Amen to that. Let the fundamentalists pay for their wars in the Middle East. The rest of us will fund medical research. It'd be amusing to see how long they keep "supporting the troops" when it's coming out of their own pockets.
I contend that life on Earth did not always exist. Furthermore, I contend that the Earth did not always exist. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the Milky Way did not always exist. What is eternal in this scenario? Time? Energy? Love? Such contemplation is not for science. Let's return to Earth, where life appeared some time ago and is still here. (We can agree on that.) The question we ask is "what has happened to life on Earth since it appeared?" The scientific answer to this question requires evidence, such as fossils.
It is disingenuous to suggest that creationism has an adequate interpretation of the entire fossil record simply by tweaking the dating methods a little bit. You'd have to ignore dating entirely, and assume (with no evidence) that everything was around at about the same time and that lots of stuff died quickly and without special notice. The alternative is to use the reductio ad absurdum that leads one to believe that a god created the universe exactly as if it had been there all along, complete with evidence for evolution.
Your speculation about light being created to give the illusion of a star (whether one really exists is irrelevant) is a good example of why creationism is not science. Unlike the theories of relativity that predict the existence of stars millions of years ago deep in space, creationism can fall back on the explanation that God created the evidence we're observing. We're expected to believe that this is a valid argument against relativity's predictions! It is not.
An atheist is someone who agrees with Christians that Zeus, Odin, Shiva, and countless other gods don't really exist, but disagrees about the existence of the Christian God.
An agnostic is someone who admits the possibility of any combination of those gods existing, through humility, tolerance, apathy, or any other reason.
The "anti-God" vision of the atheist is just a stereotype. Typical atheists don't have any particular preference for one god over another; they disbelieve in them all equally.
I don't follow. Why can't I say that life on Earth evolved from simpler forms without taking a position on the origins of the universe? I find the evidence in favor of evolution compelling. No faith is required!
How do YOU stop someone sitting next to you whose beliefs are not only inimical to yours, but he WANTS to kill you?
We deal with murderers with a system of justice that administers punishments for crimes. We can't preemptively stop all murders from taking place, but we can hope for justice. This system has served us reasonably well so far. What makes Newt think that now is the time to change it? Does he have some secret information that the murder rate is going to spike in the near future? (Will the measures he's suggesting even have an appreciable effect on the murder rate?) No, it's more likely that he's an ideologue as the grandparent described.
...since so MANY people are so instantly ready to criticize, they MUST have solutions themselves, right?
I doubt there will be any solutions, because you have not proposed a problem. There have always been people who would think nothing of killing you. What's this special new problem you want us to solve for you?
...Miller decision in which the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment was, in contrast to the rest of the Bill of Rights, written to grant power to the government rather than the citizenry.
The Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. You're referring to the state governments. Note that Amendment 10 appears to "grant power" to the state governments as well. It's not as unusual as you think.
I find the ACLU's position to be reasonable. They're not making any claims about whether gun control is good or bad. They just say that the second amendment appears to have nothing to do with it, and therefore the ACLU should remain neutral.
I think a rating system should obey these principles:
Garbage games shouldn't hurt. Assume the gamers will do their homework and avoid the truly bad ones. (Well, make exceptions for flagship products and bundled games.)
Decent games should help. If it's worth playing, it's an asset to the console.
Improving the rating of a game should never decrease the overall rating of the console launch.
A rating system based on average scores violates 1 and 2. Using standard deviations further violates 3. (If the average score is 50, a high deviation is good. Raising the lowest score lowers the deviation.) Only considering the top few games violates 2. Only considering a top percentage violates 1 and 2.
I recommend subtracting 75% from each score, clamping at zero, and summing.
Some of your tax dollars go to (1) covering taxes that churches don't pay and (2) actually giving free handouts to churches (typically ones that serve up the 'correct' political message).
Everyone on Earth disbelieves in more beings than they believe in. Disbelief predates belief, and is more pervasive in humans than any particular belief. The burden of proof is on the believers.
Pascal's wager reaches an absurd conclusion. You can use the very same argument in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Pascal compares a decision (whether to believe in God) with a reality (whether God actually exists). I find it more enlightening to consider all gods from all religions and mythologies. You have to decide which one, if any, to believe in. These gods generally hate heresy (worshipping the wrong god), so the punishment for choosing the incorrect deity is greatest of all, while the punishment for choosing no god when one exists is moderate. Given your choice of, say, fifty gods, which do you choose?
