"No, it's made for instructing people in what is right. Morally right, not factually right. After learning, we are to use this knowledge to do "every good work"."
However, if you make claims of fact, e.g. jesus is the some of god, based on the bible, then you are, in fact, claiming the bible makes claims about how the world works.
Futher, if there is more than one way to know what is good, then there is no need for religion. Which is what slashdot has been telling you. Thus, if you know of other ways to do good, yet you cling to the bible, then there are other reasons you cling to the bible and "doing good" is just a red herring. If you feel it's condescending, I can't help that. Unless you provide evidence to the contrary, fairytale is all one can claim about the bible.
You state "If I could prove it, it wouldn't be faith." as if you are sharing something new. That is obvious. Further, there is no inherent value in faith. It's always presented as if it's a moral value. It's just a statement of belief without evidence. You cannot simply claim that supernatural fairytales are an "integral part of faith" as if you are making a statement with meaning. In other words, just because you have "faith" that your fairytales are valid, doesn't let you off the hook for providing evidence when you choose to enter a debate in a forum such as this. They are fairytales which you defend as fact with your bible. You cannot refute this, without addressing how you would know about jesus and god without the bible. It is the bible that gives you your fairytale "facts".
plurvert
Re:I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
I have tried vim. It isn't qedit. Just curious, did you ever use qedit? It's more than just the features, it's the right combination of features and ease of use. vim, and even vi have plenty of features, they're just not as accessible as qedit was. Qedit has a menubar as well as shortcuts for everything.
plurvert
I want semware Qedit
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I want Qedit for unix. It's macros were extremely usable on the fly and I've found nothing else that balance of power and features that it had.
Column copy, split windows, multiple macros that could be quickly defined by a simple to use keystroke recorder. Completely configurable. Oh, and fast and small.
I've tried most of the unix terminal editors. I end up using either vi or nano.
Here's the big point, don't blink or you might miss it. If christianity is ONLY about doing good work, then neither the bible nor god is necessary.
Please don't tell me that you're so arrogant to believe that other non-christian peoples of the world do not know what good is?
You cannot divorce your christian self from supernatural fairytales. Do you believe that a man was the product of a virgin birth? Do you further believe he was the "son" of your magical fairytale god, then you are making claims about the nature of what is possible in the world based on the bible. You are making claims about the truth of fairytales.
Right, slashdotters aren't talking about what most christians believe, just a minority. It's not "us" who are nutbags, it's those fundamentalists over there. No matter how it comes accross to you, what people are criticizing is belief in the supernatural. Without the supernatural, you are making the agnostics argument. Belief in god is not just a philosophy, even to non-fundamentalist. I doubt most people would care one way or the other if christians just felt that the Bible should be read as philosophy. That, however, is not the case.
Here is a quote from one of your links:
"There is something about people who are in touch with the sacred that can be felt by those around them; it evokes awe and amazement and impresses people with the feeling of another world."
What does that mean? I don't find it to be true, I find people "in touch with the sacred" to be either annoying or in need of help. Define "in touch with the sacred". Describe how you measure how someone is "in touch with the sacred". The point of course is that "being in touch with the sacred" is a fairy tale no different than the fundamentalist fairy tales. From my experience, religious "scholars" avoid discussion through meta-argument, that is, arguing about arguing. The issue isn't literal vs non-literal, it's that you ascribe anything to the bible at all other than a collection of stories. If you bother to respond, explain please what value you think one should get from a specific quote from the bible and why one needs to read the bible and have a christian viewpoint in order to hold that value.
I've never had that problem. Most profs are understanding enough. The only limititation I have encountered is that they will not necessarily know how to help you. Since I am quite comfortable with my calculator, that has never been an issue for me.
I'm talking about university of course, not high school/middle school.
That's too limited a reason. I've owned HPs since the 41c and TIs since the TI57. HP used to OWN the pro market because of the superior quality but TI still had the school/home market because of price. Even new TI calculators are crap in terms of build quality compared to any HP 48**, but, in terms of functionality there is no comparison.
