Of course many people believe that, especially in the USA. However, it does not mean it is true.
As for the Libertarian Party - well, DUH! Libertarian idea is the complete opposite from the communist idea, on multiple levels. If I told you the communist party thinks libertarian party seduces the people into a savage, money-ueber-alles, dog-eat-dog society, which is bound for doom, what would that prove?:-)
Ayn Rand is an even worse example - given what she lived through, she *can't* be without prejudice towards communism.
Still, the GP has a valid point. There is no inherent tyranny or oppression in the definition of communism. It was the implementations that sucked - sometimes more, sometimes less. The former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (between 1945 and 1990) was not in the least like the countries you cited above. It still sucked, of course, but not much worse than the US in some parts of its' history. Only differently.
As a big Ubuntu fan, I hate having to ask how you made shared vfat windows partition world-writeable without editing/etc/fstab and setting the umask accordingly? I wasn't able to find another (beginner-friendlier) way to do it. And yes, I did RTFM.
This crossed my mind already a thousand times! Actually, I'm afraid it's even worse than that. Once we (i.e. the western world) become completely dependent on the countries we outsource our best jobs today, they will turn the other face and overtake our stupid asses just like that (snaps with fingers). This entire "we do the management and the design, and they just get the 'dirty' work to do" nonsense makes me sick: it doesn't take much brains to do a decent management job, like it does to do a decent engineering one. I should know, I'm a trained engineer, nowadays working in a management position. It is easy to pick a decent manager from a bunch of good engineers. It doesn't work the other way around.
I'm afraid only a very tiny minority of the religious folks out there share your views. As the matter of fact, you are the second person that I come to know to have this view and still call himself religious. The first person with that attitude that I have met is now my wife[1].
The great unwashed masses, including all official christian churches, would disagree with you vehemently.
See what I mean? You are glad to have the army to kick my ass just because you think it's humourless! I'm glad you don't know where this ass of mine is!:-)
On a more serious note, I am NOT bashing USA. As the matter of fact, in all mindless US bashing discussions that I from time to time get into, I'm the moderate one, always trying to show that there is really no big difference between the USA and the Europe (holy shit, now I pissed off both sides!) There is nothing bad in sometimes also pointing out the bad sides of a nation, you shouldn't equal it with bashing.
Besides, if the GGP really was a joke, it was a laaaame one.
There is indeed a lot of anti-US sentiment in the rest of the world. In part, the reason for that is just the unbelievable amount of paranoid non-sequitur reasoning, just like the one you just produced here, coming from the direction of USA on all levels (technology, politics, art - you name it). It is rather frightening to see how strange the reasoning of an average American is, given that you have the hugest and the most sophisticated army in the world, and that you are not reluctant *at* *all* when it comes to sending that army to wage wars in other parts of the world.
The parent says it's a good thing not to depend on the good will of a single country's military, and your reaction on that is that he must hate America. He doesn't (or, at least, you can't tell he does judging on his posting).
Of course, there is always a possibility that you cracked a joke which just swooshed over my head, but I somehow doubt it.
What he wanted to point out, is that this mission is one more great achievement of science and engineering, one more proof of how valid the methods and the logic behind science and engineering is - regardless of what religious teachers are trying to persuade us. The religion, includung the ID "theory", has yet to come up with something nearly as impressive as this mission was, before they can claim *any* scientific credibility (remember: ID tries to look like science)
BTW, if you're not against ID, you are for it. Simple as that.
MSDN academic license you also paid for (through your scholarship or taxes), or will pay for one day (when you are forced to buy a Microsoft product due to the fact that the most software developers can only develop for Windows, because of the level of Microsoft academia infiltration).
Don't be a prick, you know I meant "*only* as tools".
You are the one who threw the first stone ("Lots of people already know Windows, and are productive in ways that you probably can't imagine."). On the other side, I don't remember seing terms "morons", "Joe Blow", "Joe Sixpack", "the Average Idiot" etc. with respect to Windows users in this thread. You are making things up.
