Most people interoperate this to mean that God knew which people where going to hell, before he made them.
Third.. all this not withstanding, there is a prevalent belief among Christians that all men have been given a free will. Given these (and more) scriptures on the subject. It would seem that a person has as much free will as to where they will spend eternity as if I pushed you off a building and let you choose whether or not you hit the ground.
This is what in science is called a "logical fallacy ". If god created people knowing they would go to hell. Then there is no way you can believe that they have free will. You can have it one way or the other, not both.
This is only a logical fallacy if God has to operate within the confines of time, which, in theory, he invented, and so therefore does not have to operate within that confine. It is certainly possible for Him to create people with free will, but also to know which ones are going to choose to worship Him and which aren't.
With a flexible interpretation of logic and a lot of creativity religious people make anything fit within their world view. When they find out some part of it is definitely false they just bring their creativity and imagination back into play to create a new story and convince themselves it was true all along.
Hmm, kind of like evolution and global warming. Seems like this is not just a "religious people" trait, but an "all people" trait.
Nobody has ever asked me the question of whether the stories in the Bible are literal or not, but if they did, I surely wouldn't know how to answer. Some of the stories are clearly literal and others are clearly allegorical. So how do you say the stories are Literal or not? The studies premise is flawed and therefore the results are flawed.
I'm an atheist because there is no reason to believe in any religion.
That doesn't make you an atheist. An atheist is someone who is absolutely certain that there is no God. Not one who doesn't see any reason to believe in a God. What you are describing would be more like an agnostic. An agnostic admits to not knowing whether there is a God or not (and may also not care if there is or not).
When we don't know something, we don't make up an answer and believe in it whole-heartedly. We admit we don't know and try and figure it out.
That also describes an agnostic. An atheist cannot know that there is no God, yet they hold the belief that there is no God to be true and don't try to figure out whether it is true or not.
But, God is omnipotent right? He doesn't need tools.
See how just a little thought about physics causes you to reject one of the most fundamental claims about God, his omnipotence.
Wow, way to knock over that strawman you set up.
Just because you know how to do a job yourself, do you not write a script to do it for you?
When people write new programming languages, do they write them without any keywords or syntax?
Just because you use a tool, does that imply that you could not do the job without it?
Considering that belief is the opposite of thinking, they would have to be negatively correlated.
But since belief is NOT the opposite of thinking, they are not negatively correlated. Example: When you are a child, your parents tell you lots of things, and you believe them. Hopefully they told you things that were true, but your mind would not have been capable of understanding why they were true. You just believed. Later, when you had developed more and had more education, you were able to analyze and understand why the things you were told were true.
Although this article is certainly spun to imply that religious people believe in ridiculous, untrue things, the plain fact is that as soon as you have an understanding of something, even a religious something (assuming it was true), you no longer have to have faith in that belief, because now it is proven.
Yeah, right. How many letters did they write and what other methods did they try to correct whatever perceived transgression had occurred before they decided to kill thousands of uninvolved civilians?
There's nothing wrong with going ahead and boarding your plane calmly and the afterwards, perhaps after your return, going to the police office and filing charges of "reckless endangerment of a child" against the TSA agents who let the child wander off alone.
For that matter, more bearing on this case, there is no reason not to file kidnapping and lewd acts with a minor against the TSA agent that took the child into a separate room. It probably won't stick, but just having an accusation like that on the record would be a black mark against them.
Until I can afford to charter private flights I will not be flying with my family.
Fortunately, the security theater has made it so expensive that you can't afford to fly with your family unless you are extremely wealthy anyway.
Those of us who will still fly will appreciate the extra room on the planes and the lower fares.
There will be more room on the planes until they catch on and reduce the number of flights or the size of the planes. As far as reducing the fares, I don't see that happening at all. Lower number of passengers means higher cost per passenger.
You! Hey you! Yeah, the one who bought that pistol that you got a conceal-carry permit for. Yeah, and you tell your friends it's your Constitutional Right? Yeah you. You know, if you got more hugs as a child, or hadn't been bullied to death in grade school, or had a friendly network of confidants who positively support you, instead of all the toys in your house that keep you "entertained" I'll bet you wouldn't need to walk around thinking you're some sort of badass who's going to hold out at the Ok Corral when the bullets start flying in Nowheresville, Suburbia.
