That guy was the best movie-based high school principal EVER. They nailed the casting on that one *perfectly*...even better than stevie as a postal worker.
How do you apply logical arguments to an illogical premise? (Note that I am not stating that the premise is faulty, just that it seems rather illogical to apply logic to this particular discussion)
Also, most 'logical arguments' I've seen against God aren't really very logical. They're based either on a poor understanding of the Bible (which is certainly not limited to non-believers!) or assumptions which haven't been granted. Please don't flame me, as I'm not saying anyone is 'right' or 'wrong' about their faith. (yes, 'logical' 'rational' atheists also base their beliefs on faith, just as much as 'logical' 'rational' theists do.)
Oh, wait, you mean it's not exactly the same thing? How about this:
Free - phone with new plan activation $300-400 - used/refurb subcompact notebook free - mp3 playing because obv your laptop can do that -------- Total: $100-200 cheaper than iphone and it has more capabilities
I understand what you were going for, but the iphone is not the same as a lappy, even an old one. Try installing WoW on your iPhone(tm), see how far you get.
Sadly, no. My *first* thought upon seeing such a person is, "How can I also seperate them from some of their obviously excess cash?" (Legally, like apple does it, not like a mugger)
However, if they drink too deeply of this 'freedom' kool-aid, they may want to opt out of some of the other Social programs intended for their Security.
Yes...it's highly suspicious that the government won't let me out of a contract that a third party entered me into without my knowledge or consent. Why can't I enter other people into non-breakable legal agreements, too? No fair.
So what were the good stocks in November of 1929? Just curious. Now, let's take your 'particular stock' rebuttal. You're saying that a stock may become worthless. A particular ounce of gold doesn't become worthless. So you must research which stocks will retain value and which will not. You are depending upon the company to do the right things and make good moves. With gold, you simply purchase it. I mean, you can make a ton of money betting on horses, too, more than you make investing in gold. Just like stocks, it's gambling. If you enjoy gambling, by all means, gamble. But don't expect everyone else to want to do that too. Also, we are not agreed. 'Lazy stupid people' do not invest in anything. With the current rate of inflation, you would be wise to avoid any form of 'wealth' that is dependent upon the dollar. (Or any other fiat currency, before you open your ignorant mouth again) I hope you're not stupid enough to actually believe what you said.
Once again, though, my OP is correct. When I see someone carrying a MacBook Pro(tm), wearing an iPod(tm) and talking on an iPhone(tm), the *last* thing I think is, "That is a normal person."
Well, first of all, thank you. And second of all, I wish you had mod points, too. Except that if you *had* had them, and then you posted, they'd be gone...so I guess it's a moo point, after all. (Yes, that was a Friends reference and not an inadvertant misuse, just in case anyone was wondering.)
You're funny. For people that actually believe what you said, though, I have these questions: Which is easier to determine: the approximate value of gold six months out, or the approximate value of a stock six months out? At what points in history has gold been worthless? At what points in history have stocks been worthless? Does a random ounce of gold regain its value if it is lost? Does a random stock? Which takes more research: buying gold, or buying stocks?
Or you could just put all your money in gold, which gains value as the dollar depreciates. That makes it kind of hard to buy gum, but you can get houses, cars, etc pretty easily with it. Actually, silver is a better investment right now, but shhhhhhh.
I find that the most successful way to stop annoying "pre-approved" credit offers is to have a terrible credit score. Thanks to my ex-wife, I have now experienced the joy that comes with an approximate 90% reduction in *all* mass mailings. I didn't even have to opt-out. I don't even get very many free catalogs anymore. It's like I always say, every silver lining has a black cloud.
Well, in tiny amounts, sure. But when inflation grows too fast, you end up paying 8million Deutschmarks for a house or scrabbling for cardboard to recycle.
Oh, wait, you were being facetious? Damn you, Internet! *shakes fist* You got me again!
Assuming the iPhone is hacked to the point where it's easily modifiable, yes, it will have the opposite effect in the extremely small niche market.
In the mainstream, this can easily get spun as the iPhone is extremely insecure, and has been "broken into", causing normal people to steer very clear.
Please note: It's the creationists who start this stuff. Science just goes along and does its thing.
I'm pretty sure the person I replied to wasn't a creationist. Check your premise.
Scientists, go out, collect data, form hypotheses, test them, ad nauseum. They just chug along ya' know? The trouble is, you've got these religions that make these ridiculous absolute statements. And sometimes, Science discovers that shit just ain't true.