The TI 83+ is used almost exclusively in middle school/ junior high, but the 89s are used a lot in college. Frankly I don't like the 83 series but they do a lot, and what teachers like is that they don't do too much. Personally, I prefer the TI-92+. Yes it's big and ugly, but it's a lot lighter than a laptop and doesnt' have a clamshell design. What makes the 89/92 so much better is not just the speed in comparison to HP4* but also the user friendliness of the command line. It is a small CAS built into a calculator and is sophisticated enough to do things that would be quite tedious on other calculators. Almost everything can be done either symbolically or numerically. Want to know what the determinant of a matrix is symbolically, you can. Now plug values into the variables and get a numeric result. The TI92 has a small querty keyboard, and although it's a bit geeky, it makes it dramatically more useful than even the 89 although they have the same software.
I much prefer RPN, and there is NO comparison between old HP build quality and TI, but HP dropped the ball after the 48 and have never got it back. Frankly, I don't think they want it. It isn't really calculators that killed their market, but PCs. The TI-92 is about the best calculator you can use without using a computer. The only criticism I have of it is size, not just in portability, but in terms of finger memory for quick calculations. For that you can pry my 42s out of my cold dead hands.
Techies should keep this in mind when dealing with their users. Good "computerside" manner really helps to ease users minds, make them feel comfortable with the CHANGES you are making, and getting them to (god I hate this term) "buy-in" to the ideas you are presenting. When you need support from these employees later it will be easier to come by if you have thought of their relationships with their workspaces.
I, and I suppose most techies, just think of a computer as a box of parts readied to be dumped as soon as any new piece of equipment comes along. The biggest pain to me is getting the configuration, not the data, moved from the old to the new. Users, on the other hand, don't have such an intimate knowledge of the inside of their machines and become attached to certain behaviours/modes of operation because they have attached those behaviours to ideas that they rely on.
They say things like, "After you boost the rams how will I get to word." One can either respond smugly, or, one can give the user words that make them comfortable. Of course upgrading ram will, at least in most cases, not affect things like access to applications. Instead of trying to educate the user with a technical diatribe simply say "This shouldn't affect your access to word, but we'll make absolutely sure before I leave, how's that?"
Of course this is slashdot, and I'm preaching to the choir. Given that I've seen SO MANY techs who don't recognize that a human touch would be beneficial to them, however, I felt a need to rant a bit.
This is very true. In fact, you will upset students if you disrupt the seating after the first couple of weeks. In philosophy of religion some of us decided to sit in other peoples seats about halfway through the course in an attempt to modify the dynamics of discussion. People were clearly uncomfortable, so uncomfortable in fact, that some of the group gave up after a couple of days. Perhaps they were uncomfortable not being in their own seats, who knows.
Call me crazy, but in some, perhaps rare, cases, one might have learned something from that second major. Maybe it won't help you get a job, but is that the only reason one should go to college?
Maybe I'm the only guy on slashdot to feel this way but shit like that would just annoy me.
I've had a few jobs where there was strong office comraderie like that, but in general, I think I prefer a slightly more conservative set of relationships in the workplace even if it comes at the expense of office morale.
I'm not suggesting that things should be sterile. I do, however, think one's workspace should be respected.
Well thanks for the good luck and all that. Of course you realize that it's a sig and all in good fun. My current gf, who meets all criteria, would get pretty testy if I tried to bring home ANOTHER petite geek.
I'm not a gambler, but long odds or not, it works for me. BTW: Hot, at least by madison avenue standards, isn't necessary. I prefer geeky girls. No makup and glasses are HOT HOT HOT in my book. Further, while I have nothing against older women, per se, they are usually WAY too boring for me. You claim beauty as a desirable attribute, yet take note that my formula says nothing about beauty. Intelligence, wit, charm, man those are attractive qualities. However, I can't deny I'm simply not physically attracted to "larger" women. By larger, I mean even normal size women. I like em petite and smart. Hell, even smart isn't enough, she has to be a true geek. If she doesn't know what integration by parts is, she's an automatic no.
Actresses? Christ, I don't pay attention to actresses.
