Can you supply credible references to the dates and authors you claim? I am basing my statements off of the teachings of a professor I once had in college. I may have mis heard some things in class and as such I am in the process of verifying my claims with him and asking for some hard copy references to back me up or correct me. I believe I was told that the new testament was written generations later, although that could pertain to just the gospels as I do think that Paul/Saul wrote the letters that he allegedly wrote.
As far as a list of well known athiests...go for it. Separate them in to good and bad too. No need to restrict yourself to any particular century either.
I may as well as add a few Christians to the list:
The priests that raped/burned Joan of Arc, Coronado, Cortez, Spanish Inquisitors. Salem witch burners. I don't think all the Nazis were atheists...there had to be a few Christians in there somewhere...after all, it was the Jewish people in the camps, and the gays.
As far as we can tell they did what they did for God or God & Country.
Personally though...I liked Martin Luther. He did some things right. Although I don't honestly know if he burned any witches. Bible school only talked about the 'good' things he did.
-Vel
P.S. Just because I don't feel the only true salvation can come only at the hands of Jesus' personal intervention doesn't make me an atheist.
Then I suggest you give some examples(references) that the majority of the new testament was written in 60-100AD by men who had seen these events first hand.
I could be wrong, I'm nowhere near perfect (and so could be my source) but my source managed to get himself a PhD in Theology. So you could say that I did indeed try to know some background information before I posted.
I am not trying to be insulting when I say this but please, can you supply your sources? I am in the process of verifying mine and I'll try to post some literature references of my own.
Actually, read about Jesus and remember that *this is what many people believe to be God*.
Also remember that after Jesus' death (there are claims he is no longer dead and the general consensus amongst the people that believe him to be God is that He rose from the dead and went to Heaven) that the stories and "historical fact" of his existance were passed mouth to mouth for over 200 years before they were written down!
You also need to recognize the claim that these stories were passed verbally with *NO* data loss or embellishment. Verbatim. Everything he said was remembered word for word. Also recognize that this "historical fact" was then translated through numerous languages with a 100% translational conversion over the next 1800 years!
As an experiment, why don't you take a passage from the new testament and convert it to a language of your choice using Babelfish and then convert it back.
Try another experiment: Tell one of your friends a story or message and have him/her tell another person and iterate this a few times, making sure each person hears it once and tells it once. Have the last person tell it back to you. Did you get your same story/message back? Did you get it verbatim?
Based on your findings, and relating them to the historical path of the New Testament, how accurate do you consider it?
The claims are no more or less credible than the legends of Merlin and King Arthur, Norse history, nor any other mythology except in the fact that a lot more people claim it to be the truth.
If one person believes a story does that make it real? How about 100? 10,000? Millions? Billions?
Is it the truth? No one knows because it can't be proven true. But its not like its the only thing that cannot be proven true so if you feel compelled to believe it to be a personal truth (aka belief) then good for you. If you see it as a bunch of hooey then good for you. But if you can understand the message this Man was trying to convey roughly 2000 years ago then, I believe, you are getting the point of the whole thing.
Sometimes the message is more important than the messenger.
You take the analysis from two separate occurences (two concerts perhaps, or a concert and the store-bought song) It they match too close...either they spent all their points in "Mimicry" or they have technological hoaxes wotking for them.
Countless? Last I heard, they counted one teacher and 14 students at Columbine. Or are you talking about the movie theater/school that this Texan kid went to? I didn't hear anything in the news about that.
Last I heard, this kid wasn't killing anybody so therefore (according to you) the school should be protecting his rights.
Ideally, what should have been done is the student in question should have had his parents/guardian called in immediately to confront and discuss this issue, if they believed it to be such a big deal.
You do understand that your argument leads to the rationalization that since a building in Oklahoma City was bombed, it should be perfectly acceptable to put the city under martial law for 1 or more years to "insure" the safety of all the humans that aren't killing humans.
What was that phrase? Oh yeah! "Innocent until proven guilty." And last I heard, thinking a deed and actually doing a deed are two different things.
So, will the posts to this topic that wish Linus a "Happy Birthday!" get moderated as "Redundant?"
