I am simply saying that I not willing to believe in things which cannot reasonably be proved by science.
That is not a religious belief and I would have been successful if you did make a choice about whether to abandon your belief in religion based on the evidence made available to us by science.
"...just that atheism invalidates the concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, which in turn invalidates almost all moral systems"
No it doesn't, it's humans that have decided what's right and what's wrong - not god. Society is what determines moral rights and wrongs based on the net benefit of any particular moral understanding for the society as a whole, that is why moral values are not immutable and change over time and in different societies.
Without society everything is allowed but the existence of a society does not depend on god.
Well none of those 3 things would convince me of the existence of a god because there could well be other explantions which describe the observed facts more fully.
If we accept that the universe and everything in it is governed by physical laws which cannot be broken then I would accept evidence which showed that these laws have at some point been arbitraily altered or ignored in order to create some physical effect which we can directly see or measure.
It is likely however that it will be impossible to gather this evidence without first understanding what these physical laws are and how they interact because otherwise we would be unable to prove that the effect we have detected cannot be explained by an incomplete knowledge of the physical laws. I don't see us being in that position for a long long time.
Given that their is no definition of what god might be however it is at this point impossible to say what evidence would be required to prove it's existence, my experiment outlined above would still not prove the existance of god unless we had decided that god is an entity who is able to manipulate our univers and is not bound by it's constraints.
Well yes I agree with that, if their is a god it would be impossible to prove it one way or another or have any idea of what form that god would take and that is why I think the poster is deluded because religion has provided some fairly definitive answers to a lot of these kind of questions based on no verifiable evidence whatsoever.
The delusion comes from the specific beliefs which have built up around the idea of a god, i.e. he sends his children down to Earth etc etc.
Nothing I have said leads me to believe I am rejecting the scientific method.
You are right in saying that I myself have not carried out my own independant experiments to verify the predictions of the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity and I am relying on the scientists who are telling me they are able to do this are telling the truth.
This is entirely different from the kind of faith required by religion.
Science starts from the point of view of knowing nothing and then thinking of reasons why things may happen. These thoughts are then tested experimentally to see if we can actually see what our new theory predicts. If a theory does predict successfully things which do happen then it's accepted as being a reliable theory but is still subject to changes if a different or new theory predicts our observations more accurately.
Religious faith doesn't require any proof, the act of belief is all that is necessary and what you believe doesn't necessarily have to have any basis in sciences picture of how things work.
Aethists are guided by what can be proved by science - their views can change and their beliefs are not set in stone.
Religion tends to be guided by their religious teachings which are often not up for discussion and their views are set in stone.
I am aware that their are a wide spectrum of religious beliefs from people who are willing to entertain a seperation between their religious conviction and their scientific learning to people who are not so my previous paragraph is necessarily a bit of a generalisation.
Personally I think it's the aethist who has a more open stance and is honest enough to admit the things that it can't explain and change it's mind with new evidence.
For example if the existence of a god was proven then I as an aethist would believe in god but their doesn't appear to be any mechanism inherent in religion whereby it can evolve to reject the idea of a god.
I am not arguing at all about the relative moral merits of religion, yes people wanting to help each other out is a good thing etc etc.
What I am saying is that I will not believe anything simply because that belief happens to answer a particular question.
Yes humans like to pose questions, it may be that all the questions we can ask ourselves will eventually be answered ( or maybe not - we don't know ) but unless the answers can be backed up with empirical evidence which can be tested and verified they are not really answers, just guesses.
You are free to base your beliefs on what you like provided you realise they are just beliefs and do not actually answer a lot of the questions they might claim to.
No, it's a position based on known facts and evidence of how the world and the universe work.
Depsite the fact that there are dozens of religions which believe in various kinds of gods and deities not one of them have proved the existence or provided any evidence at all for the existence of the god or deity which they believe in.
As soon as one does provide some credible evidence I will be willing to re-appraise my position.
Until then I will continue to believe that religion exists because every one alive has wondered at some point "why am I here ?" and "what happens when I die ?" and it's easier to believe that nice things which you have some control over happen and that we are here thanks to a creator we can understand and talk to through prayer. That is easier to believe than us being here through a fantastically complicated series of interactions which we will probably never understand and have no control over and when we die that's it.
Yes you have deluded yourself into believing in a fantasy which provides some meaning to your life by promising that there is possibly more to life than the one you live here on Earth.
It's irrelevant what is written in the Gospels since the one certain thing which can be said about them is that they were written by people suffering the same delusions as you are. In fact though having been brought up as a Catholic and having attended Catholic schools, taken the sacrament of confirmation and been fully involved ni the Church I have studied the Gospels and that is largely why I believe what I do.
If you can provide any evidence at all of life after death or the existence of god which is not simply based on faith then I will be happy to examine it and possibly change my mind.
