won't make sex any worse, and might actually cut down on violence.
|| It pains me, and cencerns me, that the legal system has degenerated into this. A system where
|| it's not the legalities of your position, but how much money you can spend of legal manuvers that
|| determines the outcome. Of course, I guess I already knew that since the Simpsom verdict. (sigh)
Most people have a pollyanna bromide view of the legal system. It's a shame.
By the way, what is the Simpsom verdict? I don't think I've heard of it.
Judging from the Company's actions, if Salzenberg wants to litigate the matter of the return of
his personal property in an expeditious manner, he should seek out a criminal law attorney and file a
Jencks motion for the return of said property. It will be heard by a different Judge, and he'll be able
to show the Company's prejudicial actions. I had to file same to have the FBI return my property to
me, and (though expensive) it worked like a charm.
Here's a link to a Jencks Motion for the return of property.
|| The company's staff lawyers probably recommended a pre-emptive strike
BINGO... and of course, the typical slashdotter (and Chris) will begin by saying IANAL, and
then proceeding to act like one. Well... guess what... if you're not a lawyer, shut the **ck up
when it comes to dispensing legal advice (or an opinion smelling of legalese). Above all, do not
threaten others (especially others who have more wealth than you) with your armchair legal opinion.
I'm surprised that Chris is surprised about what happened, and about suddenly finding himself in a
position where it's costing him $20,000/month in startup legal fees. That's an expensive lesson.
|| Well, your competitor keeps going back to the booth and taking your brochure and free samples.
|| Then he throws them away, and goes back for more.
|| Do you sue the person you hired to work at the booth?
Thanks for illustrating the problem I might have if I were handing out brochures at a trade show.
Now, would you care to comment on the topic at hand... Google and click fraud?
Its unfortunate that moderators consider irrelevant examples to be "insightful" when all they
really do is distract from the real subject at hand. It should already be obvious to you that the
law treats cyber-crimes differently than physical crimes. Someone who breaks into a computer
gets more prison time than someone who breaks into your car or home. THE CRIMES ARE
NOT THE SAME IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. Is it that difficult to figure out?
Thank you! Some idiots on slashdot with miniscule intelligence actually moderated my comment
as trolling and flame-bait, not realizing there are hardware firewalls and routers (ex: Juniper).
What I wanted to know is if there's an inexpensive SOHO firewall/router combo that uses hardware (not soft/firmware)
to do its thing... in essence, an ASIC or FPGA type of device. I know there are freeware languages (including
a firewall scripting language) designed to program such things... so its not like I'm out in left field
(unless you're ignorant to the technology that's out there and compensate by moderating here).
|| "...then you're too hooked on symantics and ignoring the point of my post int he first place."
If you're too hooked on programming to spell "semantics" correctly, then don't be surprised
to find yourself subconsciously defining "he" as an integer (he int) in your replies.
|| A software firewall is not a replacement for a hardware firewall.
So, do you know of a firewall that's hard-wired and does not run code (firmware)?
After all, I don't want any firewall that has to run software to do its job,
even if that software is programmed into firmware.
|| if it is frictionless, how do you get it rotating?
Elementary, my dear Watts-n-SWR. You rotate the bell jar that contains it. You place your camera on
the rotating bell jar. As a result, the gas is spinning but the observation platform is not.
|| If [BSD] OS were as superior as [De Raadt] claims, its merits would be apparent...
I'm curious as to how you came to that erroneous conclusion. After all, those of us with some age
(and experience) behind us have learned that popularity does not equate to quality, and vice-versa.
Perhaps you haven't yet had enough business and marketing experience to realize this, as evidenced
by what I can only call your naive statement.
As you should already know, I can have the best product in the world, but without proper marketing
and a deployment game-plan, nobody is going to know about it (and hence, will continue using
inferior products).
|
| The problem is, you apparently don't know how to read that stuff.
You're right... I don't. That's why I rely on religious leaders for clarification. I certainly don't
take your word for it, either.
|
| The problem is most "religious" people don't know.
I agree with you... because most "religious" people actually take their religion seriously,
rather than recognizing it for the science-fiction that it truly is.
|
| BTW I just mentioned how religion is using parables, and the next thing you do is take everything
in a literal sense...
You don't seem to understand... what I was quoting *is* to be taken in the literal sense.
