You're technically correct, but only in the sense that leads to furious mental masturbation in lieu of discussion. I think most other people here are looking at conclusions and points that actually map to the real-world - not logic and semantic games.
A conversation with someone playing these games is derailed by the insane amount of time spent having to pedantically define commonly understood terms so as to match their rather unique interpretation of them. Not technically wrong, but certainly it gives the impression of someone more interested in verbal fencing than dialogue.
I'm guessing that my definitions of Heaven would be more widely accepted in the Christian world, but ultimately we can pretty much define it as we wish. Your definition would be a little esoteric by mainstream Christian standards.
Yup, it was cooked up by people trying to describe something that is actually pretty difficult to conceive and flesh-out. It probably doesn't help matters that various New Testament books make references to Heaven being a physical thing. 1 Acts for example, and the ascension in Luke and Matthew. I'm not surprised that Christians have trouble defining Heaven and Hell - or at least those who want to move beyond the "fire and pitchforks down there, harps and halos up there" approach.
Yeah, at least in Catholicism that's what confession is there for. An example of this is in excommunication in which people excommunicated may be allowed to attend mass - but not chow down on Jesus biscuits. Christ doesn't want to fester in just any old bowels.
And a few verses later Jesus affirms that he was sent only or the tribes of Israel. If it weren't for Pauline Christianity then Jesus could well have remained a Jewish messiah - and the earliest surviving gospel accounts would suggest that the gentiles did not really figure in to the plans of Jesus.
It's difficult to imagine what part of us actually goes to heaven. I don't see how I could be happy there knowing that anyone is being tortured for eternity - least of all friends and family. If I were able to accept such a situation then I don't think I'd no-longer recognise myself.
Having to spend eternity singing the praises of the most powerful and emotionally needy being in creation really doesn't appeal to me. Imagine playing a sport in which referee decisions appear to almost always be unfairly stacked against you, yet you don't really know why because no-one clearly explained the rules. You ask fellow players and match officials who all give conflicting advice, but most are united in promising that there's a greater purpose - yet explanations of this greater purpose are curiously divergent from one another. At the end of the game the referee informs you that it was all a test, and that he's taking you to live in a life of luxury - beginning with a great meal. The majority of your teammates are destined for a torture chamber. I don't think I could find myself being very grateful towards this referee, and certainly the only reason I'd spend the night praising him in between courses would be because I'd be worried that he'd change his mind.
The makeup of the population of Heaven and Hell really depends on interpretation. The Jack Chick school of thought would see Heaven filled with murderers and rapist who, before departing this world, took the time to get on their knees and affirm their allegiance to Jesus. I go with Hitchens' view of Heaven. It's an eternal North Korea.
Scripture is a little light when describing Heaven and Hell in detail beyond that we'd expect from iron age men sharing their contemporary views of perfection and damnation. If these religions were starting from scratch today then heaven would likely be a place of flying cars and low latency broadband connections.
That would be consistent with one the FACT adverts that used to precede movies in the UK. It was the one that informed us that movie piracy supported criminals - and even had a guy, presumably a pirate, who was a half naked man with glowing eyes and a branding iron. If that's a pirate then that would explain some of the stranger conversations I've had online.
Old Testament God was pretty interesting. He's a very human (albeit mentally deranged) character who likes to play games with the mortals and isn't afraid to personally come down and kick some arse. The basic message was "I'll do whatever the hell I want, and maybe that includes fucking you up". The sequel became a bit too preachy, and they clearly cast a new actor to play the part of God, but there are still parts in which the old "fuck you all and your donkeys" attitude of God shines through.
By the way. I'd give it 2000 years just to be on the safe side.
Nah, this subversion thing is junk. There's no-one reference version of any given religion - just a lot of interpretations. It's the benefit of having contradictory and rambling books of ancient wisdom. It's not so much about every religion having a discrete group of fanatics - more each religion having varying levels of crazy.
Granted religions can be used to pursue more earthly goals, but it's difficult to cleanly discern that. Could be headed for no true Scotsman territory.
And a system that prevents women from posting on the walls of men unless they're a male relative, who by happy coincidence is likely to at some stage become their husband. Nothing says family values like boinking a first cousin.
Yeah. This is the kind of thing that should have been settled with a chat, or even ignored. The context of the message strongly suggests a frustrated traveler - not some nutter who'll be running a van full of fertiliser through the airport terminal.