I'm not sure how you figure gun ownership has anything to do with all this security hoopla. You seem to have an irrational hatred for people who want to own guns. Perhaps if you feel that strongly, you should organize a group to repeal the second amendment. I'm not sure what has you all bothered about legally owning weapons. Perhaps you were bullied as a child, or didn't get enough hugs or don't have a friendly network of confidants who positively support you.
americans really thing others country were outraged by 9-11, when in fact most of them knew they deserved it.
No country deserves to have something like 9/11 happen. Hopefully you are just a troll.
You could say that the actors then had no free will, or you could imagine a scenario where somehow the actions of all three were entangled via an earlier free will choice.
Or something non-observable already contains the information about the entanglement and the acts of Victor, Alice and Bob are all determined by the non-observable information holder.
With one of these you get this effect all the time, they go haywire *before* you do anything wrong...
Not only does the effect start before you do anything wrong, but the effect lasts forever, despite the underlying circumstance having no current relevancy.
What this article is saying, is that victor's decision to entangle his photons has a direct effect on the results that alice and bob get from their double blind measurements.
Professor Farnsworth: "No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"
"This study is invalid, Causation does not imply Correlation" posts.
Well, I would have posted that, but I had information before I posted that someone had already posted one.
Stories like that happen in every state. Heck, I have had the state threaten to take my children away. The crappy ADT fire alarm went off even though there wasn't a fire. This happened about once a month until I finally decided to disable the fire alarm. (Don't worry, we still have smoke detectors, just not monitored because ADT thinks I should pay to have their crappy equipment maintenanced). Anyway, the fire department showed up even though the babysitter said there wasn't a fire and then they insisted that she needed to show them the upper floor to prove it wasn't on fire. So she took them upstairs. When they came back down, they acted flabbergasted that she had gone to a different floor of the house while the babies were sleeping in their crib, even though she had gone at their request. I looked it up and it is in fact illegal for you to be on a different floor of your house from infant children. So they threatened to take my children away. Fortunately, I was able to fight off the state. our state has more than 400 children in their custody that they are unable to account for at all. Additionally, dozens of children die every year as wards of the state, often after being placed with someone who beats the child to death. Unless you are someone who beats your child to death or sells them for drugs, your children are still likely better off with you than with the state.
Strange, Classic ASP doesn't seem to be on the list anywhere. Some people where I work seem to think that our "enterprise" processing system is just fine written in Classic ASP. Well, at least they migrated most of the Access crap to Classic ASP. Baby steps.
Which comes out a little over a buck twenty five for a CRT and more than a quarter per year on an LCD using those parameters for one person.
That is definitely not enough to overcome the cost of discomfort of trying to read the hideous light on dark at blackle.com.
Their data clearly shows that a CRT displaying all white uses 85W, and the same monitor displaying all black uses 63W, which sounds to me like it's using 25% less power to display the black screen. For an LCD the difference is only about 10%.
How much more does it cost to repair the headaches and/or damage to the eyes from reading white text on a black background?
If the damn bulb (and thus, the technology behind it) was so damn good, I'd buy it.
Heck, if it was so good, they would offer you free replacement cost if it stops working in that 20 years. If I saw a 20 year warranty, I might even consider paying as much as $3 to $4 for it.
If an incandescent bulb costs you $1.00 to buy, but $10.00 per month to operate, and lasts only one year, and an LED bulb that costs $60 to buy, $1.67 per month to operate, and lasts 20 years, which would you buy? Most people are actually really stupid, and continue to buy the $1 bulbs because they're "cheaper", not realizing the real difference is $121 per year vs. $23 per year. I'm suspecting that you'd be smart enough to eventually decide "the light from this $1 bulb isn't worth the extra $98 per year."
While we are doing what ifs: What if an incandescent bulb only costs 50 cents (results of a quick search at Lowes.com) and costs only $5 a month to operate (assuming a 100 watt bulb which is way too high and leaving it on 75% of the time, which nobody would do). And what if the bulb lasted two years, as is typical of incandescent bulbs. My electric bill has not diminished any due to using CFLs and in fact is about double what it was 4 years ago, so let's assume the $60 lightbulb will cost exactly the same amount to operate as an incandescent. Also, CFLs tend to last not nearly as long as Incandescents and I have no reason nor any evidence to believe LEDs will do any better, so we will assume it will last one year. So by buying Incandescent, your yearly cost will be about $60.25, versus if you bought the new bulbs, it would be about $120.