Either way, Hertlichen gluckwunch zum geburtstag, Linus!
-Vel
Father of the Open Source movement.
on
Pasquale's Angel
·
· Score: 1
Speaking of alternate histories, what if Bill had decided to make DOS completely open-source and created the GPL? Would that mean that the "i" in Microsoft would have to be pronounced as a soft "i" instead of a hard one?
I would imagine the big problem is that the Christian POV is one of "I'm always right no matter what because this is what GOD says." That's some perspective...
Any personal opinions (your own) you can feel free to voice to your heart's content. Any opinions that God has on various subject matter, let Him/Her voice their OWN opinion about it. If there is a "higher moral authority" above the human race, then that "higher moral authority" should be able to make comments on its own.
From what I've heard (of lack thereof) God hasn't had much to say lately. I speak about what I feel based on what *I* feel, not what God feels or what I think God feels.
Since it was mentioned how important agriculture is I may as well add this tidbit:
Unless there are some serious changes(improvements) in efficiency, volume per acre, or new food sources, the human population on this planet will outgrow its food supply (roughly) by the year 2026.
People have been doing un-smart things for quite some time. Take for example one of the most fertile river valleys in Arizona, the Gila River system. Reasoning would be that people would realize its food growing potential and thus do what is necessary to preserve this agricultural area. Reality is that this river valley is in the process of being completely paved over via urban sprawl (Phoenix). The population boom in this fast growing city is not only eating away at valuable areage but it is also tapping the water system dry. So much, in fact that the Phoenix area needs additional water supply lines from other areas, including the heavily taxed Colorado Water system.
This isn't the only location that this is happening either. Chicago is another example of how fertile farmland is being paved over and destroyed.
Fertile fishing areas such as the grand banks and the North American west coastal area were once considered to have boundless supplies of food but now biologists are finding out that they are being heavily overfished.
One of my ancestors made a comment similar to this: "Only when all of the land is burned, only when all the rivers are poisoned, only when all the animals are slaughtered, only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten."
Being worth $90 Billion won't mean a whole lot if this ever happens to pass.
Eugenics has been around for a very long time. Or at least various flavors of it. Natural selection comes to mind. The extent that I can see in genetically engineering children in a lab is to removing potential/known flaws. Of course, the "glow-in-the-dark" mouse that had a jellyfish gene introduced was pretty cool. But I digress... Nature introduces mutations into the system in the hopes that if its a good mutation, it will be passed on and if its bad, that strain will eventually die out. Earlier this century, a group of Germans believed that they could induce eugenics through a breeding program to spread blond hair and blue eyes. They combined this with the extermination of the carriers of what they considered 'bad genes'. Not a pretty picture. In 1936, their eugenics program as given a severe reality check by one man: Jesse Owens.
If people feel that they can improve the survival of their offspring by removing some of Nature's control within the genetics lab, so be it. As long as people remain steadfast in the belief that "All people are created equal" whether in a science lab or the backseat of a Chevy things should not be a problem.
Many people don't realize that they are in fact utilizing basic (albeit crude) eugenics just by choosing that 'perfect' mate.
Personally, I don't think I'd take the route of creating my child in a science lab (unless the beautiful assistant didn't mind meeting me in the lab for some 'after hours work';) But I wouldn't view a child engineered this way in a superior or inferior way. The problem is, not everyone would see it this way...and there is the rub.
On another note, everyone is saying "Go see GATTACA!!" blah blah blah...Honestly, most countries seem scared to try and create a 'superior' being to control the planet. If genetic engineering was to occur, I tend to see the views more like in "Time Machine"...creating a group of people that are more 'inferior' intellectually to do all the dirty work that needs to get done.
What type of certification does MS have for Passport with the Federal Reserve (or any other real bank)?
I'm just curious of that because of the potential of MS having a worm in this product. I'd imagine its pretty unlikely but who knows for sure? Passport isn't open source.
Perhaps MS isn't charging a fee because they have a worm introduced to 'collect' round-off values so they can make their money that way.
Ok, so right now a worm would be pretty useless because your money isn't getting any interest (or is it?) but eventually, that may be one of the incentives they use to gain customers/users. A worm introduced at its inception would make it a little harder to detect.