You know I think we as a culture put so much emphasis on the physical attraction. Sure we are all affected by it, but what I've found is that having core ideas in common and even being able to communicate what interests you has a profound affect on the quality of a relationship.
I see so many relationships where the common ground is so minimal, you need something deeper than "she's got a great ass" to make a successful relationship.
Now about them numbers. 1.6 %! Man if 16 out of a thousand women were worthy I'd be in hog heaven. I think somthing like one in three thousand is about right. That means about one in fifty or so of women who pass your test actually are atractive to me.
God in some form, is not what christians call god. Einstein did not believe in a "personal god". You can dance around it all you like, but you cannot use Einstein to defend christian belief systems.
The parent stated:
there are intelligent people in the world that find the arguments in favor of Christianity to be persuasive
That is an apeal to authority. At least read the argument before you join in.
Yeah this is silliness, it's meta-arguing. arguing about arguing. As far as I'm concerned, that's silliness.
Yawn, Plantinga with his meta-arguments. I'm not interested in metaphysics unless you have some evidence that it is something more than mental masturbation? Christ, is that the best you can do?
He, like so many "christian philosophers" is caught up in avoiding the central questions. So that's what you think is the best part of the argument. Good, now I know what you think is a "good argument", I know how to respond at the next bitchslappin opportunity. I can hardly wait.
But of course, as is typical of a theist, you have no evidence to point at yourself. You have no ability to discuss any issue other than meta-issues. If you like, I can go pull a few examples from the anals of slashdot where believers get bitchslapped?
You can cry sour grapes all you want, but until you put your money where your mouth is, your silence gives all the reason one needs to prove my point.
Einstein was for all intents and purposes an agnostic. You believers love to trot him out as if it proves your point. It doesn't. Further, pointing out any individual is an appeal to authority and is not evidience. Now, if you can point to one of those individuals having performed an experiement showing god exists, now there you'd have something.
Now, can you point out any famous atheists in Galileo's time?
I didn't catch this the first time, but I want to point out the fallacy in your question.
So if I believe I can pray to trees that listen to me I'm a nutjob, but I'm not a nutjob if I pray to a being I can't see or hear who created everything because of some intangible part of me that will live on after my biological death? I'm not arguing with you either way, I just find these kind of arguments funny, and most religious discussions are like this to me.
That isn't what I said and you know that isn't what I said. However, there is good reason to support that one is a "nutjob" if they are praying to trees because we have a pretty good understanding of trees and rightly think they don't have the capacity to hear you. Certainly, one could attempt to test this hypothesis, but most scientists AND priests would consider it a waste of time. Now, are you suggesting that trees can hear your prayers? If so, on what basis? If you are, I suggest, as I did before, you are a nutjob.
Now, if you claim to believe in god and that god can hear you, then I might say you are wrong, but it isn't the same as praying to trees now is it.
While you have no evidence that god exists, the very foundations of religious belief expect you to believe god does exist, hence praying to a god that doesn't exist under the belief it exists would be no different than a child asking santa claus for a christmas present. I would classify this as simply deluded, not nutty.
One can either assert that some type of god exists, or one doesn't assert. If you claim it can hear you then you are asserting god. If you think it can help you then you are asserting god. If you think it's just the trees, then you have made no argument whatsoever and your "spirituality" is nothing more than a comfort blanket.
Believers cannot claim that they don't believe when it's convenient to make a point. Religion is inextricably tied to the supernatural.
Insofar as praying without knowing what you're praying to. Why call it prayer? It's not, and you are by definition, agnostic/atheist. If you find meditation helps you in some way, welcome to the wonderful world of the human psyche, but that is not religion. If you claim there is more, then your are making an assertion that you are not honestly representing here.
Your comments seem to be designed to demonstrate my point. Consider:
most of the religious discussion I've witnessed on this site is neither thoughtful nor productive
I've seen much that is, so what you really mean is that you didn't agree with the moderators.
...but of course, I wasn't talking about the moderation, but about the quality of the discussion, so your point doesn't follow. You aren't playing by the rules of rational discourse.
