So, really, I don't see how the time is nigh for civil disobedience when, really, all that is going on here is that RIAA is suing people that are ripping them off, or knowingly aiding and abetting those that are ripping them off.
And now we come to the basis of our disagreement. You say that the mp3 traders are ripping off the RIAA, I say they're not, they're exercising "fair use rights", and that if federal law restricts those rights, then the law is unjust. That's all. Nothing big.:) Just the reason we began the discussion is the same place we ended up, traversing the entire circle and failing to convince one another of our own subjective points of view.
Unless you have any objections, can we consider our discussion at an end? Since we just wound up back at the beginning...
If a law is unjust, you fight it -- IN COURT FIRST.
Boston Tea Party came after things were done through British courts, brush up on your history.
I take it then that these laws haven't been fought in court? What was Napster all about, then? Eh? Isn't this story about RIAA suing college kids? It has been fought in court, it will continue to be fought in court. In my assessment, it's about time to protest with civil disobedience, to continue bringing the matter to court or to incite further oppressive measures that may result in a catalyst capable of motivating enough people to actually overthrow the establish.
But yes, absolutely, this has been fought in court first and foremost, and that requirement of yours has been met. Thanks for pointing that out for me, I had failed to notice it so far.
Since you didn't reply to my post in one single post, I'm going to pull all three and respond here.:)
What would you define as "religion?" Are you rejecting any belief in any kind of god? Does it seem to you that it's more reasonable to believe in all the weirdness and inexplicability of the physical universe than in God? As you've mentioned, it requires faith to believe in the usefulness of Science (I believe in that) and the trustworthiness of other people. I'm not trying to convince you of the existence in God, so please don't be offended. Maybe we can agree that belief in God is no more unreasonable than a lack of belief.
First of all, I'm not rejecting belief, I'm rejecting the existing evidence as biased and unsubstantiated, with no corroboration outside of itself. Kinda like taking "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" as a historical fact.
Dictionary.com provides this definition of religion:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Sorry about the shitty formatting.
The only reason the universe appears weird and inexplicable is because we don't understand it, and many times new things strike us as weird. However, we only have this one frame of reference, so there's no reason to think our universe is weird. In order to determine it's weird, we would have to become acquainted with a good statistical sampling of universes, determine what is "normal" in a universe, and finally that our universe has many traits that are not normal, and lacks many that are. It does not require faith to believe in the usefulness of science, that's not what I said. You can observe the products of science and conclude that it's useful. It requires faith in yourself as a researcher in order to pursue science. It also requires a certain amount of skepticism in yourself to keep your research and conclusions objective. It also requires faith in the researchers, but science also has methods of self-correction (being able to duplicate experiment results, etc.). Religion has no objectivity, nor does it have any method of self-correction when it's found to be flawed. So science is constantly evolving and changing with the times, while religion is struggling to keep up and constantly bringing about more contradictions just to keep people around.
Also, I haven't yet been offended.:) Considering what I've already been through over religion, a discussion on slashdot isn't going to offend me.:) However, I can not agree that belief in God is no more unreasonable than a lack of belief, because before you believe in god, you must have a lack of belief. Lack of belief is the state in which you are born, and belief is put there during your upbringing, or brought about through other means in your adult life. And no, just because you're born without belief doesn't validate lack of belief, you're also born without being able to speak, that doesn't mean you shouldn't adopt language. The point is, when the people from whom religion is delivered come into question, and you have no objective or personal subjective evidence to corroborate them, then the path of reason is to retreat back to a state of disbelief. I have done so, and have yet seen no reason to advance into religion. In the meantime, I've advanced in other directions that may or may not have been possible with religion. No way of ever knowing, really.
First of all, if I came off as self-righteous, I'm sorry. Secondly, it sounds like we agree on the usefulness of both faith and reason. Third, it seems that some of my comments about LDS were biased, as pointed out by an actu
That's BS, quite frankly. Ancient man didn't have the science we do, so their theories about a flat earth and such are certainly questionable--even discarded at this point. But much of the Bible, for example, are stories of what ancient people lived, saw and, in some cases, supposedly received directly from God.
In the case of the Old Testament, the stories were passed down for generations before they were ever put in writing. Furthermore, every story in the Old Testament has much older variants in other civilizations. The Egyptians have stories of magicians (followers of a pantheon of gods, not one "true" god) walking on water, parting the seas, and so forth. One in particular has a pharoah having a magician part the sees so that he can retrieve a ring dropped by a slave. All stories that predate the Old Testament. Mind you, the Old Testament (with the exception of Genesis) takes place during the height/fall of the Egyptian empire.
Anyway, those stories are almost certainly warped with the passing of time, and the oral traditions involved.
In the case of the New Testament, many of those were indeed penned (quilled?) before Jesus' death. However, it's only 2000 years old, roundabout, and there's no archaeological evidence to support it. IIRC, there's no Roman record of a governor (or whatever the title is) named "Pontius Pilate". The Romans were very thorough about their documentation. We have Julius Caesar's autobiography, that of Brutus, and another biography written about Caesar, and those men lived several centuries before Jesus. But we have no record of Jesus, save the New Testament.
To buy into what you're saying you have to essentially believe that all the people that witnessed Biblical events, wrote them down, or received them from God, were outright liars. You can believe what you want, but there isn't any evidence (that I know of) that indicates that they were liars.