*shrug* I'm probably just being paranoid but I just have a problem trusting a corporation with my money that has shown time and again that it is untrustworthy.
So, how exactly does the government gather their personnel for this? Are there secret cracker training grounds near Langley, VA?
Or perhaps they get them the "Stainless Steel Rat" way, by asking the crackers that they catch if they'd like to join up and actually get paid to do the things that they do so well?
Is it just because its now a 'past' issue that they announce this? I haven't seen any mention of this type of warfare against Iraq but perhaps that is because the US govt. is still in a 'conflict' state with them, even if it doesn't make a lot of headlines these days. I don't see any comments about the US's 'cyberstance' against China, either. I would imagine they are just in a monitoring state with China(see Echelon), I can't imagine them releasing Computer virii or doing full scale computer cracks on Chinese networks.
Hmmm, I've been thinking that if there is a 'medical emergency' clause where you get eliminated if you're in a condition that requires medical attention. What is there to really stop someone (they claim to be looking for people with high mental and physical faculties) from stealthily removing the other 15 from the competition over the course of the first week (before voting). Of course, the more of them you can remove in the first night, the better.
I know, this is a real mean point of view but technically, if you were sucessful at this, you could be the holder of the million bucks!
True. There is a real feel this is going to be "Real World: Deserted Island."
But the fact is, what if you have some not really cool (aka unlikable in some way) person that has the uncanny ability to provide well for the rest of the group? Or perhaps this person is well VERY resourceful but (s)he can be a real prick at times?
Do the skills outweigh the behavior? I saw the comment about gaining "luxuries" through contests so I am skeptical on how uncontrolled the environment is. What happens if one of the people is in need of medical attention? (ie: broken leg) Does that mean a free week because one person automatically eliminated themself? (the pseudo-Darwin Award)
Weird...I may have to try out for it anyway. Minneapolis is only 10 miles away...what the heck.
If I make it the "shirt on my back" will have to either be my Batman T-shirt or the one I picked up at the Abacus World Expo.
I suppose if Chris C. wanted, he could have them replaced with Pamela (Anderson) Lee and David Hasselhoff. Rename the show "X-Watch."
Hey, its guaranteed to be a hit in Germany with all of D.H.'s star power. I guess that would give new meaning to the phrase "I have alien implants."
>;)
Hmmm, or they could have Nitrozac replace Scully. Which wouldn't be all that bad, you'd only get shots of Scully from behind or great close-ups of her boots! "Lone Gunmen, I'd like you to meet friends of mine; they're the Techno-Talkin' Babes."
Protective of their young isn't the behavior in question. The image of a "mother defending its young" is very pervasive. Question here is: Are there any examples of elephant behavior where they carry along and nurture a severely (ie: cannot survive "on its own") handicapped calf? Or are there examples of the behavior similar my buffalo example? Elephants have been shown to do things that were thought to be uniquely human such as mourning for their dead, having cemetaries (sp?), and others (but these are the only ones that come to mind at the moment). I would be interested in any factual information that you could provide one way or the other.
I don't feel that 'pointing to the actual genome' is silly. The statement was made that this behavior was built-in. That implies a hereditary trait, which means the specific location(s) on the DNA strand responsible for this. If it can't then this behavior is a learned one. Just because evolutionary theory has been around longer doesn't necessarily a lot. Creation theory has been around longer *cough*. >;)
Slashdot Mirror
How about pronunciation?
I am sick and tired of people pronouncing Linux as Linnux...
It isn't Linnus Torvalds, is it?
Hehehehehe...
-Vel (thats pronounced Veel)
Can you supply credible references to the dates and authors you claim?
I am basing my statements off of the teachings of a professor I once had in college. I may have mis heard some things in class and as such I am in the process of verifying my claims with him and asking for some hard copy references to back me up or correct me.
I believe I was told that the new testament was written generations later, although that could pertain to just the gospels as I do think that Paul/Saul wrote the letters that he allegedly wrote.
As far as a list of well known athiests...go for it. Separate them in to good and bad too. No need to restrict yourself to any particular century either.