Yeah. Probably something that should have been handled by a chat with Chambers, but then the police are going to be pretty busy if they follow-up on such things.
After traveling through Heathrow Terminal 5 I made similar comments, but said that I planned to first buy the terminal. Presumably that'd be okay, since by that point I'd be blowing up my own personal property.
I think that your post, justifying the action against Chambers, is an attempt to draw attention away from your plan to crash planes by sneaking cheese in to the sandwiches of lactose intolerant airline pilots.
Criminal law shouldn't make such a differentiation. The penalty should only be greater if the information released is specifically protected by law. e.g. corporate espionage or disclosure of state secrets. Allowing a difference here would be like saying that murderer of hoboes should receive a lighter sentence than someone who kills the same number of rich guys. In reality crimes involving powerful people are probably more likely to attract greater attention (and maybe more aggressive sentencing) but in principle this shouldn't really happen.
All things being equal, a civil suit is where a high profile victim would expect a larger payout based on the more significant losses they can prove as a result of their reputation being damaged and/or loss of earnings.
Yep, dogma is the enemy of progress. I'll mention you in my Nobel Prize acceptance speech if I ever get around to proving that Twinkies are the true source of gravity.
I never said that it was definitely murder, nor that the detectives would nick off for a cup of tea without poking around a bit. Murder is a reasonable hypotheses, and that would of course need to be tested. We go where the evidence leads us, and if turns out that the unfortunate guy with a back full of bullets was part of an elaborate suicide then so be it.
Christianity will need to get in line with the other creation myths. The big bang model is pretty well evidenced and accepted. My understanding is that the main problem now is in trying to understand what preceded it - since the concept of time as we know it could well have only come to existence with the universe.
Pinning this particular doubt on creationists alone is intellectually dishonest. You'll find all sorts of similar contention in every single area of 'observation science'. You'll also find various levels of retcon-ing what the 'truth' is if you follow any of these fields long enough.
I mentioned creationists because they do tend towards the fundamentalist side of religion. It's also fitting the context of this thread, and I figured it'd be a bit time consuming to add a full list of the groups who favour dogma over genuine inquiry.
Definitely! Anyone being honest has to accept that certainty is pretty hard to come by, and the areas you mentioned are open to interpretation. The missing link is a red herring. It's a misused term, and definitely not one I'd ever take seriously. You'll find contention, which is a healthy thing, but to varying degrees. No-one seriously disputes the reality of common descent, but there's certainly debate as to how it occurs. Creationists tend to be among the more vocal opponents of science, but they are certainly not the only ones.
It could be intellectual dishonesty to try to parlay disagreement in some very contentious areas in to a general notion that scientific knowledge is a collection of information that gets chucked out every 50 years when something more popular or cool comes along. It gets refined, and sometimes there are major shifts, but there are solid principles that date back in to antiquity. It comes down to evidence and probability. It's unlikely that it'll ever be proven that gravity does not exist as a phenomena, but certainly its source and effects could be subject to revision.
If incompatible is a fancy word then it'd do you no harm to pick-up a dictionary.
It's incompatible because it's not practical to attempt objectively research something when the scientist in question holds an unshakable belief that no amount of facts would change. There are plenty of things for which there is enough evidence for us to reasonably consider them to be scientific fact, but that's hardly equivalent to discarding modern and well evidenced scientific knowledge in favour of mythology.
Take Behe. He's a smart guy and certainly not in the same league as Gish. Behe's beliefs though clearly colour his interpretation of evidence. If he and others can produce verifiable results then there's no problem. Ken Miller is an example of a religious scientist with a bit more credibility.
Personally I'd be reluctant to fund a guy, asked to develop a cure for flu, who claims that viruses don't exist and that nothing will ever change his mind. It'd be like hiring a blind photographer. Religious scientists are fine, but fundamentalists have a crippled ability to get the job done.
Slashdot Mirror
StarCraft was specifically introduced to South Korea to train them to handle zerg rushes. Would be one hell of a zerg though.
If a man feels he shouldn't have to pay for movies, a man not only has the right to download Toy Story 3, he is obligated to do so.
Yup, definitely what Jefferson had in mind there.