You're right, there's no evidence to believe they were outright liars, and believing so of these people isn't a requirement. We've seen people duped over plenty of other things, historically. Hitler duped his people to some extent (although the story isn't as clear cut as my one sentence summary). Lenin was able to rally a great deal of support for the Communist revolution. In more mundane areas, many people believed that the Titanic was unsinkable. We don't have to accuse anyone in biblical times of lying or believing in a hoax, we know that the psychology of people allows for such believe whether it's true or not. Widespread belief doesn't make something real, but it can provide the illusion of reality. In spite of widespread belief, though, we find communism failing or regressing into totalitarian dictatorships (rather than rule by the people, which it's supposed to be). We find that Hitler was in fact an evil man doing evil things. And, of course, the Titanic sunk. And it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how many people believed otherwise in any of these cases.
They saw, they lived, they wrote it down. It's history.
Don't you know that eyewitnesses are the worst form of testimony? Eyewitnesses see something, and when they recount it later it's filled with bias and prejudice. Lawyers (good ones) can manipulate or discredit the testimony of eyewitnesses in an interactive fashion. Of course, the eyewitnesses in the Bible are no longer here for interactive discussion. However, it's a pretty good bet that if you showed one of them a flashlight, they'd think it was magic and would either decide you were evil, or would believe anything you said. Regardless of that little facet of the psychology in the biblical time, it's also important to note that many of Jesus' contemporaries, as presented in the bible, did not agree with him. Christianity was a persecuted minority for many centuries. Thanks to the Dark Ages, the church was able to assert a great deal of control over the population, and Christianity finally rose up to be the dominant re
I think you've watched "The Devil's Advocate" one too many times...:)
Funny you should say that, I've never seen The Devil's Advocate. But if you're interested in overanalysis of a popular Christian country song, read on....:)
In the song "The Devil Down in Georgia", Charlie Daniels depicts a story that goes something like this:
First, the devil shows up behind on soul-stealing for the quarter (or whatever). So he goes to Georgia and sees a kid playing a fiddle. He challenges the kid to a contest. If the kid wins, he gets a golden fiddle. If he loses, the devil gets his soul. Simple enough. Johnny's the kid's name, of course, and he says "It might be a sin, but I'll take your bet" etc. So, the devil plays, then johnny plays. Johnny, of course, wins, because no matter how powerful, dangerous, and evil the Devil is, he always loses. Upon winning, the Devil gives Johnny the fiddle, and Johnny says "Devil just come on back if you ever wanna try again, I done tol' you once you son of a bitch I'm the best that's ever been."
The Devil makes a deal with the boy. So he makes a promise. It's not gambling, it's a contest of skills, with the most skilled player winning. We hear the Devil play his solo, and it sounds pretty good. We never hear Johnny's solo (although in a live performance, they might play another solo for Johnny), instead we just hear the theme of the song replayed. True to his word, the Devil graciously bows, and hands over the fiddle. In a not-surprising display of poor sportsmanship, Johnny calls him a "son of a bitch" and using some other violently-charged words against the Devil. With humility, however, the Devil does his worst, loses, and leaves. While pride is one of the seven deadliest sins, we don't know if Johnny actually subscribes to them. But we do know that the Devil played fair and stayed true to his word, and was thoroughly mistreated by his opponent.
Death is simple, your body can no longer function so therefore you rot away and eventualy become part of the earth. I'll admit that waht your saying is based no more on fact than what im saying... I'm just stating how i see things from my point of view.
Eh? Where did I err in fact? I try very hard to present fact while I'm creating confusion, where did I leave out fact? All we know about death is that your body ceases to function, rots away eventually, and returns to the earth from whence it came. That's it. We do not know if there is or isn't any special life energy (or soul, or whatever) that lives on. We do know enough to say that it's a plausible possibility, but we do not know enough to either prove or disprove it. Maybe some day, we'll know for sure. In the meantime, we have to live with our ignorance while those who are actually researching it somehow try to find out. (mostly I'm talking about physicists, but if you like you can include paranormal investigators and all the other NPR nuts in the group)
Your statement about how you see things from your point of view is representative of objective observation from most people, if they're willing to provide an objective observation. All tales that I've seen/heard/read (quite a few) that involve life after death in some form or other are highly subjective in nature, and therefore inadmissible as factual evidence. While a subjective experience can certainly be a catalyst to help bring about objective research to prove the subjective experience, we are still lacking that complete body of research.
Have I left out anything? I'm saying basically that I'm absolutely right, and we're in agreement about what we know happens when we die. Perhaps our only disagreements are these:
You concluded, incorrectly, that I was somehow religious based on the pool of logic I presented.
You appear to think, although I'm not trying to represent your thoughts, but you appear to think that death is the end of life. I do not think one way or another about this, I only admit my ignorance on the matter and show how I do not let this ignorance dictate my beliefs or influence my life in any large part.
In the first case, I posted to ask you to re-read my post so that you could see that I wasn't trying to argue in favor of religion, but was using religious argument instead to show the original poster how his logic was flawed. In the second case, if there is a disagreement there, it's only because I don't think it's necessary to know or care what happens after death, at this time. If facts are to surface to change my attitude on the matter, then I might well change it. Until then, I have to live with my ignorance, and I've no problem with that.
