if someone is going to believe in the word of a God, then they should believe in every single word of that God, otherwise they are a hypocrite and don't really believe in that God.
Your argument is based on the fact that either (1) the bible is the inerrant word of God, or (2) Christians claim that the bible is the inerrant word of God.
Atheists and non-fundamental Christian agree that (1) is not true. Only fundamental Christians claim (2) is true.
So, your logic doesn't stand against non-fundamental Christians.
If you want to call me a hypocrite, please point to me to a Roman Catholic tenet that says that every single word in the bible is the inerrant word of God. Or, maybe argue to me that every single word in the bible is the inerrant word of God.
Also by your logic, Muslims who don't think the new or old testament is the direct word of God but believe that the Koran is the direct word of God would be believing in a different God than Christians and Jews. While most Christians, Jews and Muslims would agree that we believe in the same God.
Please quote me the passage in the Christian bible where it says that Christians can pick and choose which passages of the bible to "interpret"?
You seem to be stuck in the idea that the Christian faith must be based solely on the bible.
It doesn't. It never needed to. Most Christian faiths don't. (By the way, I would be amused if you quote me a passage from the bible that says you have to take every word in it as the inerrant word of God)
Your argument also seems to be based on your belief that (1) God is a fabrication (2) based solely on the Bible.
From a point of view of Christians, (1) and (2) are both wrong. (1) God actually exists. (2) Since he exists he exists even if you don't believe in parts of the bible, or even if the bible never existed.
From a Atheist's point of view, (1) God is a fabrication made by humans. That 's a valid interpretation of history.
But for a Atheist to understand this fabricated Christian God, he has to research the actual history and teachings of the various Christian faiths. If he does, he would notice that they are usually not based on the belief that the bible is the inerrant word of God. History will show that (2) humans fabricated God based somewhat on the bible, but were also strongly influenced by other religions, political influences, local customs, practical experience, logic, etc.
And truthfully, they *shouldn't* accept that the bible is allegory. It says what it says, right down to killing anyone who works on the Sabbath. Christians should accept ALL of the bible, from advocacy of slavery on down -- or none of it (as would be my preference). Most Christians are total hypocrites when it comes to accepting the word of God.
Are you telling people that they should believe in a particular interpretation of a book when you don't believe in that book at all? I call that real hypocrisy.
If someone claims their belief is correct "because it is written in the bible, and that's all the evidence it needs" than you can challenge them about cherry picking parts of the bible. If they claim "every word in the bible is true and should be literally interpreted", you can point out the many contradictions in the bible. I, a Roman Catholic, won't stop you.
But those claims are a minority within the Christians. For starters, the Catholics and the Orthodoxes don't claim that. (I believe many Protestant faiths don't claim that either.)
If you want to criticize non-fundamentalist Christian, you should criticize them for what they believe in (which may be based on parts or the bible, or not). Not what you think would make more sense for them to believe.
I think you are either
just whining because it is relatively easy to show that atheism is more sensible them fundamental Christianity, but it's not as easy to show that atheism is better then non-fundamental Christianity, or
you are a fundamental Atheist, so can sympathize with fundamental Christian more then you can with non-fundamental Christians.
OK, so the Agriculture Ministry is not in charge of Gundam. Which Ministry is in charge of Gundam?
The Ministry of Defense and it's Self Defense Force, of cause. They have displayed Gundam at their air force show in the past. Yes, I do have citation (warning: Japanese page).
Doesn't this make H.264 only free of the two patents held by Qualcomm? There has to be dozens and dozens of other patents used as AFAIK H.264 is just a profile (AVC) of MPEG-4?
*Nowhere* does the MPEG LA guarantee that if you license from them that you will get _all_ patents related to the standard. In fact, you can be sure there are big disclaimers in their contracts that it's not necessarily true. The MPEG LA can't avoid more than anyone else the risk of submarine patents.
You are correct. There are big disclamers in the license. (I've read the whole thing at my job.) Since Lucent is not one of the licenser of the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License, the fact that Microsoft received a license from MPEGLA (which I'm sure they have) will not help them in this case.
But there is a small catch. In the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License, it is written that all licensees have to license any MPEG-2 Essencial Patents that they own. So, if Lucent has signed the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License as a licensee, they cannot sue Microsoft (since thay have received a license from MPEGLA, which would have received a license from Lucent). All they could do is get a cut from the money MPEGLA is collecting from licensee around the world.
So, has Lucent signed the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License as a licensee? If they haven't, have they ever used MPEG-2 commercially? If the answer to the first question is NO, and the answer to the second questions is YES, there are going to get a phone call from MPEGLA.
This is capitalism at it's pure form. Finding a product in demand, selling it at a price that undercuts the competition, and making a healthy profit.
This looks like free market in it's usual form.
powers of communism
They look like monopolists to me,and monopolist are are kind of capitalists.They are quite formidable and generally harmful to a free society, but they are not communists.