The above scenario is actually not very good either. It doesn't take into account the relative probabilities of each god existing. You could generate a hundred, a thousand, or even infinite potential gods (that may exist even if no one's heard of them until now) and observe that it's a probabilistic certainty that no one is worshipping the correct god. It would be better to make some guesses about what kind of god exists (if any), given what we know about the universe. Enter Ockham's Razor.
You're more likely to find an Inuit People & Culture Museum. Documenting the culture is not the same thing as documenting the creation of the world in seven days. If there is a museum that attempts to explain how Inuit creation myths are correct and upheld by the fossil record then it deserves to be laughed at.
It must be because I like freedom. Including their freedom to build their museum.
Did someone say that it should be illegal to build ridiculous museums? I think it's funny that you take a post making fun of the concept of Inuit creation myth museums, accuse the poster of being labeled a bigoted fascist by some other people (whom you disagree with), and take it upon yourself to "defend Christianity" from this attack... on Inuit creationism? What?
If humans were created by Jesus out of the scorched remains of Titans on the back of a giant turtle, evolution would not be any less observable.
If the moon is held above the earth by the magical crystals of Atlantis, which draw their energies from the immortal spirit of Vlad the Impaler, then gravity would not be any less observable.
What you're missing here is that an open AP literally broadcasts invitations. (An invitation in this context can be defined as symbolic communication offering a free service.) An analogy that lacks this component is too weak to be useful. I defy you to come up with one in which it is clearly wrong to take a literal invitation seriously.
This article has nothing to do with understanding technology. It's about "tech-friendliness", which is essentially loyalty to certain lobbyists deemed to represent "technology". A congressperson can get a perfect score without knowing anything at all about technology.
That line is used against Kerry often, but that's because he's so bad at explaining that a considerate senator must consider the whole bill and its alternatives, not just the political expediancy of its title and prominent sections.
No, it's not because he's bad at explaining it. It's just an opportunity to bash Kerry. I can't think of one single intelligent person who holds that line against Kerry.
It's like the Al Gore "invented" misquote; if you can't say anything good about Bush then you have no choice but to lie about his opposition.
There's a gap in your reasoning! How is calling someone a bigot an act of intolerance? I don't recall the OP stating any intolerance or animosity toward bigots. Heck, the fellow could be the president of Save the Bigots for all we know. Your assumption shows that you think that bigotry is bad. Therefore, you are yourself a bigot!
Didn't the assault weapons ban expire? Pro-gun conservatives have been in power for some time now, and you haven't even noticed the difference? By all accounts we ought to be living in a gun paradise by now. Why are people still harping on second amendment issues?
Forgive my hyperbole. I did not mean the "Messiah" part literally. The non-Christianity of such a claim is part of my point. Jesus was supposed to have unlimited power and yet he chose to live in poverty and not establish a Christian regime. To claim more authority for oneself is on some level like claiming to be a greater Messiah. At the same time, I do not wish to limit my comment exclusively to Christians. You are correct that many religions deserve the same criticism.
I don't mean to hold anything against people; I would just prefer that they observe their religions in a way that less controls their neighbors.
As for Bush, let's just say I am pissed at the republicans for violating a basic principle of their party
Then you should also be pissed at Bush Sr., Reagan, Ford, Nixon, all the way back to Lincoln, who was as big-government as they come. You don't think that Nixon's thought police was in pursuit of a small government, do you? Or Reagan's stockpiling of nukes and making shady deals behind our backs? No, it's been perfectly clear to me what the Republican party does and does not stand for.
Now, it's fair to say that there are a lot of dirty racial politics going on. What's not clear is that this is an attempt to divide the nation against itself. No one is saying that any one race is superior to any other. No one is saying that it is morally wrong to be of a certain race. Contrast this with the issue of sexual orientation and the abortion issue.
As for FDR and his successor, you'll have to explain what you mean about not "offending anyone's sensitivities". It sounds like code for something, maybe the torture issue. If that's the case, then you should recall that Truman did approve of the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, it is not clear that torture has actually reduced terrorism. Torture sounds to me like a political maneuver to expand the powers of the president under the guise of security.
I do miss the concept of humility in religion. These days it seems that every churchgoer is The Messiah and is eager to tell you exactly how to fix all the problems you didn't know you had.
Time for a little education. First, the really hard-line liberals don't like Clinton that much. He's a moderate. Then again, many liberals agree with the need to reform welfare. ("Reform" doesn't mean "destroy".) If you're disappointed by Bush then you weren't paying attention in 2000. All of the warning signs were there; you should have known. Clinton is definitely not a Republican, but he's pretty close to what some Libertarians imagine that a Republican should be. A real Republican is more concerned with attacking gays and concentrating wealth than any Libertarian concerns.