As an atheist I believe that religion is based on no factual basis whatsoever and exists purely as a fantasy in which religious people choose to believe.
I don't see why I shouldn't evangalize my beliefs and try and save as many people as I can from these dangerous religious delusions.
I think it is the people who look after the Shroud ( some Church or other ) who decide whether or not people can take samples from the shroud and I think it's also their call which pieces of the shroud are taken.
I think they are very reluctant to cut bits off the shroud so it's unlikley they will allow any other bits which may be original and not patched on later to be carbon dated.
I think a fair summary of what has happened so far it this
- Scientists allowed to take sample for carbon dating and shroud owners specify which bits are taken and how much. - Scientists date pieces of shroud they have been given and prove those bit's of shroud are no where near as old as people expect they might be - Church says "Well, those bit's were just patches added later. Looking at the rest of the shroud the type of fabric used is definitely a lot older" - Church says "No, you can't have any more samples for dating."
Given that someone has settled on a particular desktop e.g. KDE, Gnome or whatever how is their choice incosistent ( or any less consistent than the windows desktop ) ?
"Most customers look for more than just a product from their vendors. They need a solution that comes with the appropriate levels of support and service. This is where Linux is becoming more challenged as people expect more from Linux."
If you ask me in this scenario it is Windows which is the Product and Linux which is the solution.
What people are realising is that they are better off tailoring their IT solution to meet their actual requirements rather than just dropping in a shrink wrapped product which address 70% of their requirements and needs cludgy workarounds and other bits and pieces bolted on top to be actually useful.
As far as requirements for on-going support and service are concerned I don't see how it is better to have to rely on one single company which can charge what it likes for it's support costs and has no competition to having a number of different support and service deals to choose from offered by different companies at competitive prices.
Finally, the last phrase about people expecting more from Linux is perhaps Linux's biggest advantage. If you want more from Windows you have to wait and hope for MS to provide it for you.
There is far more variety in the various types of Linux already available than there is in the MS world and if what you want isn't available but is crucial for you then you can pay someone to alter Linux to suit your requirements perfectly.
"One analyst opines that Mircosoft is appearing to soften its image to become kinder and gentler."
I guess that would be why there are a sudden rash of MS Ads on the TV lately and why Mr Gates is appearing with Mr Blair explaining how they are jointly going to save all the poor, ill people in the world.
Why anyone would think that appearing with Mr Blair is going to do anything to improve their credibility is beyond me but no doubt they will have found plenty of time to do 'business' backstage.
Not quite, it seems to me it's more a case of the guy saying to interested parties
"You want some crack ? OK, I will take you to the crack dealers house and introduce you"
I am sure that in a lot of countries you would be facing charges for facilitating illegal activity.
However I am also pretty sure that in most countries the punishment for this would be 2 hours community service so I'm not sure how come he is having to pay out damages.
"...helps consumers check whether their computers..."
Helps consumers of what check their computers ?
Helps acid consumers check their computers haven't morphed into giant pigeons and hopped off ?
Helps cocaine consumers check their computers aren't taking the mick and needing a kicking ?
Helps burger consumers check their computers aren't edible ?
I hate the word 'consumer' which seems to me to imply that whatever the likes of the MPAA want to pump out I am their with my mouth open and my tounge flapping just dying to suck it all down. I make sensible, considered purchasing decisions based on what I need and what the adverts tell me.
It's not really a redefinition, a revolution in this context is simply "a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving" and is also applied to events such as the Industrial Revolution.
The transition from rule by an absolute monarch through divine right to rule by an elected parliment is definitley a drastic and far reaching change, revolutions don't necessarily have to involve bloodshed and fighting.
A revolution obviously took place it's just that it took place with very little bloodshed and over a long period of time because both the people and the rulers largely agreed moving towards democracy was a good thing. The rulers and the people probably went through phases of being more or less enthusiastic about the whole thing but it seems to have worked out all right in the end.
The point is that the decision to become a democracy was made internally and achieved by the hard work and negotiations between the people and the monarchy.
Yes, I have never really understood why trying to have someone like Saddam Hussain assassinated is wrong and yet killing thousands of his country men civilians and armed forces alike is OK.
Slashdot Mirror
I am simply saying that I not willing to believe in things which cannot reasonably be proved by science.
That is not a religious belief and I would have been successful if you did make a choice about whether to abandon your belief in religion based on the evidence made available to us by science.
"...just that atheism invalidates the concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, which in turn invalidates almost all moral systems"
No it doesn't, it's humans that have decided what's right and what's wrong - not god. Society is what determines moral rights and wrongs based on the net benefit of any particular moral understanding for the society as a whole, that is why moral values are not immutable and change over time and in different societies.
Without society everything is allowed but the existence of a society does not depend on god.
