Ogg Theora is technically highly inferior to H.264.
That may be so, but when comparing non-technical merits, is Ogg Theora highly superior to H.264? That should be part of the equation too.
All it has going for it is religion and ideology.
Troll.
Why should Microsoft support your particular belief system over the beliefs of anyone else?
Because it might be better for users.
Why, especially, should they want their users to have a much worse experience watching internet video?
Even the latest version of Microsoft's browser (IE8) is a piece of shit. Microsoft has already demonstrated that the user experience is not their top priority.
That means one must wonder what Microsoft's true motivation is.
How about adopting (or adapting) a belief system that leads to better products instead of worse ones?
Perhaps not written by MECC employees, but on the CDC Cyber that ran MECC, you could also find:
An early email program and early discussion forum
E*M*P*I*R*E, followed by Scepter (of Goth), followed by Milieu (perhaps the earliest multi-user RPG game ever created, written in Pascal)
COMBAT, a multi-user space combat game where you fought in 2-D space (no graphics, just text/numbers, written in FORTRAN)
XTALK, a multi-user chat program written in -- I think -- COMPASS, with multiple channels
WEST -- not sure what this was written in -- where you could "shoot" other players off the game
DUNGEON, an early dungeon exploration game, where you wandered a 7x7 maze that went 15 (or so) levels deep, fought monsters, collected treasure, etc.
There were a bunch of others that I've long since forgotten about, but the CDC Cyber that MECC ran on was like an early Internet. A lot of chatting, a lot of game playing (including multi-user games), a lot of discussions on the forum, plenty of email flying to and fro, etc. Great times.
If you start trying to abuse your monopoly position, new competition will come.
Sure, new competition will come...if the barrier to entry is not too high.
Also, the company with the monopoly product may simply lower prices -- temporarily -- to kill the new would-be competitor. Once the competitor is dead, prices can safely be raised again.
A lot of people and companies will be smart enough to have figured this out, and won't bother trying to compete against monopoly products, because it's too risky.
The best solution to a monopoly is to not allow the monopoly to happen in the first place. If it does, either break up the company, or use regulation to fix the situation, or both. Those are the only truly pragmatic and effective solutions.
Not that I expect the "free markets solve everything" types to ever believe that...(not that I'm accusing you of being one of those types).
If you're horribly terribly slow at typing on a computer, you won't be able to effectively execute ideas as they happen, sometimes you really just need to pound out that ~150 lines of code you have sitting in your brain queue...
Someone that comes up with a solution in their head and somehow loses track of what's going on due to typing speed may want to consider a different career/hobby.
Terseness does not necessarily make source code easier to maintain. Information that is too dense often has the opposite effect: it makes it harder to grok.
compare and contrast the @synthesize in ObjC with the getters/setters in java. Sure, in java the IDE generates those for me. but I still have to wade through those in the source code to find the method I actually wrote.
While I agree Java could be more terse in this area without a loss of readability or maintainability, in popular Java IDEs you can simply collapse getter and setter methods. Or, you can navigate the code using the class outline. As a result, the problem is a very minor one, at best.
Also, some people actually prefer explicit getters and setters so that you know something could be happening behind the curtain; that is, it might not be a simple assignment or read.
For example, in languages like Java, you knowx.y = z; is a fast member assignment. x.setY(z);might prompt you to make sure your assumptions are correct, and that setY() doesn't have other side effects (such as silently and automatically limiting the range) -- or even worse, do expensive computation -- or even access the database!. Yes, yes, I know you're not supposed to do that, but in the real world, you work on teams that have some good developers and some bad developers, and inevitably you have to maintain code you're not impressed with.
In other, more sugary languages, you may have no choice but to check your assumptions on every assignment and read because those languages hide useful information in the name of brevity.
So much of computer programming is subjective. Always be deeply wary of anyone that says "this language construct sucks" or "that language sucks" or "this other language is too verbose". They're taking a highly subjective experience and extrapolating it as if it is a universally objective truth.
I am a bit demoralized nowadays about all this -- and I'd love to take action but I don't know how. So while we as nerds who normally argue, bitch, and complain can actually stand up and figure a way to do something about this (short of something 4chan would do), then I'd be all for it. Let's strategize. Let's plan. And let's execute in the perfect ways I know that we can do thousands of lines of code, deploying hundreds of servers, or anything else "IT" that we do.