I may as well as add a few Christians to the list:
The priests that raped/burned Joan of Arc,
Coronado, Cortez, Spanish Inquisitors.
Salem witch burners.
I don't think all the Nazis were atheists...there had to be a few Christians in there somewhere...after all, it was the Jewish people in the camps, and the gays.
As far as we can tell they did what they did for God or God & Country.
Personally though...I liked Martin Luther. He did some things right. Although I don't honestly know if he burned any witches. Bible school only talked about the 'good' things he did.
-Vel
P.S. Just because I don't feel the only true salvation can come only at the hands of Jesus' personal intervention doesn't make me an atheist.
Then I suggest you give some examples(references) that the majority of the new testament was written in 60-100AD by men who had seen these events first hand.
I could be wrong, I'm nowhere near perfect (and so could be my source) but my source managed to get himself a PhD in Theology. So you could say that I did indeed try to know some background information before I posted.
I am not trying to be insulting when I say this but please, can you supply your sources? I am in the process of verifying mine and I'll try to post some literature references of my own.
This also involves a deep understanding of physics and mathematics, the language of the universe.
Actually, read about Jesus and remember that *this is what many people believe to be God*.
Also remember that after Jesus' death (there are claims he is no longer dead and the general consensus amongst the people that believe him to be God is that He rose from the dead and went to Heaven) that the stories and "historical fact" of his existance were passed mouth to mouth for over 200 years before they were written down!
You also need to recognize the claim that these stories were passed verbally with *NO* data loss or embellishment. Verbatim. Everything he said was remembered word for word.
Also recognize that this "historical fact" was then translated through numerous languages with a 100% translational conversion over the next 1800 years!
As an experiment, why don't you take a passage from the new testament and convert it to a language of your choice using Babelfish and then convert it back.
Try another experiment: Tell one of your friends a story or message and have him/her tell another person and iterate this a few times, making sure each person hears it once and tells it once. Have the last person tell it back to you. Did you get your same story/message back? Did you get it verbatim?
Based on your findings, and relating them to the historical path of the New Testament, how accurate do you consider it?
The claims are no more or less credible than the legends of Merlin and King Arthur, Norse history, nor any other mythology except in the fact that a lot more people claim it to be the truth.
If one person believes a story does that make it real? How about 100? 10,000? Millions? Billions?
Is it the truth? No one knows because it can't be proven true. But its not like its the only thing that cannot be proven true so if you feel compelled to believe it to be a personal truth (aka belief) then good for you. If you see it as a bunch of hooey then good for you. But if you can understand the message this Man was trying to convey roughly 2000 years ago then, I believe, you are getting the point of the whole thing.
Sometimes the message is more important than the messenger.
-Vel
How many people had the word, "Gattaca" pop in their minds when they saw the mention of finding the human gene that could lead to heart problems?
-Vel
"We're geeks, we're freaks and we're going fragging!"
>;)
-Vel
You take the analysis from two separate occurences (two concerts perhaps, or a concert and the store-bought song)
It they match too close...either they spent all their points in "Mimicry" or they have technological hoaxes wotking for them.
-Vel
www.moviecliches.com
Countless?
Last I heard, they counted one teacher and 14 students at Columbine. Or are you talking about the movie theater/school that this Texan kid went to? I didn't hear anything in the news about that.
Last I heard, this kid wasn't killing anybody so therefore (according to you) the school should be protecting his rights.
Ideally, what should have been done is the student in question should have had his parents/guardian called in immediately to confront and discuss this issue, if they believed it to be such a big deal.
You do understand that your argument leads to the rationalization that since a building in Oklahoma City was bombed, it should be perfectly acceptable to put the city under martial law for 1 or more years to "insure" the safety of all the humans that aren't killing humans.
What was that phrase? Oh yeah! "Innocent until proven guilty." And last I heard, thinking a deed and actually doing a deed are two different things.
-Vel
Kepler was not a monk. Christian, yes.
Newton's last words on his deathbed were about his pride in dying a virgin.
Little interesting tidbit there...
-Vel
So, will the posts to this topic that wish Linus a "Happy Birthday!" get moderated as "Redundant?"