First: Science doesn't discover anything. Second: There are plenty of unproven theories that I bet you accept on faith. Third: You have made a few absolute statements yourself. If that's a bad thing, you might want to look inward before you look outward.
As in, "Noooo, we're about 99.999999999999999....% sure the world is more than 6000 years old."
I am pretty sure of that too. However, your argument will always be trumped (and please note that I am not espousing this viewpoint, nor yours, just pointing out) by the argument that an omnipotent being could manipulate us and evidence very easily. Thus, it's a no-win situation. That's what I meant by the whole 'it's a pointless argument' thing. You will never convince them, they will never convince you, and neither of you can be 100% certain that you're correct. It all comes down to faith at some point.
Or, "Huh, Who'd a thunk! Diseases seem to be caused by these tiny little animals and crystals! NOT the wrath of God after all!"
Again, what is to keep these tiny little animals from being the agents of the wrath of God? Again, I'm not saying they are. I'm just saying that again science isn't in conflict with religion on this point.
So the religions get all uppity because their turf is being infringed upon, and they go and start some shit.
They're wrong to think so. Just as scientists are wrong in assuming that finding the mechanisms of life somehow disprove that life was created. I am not claiming it was. I am just claiming that as far as scientific testing is concerned, there is no difference between a created universe and a naturally occuring one.
I'm sorry, but as for good things religious people could be doing, for a lot of them in the 'states that includes coercing ignorant young girls that have made a mistake that "God wants you to have this baby..." Completely ignoring that means never going to school, living in poverty for the rest of their life, probably marrying some drunken abusive douchebag.
First: that wouldn't qualify as a 'good thing'. Second: that would actually be very AGAINST the religion you've assigned to them. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm just pointing out that that is not a failing in the religion, but in the people following it. I am fairly certain that you would not like a hypothetical in which a scientist falsified results of an experiment to acheive an end...which is to me equivalent. Do both scenarios happen? Yes. Are they exemplary of their respective systems? No. What you are doing is the same as someone denouncing all science and scientists because some scientists don't follow the precepts they espouse.
The 'God hypothesis' is a working hypothesis, but it is one nonetheless. It's an explanation set forth to explain certain phenomena. It isn't currently scientifically testable, but then neither are other, more well-accepted theories such as macroevolution. Now, I'm not asserting the truth or untruth of any hypothesis here, I'm just saying that you can't claim that all of scientific thought and theory is repeatedly testable and proven. At some point, you *will* put faith in SOMETHING. It's just a choice of what to put your faith in. Note that I am not trying to tell you WHAT to put your faith in.
Well, if all you want to do is feel good, say that as much as you want. It apparently stimulates some sort of neural reward. Why should you care if your statement is true or even makes sense? You might try substitutiong other things with which you disagree after the 'eat that,' part. It will help you feel wonderful! It will not, however, resolve the basic conflict at the heart of the false science/religion dichotomy: Why should an Intelligent Designer not design intelligent rules and then follow them? Please note that I am not espousing nor asserting any particular theory here. I just have never really understood this whole debate. Either there is a God (or many) or there is not. No one's belief affects that basic fact an iota. It is impossible to prove a negative if you're on the 'no God' side, and proof destroys faith if you are on the 'God' side. It's a useless, repetitive, circular debate which requires selective blindness from both sides to even occur. Why bother? There are so many good things that you could be doing (both sides). Why not go do them instead?
I appreciate the out but...(don't tell anyone) I'm not perfect. Sometimes I screw up. I know, I know, I shouldn't admit that; I am, after all, on the Internet. But it's true. Sometimes I just screw up.:) I do thank you, though, and hey, maybe I should broaden my horizons. I've never read any schoolkid fiction from the '30s and I bet it's at least interesting.:)
Slashdot Mirror
by 'they', do you mean /. editors or some government body? because you don't have free speech on private property.
That guy was the best movie-based high school principal EVER. They nailed the casting on that one *perfectly*...even better than stevie as a postal worker.
How do you apply logical arguments to an illogical premise? (Note that I am not stating that the premise is faulty, just that it seems rather illogical to apply logic to this particular discussion)
Also, most 'logical arguments' I've seen against God aren't really very logical. They're based either on a poor understanding of the Bible (which is certainly not limited to non-believers!) or assumptions which haven't been granted. Please don't flame me, as I'm not saying anyone is 'right' or 'wrong' about their faith. (yes, 'logical' 'rational' atheists also base their beliefs on faith, just as much as 'logical' 'rational' theists do.)