You're technically correct, but only in the sense that leads to furious mental masturbation in lieu of discussion. I think most other people here are looking at conclusions and points that actually map to the real-world - not logic and semantic games.
A conversation with someone playing these games is derailed by the insane amount of time spent having to pedantically define commonly understood terms so as to match their rather unique interpretation of them. Not technically wrong, but certainly it gives the impression of someone more interested in verbal fencing than dialogue.
I'm guessing that my definitions of Heaven would be more widely accepted in the Christian world, but ultimately we can pretty much define it as we wish. Your definition would be a little esoteric by mainstream Christian standards.
Yup, it was cooked up by people trying to describe something that is actually pretty difficult to conceive and flesh-out. It probably doesn't help matters that various New Testament books make references to Heaven being a physical thing. 1 Acts for example, and the ascension in Luke and Matthew. I'm not surprised that Christians have trouble defining Heaven and Hell - or at least those who want to move beyond the "fire and pitchforks down there, harps and halos up there" approach.
Yeah, at least in Catholicism that's what confession is there for. An example of this is in excommunication in which people excommunicated may be allowed to attend mass - but not chow down on Jesus biscuits. Christ doesn't want to fester in just any old bowels.
And a few verses later Jesus affirms that he was sent only or the tribes of Israel. If it weren't for Pauline Christianity then Jesus could well have remained a Jewish messiah - and the earliest surviving gospel accounts would suggest that the gentiles did not really figure in to the plans of Jesus.
There are quite a few problems with Heaven..
It's difficult to imagine what part of us actually goes to heaven. I don't see how I could be happy there knowing that anyone is being tortured for eternity - least of all friends and family. If I were able to accept such a situation then I don't think I'd no-longer recognise myself.
Having to spend eternity singing the praises of the most powerful and emotionally needy being in creation really doesn't appeal to me. Imagine playing a sport in which referee decisions appear to almost always be unfairly stacked against you, yet you don't really know why because no-one clearly explained the rules. You ask fellow players and match officials who all give conflicting advice, but most are united in promising that there's a greater purpose - yet explanations of this greater purpose are curiously divergent from one another. At the end of the game the referee informs you that it was all a test, and that he's taking you to live in a life of luxury - beginning with a great meal. The majority of your teammates are destined for a torture chamber. I don't think I could find myself being very grateful towards this referee, and certainly the only reason I'd spend the night praising him in between courses would be because I'd be worried that he'd change his mind.
The makeup of the population of Heaven and Hell really depends on interpretation. The Jack Chick school of thought would see Heaven filled with murderers and rapist who, before departing this world, took the time to get on their knees and affirm their allegiance to Jesus. I go with Hitchens' view of Heaven. It's an eternal North Korea.
Scripture is a little light when describing Heaven and Hell in detail beyond that we'd expect from iron age men sharing their contemporary views of perfection and damnation. If these religions were starting from scratch today then heaven would likely be a place of flying cars and low latency broadband connections.
That would be consistent with one the FACT adverts that used to precede movies in the UK. It was the one that informed us that movie piracy supported criminals - and even had a guy, presumably a pirate, who was a half naked man with glowing eyes and a branding iron. If that's a pirate then that would explain some of the stranger conversations I've had online.
Old Testament God was pretty interesting. He's a very human (albeit mentally deranged) character who likes to play games with the mortals and isn't afraid to personally come down and kick some arse. The basic message was "I'll do whatever the hell I want, and maybe that includes fucking you up". The sequel became a bit too preachy, and they clearly cast a new actor to play the part of God, but there are still parts in which the old "fuck you all and your donkeys" attitude of God shines through.
By the way. I'd give it 2000 years just to be on the safe side.
Nah, this subversion thing is junk. There's no-one reference version of any given religion - just a lot of interpretations. It's the benefit of having contradictory and rambling books of ancient wisdom. It's not so much about every religion having a discrete group of fanatics - more each religion having varying levels of crazy.
Granted religions can be used to pursue more earthly goals, but it's difficult to cleanly discern that. Could be headed for no true Scotsman territory.
True. It completely ignores the obvious correlation between moustaches and genocidal behaviour.
And a system that prevents women from posting on the walls of men unless they're a male relative, who by happy coincidence is likely to at some stage become their husband. Nothing says family values like boinking a first cousin.