When the bulb will last 20 years
Can they point to evidence of one of these that has lasted 20 years? Of course not, because they only just invented them. They said they same thing about CFLs, justifying the fact that the cost 20 times what an incandescent costs by touting how much you will save in electricity and how they will last for 7 years. Well, I have replaced most of my CFLs already and I just started buying them three or four years ago and my electric bill on average is about twice what it was 4 years ago. So neither of their claims is true. So i see no reason to believe the claims on this bulb either. Make the price 60 cents per bulb instead of $60 and I will think about it.
Option 4: Do NOT buy or repair your toaster oven until you can afford a much higher quality replacement.
Unfortunately, in my experience, the premium items break down just as frequently as the cheap crap, but are more expensive to repair, either professionally or DIY because they make the repair parts cost 50% of the price of a new unit.
As an example, I have a Maytag washing machine which cost about $1100. Maytag is the one with the commercials of the repairman sitting around doing nothing because nobody ever calls in. Well, it has broken down on me about 5 times. Twice, it has been the circuitboard, which has to be replaced in its entirety and costs well over $100. The most recent item was a cracked outflow pump housing. How did it crack? Why, pennies got into the housing. But how can that be? They've been in the business 100 years. Surely they learned in the second year of business that they need to have a screen or boot to catch small items that unintentionally got into the washer. Cheap imported washers have them. Of course, they do not sell the housing by itself, but you have to buy the pump as well. The unit costs about $100. So I bought a $4 tube of JB Weld Marine and fixed it myself. Apparently, this same problem has happened to a lot of people because I googled it to find out what others had done to fix it.
We're not going to get people to stop buying cheap Chinese junk until the expensive American junk exceeds the quality of the cheap Chinese junk.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people interoperate this to mean that God knew which people where going to hell, before he made them.
Third.. all this not withstanding, there is a prevalent belief among Christians that all men have been given a free will. Given these (and more) scriptures on the subject. It would seem that a person has as much free will as to where they will spend eternity as if I pushed you off a building and let you choose whether or not you hit the ground.
This is what in science is called a "logical fallacy ". If god created people knowing they would go to hell. Then there is no way you can believe that they have free will. You can have it one way or the other, not both.
This is only a logical fallacy if God has to operate within the confines of time, which, in theory, he invented, and so therefore does not have to operate within that confine. It is certainly possible for Him to create people with free will, but also to know which ones are going to choose to worship Him and which aren't.
With a flexible interpretation of logic and a lot of creativity religious people make anything fit within their world view. When they find out some part of it is definitely false they just bring their creativity and imagination back into play to create a new story and convince themselves it was true all along.
Hmm, kind of like evolution and global warming. Seems like this is not just a "religious people" trait, but an "all people" trait.
Nobody has ever asked me the question of whether the stories in the Bible are literal or not, but if they did, I surely wouldn't know how to answer. Some of the stories are clearly literal and others are clearly allegorical. So how do you say the stories are Literal or not? The studies premise is flawed and therefore the results are flawed.
I'm an atheist because there is no reason to believe in any religion.
That doesn't make you an atheist. An atheist is someone who is absolutely certain that there is no God. Not one who doesn't see any reason to believe in a God. What you are describing would be more like an agnostic. An agnostic admits to not knowing whether there is a God or not (and may also not care if there is or not). When we don't know something, we don't make up an answer and believe in it whole-heartedly. We admit we don't know and try and figure it out.
That also describes an agnostic. An atheist cannot know that there is no God, yet they hold the belief that there is no God to be true and don't try to figure out whether it is true or not.
But, God is omnipotent right? He doesn't need tools.
See how just a little thought about physics causes you to reject one of the most fundamental claims about God, his omnipotence.
Wow, way to knock over that strawman you set up.
Just because you know how to do a job yourself, do you not write a script to do it for you?