Most importantly, I'd like to know where I've said anything that's not based on fact, at this time. I suppose that's the third disagreement we're having.:)
It seems to me that you base your rejection of God, based on faith that origin studies in science are correct. There are those that would not agree with your statements about "ancient man". I'd also make the point that the Greeks did a wonderful job of showing us what gods made up by men would be like. True I'm no more willing to give up my position than you, but I wouldn't call it blind faith.
Archaeological evidence indicates the religion predates the Greeks on the order of 10,000 years. I wasn't talking about the Greeks, by the time the Greeks created their religion, they're vision was already clouded by thousands of years of religion. Religion, at its core, hasn't changed much from even historical times, and indications are that it hasn't changed much from prehistorical times either. There are times when its better to throw out old traditions in order to think clearly, and this is one of those times.
I base my rejection of religion in general on a whole lot of things, and slashdot doesn't have enough hard drive space for me to give you the verbiage that would represent an almost complete dissertation of my views on the subject.
All things have a beginning? How does the set of all integers have a beginning?
Hey dude, you just trying to argumentative or did you read my post? I presented the logic that's been given to me about why you should believe in god. Hopefully I showed the guy the circular reasoning in this more common instance, and also showed him how is reasoning was flawed for the same reason. It's circular. Did you actually conclude that I believe that tripe?:)
You feel better because you were preaching to the choir? Re-read my post. I used the same logic that has been presented to me by countless missionaries to show him how his logic was flawed because it was circular.
As far as the whole life after death issue, why the hell can't people just say "I don't know what happens when I die" just like they can say "I don't know what I'll be like when I'm 50"? Why worry so much about it? You'll find out when you die, if you live that long. It's easier to live in ignorance when you can admit your ignorance, and after admitting your ignorance you might find a more satisfying lifestyle. Not you specifically, though.
But definitely re-read my post before deciding I'm a religious zealot. Then read some of my other posts in this thread. I don't give a shit what you think about me, as long as your opinion is based on something resembling solid facts. Or that you at least have access to those facts even if you don't wish to accept them.
God is attempting to rescue as many people from the pit of hell as possible.
What's so bad about hell that God doesn't want us to go there? Furthermore, why haven't we heard the Prince of Hell's own side of the story? Where I grew up, we like to consider at least 2 sides of any story before we make a judgement.
Based solely on God's side of the story, as presented in teh King James translation of the Bible, I have to say that I would prefer to oppose God and go straight to hell than live in his dystopia. I will be free, and Jesus can't stop me.
Ok, now I'm awake and better prepared to respond.:) You may not like me after this, since I previously only gave you a subset of my thoughts. We'll see.
I believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, personal God. I believe he has always existed and will always exist. I've also been interested in Science and Science Fiction from a very young age, so I've been thinking about questions like this for a long time. I don't see any inherent contradiction between the Christian God and the theories discussed in the article.
There aren't any inherent contradictions between the Christian God and all of modern science, real or imagined. The problem is that the basis of this god is that he is both all-powerful and all-wise, and that we're not smart enough to understand his ways. I reject that completely. More on that in a moment. If the god is all-powerful, then he can easily have created this entire universe to be well within the bounds of anything modern science is capable of discovering, as well as adding shit that science can never hope to uncover. He is also capable of putting a heaven up in the skies that we may or may not actually find through space exploration.
The thing about the all-powerful god belief, though, is that it has roots in two things, and two things only. Ancient man looking for an explanation for everything around him (his pain, suffering, hunger, disasters, the suffering of others, etc.), and since he is essentially a good person he is wanting to find a good reason for all of this. His primitive mind isn't capable of grasping many concepts (including the round earth, the fact that the stars are physically located somewhere, the fact that air is gaseous matter, etc) the only explanation he can come up with is that there's a being or beings responsible for making the world. In our more modern times, it's very easy to see how ancient man wasn't equipped to come up with a solution, and therefore his solution comes into question. We also know that procedurally we do not have to offer a better explanation in order to dismiss the old one. We can dismiss the old because ancient man's credibility is in question, and all the so-called proofs offered over the years are also in question since they were viewed originally under the bias of belief that is now under question.
Both faith and reason are very important in being human. Science wouldn't advance if the Scientists didn't have faith in theories that haven't been proven yet. Faith in God wouldn't be possible without being able to observe evidence and understand His relationship to us.
I partially responded to this already, but here goes again. I might just be re-iterating what I already said.:)
Faith is useful as a tool, in fact necessary. Trust and faith go hand in hand. I trust my wife not to do anything to hurt our marriage, and I have faith in her. Realistically, I don't have any more or less reason to have faith in her than I do with a lot of other people, but that doesn't play into it. I know her well, and I know that I can trust her to do certain things under certain circumstances. Anyway, without faith, marriage and relationships in general have a tendency to fall apart. The scientific method isn't useful in managing your relationships, so another tool is needed. Also note: mathematical postulates are also a form of faith. They represent stuff that is observed but unproven, and at any moment it's possible that someone will disprove a founding postulate that brings all mathematical wisdom crumbling down.
We also have to have faith in ourselves, trust in our experiences, etc. We cannot even apply the scientific method in any meaningful sense without faith in ourselves, or else we must question all observations. Conversely, a certain amount of skepticism over ourselves balances overwhelming faith and prevents it from tainting observations and the resulting conclusions.