Of course there are also smart Windows users, who know their options and who are not afraid to excercise them. Two of them (one friend and one relative), asked me to cut their internet connection under Windows for good and to set them up a dual-boot system with Linux for everything internet-related (they're on the broadband), so that they don't have to bother me to re-install their virus and worm ridden systems two-three times a year. It's been almost two weeks now that I set-up their computers like that, so far they are perfectly happy using Windows for whatever it is they do with their computers while not on the net, and Linux for the rest.
I am sick and tired already of hearing this idiocy over and over again!
Look: WINDOWS IS NOT AVAILABLE AT NO COST, except if you pirate it! You have paid for it as you bought your pre-installed computer. Please stop for a minute and THINK, for christ sake!
Besides, this is/. "News for nerds, stuff that matters". If you want a discussion with people who see computers as tools, go some place else, instead of preaching here. We are techies, we love computers, we love to tinker with our OS, and we usually do not wet our pants in anticipation of a "Great Productivity Gain" when some random company bundles a few closed-source XP-only packages and gives them away for (kind of) free. Even if that company happens to be Google.
Hmmm.. it looks as if they are claiming now that Novell has registered further copyrights with respect to UNIX/UnixWare after they signed the contract with SCO, which SCO now wishes to see transferred to them.
The entire suit is hysterically funny, of course, but this one point looks to me as if it would fit the original claim well (however stupid the claim was, of course).
I apologize for putting you in the wrong category. I had two reasons for that: 1. no atheist that I know of thinks of atheism as an act of faith - this is normally how religious people view it in their pathetic attempts to present atheism as another type of religion, and 2. you quoted a source which defines atheism as "immorality"
Maybe you'd also like to check the other reply I wrote today. I suppose our viewpoints are not so different after all.
Thanks for the spelling tips - English is my third language, errors like those still happen.
No. The word "atheism" means "I have no gods", in other words "I have no belief that there is a god".
Your analysis is way better than what I've seen lately on the/., but it misses a very important point: I don't need a proof that I have no gods in order to... well, to have none. It's you (or the religious ones) who need to provide a proof. Until you (or the religious bunch) do so, the topic is not even a topic for me.
Let me put it another way. The whole idea of a (christian) god is based on nothing else but an extremely old book, which contradicts itself in quite a few places and is overall not at all convincing. Moreover, the book was written by multiple authors *MANY* years after what the book tries to describe has happened (or, most probably, has not happened). This book is not a historical document, by any stretch of imagination. As a matter of fact, I don't see a big difference between this book and, say, the fairytale of a "Little Mermaid". Both of them describe a world which manifests itself in no other way but through those books. I don't see why a sensible, thinking person would even want to give one of those books the benefit of doubt by saying "I don't know whether the book is a fairytale or a document." Sure, the theoretical possibility does exist, that both of these books are actually correct. However, this possibility seems to be so far fetched, that I don't even want to waste my time with it. If you come up with something resembling a proof, I'll gladly look at it. Until then, as I said, the topic is not a topic for me. If I wanted to pursue a fairytale, I'd be able to find much nicer and much more inspiring ones then the fairytale christians base their faith on.
The idea of agnosticism was - at a time it was coined - a different one than what it seems to be today. Originally, agnosticism was about "there is no proof for or against god, and there is even no way to prove it one way or the other". In the mean time, it seems to be more along the lines of "the data is inconclusive, so I simply don't know". While the agnostic point of view does have some appeal to me, it gives the idea of "god" too much privilege of doubt. A *real* agnostic would have to take exactly the same stance also with respect to, say, "The Little Mermaid", which no agnostic that I know of has ever done. For that reason, I view agnostics simply as atheists who are afraid of openly declaring themselves as such.
If I were forced to say whether a god exists or not, I'd say there is no god - not because I "believe" there is none, but because nobody managed to convince me there is one. I don't have to engage in an act of faith in order to not be convinced by a bad book.
I also note that your first source (dictionary.com) second definition is "Godlessness; immorality", which shows its' bias (the "immorality" part). This "definition" is actually rather offending.