I beg to differ. You made a statement that was entirely opinion. I disagreed with your opinion, and proposed a reason that you might have such an opinion. There's nothing to have a "discourse about" in the above statement. You made generalization that has no basis other than what you think.
You assert that the "best part of the debate" requires respect for christian beliefs. I disagree with the assertion as it stands, that is that intellectual debate requires respect for the other persons position. If you wish to show, for example, that you have proof for god's existence, you must have respect for the notion of proof. If you wish to show that god is omnipotent, then we must respect the definition of omnipotent. However, you can quote the bible till your blue in the face but there is no requirement for me to respect that as evidence. If you wish respect for your beliefs, provide evidence that they should be respected. The "empiricists" have been providing mountains of evidence for hundreds of years why science should be respected. In fact, you are reading this message on what could only be construed as evidence in the "strongest possible terms" that science has something to offer the world and that science ought to be respected.
The point, however, is more than just respect. Science has shown evidence that what it offers to the world is true. It is repeatable, testable, observable. Religion has offered nothing of the sort. There is no evidence that god exists, if you think you have some, share it and watch it get bitchslapped out of the "rational discourse" faster than you can say hail mary.
No hard feelings; I'm just trying to explain why your comments, which probably seem lucid and self-evident to you, are entirely unconvincing to me.
Don't flatter yourself and don't patronize me. The truth is, you've said absolutely nothing about christianity, religion, or god. You can criticize me all you want, but until you actually engage in a conversation on slashdot all you are doing is making my case. I'll reassert in case it wasn't clear burried in the humor. Theists won't discuss things on slashdot because there are too many intelligent people who have the education to refute any claim of truth in religion. You talk about rational discourse as if you know what it is or that you are doing it. You are just talking about it. If you have such an intelligent insightful position, then share it. If you know so much about religion and discussion then you should be armed to make a convincing and compelling argument that will cause many of us to reconsider our positions.
All I have heard so far is an attempt to insult my opinions, or others on slashdot and a weak appeal to some imaginary authority, the so called "many intelligent christians".
You cannot confuse my position on your "opinion of religious discourse on slashdot" with my position on religion. So, sir, you are the one not playing by the rules of rational discourse. I disagree with your assertion that one must respect any religious argument to get the best part of the debate. Perhaps you could start by sharing exactly what you think the "best part of the debate" is...I can hardly wait.
/plurvert
You might be a fundy....
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 0, Troll
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A (CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALIST
(found on www.evilbible.com)
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of
gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when
someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists
say that people evolved from other life forms, but you
have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were
created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem
believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the
"atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even
flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all
the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" --
including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and
Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have
no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated
Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed,
came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little
loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth
(4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with
believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting
in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of
generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet
with the exception of those who share your beliefs --
though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend
Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet
consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and
physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot
rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be
all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it
comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be
evidence that prayer works. And you think that the
remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and
agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church
history - but still call yourself a Christian.
/plurvert
Re:I'll bite the troll
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
most of the religious discussion I've witnessed on this site is neither thoughtful nor productive
I've seen much that is, so what you really mean is that you didn't agree with the moderators.
f you are interested in engaging in the best part of the debate, then start with respect instead of contempt, and you'll get the best the other person has to offer.
That doesn't follow. But I'm not surprised that you think that. Christianity, however, has a history of intense disrespect to those who disagreed with the church, there is no need to stand on pretense now that your power is dwindling.
One only needs to start with an assertion that one can debate then debate it.
few people who want to comment on religion on this site seem interested in playing by any rules of rational discourse
ROTFLMAO, please, you can't be serious.
/plurvert
Re:come one people
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That's because slashdot would bitchslap you back to land of magic make believe so fast you wouldn't know what hit ya!
On a more serious note. This is exactly the kind of place christians are afraid to make any kind of serious argument of their faith. You will be forced to defend against a large population of individuals with no fear to question the basis of your arguments. Almost all responses from christians on slashdot are laced with carefully guarded qualifiers that they are expressing their own beliefs, or that is their religion. You know that you are outnumbered and the average slashdotter will flog you with facts, so you don't try.