The most important thing that we must accept with faith is tha
Well I find it very strange that you have such low esteem of science, "the new religion". You do realize that medicine, computers, and the modern economy are all products of science. so, your arguement is, because scientists (and theologians and mathematicians and philosophers) thought the earth was flat at one point, and then went on to make brilliant discoveries about the way the world works.....wait.... what the hell IS your arguement? You are clearly a complete fuckhead.
My argument is real simple, dude. I'm expressing skepticism that any psychologist, or any scientific study at this time is capable of determing whether or not playing violent video games makes people into psychotic killers. Your argument, on the other hand, has changed quite a few times, the only commonality being that you're a scientist, and somehow qualified to change your argument to suit the speaker. Like any scientist, when a skeptic comes along and doesn't buy into what you're saying, you resort to name-calling quite quickly, and follow it up by accusing a person of being "in the dark ages".
You're no scientist, or you're very representative of exactly what I was saying about the scientific community. Either way, following the rules of flame wars, you're a nazi, and that ends the flame war.:)
Let me point out your hyporacy in case you didnt pick up on it: You call science the new religion, and then take the same standpoint ancient religious zealots have towards it.
Can't read, can't write, did you go to public school? Looks like you're reading comprehension skills need some work, too. Heh. I've taken the standpoint of a skeptic, not a zealot. I reject scientific studies for the most part because most of them are politically motivated. That means I reject most of your argument, and most of your brain.
Don't make the mistake of looking at one group of religious people that have turned their brains off and think that all belief in God is brainless
I'm about to go to bed, so I don't have time to write a lengthy reply, but here's what I've got:
I have most certainly not made the mistake of looking at one group of religious people et al like you said and deciding that belief in God is brainless. Basic belief in God isn't necessarily brainless. Blindly following someone else's words or path or whatever is brainless, and modern religion is at least 90% comprived of such brainlessness. Blind faith is as stupid as requiring objective reasoning and scientific method behind every thought. Both are tools to be used at times when it is beneficial to the individual, or to the society. Dependence on one over the other is dangerous and stupid.
I'll keep the notification and come back tomorrow when I'm better rested and respond to the whole thing. Make no mistake about it, though, I have met/talked to/et al a decent representative sample of most Christian sects that exist in the US. I have not made a prejudiced judgement, although I do act the bigot sometimes. Shakespeare said something about that...
While I agree in general, I have to say that this particular article is not fluff at all. It's about rigorous science, and I found it to be intelligently written.
Of course it was intelligently written. The premise was blatantly stolen from the same book out of which the first two paragraphs were completely plagiarized! The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
From this, i concluded that there cannot be a begining. If there was a begining, then something must have caused that begining, and so something was there before the begining.
You need to talk to some missionaries to find the answer, dude. It's simple:
There was a beginning, because all things have a beginning. Something must have caused that beginning. Since the world is so well ordered, that something must be intelligent, all-powerful, wise, with a slightly balding head and a long wispy beard. Let's worship him, for He is God.
Anyway, all jokes aside, your logic in that sentence suffers the same elementary flaw that the mormon logic suffers from (and others, but that's what I heard from the mormon's mouth). It's circular.
An considering this topic is one that reaches FAR BEYOND what YOU think about video games, its a good idea to bring up that little foundation of our society, SCIENCE.
Ah yes, the new religion. Fuck it and all the
hope you dont think even for a SECOND that your obscure experience that here takes the form of untestable anecdotal evidence somehow qualifies as coutner evidence to the findings of THOUSANDS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.
other theologies out there.
Isn't this the same group that once believe the earth was flat? Is this the same group that once had irrefutable proof that you could not go faster than the speed of sound?
Psychology is a bunch of bullshit. Parents are using scientists as a scapegoat for not taking care of their kids. I don't give a shit what scientific studies there are that "prove" that video games make people into psychotic killers. I give a shit that parents don't take responsibility for their kids, ignore them, neglect them, etc., and then turn around and expect the SCIENTIFIC community to "fix" their kids for them.
I hope you never have kids, because it's a sure bet that you'll spend more time blaming the people/things around them rather than actually trying to help them.
If you don't like the price, you don't pay it, but you're not entitled to take something just because you disagree with the price. The price being charged is not your decision to make, it is the decision of the person providing the good or service, end of story.
That's not entirely true either. A purchase is made only when both the buyer and the seller agree on a price. At that time, they then both exchange something of value.
Now, I realize this doesn't entirely defeat your statement, but many of your statements are starting to come off as sounding like the RIAA makes the rules, and we can either accept them or do without. I realize you've also offered alternatives, but I don't know that mp3.com is an acceptable alternative. I recall some bad shit with them happening, but I don't remember exactly what. Something unethical, for sure, though.
Anyway, the point is, the market is supposed to influence the price, and the price would then be an agreed-upon amount. I do not agree to pay the prices of CDs (for a lot of reasons, not just because the music sucks). But even if they made the CDs for a reasonable price, you know what? DO YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT?
If you read this article, you'll find that if you actually want to support the artist, you'll steal the music and pay for the concert tickets.
As I hinted at before, this is a way of protesting the way record companies treat their musicians. It's also a way of protesting an unjust set of laws (or rather, an unjust abuse of a set of laws that were created with good intent).
Slashdot Mirror
So, really, I don't see how the time is nigh for civil disobedience when, really, all that is going on here is that RIAA is suing people that are ripping them off, or knowingly aiding and abetting those that are ripping them off.