I've heard it said that liberals favor unity and conservatives favor division. Perhaps that's why Democrats give us moderates like Clinton and Kerry while Republicans stick to far-right radicals like Bush.
that isn't meant to be there for self defense.. it is to be there so that the people will have the means if necessary to retaliate against their own government..
Is that so? I thought the primary purpose of the second amendment was to explicitly allow localities to maintain fighting power to be called upon against whatever threat may appear.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen to that. Let the fundamentalists pay for their wars in the Middle East. The rest of us will fund medical research. It'd be amusing to see how long they keep "supporting the troops" when it's coming out of their own pockets.
I contend that life on Earth did not always exist. Furthermore, I contend that the Earth did not always exist. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the Milky Way did not always exist. What is eternal in this scenario? Time? Energy? Love? Such contemplation is not for science. Let's return to Earth, where life appeared some time ago and is still here. (We can agree on that.) The question we ask is "what has happened to life on Earth since it appeared?" The scientific answer to this question requires evidence, such as fossils.
It is disingenuous to suggest that creationism has an adequate interpretation of the entire fossil record simply by tweaking the dating methods a little bit. You'd have to ignore dating entirely, and assume (with no evidence) that everything was around at about the same time and that lots of stuff died quickly and without special notice. The alternative is to use the reductio ad absurdum that leads one to believe that a god created the universe exactly as if it had been there all along, complete with evidence for evolution.
Your speculation about light being created to give the illusion of a star (whether one really exists is irrelevant) is a good example of why creationism is not science. Unlike the theories of relativity that predict the existence of stars millions of years ago deep in space, creationism can fall back on the explanation that God created the evidence we're observing. We're expected to believe that this is a valid argument against relativity's predictions! It is not.
Let me put it this way:
An atheist is someone who agrees with Christians that Zeus, Odin, Shiva, and countless other gods don't really exist, but disagrees about the existence of the Christian God.
An agnostic is someone who admits the possibility of any combination of those gods existing, through humility, tolerance, apathy, or any other reason.
The "anti-God" vision of the atheist is just a stereotype. Typical atheists don't have any particular preference for one god over another; they disbelieve in them all equally.
I don't follow. Why can't I say that life on Earth evolved from simpler forms without taking a position on the origins of the universe? I find the evidence in favor of evolution compelling. No faith is required!
We deal with murderers with a system of justice that administers punishments for crimes. We can't preemptively stop all murders from taking place, but we can hope for justice. This system has served us reasonably well so far. What makes Newt think that now is the time to change it? Does he have some secret information that the murder rate is going to spike in the near future? (Will the measures he's suggesting even have an appreciable effect on the murder rate?) No, it's more likely that he's an ideologue as the grandparent described.
I doubt there will be any solutions, because you have not proposed a problem. There have always been people who would think nothing of killing you. What's this special new problem you want us to solve for you?
The Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. You're referring to the state governments. Note that Amendment 10 appears to "grant power" to the state governments as well. It's not as unusual as you think.
I find the ACLU's position to be reasonable. They're not making any claims about whether gun control is good or bad. They just say that the second amendment appears to have nothing to do with it, and therefore the ACLU should remain neutral.
I think a rating system should obey these principles:
A rating system based on average scores violates 1 and 2. Using standard deviations further violates 3. (If the average score is 50, a high deviation is good. Raising the lowest score lowers the deviation.) Only considering the top few games violates 2. Only considering a top percentage violates 1 and 2.
I recommend subtracting 75% from each score, clamping at zero, and summing.
Not to bring ugly politics into this, but...
Some of your tax dollars go to (1) covering taxes that churches don't pay and (2) actually giving free handouts to churches (typically ones that serve up the 'correct' political message).
Everyone on Earth disbelieves in more beings than they believe in. Disbelief predates belief, and is more pervasive in humans than any particular belief. The burden of proof is on the believers.
Pascal's wager reaches an absurd conclusion. You can use the very same argument in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Pascal compares a decision (whether to believe in God) with a reality (whether God actually exists). I find it more enlightening to consider all gods from all religions and mythologies. You have to decide which one, if any, to believe in. These gods generally hate heresy (worshipping the wrong god), so the punishment for choosing the incorrect deity is greatest of all, while the punishment for choosing no god when one exists is moderate. Given your choice of, say, fifty gods, which do you choose?
The above scenario is actually not very good either. It doesn't take into account the relative probabilities of each god existing. You could generate a hundred, a thousand, or even infinite potential gods (that may exist even if no one's heard of them until now) and observe that it's a probabilistic certainty that no one is worshipping the correct god. It would be better to make some guesses about what kind of god exists (if any), given what we know about the universe. Enter Ockham's Razor.