You might also want to check the wikipedia definition, there you'll find your preferred definition only on the second position.
Actually, as this article describes it nicely, there are two different kinds of atheism: the "weak atheism" (which is, as I stated above, a lack of belief), and the "strong atheism", which can be equaled to what you think atheism is. The most atheists that I know started out as strong ones (including myself), to later take the "weak atheism" position, which is more consistent with the scientific way of thinking. PLEASE NOTE, however, that "weak" doesn't mean "more inclined toward thinking there is or there might be a deity of some kind"! It just means "less aggressive and more grown-up".
I somehow have a feeling, though, as if you'll still stick to whichever definition fits best what you heared last sunday in the church. Say, isn't it a SIN to argue with a godless immoral (according to dictionary.com) being like me in public?
Well, if your handy pocket dictionary backs it up, then it's settled, I suppose.
Look, it's really not that hard. Religion makes a claim that there is a god. It offers zero evidence for this (rather extraordinary) claim, it offers no means of proving it, it even - by it's definition - makes it impossible to prove the claim is wrong. From what I've seen so far, there is absolutely zero reasons for me to accept the ideas propagated by religion, or even to waste my time thinking about it. It's just another fairytale, which happens to claim to be true. If I wanted, I could find much more apealing fairytales to waste my time on.
Now, does it mean I have a "belief" religion is wrong? Absolutely not! Most probably it is, otherwise it would be able to come up with at least *some* evidence, or it would at least finaly stop trying to come up with laughable "scientific" proofs of it's correctness (see talk.origins FAQ if you want to know more), but frankly - I don't care. It doesn't offer enough substance for me to even find it worth thinking about it.
If you and your "handy pocket dictionary" feel better by calling my stance a "belief" (i.e. an act of faith), so be it. It won't be any more true, of course.
I don't believe in ID. That said, I don't at all agree that it's unconstitutional, or even improper
Neither does the judge, as far as I understood him. The whole thing was not about whether ID is constitutional or proper, it was about whether ID should be thaught in science classes or not.
This is like saying "There is an obvious bias against claims not backed by any logic, arguments, or observations in peer review situations". Well DUH - that's what peer review process is all about: separation of scientifically worth material from the... let's say "rest of the material"
I was doing a *lot* of peer reviews during my work as assistant prof. on the university (also CS). I am not able to see why you brought "the way peer reviews are done" into this discussion. Just to mud-up the water? Just to somehow find the reason to mention that you're a PhD student?
There is absolutely nothing in the peer review process that makes it somehow anti-religious, except that it includes a bunch of intelligent and educated people reading your paper before allowing it to be published. That's the reason "religiously inspired" ideas never get published in anything of any scientific reputation. Perhaps you meant exactly that, though...
Regarding your original statement: it's just hilarious! If anything, the state protected the science from getting diluted by religion.
There is a difference: I don't tell my kids they'll suffer internal damnation in the fires of hell if they throw their food on the floor. Religious teachings - in their core - are exactly that: if you don't believe and act as I tell you, you'll suffer *badly*. Therefore, you better be a good soldier, go to church, and fall down on your knees on a regular basis in front of a deity which can and will punish you in a monstrous way if you don't.
I don't even want to know what being raised under such conditions does to a mind of a child! Lucky ones, who manage to recover from this later in their lives.
Before somebody jumps in and says "no, your full of it, my religion says blabla": I'm talking about christianity, which is - whether you like it or not - the most wide-spread and influential religion in the western world.
"Troll", as it seems, is probably the single most abused rating on the! It would be worth considering a removal of it from the list of possible ratings.
Just because you disagree with a post, does NOT mean the poster is a troll. The parent, although provocative, is definitely not a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course many people believe that, especially in the USA. However, it does not mean it is true.
:-)
As for the Libertarian Party - well, DUH! Libertarian idea is the complete opposite from the communist idea, on multiple levels. If I told you the communist party thinks libertarian party seduces the people into a savage, money-ueber-alles, dog-eat-dog society, which is bound for doom, what would that prove?