Well none of those 3 things would convince me of the existence of a god because there could well be other explantions which describe the observed facts more fully.
If we accept that the universe and everything in it is governed by physical laws which cannot be broken then I would accept evidence which showed that these laws have at some point been arbitraily altered or ignored in order to create some physical effect which we can directly see or measure.
It is likely however that it will be impossible to gather this evidence without first understanding what these physical laws are and how they interact because otherwise we would be unable to prove that the effect we have detected cannot be explained by an incomplete knowledge of the physical laws. I don't see us being in that position for a long long time.
Given that their is no definition of what god might be however it is at this point impossible to say what evidence would be required to prove it's existence, my experiment outlined above would still not prove the existance of god unless we had decided that god is an entity who is able to manipulate our univers and is not bound by it's constraints.
Well yes I agree with that, if their is a god it would be impossible to prove it one way or another or have any idea of what form that god would take and that is why I think the poster is deluded because religion has provided some fairly definitive answers to a lot of these kind of questions based on no verifiable evidence whatsoever.
The delusion comes from the specific beliefs which have built up around the idea of a god, i.e. he sends his children down to Earth etc etc.
Nothing I have said leads me to believe I am rejecting the scientific method.
You are right in saying that I myself have not carried out my own independant experiments to verify the predictions of the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity and I am relying on the scientists who are telling me they are able to do this are telling the truth.
This is entirely different from the kind of faith required by religion.
Science starts from the point of view of knowing nothing and then thinking of reasons why things may happen. These thoughts are then tested experimentally to see if we can actually see what our new theory predicts. If a theory does predict successfully things which do happen then it's accepted as being a reliable theory but is still subject to changes if a different or new theory predicts our observations more accurately.
Religious faith doesn't require any proof, the act of belief is all that is necessary and what you believe doesn't necessarily have to have any basis in sciences picture of how things work.
Aethists are guided by what can be proved by science - their views can change and their beliefs are not set in stone.
Religion tends to be guided by their religious teachings which are often not up for discussion and their views are set in stone.
I am aware that their are a wide spectrum of religious beliefs from people who are willing to entertain a seperation between their religious conviction and their scientific learning to people who are not so my previous paragraph is necessarily a bit of a generalisation.
Personally I think it's the aethist who has a more open stance and is honest enough to admit the things that it can't explain and change it's mind with new evidence.
For example if the existence of a god was proven then I as an aethist would believe in god but their doesn't appear to be any mechanism inherent in religion whereby it can evolve to reject the idea of a god.
You still don't get it.
I am not arguing at all about the relative moral merits of religion, yes people wanting to help each other out is a good thing etc etc.
What I am saying is that I will not believe anything simply because that belief happens to answer a particular question.
Yes humans like to pose questions, it may be that all the questions we can ask ourselves will eventually be answered ( or maybe not - we don't know ) but unless the answers can be backed up with empirical evidence which can be tested and verified they are not really answers, just guesses.
You are free to base your beliefs on what you like provided you realise they are just beliefs and do not actually answer a lot of the questions they might claim to.
You don't get it do you ?
My point is that in the absence of a scientific explanation I am not content to just make one up based on how I would like things to be.
I don't know and neither does anyone else.
No, it's a position based on known facts and evidence of how the world and the universe work.
Depsite the fact that there are dozens of religions which believe in various kinds of gods and deities not one of them have proved the existence or provided any evidence at all for the existence of the god or deity which they believe in.
As soon as one does provide some credible evidence I will be willing to re-appraise my position.
Until then I will continue to believe that religion exists because every one alive has wondered at some point "why am I here ?" and "what happens when I die ?" and it's easier to believe that nice things which you have some control over happen and that we are here thanks to a creator we can understand and talk to through prayer. That is easier to believe than us being here through a fantastically complicated series of interactions which we will probably never understand and have no control over and when we die that's it.
Yes you have deluded yourself into believing in a fantasy which provides some meaning to your life by promising that there is possibly more to life than the one you live here on Earth.
It's irrelevant what is written in the Gospels since the one certain thing which can be said about them is that they were written by people suffering the same delusions as you are. In fact though having been brought up as a Catholic and having attended Catholic schools, taken the sacrament of confirmation and been fully involved ni the Church I have studied the Gospels and that is largely why I believe what I do.
If you can provide any evidence at all of life after death or the existence of god which is not simply based on faith then I will be happy to examine it and possibly change my mind.
As an atheist I believe that religion is based on no factual basis whatsoever and exists purely as a fantasy in which religious people choose to believe.
I don't see why I shouldn't evangalize my beliefs and try and save as many people as I can from these dangerous religious delusions.
I think it is the people who look after the Shroud ( some Church or other ) who decide whether or not people can take samples from the shroud and I think it's also their call which pieces of the shroud are taken.