And now we come to the basis of our disagreement. You say that the mp3 traders are ripping off the RIAA, I say they're not, they're exercising "fair use rights", and that if federal law restricts those rights, then the law is unjust. That's all. Nothing big. :) Just the reason we began the discussion is the same place we ended up, traversing the entire circle and failing to convince one another of our own subjective points of view.
Unless you have any objections, can we consider our discussion at an end? Since we just wound up back at the beginning...
If a law is unjust, you fight it -- IN COURT FIRST.
Boston Tea Party came after things were done through British courts, brush up on your history.
I take it then that these laws haven't been fought in court? What was Napster all about, then? Eh? Isn't this story about RIAA suing college kids? It has been fought in court, it will continue to be fought in court. In my assessment, it's about time to protest with civil disobedience, to continue bringing the matter to court or to incite further oppressive measures that may result in a catalyst capable of motivating enough people to actually overthrow the establish.
But yes, absolutely, this has been fought in court first and foremost, and that requirement of yours has been met. Thanks for pointing that out for me, I had failed to notice it so far.
Since you didn't reply to my post in one single post, I'm going to pull all three and respond here. :)
What would you define as "religion?" Are you rejecting any belief in any kind of god? Does it seem to you that it's more reasonable to believe in all the weirdness and inexplicability of the physical universe than in God? As you've mentioned, it requires faith to believe in the usefulness of Science (I believe in that) and the trustworthiness of other people. I'm not trying to convince you of the existence in God, so please don't be offended. Maybe we can agree that belief in God is no more unreasonable than a lack of belief.
First of all, I'm not rejecting belief, I'm rejecting the existing evidence as biased and unsubstantiated, with no corroboration outside of itself. Kinda like taking "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" as a historical fact.
Dictionary.com provides this definition of religion:
Sorry about the shitty formatting.
The only reason the universe appears weird and inexplicable is because we don't understand it, and many times new things strike us as weird. However, we only have this one frame of reference, so there's no reason to think our universe is weird. In order to determine it's weird, we would have to become acquainted with a good statistical sampling of universes, determine what is "normal" in a universe, and finally that our universe has many traits that are not normal, and lacks many that are. It does not require faith to believe in the usefulness of science, that's not what I said. You can observe the products of science and conclude that it's useful. It requires faith in yourself as a researcher in order to pursue science. It also requires a certain amount of skepticism in yourself to keep your research and conclusions objective. It also requires faith in the researchers, but science also has methods of self-correction (being able to duplicate experiment results, etc.). Religion has no objectivity, nor does it have any method of self-correction when it's found to be flawed. So science is constantly evolving and changing with the times, while religion is struggling to keep up and constantly bringing about more contradictions just to keep people around.
Also, I haven't yet been offended. :) Considering what I've already been through over religion, a discussion on slashdot isn't going to offend me. :) However, I can not agree that belief in God is no more unreasonable than a lack of belief, because before you believe in god, you must have a lack of belief. Lack of belief is the state in which you are born, and belief is put there during your upbringing, or brought about through other means in your adult life. And no, just because you're born without belief doesn't validate lack of belief, you're also born without being able to speak, that doesn't mean you shouldn't adopt language. The point is, when the people from whom religion is delivered come into question, and you have no objective or personal subjective evidence to corroborate them, then the path of reason is to retreat back to a state of disbelief. I have done so, and have yet seen no reason to advance into religion. In the meantime, I've advanced in other directions that may or may not have been possible with religion. No way of ever knowing, really.
First of all, if I came off as self-righteous, I'm sorry. Secondly, it sounds like we agree on the usefulness of both faith and reason. Third, it seems that some of my comments about LDS were biased, as pointed out by an actu
That's BS, quite frankly. Ancient man didn't have the science we do, so their theories about a flat earth and such are certainly questionable--even discarded at this point. But much of the Bible, for example, are stories of what ancient people lived, saw and, in some cases, supposedly received directly from God.
In the case of the Old Testament, the stories were passed down for generations before they were ever put in writing. Furthermore, every story in the Old Testament has much older variants in other civilizations. The Egyptians have stories of magicians (followers of a pantheon of gods, not one "true" god) walking on water, parting the seas, and so forth. One in particular has a pharoah having a magician part the sees so that he can retrieve a ring dropped by a slave. All stories that predate the Old Testament. Mind you, the Old Testament (with the exception of Genesis) takes place during the height/fall of the Egyptian empire.
Anyway, those stories are almost certainly warped with the passing of time, and the oral traditions involved.
In the case of the New Testament, many of those were indeed penned (quilled?) before Jesus' death. However, it's only 2000 years old, roundabout, and there's no archaeological evidence to support it. IIRC, there's no Roman record of a governor (or whatever the title is) named "Pontius Pilate". The Romans were very thorough about their documentation. We have Julius Caesar's autobiography, that of Brutus, and another biography written about Caesar, and those men lived several centuries before Jesus. But we have no record of Jesus, save the New Testament.
To buy into what you're saying you have to essentially believe that all the people that witnessed Biblical events, wrote them down, or received them from God, were outright liars. You can believe what you want, but there isn't any evidence (that I know of) that indicates that they were liars.