The particulars of Mormonism and Scientology from which I quoted are, according to their respective
prophets (Gordon B. Hinkley and The Watchtower) to be taken *literally*. The fact that you do not want
to take them literally only tends to show your stubborness in accepting the truth from these religious
prophets. Can't say I blame you, however.
|
| We talk about religions and the best example you can come up with is Mormonism.
Do you have a problem with me using one of the world's fastest growing religions, and the fourth
most popular religion, as my example? What better example than that which is most prevalent?
Using an obscure fringe religion is pointless in a fair analysis.
| jeez, Americans.
You're not kidding... we even think we own the Internet now.
"I thought that my example of physicans that smoke amply explained why I don't expect proof to convince anyone."
I don't expect proof to convince anyone, either... unless their mind is already open to the possibility
of change. In some cases, that means being open to the possibility that you (and your parents) spent
most of your lives believing in an imaginary friend. The more there is at stake, the less likely we
are to vary from our position... especially when we have everything to lose. It is easier to sit and stonewall,
knowing there are plenty of others who support our position, than it is to let go of everything you thought
dear to you, and face the ridicule of friends and family.
"Since you seem to missed that explanation, consider politics and other marketing. If proof is so
effective in convincing people, why don't those two areas use proof instead of emotional arguments to try
to convince people?"
I never said proof is so effective at convincing people. I know better. It depends on the subject matter,
the audience and their pre-existing beliefs. The more they have to lose, the less susceptible to proof
they are! Some have done a fine job of engraining their beliefs within, to the point where
they're beyond reasoning.
It's interesting to me how people of one religion tend to call another religion (ie, Scientology) a
cult, as if their imaginary friend had more credence than the imaginary friend of the Scientologists.
And... using the same reasoning that others have already applied to my statement, you cannot disprove
that our origins can be traced back to clams that were put onto this planet by an alien life form (OT,
Thetan, ibid).
Which makes me wonder (only in jest)... which religion has the more powerful imaginary friend? As you
already hopefully know, the essence of "God" and our very creation varies dramatically from religion
to religion. Scientology, Mormonism and Christianity are but three examples.
"upon rereading the New Testament you may realize that Jesus generally taught people what they were ready to hear."
This discussion isn't about what some fictitious character taught or didn't teach people... if it were,
I'd quickly ask you if Jesus exists to a Scientologist or a Mormon, in the same context and capacity
as the Jesus that you allude to in your response. Knowing that the only honest answer is "no"... I'd then
as you "how is Jesus relevant to this discussion..." since I could just as easily say the same about
Buddah or Heavenly Father (the Mormon God... who was once imperfect and human like you and I).
"You've convined me that proof is not what you want, nor would you accept it if you had it. I
may be mistaken, but I tend to go with the available evidence."
"You pretend to know what "proof" I have
You ignore the meanings of "verifiable" and
"objective." You distort the evidence that you already have."
Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble... but unless you've got God tucked away in a closet somewhere,
I doubt you're going to present Him to me. Thus, I prematurely conclude that your so-called "proof"
is based on purely anecdotal evidence. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.
As to ignoring the meanings of "verifiable" and "objective" - please state the basis and evidence
for your claim. All I'm hearing from you is "I can't play... this is too hard for me."
As to distorting the evidence I already have... again, please state the basis and evidence for your
claim. Otherwise, it seems like you just run away when your belief system is challenged.
"This perspective has helped me have a better relationship with my wife, be a better father to my
children, and be a better friend to my friends.
It isn't that I was bad, but the more I know the
happier I am."
But the fact is, relationships are based on the principles of basic psychology. A self-help book
in the area of family and relationship could have produced these benefits also (as it has for
countless others).
The fact that your congregation and religious studies have taught you tolerance and interpersonal
skills does not mean it was a gift from your imaginary friend. Humans have the inherent capacity,
as a species, to learn. Knowledge is there for those who want to partake in it. To absorb said
knowledge does not require the belief and worship of an imaginary friend. The proof is in the
fact that plenty of non-religious people have gained these same skills through a similar course of
study (minus the religious belief).
"It isn't that I was bad, but the more I know the happier I am."
Of course... humans want an understanding of that which is beyond them. It brings comfort. It is,
for all intents and purposes, healthy to have an imaginary friend which inspires you to live a more
fulfilling and compassionate life.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to take your imaginary friend away from you... I'm just saying
let's not confuse that imaginary friend with reality.
"There are many many disputes about evolution--wow here's a recognized science which lacks any
proof whatsoever, and still you all believe it. Now isn't that amazing."