Umm...not exactly. Here, let's try this:
$200,000 - 18-wheeler and trailer
~$30k - Crew Cab pickup
There you go, an exact equivalent for $170k less.
Oh, wait, you mean it's not exactly the same thing?
How about this:
Free - phone with new plan activation
$300-400 - used/refurb subcompact notebook
free - mp3 playing because obv your laptop can do that
--------
Total: $100-200 cheaper than iphone and it has more capabilities
I understand what you were going for, but the iphone is not the same as a lappy, even an old one. Try installing WoW on your iPhone(tm), see how far you get.
Sadly, no. My *first* thought upon seeing such a person is, "How can I also seperate them from some of their obviously excess cash?" (Legally, like apple does it, not like a mugger)
However, if they drink too deeply of this 'freedom' kool-aid, they may want to opt out of some of the other Social programs intended for their Security.
Yes...it's highly suspicious that the government won't let me out of a contract that a third party entered me into without my knowledge or consent. Why can't I enter other people into non-breakable legal agreements, too? No fair.
Yes, I would not buy anything except physical metal you can hold and examine for purity yourself.
Paper is a promise only!
Yep, that's my biggest problem with stocks. And fiat currencies.
Anyone taking investment advice from slashdot is a moron anyway
True, but they *could* do worse...like listening to the radio, tv, or cold-calling pump-n-dumpers.
So what were the good stocks in November of 1929? Just curious. Now, let's take your 'particular stock' rebuttal. You're saying that a stock may become worthless. A particular ounce of gold doesn't become worthless. So you must research which stocks will retain value and which will not. You are depending upon the company to do the right things and make good moves. With gold, you simply purchase it. I mean, you can make a ton of money betting on horses, too, more than you make investing in gold. Just like stocks, it's gambling. If you enjoy gambling, by all means, gamble. But don't expect everyone else to want to do that too. Also, we are not agreed. 'Lazy stupid people' do not invest in anything. With the current rate of inflation, you would be wise to avoid any form of 'wealth' that is dependent upon the dollar. (Or any other fiat currency, before you open your ignorant mouth again)
I hope you're not stupid enough to actually believe what you said.
Once again, though, my OP is correct. When I see someone carrying a MacBook Pro(tm), wearing an iPod(tm) and talking on an iPhone(tm), the *last* thing I think is, "That is a normal person."
Well, first of all, thank you. And second of all, I wish you had mod points, too. Except that if you *had* had them, and then you posted, they'd be gone...so I guess it's a moo point, after all. (Yes, that was a Friends reference and not an inadvertant misuse, just in case anyone was wondering.)
You're funny. For people that actually believe what you said, though, I have these questions: Which is easier to determine: the approximate value of gold six months out, or the approximate value of a stock six months out? At what points in history has gold been worthless? At what points in history have stocks been worthless? Does a random ounce of gold regain its value if it is lost? Does a random stock? Which takes more research: buying gold, or buying stocks?
Oh, you mean it's like a law degree! Got it. My mistake.
Or you could just put all your money in gold, which gains value as the dollar depreciates. That makes it kind of hard to buy gum, but you can get houses, cars, etc pretty easily with it. Actually, silver is a better investment right now, but shhhhhhh.
I find that the most successful way to stop annoying "pre-approved" credit offers is to have a terrible credit score. Thanks to my ex-wife, I have now experienced the joy that comes with an approximate 90% reduction in *all* mass mailings. I didn't even have to opt-out. I don't even get very many free catalogs anymore. It's like I always say, every silver lining has a black cloud.
Is your .sig from the movie "Real Men"?
more better
Reading that gave me the blues.
Do I get teh prize for most obscurist reference evar?
Gotta love inflation.
Well, in tiny amounts, sure. But when inflation grows too fast, you end up paying 8million Deutschmarks for a house or scrabbling for cardboard to recycle.
Oh, wait, you were being facetious? Damn you, Internet! *shakes fist* You got me again!
Well, I'd just say that someone who reads/posts to /. doesn't fit *my* vision of of a "normal person". Maybe that's geekist of me.
Assuming the iPhone is hacked to the point where it's easily modifiable, yes, it will have the opposite effect in the extremely small niche market.