Short of a 100% peer-to-peer network based on wireless mesh technology, I'm not sure anything can be done. The U.S. is owned by the wealthy and by mega-corporations, and it does not appear that will ever change. We even have a growing population of "little people" that are fighting on behalf of the wealthy and mega-corporations, rather than looking after their own self interest. It boggles the mind.
Alas, a radio geek friend of mine told me 100% peer-to-peer wireless mesh networks don't scale very large, and is not likely to be a feasible solution to the Internet becoming less and less fair and more and more owned by fewer and fewer corporate interests. Oh well.
How can the people at Oracle not see that this sort of maneuver will only _decrease_ Java's popularity?
At this point, too many companies are too deeply invested in Java to switch. It'll be cheaper for them to write Oracle big checks than it will be for them to port their millions of lines of code to other languages and platforms.
What Oracle is doing well and truly sucks for smaller businesses and individuals, though.
Re:Oracle is doing everything they can to fuck up
on
Oracle To Monetize Java VM
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
While in theory this could be fine for Java, I can't imagine it will be being how poorly Oracle has handled things so far.
From my perspective, it's perfectly fine if Oracle has decided to try to aggressively monetize Java. The real problem, in my opinion, is their lack of clear and detailed communication.
To announce there will be two JVMs without giving us details is insanely stupid of them. It leaves developers, like me, uncomfortable with moving ahead on Java-based projects. It's the not knowing that's the killer. Will the free version continue to meet our needs? We don't know, because Oracle hasn't given us any damned details. Just some vague announcement that's leaving everyone uncomfortable.
The same applies to Java on OS X, too. Oracle, once again, leaves us wondering what they'll do. They should have already announced their intention to either pick up where Apple is leaving off, and ship future versions of Java for OS X directly, or not. That way, the open source community could make a decision whether or not they want to do that work. And then developers that want to also target OS X could start making some decisions.
But no, Oracle is being tight lipped, leaving OS X folks wondering and uncomfortable about the future of Java on OS X.
Oracle just sucks at communication, and I've already halted my personal Java projects, and have started seriously considering alternative technologies to replace Java.
The global population growth rate is already decreasing. In many industrialized nations the rate is negative.
I know that.
Of course, those facts will do nothing to alter your existing preconceptions, in that all of those "other people" need to have fewer children and make do with less.
I don't support any kind of population control measures, nor do I support asking "other people" to settle for "less", you presumptuous asshole.
One part of math all people should be required to understand is exponential growth.
It might make people realize that population growth, resource consumption, etc. can't keep increasing at current levels without severe corrections in the somewhat close future.
It has nothing to do with the latest version -- Flash has an auto-updater. If they ship with it, it'll just auto-update when the machine is first connected to the internet.
Are you sure about that?
I bet one of the first things owners of new Macs do is setup networking and immediately get on the Internet and browse around.
That scenario leaves users vulnerable to Flash exploits if the version of Flash that shipped with the OS was out-of-date (which is likely). Apple could add special code that doesn't allow Flash applets to run until Flash checks for updates, but why should that burden be placed on Apple?
In addition, given all the recent Flash exploits, I think Apple is making the right choice. Apple can't guarantee that even the latest version of Flash is free from exploits (especially because Flash is closed source), so it makes sense to have the user make the decision whether or not to install Flash, and thus take the responsibility for any repercussions.
Why do people keep saying this? Do you drive 200 miles a day at highway speeds?
Because it's actually a pretty wise minimum requirement, for several reasons:
1. Companies tend to exaggerate. If they say the range is X, you know the real range is X-Y. Look at how laptop manufacturers exaggerate battery life claims.
2. Batteries become less effective with age, so you want some buffer room built in.
3. Batteries become less effective in cold weather, so you want some buffer room built in.
3. In cold and snowy weather, the kind of weather a lot of us "enjoy" several months of the year, you need to use your headlights and heater a lot, which uses up battery power, so you want some buffer room built in.