Get over it. This isn't news for nerds, this is news for nerds to make fun of. That's why it posted/accepted on slashdot. Taking the moral high ground is easy when you have no other argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Irritating is not the word I would use.
you said:
"No, it's made for instructing people in what is right. Morally right, not factually right. After learning, we are to use this knowledge to do "every good work"."
However, if you make claims of fact, e.g. jesus is the some of god, based on the bible, then you are, in fact, claiming the bible makes claims about how the world works.
Futher, if there is more than one way to know what is good, then there is no need for religion. Which is what slashdot has been telling you. Thus, if you know of other ways to do good, yet you cling to the bible, then there are other reasons you cling to the bible and "doing good" is just a red herring. If you feel it's condescending, I can't help that. Unless you provide evidence to the contrary, fairytale is all one can claim about the bible.
You state "If I could prove it, it wouldn't be faith." as if you are sharing something new. That is obvious. Further, there is no inherent value in faith. It's always presented as if it's a moral value. It's just a statement of belief without evidence. You cannot simply claim that supernatural fairytales are an "integral part of faith" as if you are making a statement with meaning. In other words, just because you have "faith" that your fairytales are valid, doesn't let you off the hook for providing evidence when you choose to enter a debate in a forum such as this. They are fairytales which you defend as fact with your bible. You cannot refute this, without addressing how you would know about jesus and god without the bible. It is the bible that gives you your fairytale "facts".
plurvert
I have tried vim. It isn't qedit. Just curious, did you ever use qedit? It's more than just the features, it's the right combination of features and ease of use. vim, and even vi have plenty of features, they're just not as accessible as qedit was. Qedit has a menubar as well as shortcuts for everything.
plurvert
I want Qedit for unix. It's macros were extremely usable on the fly and I've found nothing else that balance of power and features that it had.
Column copy, split windows, multiple macros that could be quickly defined by a simple to use keystroke recorder. Completely configurable. Oh, and fast and small.
I've tried most of the unix terminal editors. I end up using either vi or nano.
plurvert
Here's the big point, don't blink or you might miss it. If christianity is ONLY about doing good work, then neither the bible nor god is necessary.
Please don't tell me that you're so arrogant to believe that other non-christian peoples of the world do not know what good is?
You cannot divorce your christian self from supernatural fairytales. Do you believe that a man was the product of a virgin birth? Do you further believe he was the "son" of your magical fairytale god, then you are making claims about the nature of what is possible in the world based on the bible. You are making claims about the truth of fairytales.
plurvert
Right, slashdotters aren't talking about what most christians believe, just a minority. It's not "us" who are nutbags, it's those fundamentalists over there. No matter how it comes accross to you, what people are criticizing is belief in the supernatural. Without the supernatural, you are making the agnostics argument. Belief in god is not just a philosophy, even to non-fundamentalist. I doubt most people would care one way or the other if christians just felt that the Bible should be read as philosophy. That, however, is not the case.
Here is a quote from one of your links:
"There is something about people who are in touch with the sacred that can be felt by those around them; it evokes awe and amazement and impresses people with the feeling of another world."
What does that mean? I don't find it to be true, I find people "in touch with the sacred" to be either annoying or in need of help. Define "in touch with the sacred". Describe how you measure how someone is "in touch with the sacred". The point of course is that "being in touch with the sacred" is a fairy tale no different than the fundamentalist fairy tales. From my experience, religious "scholars" avoid discussion through meta-argument, that is, arguing about arguing. The issue isn't literal vs non-literal, it's that you ascribe anything to the bible at all other than a collection of stories. If you bother to respond, explain please what value you think one should get from a specific quote from the bible and why one needs to read the bible and have a christian viewpoint in order to hold that value.
plurvert
Wow, you had punch cards! We had patch cords, and you had to make em yourself.
kids these days...
I've never had that problem. Most profs are understanding enough. The only limititation I have encountered is that they will not necessarily know how to help you. Since I am quite comfortable with my calculator, that has never been an issue for me.