I don't recall science, over time, rewriting its basic tenets to say that a white dude with a beard
created everything around us... or that his father, who happens to be the son too, did.
"when I look at all the religions I don't see a rewrite of the fundamentals laws [essential principles religions are based on]."
Depending on which religions I'm comparing, I see a rewrite of the essential principles of same.
In fact, with salvation being an essential principle, I see that non-Mormons will never achieve
the highest level of same unless they convert to Mormonism during their life or after-life. I
also
see that dead people can be baptised by proxy, that God was born an imperfect being with
a physical body (like you and I) and had to progress to become a God, that you and I can
literally become Gods and sit at the throne next
to God himself to rule over our kingdom, and a
bunch of other science-fiction nonsense,
depending on which essential principles I'm comparing.
"While they're all correct, because they look at only aspects of the whole truth..."
Sorry, but they can't all be correct. Mormonism touts that it exists because all other religions
had become corrupt... that they are the "whores of Babylon" and "an abomination upon all Earth."
It also goes on to state that only through Mormonism will you achieve the highest level of salvation.
If the basic tenet of Mormonism is correct, then other religions are *incompatible* and do not lead
to salvation... and salvation is a basic tenet of all religions, isn't it?
"There is a physical God that is more than willing to give you all the proof that you can
stand, if you can convince him that you're serious, and that the proof would do you any good. This isn't easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is."
So far, I've learned that your imaginary friend is a male. It's interesting to me that you've
not chosen a female as your imaginary friend. I am curious now... is your God black? I've seen
many painting (representations) of this imaginary friend called God, and in all of them he (not
she), appears to be white... never black, never asian, never mulatto, etc... always white.
Does it make you feel more comfortable having a white male for an imaginary friend? I presume
that eliminates the risk of objectifying this friend sexually (no danger of sexual attraction)
and at the same time makes you feel comfortable with his "ethnicity" (so to speak)... letting
you worship him rather than feel oppressed by him?
The only "proof" you're going to show me is in the form of either personal testimony (I felt a
burning in my bosom and knew the bible was true) or unverifiable historical documents (some of
which have been disproven through DNA tests and translation breakthroughs, depending on your
religion). Then you're going to apply your own brand of reasoning to try and convince me that,
based on the preponderence of [false] evidence, your conclusion must be true and this imaginary
friend is real.
Well... I rank that right up there with UFO abductions and anal probing... there's lots of
evidence THAT happened also... and the witnesses to that are still alive today. The more
I think of it, the more religion and science-fiction have in common.
For every piece of "evidence" you can present to me showing that your imaginary friend must be
real, I can present to you passages from Mormon scripture that shows your imaginary friend is
a fraud, and that you will not be saved unless you embrace Mormonism now or in the afterlife.
Slashdot Mirror
Your logic fascinates me... and probably eludes understanding. Let me elaborate...
What is your definition of a "normal" house, or, said differently, what properties qualify a house as "normal?" Is it the purchase price? Must it fall somewhere within the "average" price range for a home within a specific geographic area?
By implying that [what you perceive as] lavish homes make the owner greedy, can't that same standard be used on *any* homeowner? If you (or your parents) own a home, aren't you/they guilty of being greedy for purchasing it as oppsed to a less expensive home in a poorer neighborhood? How dare you/they use money to raise your standard of living!
Should people with wealth be restricted as to what they can spend it on? Just as the average homeowner attempts to get the best value for their money, shouldn't wealthy people be entitle to same? Since when do you dictate how others should spend their money? In short... what you preceive as "lavish" is actually "expected" and "normal" for someone of that wealth class. How Jobs chooses to spend his money, or what lifestyle he chooses to lead, is irrelevant and immaterial to how others (including Gates and Ellison) should lead their lives.
In short, I think your comment is intellectually bankrupt and not thought out at all.
What do you do about the fact that most of your inserts contain SQL errors? Do you count the logged error (and the resultant lack of disk i/o) as one of those ~500,000 inserts/updates per day per server?
The reason I ask is because I don't believe you are capable of writing proper queries in SQL. As far as I recall, mySQL doesn't yet offer a built-in spell checker. As a result, your queries would be as full of typos as your comment here on SlashDot.
DesktopBSD - That's nice. I'd like my computer to be practical, however. I don't mind replacing Windows XP, but the replacement better justify itself... if I can't run my preferred programs, then there's no point to any of it.