4. And, for all those scenarios you don't think of, once again... you want some buffer room built in.
For example, I commute 25 miles one way. So I'll need a range of 50 miles. But I live in Minnesota, so I want to double that due to cold and snow, so I'll want 100 miles. Then I'll want to pad that out due to manufacturer exaggeration and unexpected scenarios, so I'll want something rated closer to 150-200 miles.
We're not trying to be difficult, we're trying to make sure we don't get burned.
It is like damning staplers because they shoot staples into your face when you hold it backwards.
A stapler that prevents that error in usage would be very expensive, and thus impractical. Nobody would buy them. In other words: Your analogy is fail.
On the other hand, allowing a mistake like std::string someFunction() { } is a nearly unforgivable mistake in the specification of any programming language, and would be trivially easy to detect and reject in a compiler. There's no good reason to allow the mistake to happen at all.
It is a wart in C++, among many other warts. The flippant response:
Here's a tip: don't do that.
Is arrogant, at best, and harmful, at worst. It's like saying "don't leak memory, dummy", or "write your own hash table, lazy", or "don't overflow your buffers, asshat".
None of those comments are constructive or useful in the least, and neither is yours. Humans make errors, and programming languages that help humans prevent all of these kinds of errors are a good thing.
ObjectiveC lets you effectively says Cosine(Radians=3.14159) and Cosine(Degrees=180.0) and have those be polymorphic even though both arguments are floats.
How is that better than having two functions, one named CosineRadians() and one named CosineDegrees()?
By the way, I'm not saying that feature of Objective C is useless, but perhaps your example is not a good one.
Probably, Larry just got around to noticing that NetApp had patent-trolled Oracle's new acquisition and he had Oracle's lawyers send NetApp an offer they couldn't refuse: drop your suit and we'll drop our counterclaims, otherwise we'll bring Oracle's entire IP portfolio into play and totally horse fuck you.
Let's not all lose sight of the fact that two big companies coming to an agreement, whether explicitly or implicitly, not to sue each other over patents does not help small companies, individuals, or Free Software/Open Source.
Small companies, individuals, and Free Software/Open Source in general does not have a large enough patent chest to get the same kind of, "I won't sue you for patent infringement, if you don't sue me for patent infringement," kind of a deal.
Faith is belief without proof, as you say. Why do you then go on to treat it as if it means belief without data, which is not the same thing at all?
Sorry, I'm not catching the distinction you're making. I'm internally defining: proof = data = evidence.
And why do you assume that religionists have not looked at the data and drawn conclusions based on that data?
Because the data overwhelmingly suggests that people inherit their religion from their parents and society.
Have you so much faith in your own data gathering and analytic skills that you believe anybody who comes to different conclusions can't have done those things?
Gathering data and analyzing it isn't faith, though one does have to be careful about confirmation bias.
Keep in mind that I admit that I don't know whether or not God exists (and neither do you!), and if he does exist, I don't pretend to know what he wants and what his motivations are.
I'm going out of my way to say "I don't know!" (and neither do you!) to the big questions, rather than staking a position based on ignorance and insisting it's right.
I am religious (though probably not more than average - but enough to usually defend religion in threads like these) and I'm not offended by your post. I think you made some valid points. But even if all major religions are wrong, it still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
I agree, and I hope I didn't suggest otherwise. My stance is, "I don't know whether or not God exists, and neither do you."
The only thing I'm really interested in pointing out is that nobody knows the mind of God (if he exists).
This is why I reject religion (of any kind). Religions are just groups of ignorant people that insist they know the mind of God.
If God does exist, I'm not sure he'll be very impressed by the people who spouted off, in his name, from a position of ignorance.
Also, I wouldn't want to believe in a psychopath God who send all members of different religions to Hell.
Even if you take hell out of the equation, all the Abrahamic religions have, at their center, a psychopathic/sociopathic God.
In some, such as Christianity, God has supposedly decided to become less psychopathic/sociopathic. But there is no denying that, according to their holy books, God at least used to be psychopathic/sociopathic.
If God exists, I don't think he'll be very impressed with people that thought he ever behaved in such an insane manner.
Ultimately everybody -- religious, agnostic, atheist -- is putting faith in themselves making the right call. I don't see any way around that.
I don't agree.
Faith is belief without proof. Most agnostics and atheists have looked at the data and drawn conclusions based on that data. (And some non-religious theists, too.)