Ayn Rand is an even worse example - given what she lived through, she *can't* be without prejudice towards communism.
Still, the GP has a valid point. There is no inherent tyranny or oppression in the definition of communism. It was the implementations that sucked - sometimes more, sometimes less. The former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (between 1945 and 1990) was not in the least like the countries you cited above. It still sucked, of course, but not much worse than the US in some parts of its' history. Only differently.
As a big Ubuntu fan, I hate having to ask how you made shared vfat windows partition world-writeable without editing /etc/fstab and setting the umask accordingly? I wasn't able to find another (beginner-friendlier) way to do it. And yes, I did RTFM.
If I had any mod point now, you'd get them.
This crossed my mind already a thousand times! Actually, I'm afraid it's even worse than that. Once we (i.e. the western world) become completely dependent on the countries we outsource our best jobs today, they will turn the other face and overtake our stupid asses just like that (snaps with fingers). This entire "we do the management and the design, and they just get the 'dirty' work to do" nonsense makes me sick: it doesn't take much brains to do a decent management job, like it does to do a decent engineering one. I should know, I'm a trained engineer, nowadays working in a management position. It is easy to pick a decent manager from a bunch of good engineers. It doesn't work the other way around.
Hi,
:-)
I'm afraid only a very tiny minority of the religious folks out there share your views. As the matter of fact, you are the second person that I come to know to have this view and still call himself religious. The first person with that attitude that I have met is now my wife[1].
The great unwashed masses, including all official christian churches, would disagree with you vehemently.
[1]: no, NOT for that reason!
Htrmppffhhhh...hihihi! :-)
See what I mean? You are glad to have the army to kick my ass just because you think it's humourless! I'm glad you don't know where this ass of mine is! :-)
On a more serious note, I am NOT bashing USA. As the matter of fact, in all mindless US bashing discussions that I from time to time get into, I'm the moderate one, always trying to show that there is really no big difference between the USA and the Europe (holy shit, now I pissed off both sides!) There is nothing bad in sometimes also pointing out the bad sides of a nation, you shouldn't equal it with bashing.
Besides, if the GGP really was a joke, it was a laaaame one.
There is indeed a lot of anti-US sentiment in the rest of the world. In part, the reason for that is just the unbelievable amount of paranoid non-sequitur reasoning, just like the one you just produced here, coming from the direction of USA on all levels (technology, politics, art - you name it). It is rather frightening to see how strange the reasoning of an average American is, given that you have the hugest and the most sophisticated army in the world, and that you are not reluctant *at* *all* when it comes to sending that army to wage wars in other parts of the world.
The parent says it's a good thing not to depend on the good will of a single country's military, and your reaction on that is that he must hate America. He doesn't (or, at least, you can't tell he does judging on his posting).
Of course, there is always a possibility that you cracked a joke which just swooshed over my head, but I somehow doubt it.
What he wanted to point out, is that this mission is one more great achievement of science and engineering, one more proof of how valid the methods and the logic behind science and engineering is - regardless of what religious teachers are trying to persuade us. The religion, includung the ID "theory", has yet to come up with something nearly as impressive as this mission was, before they can claim *any* scientific credibility (remember: ID tries to look like science)
BTW, if you're not against ID, you are for it. Simple as that.
MSDN academic license you also paid for (through your scholarship or taxes), or will pay for one day (when you are forced to buy a Microsoft product due to the fact that the most software developers can only develop for Windows, because of the level of Microsoft academia infiltration).
Don't be a prick, you know I meant "*only* as tools".
You are the one who threw the first stone ("Lots of people already know Windows, and are productive in ways that you probably can't imagine."). On the other side, I don't remember seing terms "morons", "Joe Blow", "Joe Sixpack", "the Average Idiot" etc. with respect to Windows users in this thread. You are making things up.