I'm talking about university of course, not high school/middle school.
plurvert
Where's the big Enter button? It won't replace either my 41 or 42 without a big enter button.
plurvert
That's too limited a reason. I've owned HPs since the 41c and TIs since the TI57. HP used to OWN the pro market because of the superior quality but TI still had the school/home market because of price. Even new TI calculators are crap in terms of build quality compared to any HP 48**, but, in terms of functionality there is no comparison.
The TI 83+ is used almost exclusively in middle school/ junior high, but the 89s are used a lot in college. Frankly I don't like the 83 series but they do a lot, and what teachers like is that they don't do too much. Personally, I prefer the TI-92+. Yes it's big and ugly, but it's a lot lighter than a laptop and doesnt' have a clamshell design. What makes the 89/92 so much better is not just the speed in comparison to HP4* but also the user friendliness of the command line. It is a small CAS built into a calculator and is sophisticated enough to do things that would be quite tedious on other calculators. Almost everything can be done either symbolically or numerically. Want to know what the determinant of a matrix is symbolically, you can. Now plug values into the variables and get a numeric result. The TI92 has a small querty keyboard, and although it's a bit geeky, it makes it dramatically more useful than even the 89 although they have the same software.
I much prefer RPN, and there is NO comparison between old HP build quality and TI, but HP dropped the ball after the 48 and have never got it back. Frankly, I don't think they want it. It isn't really calculators that killed their market, but PCs. The TI-92 is about the best calculator you can use without using a computer. The only criticism I have of it is size, not just in portability, but in terms of finger memory for quick calculations. For that you can pry my 42s out of my cold dead hands.
plurvert
Techies should keep this in mind when dealing with their users. Good "computerside" manner really helps to ease users minds, make them feel comfortable with the CHANGES you are making, and getting them to (god I hate this term) "buy-in" to the ideas you are presenting. When you need support from these employees later it will be easier to come by if you have thought of their relationships with their workspaces.
I, and I suppose most techies, just think of a computer as a box of parts readied to be dumped as soon as any new piece of equipment comes along. The biggest pain to me is getting the configuration, not the data, moved from the old to the new. Users, on the other hand, don't have such an intimate knowledge of the inside of their machines and become attached to certain behaviours/modes of operation because they have attached those behaviours to ideas that they rely on.
They say things like, "After you boost the rams how will I get to word." One can either respond smugly, or, one can give the user words that make them comfortable. Of course upgrading ram will, at least in most cases, not affect things like access to applications. Instead of trying to educate the user with a technical diatribe simply say "This shouldn't affect your access to word, but we'll make absolutely sure before I leave, how's that?"
Of course this is slashdot, and I'm preaching to the choir. Given that I've seen SO MANY techs who don't recognize that a human touch would be beneficial to them, however, I felt a need to rant a bit.
plurvert
This is very true. In fact, you will upset students if you disrupt the seating after the first couple of weeks. In philosophy of religion some of us decided to sit in other peoples seats about halfway through the course in an attempt to modify the dynamics of discussion. People were clearly uncomfortable, so uncomfortable in fact, that some of the group gave up after a couple of days. Perhaps they were uncomfortable not being in their own seats, who knows.
Call me crazy, but in some, perhaps rare, cases, one might have learned something from that second major. Maybe it won't help you get a job, but is that the only reason one should go to college?
And some do!
Maybe I'm the only guy on slashdot to feel this way but shit like that would just annoy me.
I've had a few jobs where there was strong office comraderie like that, but in general, I think I prefer a slightly more conservative set of relationships in the workplace even if it comes at the expense of office morale.
I'm not suggesting that things should be sterile. I do, however, think one's workspace should be respected.
Mr Party Pooper
Well thanks for the good luck and all that. Of course you realize that it's a sig and all in good fun. My current gf, who meets all criteria, would get pretty testy if I tried to bring home ANOTHER petite geek.