You're right, there's no evidence to believe they were outright liars, and believing so of these people isn't a requirement. We've seen people duped over plenty of other things, historically. Hitler duped his people to some extent (although the story isn't as clear cut as my one sentence summary). Lenin was able to rally a great deal of support for the Communist revolution. In more mundane areas, many people believed that the Titanic was unsinkable. We don't have to accuse anyone in biblical times of lying or believing in a hoax, we know that the psychology of people allows for such believe whether it's true or not. Widespread belief doesn't make something real, but it can provide the illusion of reality. In spite of widespread belief, though, we find communism failing or regressing into totalitarian dictatorships (rather than rule by the people, which it's supposed to be). We find that Hitler was in fact an evil man doing evil things. And, of course, the Titanic sunk. And it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how many people believed otherwise in any of these cases.
They saw, they lived, they wrote it down. It's history.
Don't you know that eyewitnesses are the worst form of testimony? Eyewitnesses see something, and when they recount it later it's filled with bias and prejudice. Lawyers (good ones) can manipulate or discredit the testimony of eyewitnesses in an interactive fashion. Of course, the eyewitnesses in the Bible are no longer here for interactive discussion. However, it's a pretty good bet that if you showed one of them a flashlight, they'd think it was magic and would either decide you were evil, or would believe anything you said. Regardless of that little facet of the psychology in the biblical time, it's also important to note that many of Jesus' contemporaries, as presented in the bible, did not agree with him. Christianity was a persecuted minority for many centuries. Thanks to the Dark Ages, the church was able to assert a great deal of control over the population, and Christianity finally rose up to be the dominant re
I think you've watched "The Devil's Advocate" one too many times... :)
Funny you should say that, I've never seen The Devil's Advocate. But if you're interested in overanalysis of a popular Christian country song, read on.... :)
In the song "The Devil Down in Georgia", Charlie Daniels depicts a story that goes something like this:
First, the devil shows up behind on soul-stealing for the quarter (or whatever). So he goes to Georgia and sees a kid playing a fiddle. He challenges the kid to a contest. If the kid wins, he gets a golden fiddle. If he loses, the devil gets his soul. Simple enough. Johnny's the kid's name, of course, and he says "It might be a sin, but I'll take your bet" etc. So, the devil plays, then johnny plays. Johnny, of course, wins, because no matter how powerful, dangerous, and evil the Devil is, he always loses. Upon winning, the Devil gives Johnny the fiddle, and Johnny says "Devil just come on back if you ever wanna try again, I done tol' you once you son of a bitch I'm the best that's ever been."
The Devil makes a deal with the boy. So he makes a promise. It's not gambling, it's a contest of skills, with the most skilled player winning. We hear the Devil play his solo, and it sounds pretty good. We never hear Johnny's solo (although in a live performance, they might play another solo for Johnny), instead we just hear the theme of the song replayed. True to his word, the Devil graciously bows, and hands over the fiddle. In a not-surprising display of poor sportsmanship, Johnny calls him a "son of a bitch" and using some other violently-charged words against the Devil. With humility, however, the Devil does his worst, loses, and leaves. While pride is one of the seven deadliest sins, we don't know if Johnny actually subscribes to them. But we do know that the Devil played fair and stayed true to his word, and was thoroughly mistreated by his opponent.
I like that song. :)
Death is simple, your body can no longer function so therefore you rot away and eventualy become part of the earth. I'll admit that waht your saying is based no more on fact than what im saying... I'm just stating how i see things from my point of view.
Eh? Where did I err in fact? I try very hard to present fact while I'm creating confusion, where did I leave out fact? All we know about death is that your body ceases to function, rots away eventually, and returns to the earth from whence it came. That's it. We do not know if there is or isn't any special life energy (or soul, or whatever) that lives on. We do know enough to say that it's a plausible possibility, but we do not know enough to either prove or disprove it. Maybe some day, we'll know for sure. In the meantime, we have to live with our ignorance while those who are actually researching it somehow try to find out. (mostly I'm talking about physicists, but if you like you can include paranormal investigators and all the other NPR nuts in the group)
Your statement about how you see things from your point of view is representative of objective observation from most people, if they're willing to provide an objective observation. All tales that I've seen/heard/read (quite a few) that involve life after death in some form or other are highly subjective in nature, and therefore inadmissible as factual evidence. While a subjective experience can certainly be a catalyst to help bring about objective research to prove the subjective experience, we are still lacking that complete body of research.
Have I left out anything? I'm saying basically that I'm absolutely right, and we're in agreement about what we know happens when we die. Perhaps our only disagreements are these:
In the first case, I posted to ask you to re-read my post so that you could see that I wasn't trying to argue in favor of religion, but was using religious argument instead to show the original poster how his logic was flawed. In the second case, if there is a disagreement there, it's only because I don't think it's necessary to know or care what happens after death, at this time. If facts are to surface to change my attitude on the matter, then I might well change it. Until then, I have to live with my ignorance, and I've no problem with that.
Most importantly, I'd like to know where I've said anything that's not based on fact, at this time. I suppose that's the third disagreement we're having. :)
It seems to me that you base your rejection of God, based on faith that origin studies in science are correct. There are those that would not agree with your statements about "ancient man". I'd also make the point that the Greeks did a wonderful job of showing us what gods made up by men would be like. True I'm no more willing to give up my position than you, but I wouldn't call it blind faith.
Archaeological evidence indicates the religion predates the Greeks on the order of 10,000 years. I wasn't talking about the Greeks, by the time the Greeks created their religion, they're vision was already clouded by thousands of years of religion. Religion, at its core, hasn't changed much from even historical times, and indications are that it hasn't changed much from prehistorical times either. There are times when its better to throw out old traditions in order to think clearly, and this is one of those times.