In economic terms, replacing people with machines just means paying money to people who make, operate and maintain machines that do the job, instead of paying money to people who do the jobs with their own hands.
The moral question is,
Should the employer be allowed to just kick the workers out? After all, without the workers he wouldn't have been able to make the money to pay for the machines! (or pay the creator/maintainer/operator of machines.)
Slashdot Mirror
This Video is much easier to understand.
Your argument is based on the fact that either (1) the bible is the inerrant word of God, or (2) Christians claim that the bible is the inerrant word of God.
Atheists and non-fundamental Christian agree that (1) is not true. Only fundamental Christians claim (2) is true.
So, your logic doesn't stand against non-fundamental Christians.
If you want to call me a hypocrite, please point to me to a Roman Catholic tenet that says that every single word in the bible is the inerrant word of God. Or, maybe argue to me that every single word in the bible is the inerrant word of God.
Also by your logic, Muslims who don't think the new or old testament is the direct word of God but believe that the Koran is the direct word of God would be believing in a different God than Christians and Jews. While most Christians, Jews and Muslims would agree that we believe in the same God.
You seem to be stuck in the idea that the Christian faith must be based solely on the bible.
It doesn't. It never needed to. Most Christian faiths don't. (By the way, I would be amused if you quote me a passage from the bible that says you have to take every word in it as the inerrant word of God)
Your argument also seems to be based on your belief that (1) God is a fabrication (2) based solely on the Bible.
From a point of view of Christians, (1) and (2) are both wrong. (1) God actually exists. (2) Since he exists he exists even if you don't believe in parts of the bible, or even if the bible never existed.
From a Atheist's point of view, (1) God is a fabrication made by humans. That 's a valid interpretation of history.
But for a Atheist to understand this fabricated Christian God, he has to research the actual history and teachings of the various Christian faiths. If he does, he would notice that they are usually not based on the belief that the bible is the inerrant word of God. History will show that (2) humans fabricated God based somewhat on the bible, but were also strongly influenced by other religions, political influences, local customs, practical experience, logic, etc.
And truthfully, they *shouldn't* accept that the bible is allegory. It says what it says, right down to killing anyone who works on the Sabbath. Christians should accept ALL of the bible, from advocacy of slavery on down -- or none of it (as would be my preference). Most Christians are total hypocrites when it comes to accepting the word of God.
Are you telling people that they should believe in a particular interpretation of a book when you don't believe in that book at all? I call that real hypocrisy.
If someone claims their belief is correct "because it is written in the bible, and that's all the evidence it needs" than you can challenge them about cherry picking parts of the bible. If they claim "every word in the bible is true and should be literally interpreted", you can point out the many contradictions in the bible. I, a Roman Catholic, won't stop you.
But those claims are a minority within the Christians. For starters, the Catholics and the Orthodoxes don't claim that. (I believe many Protestant faiths don't claim that either.)
If you want to criticize non-fundamentalist Christian, you should criticize them for what they believe in (which may be based on parts or the bible, or not). Not what you think would make more sense for them to believe.
I think you are either
The Ministry of Defense and it's Self Defense Force, of cause. They have displayed Gundam at their air force show in the past. Yes, I do have citation (warning: Japanese page).
I found one page in Japanese reporting that there was such a report in British news. The report is based on a comment of one TV executive, and many Japanese disagree to his analysis. They say that it's because recent Japanese TV sucks.
True. There are 20 corporations participating in the MPEG LA patent portfolio for H.264. Each of these corporations believe they have patents essential to impliment H.264(here's a long list(pdf))) and are collecting licensing fees from hundred of licensees.
You are correct. There are big disclamers in the license. (I've read the whole thing at my job.) Since Lucent is not one of the licenser of the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License, the fact that Microsoft received a license from MPEGLA (which I'm sure they have) will not help them in this case.
But there is a small catch. In the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License, it is written that all licensees have to license any MPEG-2 Essencial Patents that they own. So, if Lucent has signed the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License as a licensee, they cannot sue Microsoft (since thay have received a license from MPEGLA, which would have received a license from Lucent). All they could do is get a cut from the money MPEGLA is collecting from licensee around the world.
So, has Lucent signed the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License as a licensee? If they haven't, have they ever used MPEG-2 commercially? If the answer to the first question is NO, and the answer to the second questions is YES, there are going to get a phone call from MPEGLA.
No, I don't.
Yes, that is what I meant.
I moddes it Flaimbait the first time and got meta-modded Unfair. Life is not always fair..
You missed the crucial sentence.
He completely agrees with you.
This looks like free market in it's usual form.
They look like monopolists to me,and monopolist are are kind of capitalists.They are quite formidable and generally harmful to a free society, but they are not communists.
A very good question.
In economic terms, replacing people with machines just means paying money to people who make, operate and maintain machines that do the job, instead of paying money to people who do the jobs with their own hands.
The moral question is,
Should the employer be allowed to just kick the workers out? After all, without the workers he wouldn't have been able to make the money to pay for the machines! (or pay the creator/maintainer/operator of machines.)