In the mainstream, this can easily get spun as the iPhone is extremely insecure, and has been "broken into", causing normal people to steer very clear.
Doesn't the price tag already do that?
Please note: It's the creationists who start this stuff. Science just goes along and does its thing.
I'm pretty sure the person I replied to wasn't a creationist. Check your premise.
Scientists, go out, collect data, form hypotheses, test them, ad nauseum. They just chug along ya' know? The trouble is, you've got these religions that make these ridiculous absolute statements. And sometimes, Science discovers that shit just ain't true.
First: Science doesn't discover anything. Second: There are plenty of unproven theories that I bet you accept on faith. Third: You have made a few absolute statements yourself. If that's a bad thing, you might want to look inward before you look outward.
As in, "Noooo, we're about 99.999999999999999....% sure the world is more than 6000 years old."
I am pretty sure of that too. However, your argument will always be trumped (and please note that I am not espousing this viewpoint, nor yours, just pointing out) by the argument that an omnipotent being could manipulate us and evidence very easily. Thus, it's a no-win situation. That's what I meant by the whole 'it's a pointless argument' thing. You will never convince them, they will never convince you, and neither of you can be 100% certain that you're correct. It all comes down to faith at some point.
Or, "Huh, Who'd a thunk! Diseases seem to be caused by these tiny little animals and crystals! NOT the wrath of God after all!"
Again, what is to keep these tiny little animals from being the agents of the wrath of God? Again, I'm not saying they are. I'm just saying that again science isn't in conflict with religion on this point.
So the religions get all uppity because their turf is being infringed upon, and they go and start some shit.
They're wrong to think so. Just as scientists are wrong in assuming that finding the mechanisms of life somehow disprove that life was created. I am not claiming it was. I am just claiming that as far as scientific testing is concerned, there is no difference between a created universe and a naturally occuring one.
I'm sorry, but as for good things religious people could be doing, for a lot of them in the 'states that includes coercing ignorant young girls that have made a mistake that "God wants you to have this baby..." Completely ignoring that means never going to school, living in poverty for the rest of their life, probably marrying some drunken abusive douchebag.
First: that wouldn't qualify as a 'good thing'. Second: that would actually be very AGAINST the religion you've assigned to them. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm just pointing out that that is not a failing in the religion, but in the people following it. I am fairly certain that you would not like a hypothetical in which a scientist falsified results of an experiment to acheive an end...which is to me equivalent. Do both scenarios happen? Yes. Are they exemplary of their respective systems? No. What you are doing is the same as someone denouncing all science and scientists because some scientists don't follow the precepts they espouse.
The 'God hypothesis' is a working hypothesis, but it is one nonetheless. It's an explanation set forth to explain certain phenomena. It isn't currently scientifically testable, but then neither are other, more well-accepted theories such as macroevolution. Now, I'm not asserting the truth or untruth of any hypothesis here, I'm just saying that you can't claim that all of scientific thought and theory is repeatedly testable and proven. At some point, you *will* put faith in SOMETHING. It's just a choice of what to put your faith in. Note that I am not trying to tell you WHAT to put your faith in.
Well, if all you want to do is feel good, say that as much as you want. It apparently stimulates some sort of neural reward. Why should you care if your statement is true or even makes sense? You might try substitutiong other things with which you disagree after the 'eat that,' part. It will help you feel wonderful! It will not, however, resolve the basic conflict at the heart of the false science/religion dichotomy: Why should an Intelligent Designer not design intelligent rules and then follow them? Please note that I am not espousing nor asserting any particular theory here. I just have never really understood this whole debate. Either there is a God (or many) or there is not. No one's belief affects that basic fact an iota. It is impossible to prove a negative if you're on the 'no God' side, and proof destroys faith if you are on the 'God' side. It's a useless, repetitive, circular debate which requires selective blindness from both sides to even occur. Why bother? There are so many good things that you could be doing (both sides). Why not go do them instead?
I appreciate the out but...(don't tell anyone) I'm not perfect. Sometimes I screw up. I know, I know, I shouldn't admit that; I am, after all, on the Internet. But it's true. Sometimes I just screw up. :) I do thank you, though, and hey, maybe I should broaden my horizons. I've never read any schoolkid fiction from the '30s and I bet it's at least interesting. :)
So there really *is* a hell. Who knew?
U r dumb.