Either way, Hertlichen gluckwunch zum geburtstag, Linus!
-Vel
Speaking of alternate histories, what if Bill had decided to make DOS completely open-source and created the GPL?
Would that mean that the "i" in Microsoft would have to be pronounced as a soft "i" instead of a hard one?
-Vel
I would imagine the big problem is that the Christian POV is one of "I'm always right no matter what because this is what GOD says."
That's some perspective...
Any personal opinions (your own) you can feel free to voice to your heart's content. Any opinions that God has on various subject matter, let Him/Her voice their OWN opinion about it. If there is a "higher moral authority" above the human race, then that "higher moral authority" should be able to make comments on its own.
From what I've heard (of lack thereof) God hasn't had much to say lately.
I speak about what I feel based on what *I* feel, not what God feels or what I think God feels.
There is a subtle difference there.
-Vel
Since it was mentioned how important agriculture is I may as well add this tidbit:
Unless there are some serious changes(improvements) in efficiency, volume per acre, or new food sources, the human population on this planet will outgrow its food supply (roughly) by the year 2026.
People have been doing un-smart things for quite some time. Take for example one of the most fertile river valleys in Arizona, the Gila River system.
Reasoning would be that people would realize its food growing potential and thus do what is necessary to preserve this agricultural area.
Reality is that this river valley is in the process of being completely paved over via urban sprawl (Phoenix). The population boom in this fast growing city is not only eating away at valuable areage but it is also tapping the water system dry. So much, in fact that the Phoenix area needs additional water supply lines from other areas, including the heavily taxed Colorado Water system.
This isn't the only location that this is happening either. Chicago is another example of how fertile farmland is being paved over and destroyed.
Fertile fishing areas such as the grand banks and the North American west coastal area were once considered to have boundless supplies of food but now biologists are finding out that they are being heavily overfished.
One of my ancestors made a comment similar to this:
"Only when all of the land is burned, only when all the rivers are poisoned, only when all the animals are slaughtered, only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten."
Being worth $90 Billion won't mean a whole lot if this ever happens to pass.
-Veldrane
It won't just be the aliens monitoring the activites of poor little Nitrozac now...
*evil grin*
Of course, she keeps her back to the window so just like the aliens, we'll only be able to watch her from behind.
-Vel
Eugenics has been around for a very long time. Or at least various flavors of it.
;)
Natural selection comes to mind. The extent that I can see in genetically engineering children in a lab is to removing potential/known flaws. Of course, the "glow-in-the-dark" mouse that had a jellyfish gene introduced was pretty cool. But I digress...
Nature introduces mutations into the system in the hopes that if its a good mutation, it will be passed on and if its bad, that strain will eventually die out.
Earlier this century, a group of Germans believed that they could induce eugenics through a breeding program to spread blond hair and blue eyes. They combined this with the extermination of the carriers of what they considered 'bad genes'. Not a pretty picture. In 1936, their eugenics program as given a severe reality check by one man: Jesse Owens.
If people feel that they can improve the survival of their offspring by removing some of Nature's control within the genetics lab, so be it.
As long as people remain steadfast in the belief that "All people are created equal" whether in a science lab or the backseat of a Chevy things should not be a problem.
Many people don't realize that they are in fact utilizing basic (albeit crude) eugenics just by choosing that 'perfect' mate.
Personally, I don't think I'd take the route of creating my child in a science lab (unless the beautiful assistant didn't mind meeting me in the lab for some 'after hours work'
But I wouldn't view a child engineered this way in a superior or inferior way. The problem is, not everyone would see it this way...and there is the rub.
On another note, everyone is saying "Go see GATTACA!!" blah blah blah...Honestly, most countries seem scared to try and create a 'superior' being to control the planet. If genetic engineering was to occur, I tend to see the views more like in "Time Machine"...creating a group of people that are more 'inferior' intellectually to do all the dirty work that needs to get done.
ok, that is my $0.02.
-Vel
What type of certification does MS have for Passport with the Federal Reserve (or any other real bank)?