Of course there are also smart Windows users, who know their options and who are not afraid to excercise them. Two of them (one friend and one relative), asked me to cut their internet connection under Windows for good and to set them up a dual-boot system with Linux for everything internet-related (they're on the broadband), so that they don't have to bother me to re-install their virus and worm ridden systems two-three times a year. It's been almost two weeks now that I set-up their computers like that, so far they are perfectly happy using Windows for whatever it is they do with their computers while not on the net, and Linux for the rest.
I am sick and tired already of hearing this idiocy over and over again!
/. "News for nerds, stuff that matters". If you want a discussion with people who see computers as tools, go some place else, instead of preaching here. We are techies, we love computers, we love to tinker with our OS, and we usually do not wet our pants in anticipation of a "Great Productivity Gain" when some random company bundles a few closed-source XP-only packages and gives them away for (kind of) free. Even if that company happens to be Google.
Look: WINDOWS IS NOT AVAILABLE AT NO COST, except if you pirate it! You have paid for it as you bought your pre-installed computer. Please stop for a minute and THINK, for christ sake!
Besides, this is
I know, but tell that to Darl... :-)
Hmmm.. it looks as if they are claiming now that Novell has registered further copyrights with respect to UNIX/UnixWare after they signed the contract with SCO, which SCO now wishes to see transferred to them.
The entire suit is hysterically funny, of course, but this one point looks to me as if it would fit the original claim well (however stupid the claim was, of course).
AFAIR there was a "shall not compete in UNIX bussiness" clause in the original SCO/NOVELL UNIX contract.
I apologize for putting you in the wrong category. I had two reasons for that: 1. no atheist that I know of thinks of atheism as an act of faith - this is normally how religious people view it in their pathetic attempts to present atheism as another type of religion, and 2. you quoted a source which defines atheism as "immorality"
Maybe you'd also like to check the other reply I wrote today. I suppose our viewpoints are not so different after all.
Thanks for the spelling tips - English is my third language, errors like those still happen.
No. The word "atheism" means "I have no gods", in other words "I have no belief that there is a god".
/., but it misses a very important point: I don't need a proof that I have no gods in order to... well, to have none. It's you (or the religious ones) who need to provide a proof. Until you (or the religious bunch) do so, the topic is not even a topic for me.
Your analysis is way better than what I've seen lately on the
Let me put it another way. The whole idea of a (christian) god is based on nothing else but an extremely old book, which contradicts itself in quite a few places and is overall not at all convincing. Moreover, the book was written by multiple authors *MANY* years after what the book tries to describe has happened (or, most probably, has not happened). This book is not a historical document, by any stretch of imagination. As a matter of fact, I don't see a big difference between this book and, say, the fairytale of a "Little Mermaid". Both of them describe a world which manifests itself in no other way but through those books. I don't see why a sensible, thinking person would even want to give one of those books the benefit of doubt by saying "I don't know whether the book is a fairytale or a document." Sure, the theoretical possibility does exist, that both of these books are actually correct. However, this possibility seems to be so far fetched, that I don't even want to waste my time with it. If you come up with something resembling a proof, I'll gladly look at it. Until then, as I said, the topic is not a topic for me. If I wanted to pursue a fairytale, I'd be able to find much nicer and much more inspiring ones then the fairytale christians base their faith on.
The idea of agnosticism was - at a time it was coined - a different one than what it seems to be today. Originally, agnosticism was about "there is no proof for or against god, and there is even no way to prove it one way or the other". In the mean time, it seems to be more along the lines of "the data is inconclusive, so I simply don't know". While the agnostic point of view does have some appeal to me, it gives the idea of "god" too much privilege of doubt. A *real* agnostic would have to take exactly the same stance also with respect to, say, "The Little Mermaid", which no agnostic that I know of has ever done. For that reason, I view agnostics simply as atheists who are afraid of openly declaring themselves as such.
If I were forced to say whether a god exists or not, I'd say there is no god - not because I "believe" there is none, but because nobody managed to convince me there is one. I don't have to engage in an act of faith in order to not be convinced by a bad book.
I also note that your first source (dictionary.com) second definition is "Godlessness; immorality", which shows its' bias (the "immorality" part). This "definition" is actually rather offending.