With that in mind, how do I run AVID DV on this KDE system? If the answer is "through an emulator"... then there's no point in switching. How do I run the barrage of applications (Adobe Suite, Sorensen Encoder, Media Cleaner Pro, etc) that I've mastered over the years?
Hmm... DesktopBSD... a nice play toy. Well, excuse me now... time to get back to *work*.
"surely you're not that niaeve?"
Apparently you are, when it comes to spelling.
You seem to be well-learned in prior history. Surely someone as astute and erudite as yourself knows the person writing this.
|| what is drupal, what happened to their server, and why should i care?
Are you just too stupid to use Google, or did you not bother to read the very post
you responded to, which clearly said Drupal is a content management system. Retard.
|| Also that sex won't be associated with love but rather just used in a physical manner.
That's a fine pollyanna bromide you espouse, but it has nothing to do with reality.
In a country where the divorce rate is 50%+, and teen pregnancy abounds, it is
painfully obvious that the notion of [romantic] love is but a lost platitude.
Rather than live under the delusion of a polylyanna, why not garner a step back to
reality and accept the fact that our current and future generation's notion of "love"
is already warped and distorted. Replacing violence with sex won't make sex any
worse, and might actually cut down on violence.
|| It pains me, and cencerns me, that the legal system has degenerated into this. A system where
|| it's not the legalities of your position, but how much money you can spend of legal manuvers that
|| determines the outcome. Of course, I guess I already knew that since the Simpsom verdict. (sigh)
Most people have a pollyanna bromide view of the legal system. It's a shame.
By the way, what is the Simpsom verdict? I don't think I've heard of it.
Judging from the Company's actions, if Salzenberg wants to litigate the matter of the return of
his personal property in an expeditious manner, he should seek out a criminal law attorney and file a
Jencks motion for the return of said property. It will be heard by a different Judge, and he'll be able
to show the Company's prejudicial actions. I had to file same to have the FBI return my property to
me, and (though expensive) it worked like a charm.
Here's a link to a Jencks Motion for the return of property.
|| The company's staff lawyers probably recommended a pre-emptive strike
BINGO... and of course, the typical slashdotter (and Chris) will begin by saying IANAL, and
then proceeding to act like one. Well... guess what... if you're not a lawyer, shut the **ck up
when it comes to dispensing legal advice (or an opinion smelling of legalese). Above all, do not
threaten others (especially others who have more wealth than you) with your armchair legal opinion.
I'm surprised that Chris is surprised about what happened, and about suddenly finding himself in a
position where it's costing him $20,000/month in startup legal fees. That's an expensive lesson.
What's the matter... you don't like handling all your video routines in software?
|| Well, your competitor keeps going back to the booth and taking your brochure and free samples.
|| Then he throws them away, and goes back for more.
|| Do you sue the person you hired to work at the booth?
Thanks for illustrating the problem I might have if I were handing out brochures at a trade show.
Now, would you care to comment on the topic at hand... Google and click fraud?
Its unfortunate that moderators consider irrelevant examples to be "insightful" when all they
really do is distract from the real subject at hand. It should already be obvious to you that the
law treats cyber-crimes differently than physical crimes. Someone who breaks into a computer
gets more prison time than someone who breaks into your car or home. THE CRIMES ARE
NOT THE SAME IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. Is it that difficult to figure out?
Hence, your example is irrelevant and off-topic.
Thank you! Some idiots on slashdot with miniscule intelligence actually moderated my comment
as trolling and flame-bait, not realizing there are hardware firewalls and routers (ex: Juniper).
What I wanted to know is if there's an inexpensive SOHO firewall/router combo that uses hardware (not soft/firmware)
to do its thing... in essence, an ASIC or FPGA type of device. I know there are freeware languages (including
a firewall scripting language) designed to program such things... so its not like I'm out in left field
(unless you're ignorant to the technology that's out there and compensate by moderating here).
|| "...then you're too hooked on symantics and ignoring the point of my post int he first place."
If you're too hooked on programming to spell "semantics" correctly, then don't be surprised
to find yourself subconsciously defining "he" as an integer (he int) in your replies.
Or was that some feeble attempt at semasiology?
|| A software firewall is not a replacement for a hardware firewall.
So, do you know of a firewall that's hard-wired and does not run code (firmware)?
After all, I don't want any firewall that has to run software to do its job,
even if that software is programmed into firmware.
|| if it is frictionless, how do you get it rotating?