When people write new programming languages, do they write them without any keywords or syntax?
Just because you use a tool, does that imply that you could not do the job without it?
Considering that belief is the opposite of thinking, they would have to be negatively correlated.
But since belief is NOT the opposite of thinking, they are not negatively correlated. Example: When you are a child, your parents tell you lots of things, and you believe them. Hopefully they told you things that were true, but your mind would not have been capable of understanding why they were true. You just believed. Later, when you had developed more and had more education, you were able to analyze and understand why the things you were told were true.
Although this article is certainly spun to imply that religious people believe in ridiculous, untrue things, the plain fact is that as soon as you have an understanding of something, even a religious something (assuming it was true), you no longer have to have faith in that belief, because now it is proven.
Yeah, right. How many letters did they write and what other methods did they try to correct whatever perceived transgression had occurred before they decided to kill thousands of uninvolved civilians?
There's nothing wrong with going ahead and boarding your plane calmly and the afterwards, perhaps after your return, going to the police office and filing charges of "reckless endangerment of a child" against the TSA agents who let the child wander off alone.
For that matter, more bearing on this case, there is no reason not to file kidnapping and lewd acts with a minor against the TSA agent that took the child into a separate room. It probably won't stick, but just having an accusation like that on the record would be a black mark against them.
Until I can afford to charter private flights I will not be flying with my family.
Fortunately, the security theater has made it so expensive that you can't afford to fly with your family unless you are extremely wealthy anyway.
Those of us who will still fly will appreciate the extra room on the planes and the lower fares.
There will be more room on the planes until they catch on and reduce the number of flights or the size of the planes. As far as reducing the fares, I don't see that happening at all. Lower number of passengers means higher cost per passenger.
You! Hey you! Yeah, the one who bought that pistol that you got a conceal-carry permit for. Yeah, and you tell your friends it's your Constitutional Right? Yeah you. You know, if you got more hugs as a child, or hadn't been bullied to death in grade school, or had a friendly network of confidants who positively support you, instead of all the toys in your house that keep you "entertained" I'll bet you wouldn't need to walk around thinking you're some sort of badass who's going to hold out at the Ok Corral when the bullets start flying in Nowheresville, Suburbia.
I'm not sure how you figure gun ownership has anything to do with all this security hoopla. You seem to have an irrational hatred for people who want to own guns. Perhaps if you feel that strongly, you should organize a group to repeal the second amendment. I'm not sure what has you all bothered about legally owning weapons. Perhaps you were bullied as a child, or didn't get enough hugs or don't have a friendly network of confidants who positively support you.
americans really thing others country were outraged by 9-11, when in fact most of them knew they deserved it.
No country deserves to have something like 9/11 happen. Hopefully you are just a troll.
You could say that the actors then had no free will, or you could imagine a scenario where somehow the actions of all three were entangled via an earlier free will choice.
Or something non-observable already contains the information about the entanglement and the acts of Victor, Alice and Bob are all determined by the non-observable information holder.
With one of these you get this effect all the time, they go haywire *before* you do anything wrong...
Not only does the effect start before you do anything wrong, but the effect lasts forever, despite the underlying circumstance having no current relevancy.
What this article is saying, is that victor's decision to entangle his photons has a direct effect on the results that alice and bob get from their double blind measurements.
Professor Farnsworth: "No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"
"This study is invalid, Causation does not imply Correlation" posts.
Well, I would have posted that, but I had information before I posted that someone had already posted one.
Stories like that happen in every state. Heck, I have had the state threaten to take my children away. The crappy ADT fire alarm went off even though there wasn't a fire. This happened about once a month until I finally decided to disable the fire alarm. (Don't worry, we still have smoke detectors, just not monitored because ADT thinks I should pay to have their crappy equipment maintenanced). Anyway, the fire department showed up even though the babysitter said there wasn't a fire and then they insisted that she needed to show them the upper floor to prove it wasn't on fire. So she took them upstairs. When they came back down, they acted flabbergasted that she had gone to a different floor of the house while the babies were sleeping in their crib, even though she had gone at their request. I looked it up and it is in fact illegal for you to be on a different floor of your house from infant children. So they threatened to take my children away. Fortunately, I was able to fight off the state. our state has more than 400 children in their custody that they are unable to account for at all. Additionally, dozens of children die every year as wards of the state, often after being placed with someone who beats the child to death. Unless you are someone who beats your child to death or sells them for drugs, your children are still likely better off with you than with the state.