;)
They ARE hard to find, but worth the wait.
plurvert
btw: she reads slashdot
I'm not a gambler, but long odds or not, it works for me. BTW: Hot, at least by madison avenue standards, isn't necessary. I prefer geeky girls. No makup and glasses are HOT HOT HOT in my book. Further, while I have nothing against older women, per se, they are usually WAY too boring for me. You claim beauty as a desirable attribute, yet take note that my formula says nothing about beauty. Intelligence, wit, charm, man those are attractive qualities. However, I can't deny I'm simply not physically attracted to "larger" women. By larger, I mean even normal size women. I like em petite and smart. Hell, even smart isn't enough, she has to be a true geek. If she doesn't know what integration by parts is, she's an automatic no.
Actresses? Christ, I don't pay attention to actresses.
You know I think we as a culture put so much emphasis on the physical attraction. Sure we are all affected by it, but what I've found is that having core ideas in common and even being able to communicate what interests you has a profound affect on the quality of a relationship.
I see so many relationships where the common ground is so minimal, you need something deeper than "she's got a great ass" to make a successful relationship.
Now about them numbers. 1.6 %! Man if 16 out of a thousand women were worthy I'd be in hog heaven. I think somthing like one in three thousand is about right. That means about one in fifty or so of women who pass your test actually are atractive to me.
plurvert
Date a 30 year old woman ? Maybe when I'm sixty!
God in some form, is not what christians call god. Einstein did not believe in a "personal god". You can dance around it all you like, but you cannot use Einstein to defend christian belief systems.
/plurvert
The parent stated:
there are intelligent people in the world that find the arguments in favor of Christianity to be persuasive
That is an apeal to authority. At least read the argument before you join in.
Yeah this is silliness, it's meta-arguing. arguing about arguing. As far as I'm concerned, that's silliness.
Yawn, Plantinga with his meta-arguments. I'm not interested in metaphysics unless you have some evidence that it is something more than mental masturbation? Christ, is that the best you can do?
/plurvert
He, like so many "christian philosophers" is caught up in avoiding the central questions. So that's what you think is the best part of the argument. Good, now I know what you think is a "good argument", I know how to respond at the next bitchslappin opportunity. I can hardly wait.
But of course, as is typical of a theist, you have no evidence to point at yourself. You have no ability to discuss any issue other than meta-issues. If you like, I can go pull a few examples from the anals of slashdot where believers get bitchslapped?
You can cry sour grapes all you want, but until you put your money where your mouth is, your silence gives all the reason one needs to prove my point.
Einstein was for all intents and purposes an agnostic. You believers love to trot him out as if it proves your point. It doesn't. Further, pointing out any individual is an appeal to authority and is not evidience. Now, if you can point to one of those individuals having performed an experiement showing god exists, now there you'd have something.
Now, can you point out any famous atheists in Galileo's time?
Are we done with this silliness yet?
I didn't catch this the first time, but I want to point out the fallacy in your question.
/plurvert
So if I believe I can pray to trees that listen to me I'm a nutjob, but I'm not a nutjob if I pray to a being I can't see or hear who created everything because of some intangible part of me that will live on after my biological death? I'm not arguing with you either way, I just find these kind of arguments funny, and most religious discussions are like this to me.
That isn't what I said and you know that isn't what I said. However, there is good reason to support that one is a "nutjob" if they are praying to trees because we have a pretty good understanding of trees and rightly think they don't have the capacity to hear you. Certainly, one could attempt to test this hypothesis, but most scientists AND priests would consider it a waste of time. Now, are you suggesting that trees can hear your prayers? If so, on what basis? If you are, I suggest, as I did before, you are a nutjob.
Now, if you claim to believe in god and that god can hear you, then I might say you are wrong, but it isn't the same as praying to trees now is it.
While you have no evidence that god exists, the very foundations of religious belief expect you to believe god does exist, hence praying to a god that doesn't exist under the belief it exists would be no different than a child asking santa claus for a christmas present. I would classify this as simply deluded, not nutty.
One can either assert that some type of god exists, or one doesn't assert. If you claim it can hear you then you are asserting god. If you think it can help you then you are asserting god. If you think it's just the trees, then you have made no argument whatsoever and your "spirituality" is nothing more than a comfort blanket.
Believers cannot claim that they don't believe when it's convenient to make a point. Religion is inextricably tied to the supernatural.