Yeah. This is the kind of thing that should have been settled with a chat, or even ignored. The context of the message strongly suggests a frustrated traveler - not some nutter who'll be running a van full of fertiliser through the airport terminal.
Yeah. Probably something that should have been handled by a chat with Chambers, but then the police are going to be pretty busy if they follow-up on such things.
After traveling through Heathrow Terminal 5 I made similar comments, but said that I planned to first buy the terminal. Presumably that'd be okay, since by that point I'd be blowing up my own personal property.
I think that your post, justifying the action against Chambers, is an attempt to draw attention away from your plan to crash planes by sneaking cheese in to the sandwiches of lactose intolerant airline pilots.
Criminal law shouldn't make such a differentiation. The penalty should only be greater if the information released is specifically protected by law. e.g. corporate espionage or disclosure of state secrets. Allowing a difference here would be like saying that murderer of hoboes should receive a lighter sentence than someone who kills the same number of rich guys. In reality crimes involving powerful people are probably more likely to attract greater attention (and maybe more aggressive sentencing) but in principle this shouldn't really happen.
All things being equal, a civil suit is where a high profile victim would expect a larger payout based on the more significant losses they can prove as a result of their reputation being damaged and/or loss of earnings.
The title is indeed misleading. Where he spends his time is yet to be decided.
Lousy sheeple. If only the masses were as smart as us, eh?
You should kill them.
This is probably the most insightful comment I've read this week.
Yep, dogma is the enemy of progress. I'll mention you in my Nobel Prize acceptance speech if I ever get around to proving that Twinkies are the true source of gravity.
I never said that it was definitely murder, nor that the detectives would nick off for a cup of tea without poking around a bit. Murder is a reasonable hypotheses, and that would of course need to be tested. We go where the evidence leads us, and if turns out that the unfortunate guy with a back full of bullets was part of an elaborate suicide then so be it.
Christianity will need to get in line with the other creation myths. The big bang model is pretty well evidenced and accepted. My understanding is that the main problem now is in trying to understand what preceded it - since the concept of time as we know it could well have only come to existence with the universe.
Pinning this particular doubt on creationists alone is intellectually dishonest. You'll find all sorts of similar contention in every single area of 'observation science'. You'll also find various levels of retcon-ing what the 'truth' is if you follow any of these fields long enough.
I mentioned creationists because they do tend towards the fundamentalist side of religion. It's also fitting the context of this thread, and I figured it'd be a bit time consuming to add a full list of the groups who favour dogma over genuine inquiry.
Definitely! Anyone being honest has to accept that certainty is pretty hard to come by, and the areas you mentioned are open to interpretation. The missing link is a red herring. It's a misused term, and definitely not one I'd ever take seriously. You'll find contention, which is a healthy thing, but to varying degrees. No-one seriously disputes the reality of common descent, but there's certainly debate as to how it occurs. Creationists tend to be among the more vocal opponents of science, but they are certainly not the only ones.
It could be intellectual dishonesty to try to parlay disagreement in some very contentious areas in to a general notion that scientific knowledge is a collection of information that gets chucked out every 50 years when something more popular or cool comes along. It gets refined, and sometimes there are major shifts, but there are solid principles that date back in to antiquity. It comes down to evidence and probability. It's unlikely that it'll ever be proven that gravity does not exist as a phenomena, but certainly its source and effects could be subject to revision.
If incompatible is a fancy word then it'd do you no harm to pick-up a dictionary.
It's incompatible because it's not practical to attempt objectively research something when the scientist in question holds an unshakable belief that no amount of facts would change. There are plenty of things for which there is enough evidence for us to reasonably consider them to be scientific fact, but that's hardly equivalent to discarding modern and well evidenced scientific knowledge in favour of mythology.
Take Behe. He's a smart guy and certainly not in the same league as Gish. Behe's beliefs though clearly colour his interpretation of evidence. If he and others can produce verifiable results then there's no problem. Ken Miller is an example of a religious scientist with a bit more credibility.
Personally I'd be reluctant to fund a guy, asked to develop a cure for flu, who claims that viruses don't exist and that nothing will ever change his mind. It'd be like hiring a blind photographer. Religious scientists are fine, but fundamentalists have a crippled ability to get the job done.
Some inspiration for you:
http://www.iol.co.za/news/back-page/jet-sex-dj-in-bid-to-save-career-1.731209