That's the exact opposite of faith. They've shaped their decisions based on data.
One thing is sure, though: any strategy that involves opening a box is better than the strategy of not opening any of them because you can't decide.
Maybe God sends you to hell for believing in the wrong God, but DOES NOT send you to hell for not believing in him at all.
In that case, being an atheist would be the right box to open!
The point being: Even if God does exist, you STILL can't know what he wants. (Of course, many religions have made a great business at telling you what God wants. But if you believe in those religions, are you REALLY having faith in God himself...or are you putting your faith in those people who are telling you what God wants?
Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell. That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).
And many theists assume that, even if there is a God, that it's important to him that you believe in him during this life. (Why would that be so important to God anyway?!)
And many theists assume that, if you don't believe in God before you die, that God will be so upset that he'll send you to hell for eternity. (Why do so many theists think God is a psychopath?)
And even if you do believe in God, what are the chances you've chosen the right one to believe in?
Christianity? What if the Muslims are right?
Islam? What if the Jews are right?
Judaism? What if the Hindus are right?
Hinduism? What if the Buddhists are right?
What if all the major religions are wrong?
And on and on it goes...
It seems overwhelmingly self evident to me that people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents and the society around them. They don't wait until they're adults, capable of making these kinds of Big Decisions with a rational mind. They don't research all the alternatives and make an informed decision. They're basically brainwashed from birth.
If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe, but believed in the wrong God, then the vast, vast majority of humanity is screwed, and is going to hell, because even if you do believe in the right God, chances are your faith and adherence to your religion is watered down enough to piss him off to send you to hell anyway...
I would argue that to have true faith and confidence in God would mean having faith and confidence that he's competent and his plan doesn't suck so much that the vast majority of human souls will spend eternity in hell. You should have faith that God is not a complete psychopath just waiting to make the vast majority of his creation suffer torment for all eternity.
And, please: if you're religious, and disagree, or are even offended, please don't mod me down; instead provide some rational counterarguments to what I've said.
Slashdot Mirror
Ogg Theora is technically highly inferior to H.264.
That may be so, but when comparing non-technical merits, is Ogg Theora highly superior to H.264? That should be part of the equation too.
All it has going for it is religion and ideology.
Troll.
Why should Microsoft support your particular belief system over the beliefs of anyone else?
Because it might be better for users.
Why, especially, should they want their users to have a much worse experience watching internet video?
Even the latest version of Microsoft's browser (IE8) is a piece of shit. Microsoft has already demonstrated that the user experience is not their top priority.
That means one must wonder what Microsoft's true motivation is.
How about adopting (or adapting) a belief system that leads to better products instead of worse ones?
Oh, so you advocate moving away from IE entirely?
Perhaps not written by MECC employees, but on the CDC Cyber that ran MECC, you could also find:
There were a bunch of others that I've long since forgotten about, but the CDC Cyber that MECC ran on was like an early Internet. A lot of chatting, a lot of game playing (including multi-user games), a lot of discussions on the forum, plenty of email flying to and fro, etc. Great times.
If you start trying to abuse your monopoly position, new competition will come.
Sure, new competition will come...if the barrier to entry is not too high.
Also, the company with the monopoly product may simply lower prices -- temporarily -- to kill the new would-be competitor. Once the competitor is dead, prices can safely be raised again.
A lot of people and companies will be smart enough to have figured this out, and won't bother trying to compete against monopoly products, because it's too risky.
The best solution to a monopoly is to not allow the monopoly to happen in the first place. If it does, either break up the company, or use regulation to fix the situation, or both. Those are the only truly pragmatic and effective solutions.
Not that I expect the "free markets solve everything" types to ever believe that...(not that I'm accusing you of being one of those types).
If you're horribly terribly slow at typing on a computer, you won't be able to effectively execute ideas as they happen, sometimes you really just need to pound out that ~150 lines of code you have sitting in your brain queue...
Someone that comes up with a solution in their head and somehow loses track of what's going on due to typing speed may want to consider a different career/hobby.
> why should I care about the verbosity?
one word. maintainance.