You might also want to check the wikipedia definition, there you'll find your preferred definition only on the second position.
Actually, as this article describes it nicely, there are two different kinds of atheism: the "weak atheism" (which is, as I stated above, a lack of belief), and the "strong atheism", which can be equaled to what you think atheism is. The most atheists that I know started out as strong ones (including myself), to later take the "weak atheism" position, which is more consistent with the scientific way of thinking. PLEASE NOTE, however, that "weak" doesn't mean "more inclined toward thinking there is or there might be a deity of some kind"! It just means "less aggressive and more grown-up".
I somehow have a feeling, though, as if you'll still stick to whichever definition fits best what you heared last sunday in the church. Say, isn't it a SIN to argue with a godless immoral (according to dictionary.com) being like me in public?
Well, if your handy pocket dictionary backs it up, then it's settled, I suppose.
Look, it's really not that hard. Religion makes a claim that there is a god. It offers zero evidence for this (rather extraordinary) claim, it offers no means of proving it, it even - by it's definition - makes it impossible to prove the claim is wrong. From what I've seen so far, there is absolutely zero reasons for me to accept the ideas propagated by religion, or even to waste my time thinking about it. It's just another fairytale, which happens to claim to be true. If I wanted, I could find much more apealing fairytales to waste my time on.
Now, does it mean I have a "belief" religion is wrong? Absolutely not! Most probably it is, otherwise it would be able to come up with at least *some* evidence, or it would at least finaly stop trying to come up with laughable "scientific" proofs of it's correctness (see talk.origins FAQ if you want to know more), but frankly - I don't care. It doesn't offer enough substance for me to even find it worth thinking about it.
If you and your "handy pocket dictionary" feel better by calling my stance a "belief" (i.e. an act of faith), so be it. It won't be any more true, of course.
I know this is in vain, but anyway, for the umpteenth time (this goes for both parent and grandparent posts):
Atheism is NOT a belief there is/are no god(s). Atheism is a LACK of belief in any gods. A lack of belief is not a belief.
Neither does the judge, as far as I understood him. The whole thing was not about whether ID is constitutional or proper, it was about whether ID should be thaught in science classes or not.
This is like saying "There is an obvious bias against claims not backed by any logic, arguments, or observations in peer review situations". Well DUH - that's what peer review process is all about: separation of scientifically worth material from the... let's say "rest of the material"
I was doing a *lot* of peer reviews during my work as assistant prof. on the university (also CS). I am not able to see why you brought "the way peer reviews are done" into this discussion. Just to mud-up the water? Just to somehow find the reason to mention that you're a PhD student?
There is absolutely nothing in the peer review process that makes it somehow anti-religious, except that it includes a bunch of intelligent and educated people reading your paper before allowing it to be published. That's the reason "religiously inspired" ideas never get published in anything of any scientific reputation. Perhaps you meant exactly that, though...
Regarding your original statement: it's just hilarious! If anything, the state protected the science from getting diluted by religion.
There is a difference: I don't tell my kids they'll suffer internal damnation in the fires of hell if they throw their food on the floor. Religious teachings - in their core - are exactly that: if you don't believe and act as I tell you, you'll suffer *badly*. Therefore, you better be a good soldier, go to church, and fall down on your knees on a regular basis in front of a deity which can and will punish you in a monstrous way if you don't.
I don't even want to know what being raised under such conditions does to a mind of a child! Lucky ones, who manage to recover from this later in their lives.
Before somebody jumps in and says "no, your full of it, my religion says blabla": I'm talking about christianity, which is - whether you like it or not - the most wide-spread and influential religion in the western world.
Grrrrr... "on the SLASHDOT!", of course. No Idea how and why "SLASHDOT" got lost.
"Troll", as it seems, is probably the single most abused rating on the! It would be worth considering a removal of it from the list of possible ratings.
Just because you disagree with a post, does NOT mean the poster is a troll. The parent, although provocative, is definitely not a troll.