Elementary, my dear Watts-n-SWR. You rotate the bell jar that contains it. You place your camera on
the rotating bell jar. As a result, the gas is spinning but the observation platform is not.
In summary... it's all a matter of perspective.
|| If you start a superfluid rotating and it flows without friction, will it ever stop?
Yes, it will stop... taxes diminish it by roughly 8.5%, depending on locality.
|| If [BSD] OS were as superior as [De Raadt] claims, its merits would be apparent...
I'm curious as to how you came to that erroneous conclusion. After all, those of us with some age
(and experience) behind us have learned that popularity does not equate to quality, and vice-versa.
Perhaps you haven't yet had enough business and marketing experience to realize this, as evidenced
by what I can only call your naive statement.
As you should already know, I can have the best product in the world, but without proper marketing
and a deployment game-plan, nobody is going to know about it (and hence, will continue using
inferior products).
| | The problem is, you apparently don't know how to read that stuff.
You're right... I don't. That's why I rely on religious leaders for clarification. I certainly don't
take your word for it, either.
| | The problem is most "religious" people don't know.
I agree with you... because most "religious" people actually take their religion seriously,
rather than recognizing it for the science-fiction that it truly is.
| | BTW I just mentioned how religion is using parables, and the next thing you do is take everything
in a literal sense...
You don't seem to understand... what I was quoting *is* to be taken in the literal sense.
The particulars of Mormonism and Scientology from which I quoted are, according to their respective
prophets (Gordon B. Hinkley and The Watchtower) to be taken *literally*. The fact that you do not want
to take them literally only tends to show your stubborness in accepting the truth from these religious
prophets. Can't say I blame you, however.
| | We talk about religions and the best example you can come up with is Mormonism.
Do you have a problem with me using one of the world's fastest growing religions, and the fourth
most popular religion, as my example? What better example than that which is most prevalent?
Using an obscure fringe religion is pointless in a fair analysis.
| jeez, Americans.
You're not kidding... we even think we own the Internet now.
"I thought that my example of physicans that smoke amply explained why I don't expect proof to convince anyone."
I don't expect proof to convince anyone, either... unless their mind is already open to the possibility
of change. In some cases, that means being open to the possibility that you (and your parents) spent
most of your lives believing in an imaginary friend. The more there is at stake, the less likely we
are to vary from our position... especially when we have everything to lose. It is easier to sit and stonewall,
knowing there are plenty of others who support our position, than it is to let go of everything you thought
dear to you, and face the ridicule of friends and family.
"Since you seem to missed that explanation, consider politics and other marketing. If proof is so
effective in convincing people, why don't those two areas use proof instead of emotional arguments to try
to convince people?"
I never said proof is so effective at convincing people. I know better. It depends on the subject matter,
the audience and their pre-existing beliefs. The more they have to lose, the less susceptible to proof
they are! Some have done a fine job of engraining their beliefs within, to the point where
they're beyond reasoning.
It's interesting to me how people of one religion tend to call another religion (ie, Scientology) a
cult, as if their imaginary friend had more credence than the imaginary friend of the Scientologists.
And... using the same reasoning that others have already applied to my statement, you cannot disprove
that our origins can be traced back to clams that were put onto this planet by an alien life form (OT,
Thetan, ibid).
Which makes me wonder (only in jest)... which religion has the more powerful imaginary friend? As you
already hopefully know, the essence of "God" and our very creation varies dramatically from religion
to religion. Scientology, Mormonism and Christianity are but three examples.
"upon rereading the New Testament you may realize that Jesus generally taught people what they were ready to hear."
This discussion isn't about what some fictitious character taught or didn't teach people... if it were,
I'd quickly ask you if Jesus exists to a Scientologist or a Mormon, in the same context and capacity
as the Jesus that you allude to in your response. Knowing that the only honest answer is "no"... I'd then
as you "how is Jesus relevant to this discussion..." since I could just as easily say the same about
Buddah or Heavenly Father (the Mormon God... who was once imperfect and human like you and I).
"You've convined me that proof is not what you want, nor would you accept it if you had it. I
may be mistaken, but I tend to go with the available evidence."
"You pretend to know what "proof" I have You ignore the meanings of "verifiable" and
"objective." You distort the evidence that you already have."
Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble... but unless you've got God tucked away in a closet somewhere,
I doubt you're going to present Him to me. Thus, I prematurely conclude that your so-called "proof"
is based on purely anecdotal evidence. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.