Terseness does not necessarily make source code easier to maintain. Information that is too dense often has the opposite effect: it makes it harder to grok.
compare and contrast the @synthesize in ObjC with the getters/setters in java. Sure, in java the IDE generates those for me. but I still have to wade through those in the source code to find the method I actually wrote.
While I agree Java could be more terse in this area without a loss of readability or maintainability, in popular Java IDEs you can simply collapse getter and setter methods. Or, you can navigate the code using the class outline. As a result, the problem is a very minor one, at best.
Also, some people actually prefer explicit getters and setters so that you know something could be happening behind the curtain; that is, it might not be a simple assignment or read.
For example, in languages like Java, you know x.y = z; is a fast member assignment. x.setY(z); might prompt you to make sure your assumptions are correct, and that setY() doesn't have other side effects (such as silently and automatically limiting the range) -- or even worse, do expensive computation -- or even access the database!. Yes, yes, I know you're not supposed to do that, but in the real world, you work on teams that have some good developers and some bad developers, and inevitably you have to maintain code you're not impressed with.
In other, more sugary languages, you may have no choice but to check your assumptions on every assignment and read because those languages hide useful information in the name of brevity.
So much of computer programming is subjective. Always be deeply wary of anyone that says "this language construct sucks" or "that language sucks" or "this other language is too verbose". They're taking a highly subjective experience and extrapolating it as if it is a universally objective truth.
I am a bit demoralized nowadays about all this -- and I'd love to take action but I don't know how. So while we as nerds who normally argue, bitch, and complain can actually stand up and figure a way to do something about this (short of something 4chan would do), then I'd be all for it. Let's strategize. Let's plan. And let's execute in the perfect ways I know that we can do thousands of lines of code, deploying hundreds of servers, or anything else "IT" that we do.
Short of a 100% peer-to-peer network based on wireless mesh technology, I'm not sure anything can be done. The U.S. is owned by the wealthy and by mega-corporations, and it does not appear that will ever change. We even have a growing population of "little people" that are fighting on behalf of the wealthy and mega-corporations, rather than looking after their own self interest. It boggles the mind.
Alas, a radio geek friend of mine told me 100% peer-to-peer wireless mesh networks don't scale very large, and is not likely to be a feasible solution to the Internet becoming less and less fair and more and more owned by fewer and fewer corporate interests. Oh well.
A nick name like "th3j35t3r" is so unbelievably lame.
It clearly should be "7h3j3573r".
How can the people at Oracle not see that this sort of maneuver will only _decrease_ Java's popularity?
At this point, too many companies are too deeply invested in Java to switch. It'll be cheaper for them to write Oracle big checks than it will be for them to port their millions of lines of code to other languages and platforms.
What Oracle is doing well and truly sucks for smaller businesses and individuals, though.
While in theory this could be fine for Java, I can't imagine it will be being how poorly Oracle has handled things so far.
From my perspective, it's perfectly fine if Oracle has decided to try to aggressively monetize Java. The real problem, in my opinion, is their lack of clear and detailed communication.
To announce there will be two JVMs without giving us details is insanely stupid of them. It leaves developers, like me, uncomfortable with moving ahead on Java-based projects. It's the not knowing that's the killer. Will the free version continue to meet our needs? We don't know, because Oracle hasn't given us any damned details. Just some vague announcement that's leaving everyone uncomfortable.
The same applies to Java on OS X, too. Oracle, once again, leaves us wondering what they'll do. They should have already announced their intention to either pick up where Apple is leaving off, and ship future versions of Java for OS X directly, or not. That way, the open source community could make a decision whether or not they want to do that work. And then developers that want to also target OS X could start making some decisions.
But no, Oracle is being tight lipped, leaving OS X folks wondering and uncomfortable about the future of Java on OS X.
Oracle just sucks at communication, and I've already halted my personal Java projects, and have started seriously considering alternative technologies to replace Java.
The global population growth rate is already decreasing. In many industrialized nations the rate is negative.
I know that.
Of course, those facts will do nothing to alter your existing preconceptions, in that all of those "other people" need to have fewer children and make do with less.
I don't support any kind of population control measures, nor do I support asking "other people" to settle for "less", you presumptuous asshole.
One part of math all people should be required to understand is exponential growth.
It might make people realize that population growth, resource consumption, etc. can't keep increasing at current levels without severe corrections in the somewhat close future.