I'm just curious of that because of the potential of MS having a worm in this product. I'd imagine its pretty unlikely but who knows for sure? Passport isn't open source.
Perhaps MS isn't charging a fee because they have a worm introduced to 'collect' round-off values so they can make their money that way.
Ok, so right now a worm would be pretty useless because your money isn't getting any interest (or is it?) but eventually, that may be one of the incentives they use to gain customers/users.
A worm introduced at its inception would make it a little harder to detect.
*shrug* I'm probably just being paranoid but I just have a problem trusting a corporation with my money that has shown time and again that it is untrustworthy.
-Vel
So, how exactly does the government gather their personnel for this?
Are there secret cracker training grounds near Langley, VA?
Or perhaps they get them the "Stainless Steel Rat" way, by asking the crackers that they catch if they'd like to join up and actually get paid to do the things that they do so well?
-Vel
Is it just because its now a 'past' issue that they announce this?
I haven't seen any mention of this type of warfare against Iraq but perhaps that is because the US govt. is still in a 'conflict' state with them, even if it doesn't make a lot of headlines these days.
I don't see any comments about the US's 'cyberstance' against China, either. I would imagine they are just in a monitoring state with China(see Echelon), I can't imagine them releasing Computer virii or doing full scale computer cracks on Chinese networks.
Hmmm, I've been thinking that if there is a 'medical emergency' clause where you get eliminated if you're in a condition that requires medical attention. What is there to really stop someone (they claim to be looking for people with high mental and physical faculties) from stealthily removing the other 15 from the competition over the course of the first week (before voting). Of course, the more of them you can remove in the first night, the better.
I know, this is a real mean point of view but technically, if you were sucessful at this, you could be the holder of the million bucks!
"Blair Witch Project" meets "Most Dangerous Game."
I wonder what it'd do for the ratings....
*evil grin*
True. There is a real feel this is going to be "Real World: Deserted Island."
But the fact is, what if you have some not really cool (aka unlikable in some way) person that has the uncanny ability to provide well for the rest of the group? Or perhaps this person is well VERY resourceful but (s)he can be a real prick at times?
Do the skills outweigh the behavior?
I saw the comment about gaining "luxuries" through contests so I am skeptical on how uncontrolled the environment is. What happens if one of the people is in need of medical attention? (ie: broken leg) Does that mean a free week because one person automatically eliminated themself? (the pseudo-Darwin Award)
Weird...I may have to try out for it anyway. Minneapolis is only 10 miles away...what the heck.
If I make it the "shirt on my back" will have to either be my Batman T-shirt or the one I picked up at the Abacus World Expo.
-Vel
I suppose if Chris C. wanted, he could have them replaced with Pamela (Anderson) Lee and David Hasselhoff. Rename the show "X-Watch."
Hey, its guaranteed to be a hit in Germany with all of D.H.'s star power.
I guess that would give new meaning to the phrase "I have alien implants."
>;)
Hmmm, or they could have Nitrozac replace Scully. Which wouldn't be all that bad, you'd only get shots of Scully from behind or great close-ups of her boots!
"Lone Gunmen, I'd like you to meet friends of mine; they're the Techno-Talkin' Babes."
Ok...back to work for me.
-Vel
Protective of their young isn't the behavior in question. The image of a "mother defending its young" is very pervasive.
Question here is: Are there any examples of elephant behavior where they carry along and nurture a severely (ie: cannot survive "on its own") handicapped calf? Or are there examples of the behavior similar my buffalo example? Elephants have been shown to do things that were thought to be uniquely human such as mourning for their dead, having cemetaries (sp?), and others (but these are the only ones that come to mind at the moment). I would be interested in any factual information that you could provide one way or the other.
I don't feel that 'pointing to the actual genome' is silly. The statement was made that this behavior was built-in. That implies a hereditary trait, which means the specific location(s) on the DNA strand responsible for this. If it can't then this behavior is a learned one.
Just because evolutionary theory has been around longer doesn't necessarily a lot. Creation theory has been around longer *cough*. >;)
-Vel
Have a nice day!
Wrong Reznor.
This one had nothing to do with this...mostly.
(Pardon the pun.)
:)
-Vel