I base my rejection of religion in general on a whole lot of things, and slashdot doesn't have enough hard drive space for me to give you the verbiage that would represent an almost complete dissertation of my views on the subject.
All things have a beginning? How does the set of all integers have a beginning?
Hey dude, you just trying to argumentative or did you read my post? I presented the logic that's been given to me about why you should believe in god. Hopefully I showed the guy the circular reasoning in this more common instance, and also showed him how is reasoning was flawed for the same reason. It's circular. Did you actually conclude that I believe that tripe? :)
You feel better because you were preaching to the choir? Re-read my post. I used the same logic that has been presented to me by countless missionaries to show him how his logic was flawed because it was circular.
As far as the whole life after death issue, why the hell can't people just say "I don't know what happens when I die" just like they can say "I don't know what I'll be like when I'm 50"? Why worry so much about it? You'll find out when you die, if you live that long. It's easier to live in ignorance when you can admit your ignorance, and after admitting your ignorance you might find a more satisfying lifestyle. Not you specifically, though.
But definitely re-read my post before deciding I'm a religious zealot. Then read some of my other posts in this thread. I don't give a shit what you think about me, as long as your opinion is based on something resembling solid facts. Or that you at least have access to those facts even if you don't wish to accept them.
God is attempting to rescue as many people from the pit of hell as possible.
What's so bad about hell that God doesn't want us to go there? Furthermore, why haven't we heard the Prince of Hell's own side of the story? Where I grew up, we like to consider at least 2 sides of any story before we make a judgement.
Based solely on God's side of the story, as presented in teh King James translation of the Bible, I have to say that I would prefer to oppose God and go straight to hell than live in his dystopia. I will be free, and Jesus can't stop me.
Ok, now I'm awake and better prepared to respond. :) You may not like me after this, since I previously only gave you a subset of my thoughts. We'll see.
I believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, personal God. I believe he has always existed and will always exist. I've also been interested in Science and Science Fiction from a very young age, so I've been thinking about questions like this for a long time. I don't see any inherent contradiction between the Christian God and the theories discussed in the article.
There aren't any inherent contradictions between the Christian God and all of modern science, real or imagined. The problem is that the basis of this god is that he is both all-powerful and all-wise, and that we're not smart enough to understand his ways. I reject that completely. More on that in a moment. If the god is all-powerful, then he can easily have created this entire universe to be well within the bounds of anything modern science is capable of discovering, as well as adding shit that science can never hope to uncover. He is also capable of putting a heaven up in the skies that we may or may not actually find through space exploration.
The thing about the all-powerful god belief, though, is that it has roots in two things, and two things only. Ancient man looking for an explanation for everything around him (his pain, suffering, hunger, disasters, the suffering of others, etc.), and since he is essentially a good person he is wanting to find a good reason for all of this. His primitive mind isn't capable of grasping many concepts (including the round earth, the fact that the stars are physically located somewhere, the fact that air is gaseous matter, etc) the only explanation he can come up with is that there's a being or beings responsible for making the world. In our more modern times, it's very easy to see how ancient man wasn't equipped to come up with a solution, and therefore his solution comes into question. We also know that procedurally we do not have to offer a better explanation in order to dismiss the old one. We can dismiss the old because ancient man's credibility is in question, and all the so-called proofs offered over the years are also in question since they were viewed originally under the bias of belief that is now under question.
Both faith and reason are very important in being human. Science wouldn't advance if the Scientists didn't have faith in theories that haven't been proven yet. Faith in God wouldn't be possible without being able to observe evidence and understand His relationship to us.
I partially responded to this already, but here goes again. I might just be re-iterating what I already said. :)
Faith is useful as a tool, in fact necessary. Trust and faith go hand in hand. I trust my wife not to do anything to hurt our marriage, and I have faith in her. Realistically, I don't have any more or less reason to have faith in her than I do with a lot of other people, but that doesn't play into it. I know her well, and I know that I can trust her to do certain things under certain circumstances. Anyway, without faith, marriage and relationships in general have a tendency to fall apart. The scientific method isn't useful in managing your relationships, so another tool is needed. Also note: mathematical postulates are also a form of faith. They represent stuff that is observed but unproven, and at any moment it's possible that someone will disprove a founding postulate that brings all mathematical wisdom crumbling down.
We also have to have faith in ourselves, trust in our experiences, etc. We cannot even apply the scientific method in any meaningful sense without faith in ourselves, or else we must question all observations. Conversely, a certain amount of skepticism over ourselves balances overwhelming faith and prevents it from tainting observations and the resulting conclusions.
The most important thing that we must accept with faith is tha
Well I find it very strange that you have such low esteem of science, "the new religion". You do realize that medicine, computers, and the modern economy are all products of science. so, your arguement is, because scientists (and theologians and mathematicians and philosophers) thought the earth was flat at one point, and then went on to make brilliant discoveries about the way the world works.... .wait.... what the hell IS your arguement? You are clearly a complete fuckhead.
My argument is real simple, dude. I'm expressing skepticism that any psychologist, or any scientific study at this time is capable of determing whether or not playing violent video games makes people into psychotic killers. Your argument, on the other hand, has changed quite a few times, the only commonality being that you're a scientist, and somehow qualified to change your argument to suit the speaker. Like any scientist, when a skeptic comes along and doesn't buy into what you're saying, you resort to name-calling quite quickly, and follow it up by accusing a person of being "in the dark ages".