It has nothing to do with the latest version -- Flash has an auto-updater. If they ship with it, it'll just auto-update when the machine is first connected to the internet.
Are you sure about that?
I bet one of the first things owners of new Macs do is setup networking and immediately get on the Internet and browse around.
That scenario leaves users vulnerable to Flash exploits if the version of Flash that shipped with the OS was out-of-date (which is likely). Apple could add special code that doesn't allow Flash applets to run until Flash checks for updates, but why should that burden be placed on Apple?
In addition, given all the recent Flash exploits, I think Apple is making the right choice. Apple can't guarantee that even the latest version of Flash is free from exploits (especially because Flash is closed source), so it makes sense to have the user make the decision whether or not to install Flash, and thus take the responsibility for any repercussions.
Why do people keep saying this? Do you drive 200 miles a day at highway speeds?
Because it's actually a pretty wise minimum requirement, for several reasons:
1. Companies tend to exaggerate. If they say the range is X, you know the real range is X-Y. Look at how laptop manufacturers exaggerate battery life claims.
2. Batteries become less effective with age, so you want some buffer room built in.
3. Batteries become less effective in cold weather, so you want some buffer room built in.
3. In cold and snowy weather, the kind of weather a lot of us "enjoy" several months of the year, you need to use your headlights and heater a lot, which uses up battery power, so you want some buffer room built in.
4. And, for all those scenarios you don't think of, once again... you want some buffer room built in.
For example, I commute 25 miles one way. So I'll need a range of 50 miles. But I live in Minnesota, so I want to double that due to cold and snow, so I'll want 100 miles. Then I'll want to pad that out due to manufacturer exaggeration and unexpected scenarios, so I'll want something rated closer to 150-200 miles.
We're not trying to be difficult, we're trying to make sure we don't get burned.
It is like damning staplers because they shoot staples into your face when you hold it backwards.
A stapler that prevents that error in usage would be very expensive, and thus impractical. Nobody would buy them. In other words: Your analogy is fail.
On the other hand, allowing a mistake like std::string someFunction() { } is a nearly unforgivable mistake in the specification of any programming language, and would be trivially easy to detect and reject in a compiler. There's no good reason to allow the mistake to happen at all.
It is a wart in C++, among many other warts. The flippant response:
Here's a tip: don't do that.
Is arrogant, at best, and harmful, at worst. It's like saying "don't leak memory, dummy", or "write your own hash table, lazy", or "don't overflow your buffers, asshat".
None of those comments are constructive or useful in the least, and neither is yours. Humans make errors, and programming languages that help humans prevent all of these kinds of errors are a good thing.
ObjectiveC lets you effectively says Cosine(Radians=3.14159) and Cosine(Degrees=180.0) and have those be polymorphic even though both arguments are floats.
How is that better than having two functions, one named CosineRadians() and one named CosineDegrees()?
By the way, I'm not saying that feature of Objective C is useless, but perhaps your example is not a good one.
Prediction: Google and Oracle are going to patch things up like nothing ever happened. You heard it here.
Of course Oracle and Google will come to an amicable settlement.
Software patents don't hurt big companies. Big companies can either cut a big check or cross license patents with each other.
Unfortunately, software patents hurt virtually everyone else.
Probably, Larry just got around to noticing that NetApp had patent-trolled Oracle's new acquisition and he had Oracle's lawyers send NetApp an offer they couldn't refuse: drop your suit and we'll drop our counterclaims, otherwise we'll bring Oracle's entire IP portfolio into play and totally horse fuck you.
Let's not all lose sight of the fact that two big companies coming to an agreement, whether explicitly or implicitly, not to sue each other over patents does not help small companies, individuals, or Free Software/Open Source.
Small companies, individuals, and Free Software/Open Source in general does not have a large enough patent chest to get the same kind of, "I won't sue you for patent infringement, if you don't sue me for patent infringement," kind of a deal.
Faith is belief without proof, as you say. Why do you then go on to treat it as if it means belief without data, which is not the same thing at all?
Sorry, I'm not catching the distinction you're making. I'm internally defining: proof = data = evidence.
And why do you assume that religionists have not looked at the data and drawn conclusions based on that data?