You're more likely to find an Inuit People & Culture Museum. Documenting the culture is not the same thing as documenting the creation of the world in seven days. If there is a museum that attempts to explain how Inuit creation myths are correct and upheld by the fossil record then it deserves to be laughed at.
Did someone say that it should be illegal to build ridiculous museums? I think it's funny that you take a post making fun of the concept of Inuit creation myth museums, accuse the poster of being labeled a bigoted fascist by some other people (whom you disagree with), and take it upon yourself to "defend Christianity" from this attack... on Inuit creationism? What?
If humans were created by Jesus out of the scorched remains of Titans on the back of a giant turtle, evolution would not be any less observable.
If the moon is held above the earth by the magical crystals of Atlantis, which draw their energies from the immortal spirit of Vlad the Impaler, then gravity would not be any less observable.
What you're missing here is that an open AP literally broadcasts invitations. (An invitation in this context can be defined as symbolic communication offering a free service.) An analogy that lacks this component is too weak to be useful. I defy you to come up with one in which it is clearly wrong to take a literal invitation seriously.
This article has nothing to do with understanding technology. It's about "tech-friendliness", which is essentially loyalty to certain lobbyists deemed to represent "technology". A congressperson can get a perfect score without knowing anything at all about technology.
No, it's not because he's bad at explaining it. It's just an opportunity to bash Kerry. I can't think of one single intelligent person who holds that line against Kerry.
It's like the Al Gore "invented" misquote; if you can't say anything good about Bush then you have no choice but to lie about his opposition.
There's a gap in your reasoning! How is calling someone a bigot an act of intolerance? I don't recall the OP stating any intolerance or animosity toward bigots. Heck, the fellow could be the president of Save the Bigots for all we know. Your assumption shows that you think that bigotry is bad. Therefore, you are yourself a bigot!
Didn't the assault weapons ban expire? Pro-gun conservatives have been in power for some time now, and you haven't even noticed the difference? By all accounts we ought to be living in a gun paradise by now. Why are people still harping on second amendment issues?
Please cite the bill/amendment in congress that would limit the second amendment.
The second amendment is under attack?
Forgive my hyperbole. I did not mean the "Messiah" part literally. The non-Christianity of such a claim is part of my point. Jesus was supposed to have unlimited power and yet he chose to live in poverty and not establish a Christian regime. To claim more authority for oneself is on some level like claiming to be a greater Messiah. At the same time, I do not wish to limit my comment exclusively to Christians. You are correct that many religions deserve the same criticism.
I don't mean to hold anything against people; I would just prefer that they observe their religions in a way that less controls their neighbors.
Then you should also be pissed at Bush Sr., Reagan, Ford, Nixon, all the way back to Lincoln, who was as big-government as they come. You don't think that Nixon's thought police was in pursuit of a small government, do you? Or Reagan's stockpiling of nukes and making shady deals behind our backs? No, it's been perfectly clear to me what the Republican party does and does not stand for.
Now, it's fair to say that there are a lot of dirty racial politics going on. What's not clear is that this is an attempt to divide the nation against itself. No one is saying that any one race is superior to any other. No one is saying that it is morally wrong to be of a certain race. Contrast this with the issue of sexual orientation and the abortion issue.
As for FDR and his successor, you'll have to explain what you mean about not "offending anyone's sensitivities". It sounds like code for something, maybe the torture issue. If that's the case, then you should recall that Truman did approve of the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, it is not clear that torture has actually reduced terrorism. Torture sounds to me like a political maneuver to expand the powers of the president under the guise of security.
I do miss the concept of humility in religion. These days it seems that every churchgoer is The Messiah and is eager to tell you exactly how to fix all the problems you didn't know you had.
Time for a little education. First, the really hard-line liberals don't like Clinton that much. He's a moderate. Then again, many liberals agree with the need to reform welfare. ("Reform" doesn't mean "destroy".) If you're disappointed by Bush then you weren't paying attention in 2000. All of the warning signs were there; you should have known. Clinton is definitely not a Republican, but he's pretty close to what some Libertarians imagine that a Republican should be. A real Republican is more concerned with attacking gays and concentrating wealth than any Libertarian concerns.
I've heard it said that liberals favor unity and conservatives favor division. Perhaps that's why Democrats give us moderates like Clinton and Kerry while Republicans stick to far-right radicals like Bush.
What are you talking about? Bush invented the iPod! He must be one smart guy.