You're no scientist, or you're very representative of exactly what I was saying about the scientific community. Either way, following the rules of flame wars, you're a nazi, and that ends the flame war. :)
Let me point out your hyporacy in case you didnt pick up on it: You call science the new religion, and then take the same standpoint ancient religious zealots have towards it.
Can't read, can't write, did you go to public school? Looks like you're reading comprehension skills need some work, too. Heh. I've taken the standpoint of a skeptic, not a zealot. I reject scientific studies for the most part because most of them are politically motivated. That means I reject most of your argument, and most of your brain.
Don't make the mistake of looking at one group of religious people that have turned their brains off and think that all belief in God is brainless
I'm about to go to bed, so I don't have time to write a lengthy reply, but here's what I've got:
I have most certainly not made the mistake of looking at one group of religious people et al like you said and deciding that belief in God is brainless. Basic belief in God isn't necessarily brainless. Blindly following someone else's words or path or whatever is brainless, and modern religion is at least 90% comprived of such brainlessness. Blind faith is as stupid as requiring objective reasoning and scientific method behind every thought. Both are tools to be used at times when it is beneficial to the individual, or to the society. Dependence on one over the other is dangerous and stupid.
I'll keep the notification and come back tomorrow when I'm better rested and respond to the whole thing. Make no mistake about it, though, I have met/talked to/et al a decent representative sample of most Christian sects that exist in the US. I have not made a prejudiced judgement, although I do act the bigot sometimes. Shakespeare said something about that...
While I agree in general, I have to say that this particular article is not fluff at all. It's about rigorous science, and I found it to be intelligently written.
Of course it was intelligently written. The premise was blatantly stolen from the same book out of which the first two paragraphs were completely plagiarized! The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
if your sad about scientific american... give new scientist a try... it is british, but then again at least it isn't french :P
If it were french, it would stand out like a white flag.
Which Ace Rimmer?
The hard light hologram who clocks in as much older than he actually looks.
From this, i concluded that there cannot be a begining. If there was a begining, then something must have caused that begining, and so something was there before the begining.
You need to talk to some missionaries to find the answer, dude. It's simple:
There was a beginning, because all things have a beginning. Something must have caused that beginning. Since the world is so well ordered, that something must be intelligent, all-powerful, wise, with a slightly balding head and a long wispy beard. Let's worship him, for He is God.
Anyway, all jokes aside, your logic in that sentence suffers the same elementary flaw that the mormon logic suffers from (and others, but that's what I heard from the mormon's mouth). It's circular.
An considering this topic is one that reaches FAR BEYOND what YOU think about video games, its a good idea to bring up that little foundation of our society, SCIENCE.
Ah yes, the new religion. Fuck it and all the
hope you dont think even for a SECOND that your obscure experience that here takes the form of untestable anecdotal evidence somehow qualifies as coutner evidence to the findings of THOUSANDS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES. other theologies out there.
Isn't this the same group that once believe the earth was flat? Is this the same group that once had irrefutable proof that you could not go faster than the speed of sound?
Psychology is a bunch of bullshit. Parents are using scientists as a scapegoat for not taking care of their kids. I don't give a shit what scientific studies there are that "prove" that video games make people into psychotic killers. I give a shit that parents don't take responsibility for their kids, ignore them, neglect them, etc., and then turn around and expect the SCIENTIFIC community to "fix" their kids for them.
I hope you never have kids, because it's a sure bet that you'll spend more time blaming the people/things around them rather than actually trying to help them.
If I copy a song I would not, or could not, buy, how much has anyione lost?
I lost my car, I lost my tree,
Because you stole my cash from me.
Yeah, nerkle-boy, I can play the Dr. Seuss game too.
There _is_ some good new music out there, Dream Theater is a good example.
How old are you? Dream Theater's been around for like 15 years, dude.
I can hear any song I want in a couple of seconds,
Must have a pretty small collection. ;)
I'm not in the right branch of the thread for this, but here:
Study that shows that Napster users bought more CDs
If you don't like the price, you don't pay it, but you're not entitled to take something just because you disagree with the price. The price being charged is not your decision to make, it is the decision of the person providing the good or service, end of story.
That's not entirely true either. A purchase is made only when both the buyer and the seller agree on a price. At that time, they then both exchange something of value.
Now, I realize this doesn't entirely defeat your statement, but many of your statements are starting to come off as sounding like the RIAA makes the rules, and we can either accept them or do without. I realize you've also offered alternatives, but I don't know that mp3.com is an acceptable alternative. I recall some bad shit with them happening, but I don't remember exactly what. Something unethical, for sure, though.
Anyway, the point is, the market is supposed to influence the price, and the price would then be an agreed-upon amount. I do not agree to pay the prices of CDs (for a lot of reasons, not just because the music sucks). But even if they made the CDs for a reasonable price, you know what? DO YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT?
If you read this article, you'll find that if you actually want to support the artist, you'll steal the music and pay for the concert tickets.
As I hinted at before, this is a way of protesting the way record companies treat their musicians. It's also a way of protesting an unjust set of laws (or rather, an unjust abuse of a set of laws that were created with good intent).
There's two sides to the coin... and right now, there are laws that govern the side I'm talking about...
If the law is unjust, what should you do about it? I"m thinking Boston Tea Party, myself...