Because the data overwhelmingly suggests that people inherit their religion from their parents and society.
Have you so much faith in your own data gathering and analytic skills that you believe anybody who comes to different conclusions can't have done those things?
Gathering data and analyzing it isn't faith, though one does have to be careful about confirmation bias.
Keep in mind that I admit that I don't know whether or not God exists (and neither do you!), and if he does exist, I don't pretend to know what he wants and what his motivations are.
I'm going out of my way to say "I don't know!" (and neither do you!) to the big questions, rather than staking a position based on ignorance and insisting it's right.
I am religious (though probably not more than average - but enough to usually defend religion in threads like these) and I'm not offended by your post. I think you made some valid points. But even if all major religions are wrong, it still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
I agree, and I hope I didn't suggest otherwise. My stance is, "I don't know whether or not God exists, and neither do you."
The only thing I'm really interested in pointing out is that nobody knows the mind of God (if he exists).
This is why I reject religion (of any kind). Religions are just groups of ignorant people that insist they know the mind of God.
If God does exist, I'm not sure he'll be very impressed by the people who spouted off, in his name, from a position of ignorance.
Also, I wouldn't want to believe in a psychopath God who send all members of different religions to Hell.
Even if you take hell out of the equation, all the Abrahamic religions have, at their center, a psychopathic/sociopathic God.
In some, such as Christianity, God has supposedly decided to become less psychopathic/sociopathic. But there is no denying that, according to their holy books, God at least used to be psychopathic/sociopathic.
If God exists, I don't think he'll be very impressed with people that thought he ever behaved in such an insane manner.
Ultimately everybody -- religious, agnostic, atheist -- is putting faith in themselves making the right call. I don't see any way around that.
I don't agree.
Faith is belief without proof. Most agnostics and atheists have looked at the data and drawn conclusions based on that data. (And some non-religious theists, too.)
That's the exact opposite of faith. They've shaped their decisions based on data.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
Or perhaps it means you've decided there's insufficient evidence to make a choice.
Making a completely arbitrary, random guess based on insufficient evidence sounds stupid to me.
One thing is sure, though: any strategy that involves opening a box is better than the strategy of not opening any of them because you can't decide.
Maybe God sends you to hell for believing in the wrong God, but DOES NOT send you to hell for not believing in him at all.
In that case, being an atheist would be the right box to open!
The point being: Even if God does exist, you STILL can't know what he wants. (Of course, many religions have made a great business at telling you what God wants. But if you believe in those religions, are you REALLY having faith in God himself...or are you putting your faith in those people who are telling you what God wants?
Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell. That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).
And many theists assume that, even if there is a God, that it's important to him that you believe in him during this life. (Why would that be so important to God anyway?!)
And many theists assume that, if you don't believe in God before you die, that God will be so upset that he'll send you to hell for eternity. (Why do so many theists think God is a psychopath?)
And even if you do believe in God, what are the chances you've chosen the right one to believe in?
Christianity? What if the Muslims are right?
Islam? What if the Jews are right?
Judaism? What if the Hindus are right?
Hinduism? What if the Buddhists are right?
What if all the major religions are wrong?
And on and on it goes...
It seems overwhelmingly self evident to me that people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents and the society around them. They don't wait until they're adults, capable of making these kinds of Big Decisions with a rational mind. They don't research all the alternatives and make an informed decision. They're basically brainwashed from birth.
If God really is a psychopath; i.e., if God really is going to send you to hell for eternity because you didn't believe or did believe, but believed in the wrong God, then the vast, vast majority of humanity is screwed, and is going to hell, because even if you do believe in the right God, chances are your faith and adherence to your religion is watered down enough to piss him off to send you to hell anyway...
I would argue that to have true faith and confidence in God would mean having faith and confidence that he's competent and his plan doesn't suck so much that the vast majority of human souls will spend eternity in hell. You should have faith that God is not a complete psychopath just waiting to make the vast majority of his creation suffer torment for all eternity.
And, please: if you're religious, and disagree, or are even offended, please don't mod me down; instead provide some rational counterarguments to what I've said.
It's too bad the Netflix streaming selection is so limited.
he best thing would be if they finally separated everything into their own threads...
No, the best thing would be if they finally separated everything into their own processes.