Insofar as praying without knowing what you're praying to. Why call it prayer? It's not, and you are by definition, agnostic/atheist. If you find meditation helps you in some way, welcome to the wonderful world of the human psyche, but that is not religion. If you claim there is more, then your are making an assertion that you are not honestly representing here.
Your comments seem to be designed to demonstrate my point. Consider:
I beg to differ. You made a statement that was entirely opinion. I disagreed with your opinion, and proposed a reason that you might have such an opinion. There's nothing to have a "discourse about" in the above statement. You made generalization that has no basis other than what you think.
You assert that the "best part of the debate" requires respect for christian beliefs. I disagree with the assertion as it stands, that is that intellectual debate requires respect for the other persons position. If you wish to show, for example, that you have proof for god's existence, you must have respect for the notion of proof. If you wish to show that god is omnipotent, then we must respect the definition of omnipotent. However, you can quote the bible till your blue in the face but there is no requirement for me to respect that as evidence. If you wish respect for your beliefs, provide evidence that they should be respected. The "empiricists" have been providing mountains of evidence for hundreds of years why science should be respected. In fact, you are reading this message on what could only be construed as evidence in the "strongest possible terms" that science has something to offer the world and that science ought to be respected.
The point, however, is more than just respect. Science has shown evidence that what it offers to the world is true. It is repeatable, testable, observable. Religion has offered nothing of the sort. There is no evidence that god exists, if you think you have some, share it and watch it get bitchslapped out of the "rational discourse" faster than you can say hail mary.
No hard feelings; I'm just trying to explain why your comments, which probably seem lucid and self-evident to you, are entirely unconvincing to me.
Don't flatter yourself and don't patronize me. The truth is, you've said absolutely nothing about christianity, religion, or god. You can criticize me all you want, but until you actually engage in a conversation on slashdot all you are doing is making my case. I'll reassert in case it wasn't clear burried in the humor. Theists won't discuss things on slashdot because there are too many intelligent people who have the education to refute any claim of truth in religion. You talk about rational discourse as if you know what it is or that you are doing it. You are just talking about it. If you have such an intelligent insightful position, then share it. If you know so much about religion and discussion then you should be armed to make a convincing and compelling argument that will cause many of us to reconsider our positions.
All I have heard so far is an attempt to insult my opinions, or others on slashdot and a weak appeal to some imaginary authority, the so called "many intelligent christians".
You cannot confuse my position on your "opinion of religious discourse on slashdot" with my position on religion. So, sir, you are the one not playing by the rules of rational discourse. I disagree with your assertion that one must respect any religious argument to get the best part of the debate. Perhaps you could start by sharing exactly what you think the "best part of the debate" is...I can hardly wait.
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A (CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALIST
/plurvert
(found on www.evilbible.com)
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
most of the religious discussion I've witnessed on this site is neither thoughtful nor productive
/plurvert
I've seen much that is, so what you really mean is that you didn't agree with the moderators.
f you are interested in engaging in the best part of the debate, then start with respect instead of contempt, and you'll get the best the other person has to offer.
That doesn't follow. But I'm not surprised that you think that. Christianity, however, has a history of intense disrespect to those who disagreed with the church, there is no need to stand on pretense now that your power is dwindling.
One only needs to start with an assertion that one can debate then debate it.
few people who want to comment on religion on this site seem interested in playing by any rules of rational discourse
ROTFLMAO, please, you can't be serious.
That's because slashdot would bitchslap you back to land of magic make believe so fast you wouldn't know what hit ya!
/plurvet
On a more serious note. This is exactly the kind of place christians are afraid to make any kind of serious argument of their faith. You will be forced to defend against a large population of individuals with no fear to question the basis of your arguments. Almost all responses from christians on slashdot are laced with carefully guarded qualifiers that they are expressing their own beliefs, or that is their religion. You know that you are outnumbered and the average slashdotter will flog you with facts, so you don't try.
Get over it. This isn't news for nerds, this is news for nerds to make fun of. That's why it posted/accepted on slashdot. Taking the moral high ground is easy when you have no other argument.
And you can hit on the nuns without getting your knuckles rapped.
/plurvert