As to ignoring the meanings of "verifiable" and "objective" - please state the basis and evidence
for your claim. All I'm hearing from you is "I can't play... this is too hard for me."
As to distorting the evidence I already have... again, please state the basis and evidence for your
claim. Otherwise, it seems like you just run away when your belief system is challenged.
"This perspective has helped me have a better relationship with my wife, be a better father to my
children, and be a better friend to my friends. It isn't that I was bad, but the more I know the
happier I am."
But the fact is, relationships are based on the principles of basic psychology. A self-help book
in the area of family and relationship could have produced these benefits also (as it has for
countless others).
The fact that your congregation and religious studies have taught you tolerance and interpersonal
skills does not mean it was a gift from your imaginary friend. Humans have the inherent capacity,
as a species, to learn. Knowledge is there for those who want to partake in it. To absorb said
knowledge does not require the belief and worship of an imaginary friend. The proof is in the
fact that plenty of non-religious people have gained these same skills through a similar course of
study (minus the religious belief).
"It isn't that I was bad, but the more I know the happier I am."
Of course... humans want an understanding of that which is beyond them. It brings comfort. It is,
for all intents and purposes, healthy to have an imaginary friend which inspires you to live a more
fulfilling and compassionate life.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to take your imaginary friend away from you... I'm just saying
let's not confuse that imaginary friend with reality.
"There are many many disputes about evolution--wow here's a recognized science which lacks any
proof whatsoever, and still you all believe it. Now isn't that amazing."
I don't recall science, over time, rewriting its basic tenets to say that a white dude with a beard
created everything around us... or that his father, who happens to be the son too, did.
"when I look at all the religions I don't see a rewrite of the fundamentals laws [essential principles
religions are based on]."
Depending on which religions I'm comparing, I see a rewrite of the essential principles of same.
In fact, with salvation being an essential principle, I see that non-Mormons will never achieve
the highest level of same unless they convert to Mormonism during their life or after-life. I also
see that dead people can be baptised by proxy, that God was born an imperfect being with
a physical body (like you and I) and had to progress to become a God, that you and I can
literally become Gods and sit at the throne next to God himself to rule over our kingdom, and a
bunch of other science-fiction nonsense, depending on which essential principles I'm comparing.
"While they're all correct, because they look at only aspects of the whole truth..."
Sorry, but they can't all be correct. Mormonism touts that it exists because all other religions
had become corrupt... that they are the "whores of Babylon" and "an abomination upon all Earth."
It also goes on to state that only through Mormonism will you achieve the highest level of salvation.
If the basic tenet of Mormonism is correct, then other religions are *incompatible* and do not lead
to salvation... and salvation is a basic tenet of all religions, isn't it?
"Can anyone mod this guy offtopic?
Sorry, I've used all my moderator points today, or I would. YMMV. OIMMACTTA.
"There is a physical God that is more than willing to give you all the proof that you can
stand, if you can convince him that you're serious, and that the proof would do you any
good. This isn't easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is."
So far, I've learned that your imaginary friend is a male. It's interesting to me that you've
not chosen a female as your imaginary friend. I am curious now... is your God black? I've seen
many painting (representations) of this imaginary friend called God, and in all of them he (not
she), appears to be white... never black, never asian, never mulatto, etc... always white.
Does it make you feel more comfortable having a white male for an imaginary friend? I presume
that eliminates the risk of objectifying this friend sexually (no danger of sexual attraction)
and at the same time makes you feel comfortable with his "ethnicity" (so to speak)... letting
you worship him rather than feel oppressed by him?
The only "proof" you're going to show me is in the form of either personal testimony (I felt a
burning in my bosom and knew the bible was true) or unverifiable historical documents (some of
which have been disproven through DNA tests and translation breakthroughs, depending on your
religion). Then you're going to apply your own brand of reasoning to try and convince me that,
based on the preponderence of [false] evidence, your conclusion must be true and this imaginary
friend is real.
Well... I rank that right up there with UFO abductions and anal probing... there's lots of
evidence THAT happened also... and the witnesses to that are still alive today. The more
I think of it, the more religion and science-fiction have in common.
For every piece of "evidence" you can present to me showing that your imaginary friend must be
real, I can present to you passages from Mormon scripture that shows your imaginary friend is
a fraud, and that you will not be saved unless you embrace Mormonism now or in the afterlife.