Strange, Classic ASP doesn't seem to be on the list anywhere. Some people where I work seem to think that our "enterprise" processing system is just fine written in Classic ASP. Well, at least they migrated most of the Access crap to Classic ASP. Baby steps.
In the case of SpaceX, the problem probably is that they have too many windows open.
Which comes out a little over a buck twenty five for a CRT and more than a quarter per year on an LCD using those parameters for one person.
That is definitely not enough to overcome the cost of discomfort of trying to read the hideous light on dark at blackle.com.
Their data clearly shows that a CRT displaying all white uses 85W, and the same monitor displaying all black uses 63W, which sounds to me like it's using 25% less power to display the black screen. For an LCD the difference is only about 10%.
How much more does it cost to repair the headaches and/or damage to the eyes from reading white text on a black background?
If the damn bulb (and thus, the technology behind it) was so damn good, I'd buy it.
Heck, if it was so good, they would offer you free replacement cost if it stops working in that 20 years. If I saw a 20 year warranty, I might even consider paying as much as $3 to $4 for it.
If an incandescent bulb costs you $1.00 to buy, but $10.00 per month to operate, and lasts only one year, and an LED bulb that costs $60 to buy, $1.67 per month to operate, and lasts 20 years, which would you buy? Most people are actually really stupid, and continue to buy the $1 bulbs because they're "cheaper", not realizing the real difference is $121 per year vs. $23 per year. I'm suspecting that you'd be smart enough to eventually decide "the light from this $1 bulb isn't worth the extra $98 per year."
While we are doing what ifs: What if an incandescent bulb only costs 50 cents (results of a quick search at Lowes.com) and costs only $5 a month to operate (assuming a 100 watt bulb which is way too high and leaving it on 75% of the time, which nobody would do). And what if the bulb lasted two years, as is typical of incandescent bulbs. My electric bill has not diminished any due to using CFLs and in fact is about double what it was 4 years ago, so let's assume the $60 lightbulb will cost exactly the same amount to operate as an incandescent. Also, CFLs tend to last not nearly as long as Incandescents and I have no reason nor any evidence to believe LEDs will do any better, so we will assume it will last one year. So by buying Incandescent, your yearly cost will be about $60.25, versus if you bought the new bulbs, it would be about $120.
When the bulb will last 20 years
Can they point to evidence of one of these that has lasted 20 years? Of course not, because they only just invented them. They said they same thing about CFLs, justifying the fact that the cost 20 times what an incandescent costs by touting how much you will save in electricity and how they will last for 7 years. Well, I have replaced most of my CFLs already and I just started buying them three or four years ago and my electric bill on average is about twice what it was 4 years ago. So neither of their claims is true. So i see no reason to believe the claims on this bulb either. Make the price 60 cents per bulb instead of $60 and I will think about it.
Option 4: Do NOT buy or repair your toaster oven until you can afford a much higher quality replacement.
Unfortunately, in my experience, the premium items break down just as frequently as the cheap crap, but are more expensive to repair, either professionally or DIY because they make the repair parts cost 50% of the price of a new unit.
As an example, I have a Maytag washing machine which cost about $1100. Maytag is the one with the commercials of the repairman sitting around doing nothing because nobody ever calls in. Well, it has broken down on me about 5 times. Twice, it has been the circuitboard, which has to be replaced in its entirety and costs well over $100. The most recent item was a cracked outflow pump housing. How did it crack? Why, pennies got into the housing. But how can that be? They've been in the business 100 years. Surely they learned in the second year of business that they need to have a screen or boot to catch small items that unintentionally got into the washer. Cheap imported washers have them. Of course, they do not sell the housing by itself, but you have to buy the pump as well. The unit costs about $100. So I bought a $4 tube of JB Weld Marine and fixed it myself. Apparently, this same problem has happened to a lot of people because I googled it to find out what others had done to fix it.
We're not going to get people to stop buying cheap Chinese junk until the expensive American junk exceeds the quality of the cheap Chinese junk.