I think they are very reluctant to cut bits off the shroud so it's unlikley they will allow any other bits which may be original and not patched on later to be carbon dated.
I think a fair summary of what has happened so far it this
- Scientists allowed to take sample for carbon dating and shroud owners specify which bits are taken and how much.
- Scientists date pieces of shroud they have been given and prove those bit's of shroud are no where near as old as people expect they might be
- Church says "Well, those bit's were just patches added later. Looking at the rest of the shroud the type of fabric used is definitely a lot older"
- Church says "No, you can't have any more samples for dating."
I don't see why it should, if people want a BSD licence then they can use the BSD licence or one which is similar to it.
The key reason people would want to use the GPL is to ensure their work isn't just incorporated into someones software and they get nothing back.
Treatment
That's not really an answer.
Given that someone has settled on a particular desktop e.g. KDE, Gnome or whatever how is their choice incosistent ( or any less consistent than the windows desktop ) ?
How does usability suck ?
What critical features are lacking ?
Why will it never be a viable option in the desktop market ?
"Most customers look for more than just a product from their vendors. They need a solution that comes with the appropriate levels of support and service. This is where Linux is becoming more challenged as people expect more from Linux."
If you ask me in this scenario it is Windows which is the Product and Linux which is the solution.
What people are realising is that they are better off tailoring their IT solution to meet their actual requirements rather than just dropping in a shrink wrapped product which address 70% of their requirements and needs cludgy workarounds and other bits and pieces bolted on top to be actually useful.
As far as requirements for on-going support and service are concerned I don't see how it is better to have to rely on one single company which can charge what it likes for it's support costs and has no competition to having a number of different support and service deals to choose from offered by different companies at competitive prices.
Finally, the last phrase about people expecting more from Linux is perhaps Linux's biggest advantage. If you want more from Windows you have to wait and hope for MS to provide it for you.
There is far more variety in the various types of Linux already available than there is in the MS world and if what you want isn't available but is crucial for you then you can pay someone to alter Linux to suit your requirements perfectly.
"One analyst opines that Mircosoft is appearing to soften its image to become kinder and gentler."
I guess that would be why there are a sudden rash of MS Ads on the TV lately and why Mr Gates is appearing with Mr Blair explaining how they are jointly going to save all the poor, ill people in the world.
Why anyone would think that appearing with Mr Blair is going to do anything to improve their credibility is beyond me but no doubt they will have found plenty of time to do 'business' backstage.
I offer an unspecified prize for the most fantastic exptrapolation of the posters misunderstanding of what actually happened.
Posts will be marked on the following points:
Paranoia - oh no this means they will be able to 'get' everyone because...
Actually paranoia covers all the other possible categories I could think of so I'll leave it at that.
Not quite, it seems to me it's more a case of the guy saying to interested parties
"You want some crack ? OK, I will take you to the crack dealers house and introduce you"
I am sure that in a lot of countries you would be facing charges for facilitating illegal activity.
However I am also pretty sure that in most countries the punishment for this would be 2 hours community service so I'm not sure how come he is having to pay out damages.
Thank you, that sounds like a much more likely scenario than some which will no doubt be proposed here.
Why would the music being stolen bother the MPAA who represent the Movie Industry ?
Either way if the MPAA and RIAA just stopped making their respective crap ( RIAA especially ) we'd all be a lot better off.
"...helps consumers check whether their computers..."
Helps consumers of what check their computers ?
Helps acid consumers check their computers haven't morphed into giant pigeons and hopped off ?
Helps cocaine consumers check their computers aren't taking the mick and needing a kicking ?
Helps burger consumers check their computers aren't edible ?
I hate the word 'consumer' which seems to me to imply that whatever the likes of the MPAA want to pump out I am their with my mouth open and my tounge flapping just dying to suck it all down. I make sensible, considered purchasing decisions based on what I need and what the adverts tell me.
1. Developers
2. Less Developers
3. Less Developers more Marketeers
4. More Marketeers, More Lawyers, Less Developers
5. Profit
It's not really a redefinition, a revolution in this context is simply "a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving" and is also applied to events such as the Industrial Revolution.
The transition from rule by an absolute monarch through divine right to rule by an elected parliment is definitley a drastic and far reaching change, revolutions don't necessarily have to involve bloodshed and fighting.
A revolution obviously took place it's just that it took place with very little bloodshed and over a long period of time because both the people and the rulers largely agreed moving towards democracy was a good thing. The rulers and the people probably went through phases of being more or less enthusiastic about the whole thing but it seems to have worked out all right in the end.
The point is that the decision to become a democracy was made internally and achieved by the hard work and negotiations between the people and the monarchy.
Yes, I have never really understood why trying to have someone like Saddam Hussain assassinated is wrong and yet killing thousands of his country men civilians and armed forces alike is OK.