I think that your statements need clarification. _YOU_ believe that God and Theoretic Physics are in the same bucket. _YOU_ believe that contemplating philosophical questions that we can prove today is "nuts". That does not mean that others believe the same as you do, and to them the questions have enough merit to pursue.
To me, I see things quite differently. All inquiry leads to new inquiry. While we can certainly prove some things wrong over time, if the questions were ignored because someone labelled them "nuts" we really would be lacking in knowledge.
If you were referring to messages publicly posted, of course people should not expect that to be private. If the same company provides a "PRIVATE message service" there absolutely is an expectation of privacy, it's in the name for pity sake.
I am not gullible enough, and neither should anyone be, to believe that wording is always correct. "Workers Rights" laws for example are not really "workers rights" for example. That said, I can read the laws to see how they will be used. I can't do the same thing with a private company that can change their use without notice.
If Facebook gave fair warning that your "private messages" would not be private this would be a non story. Facebook may have sent out a message at some point that stated something to that effect, but that is not fair notice without an amount of reinforcement and disclosure.
No, we really can't, that's complete and utter bullshit.
Do I really need to Google that one for you too? There is a fascinating interview with an engineer designing one of the first working quantum computer that points out this very phenomenon. If you consider that observation changes results, this is not so far fetched. I'll go two for two, but what do I get for my efforts?
So do you dismiss the theory of wormholes that would allow time travel? Perhaps you only dismiss the fact that we live long enough to take advantage of wormholes?
I am very much a skeptic, but to resort to reducto ad absurdum when we believe the physics to be correct is baffling. If you think the physics is wrong, lets hear it.
That, and the fact that over a year before the event a similar attack was mapped out by a couple 3 letter agencies discussing planes crashing into WTC. The really weird part is that they all claimed "We never even thought of that." after reading those reports. I think the time travelers played a trick on them and swapped the reports out with Penthouse Forum!
Maybe. There was an interesting experiment where people's bodies would detect erotic images before they saw them. We know that trying to measure or detect quantum events changes the outcome quantum events. Another great experiment is (or was) trying to detect global awareness and they also have some interesting results (It's been many years since I saw that project). Those are three areas where we can say "Hrm, something is happening" not to be confused with "this must be ESP".
I think you are correct that these strange events are weak but we lack data to know for sure. Scientists don't really study these things for fear of ridicule as much as lacking funding. As we can change quantum events by thinking about them, perhaps we can get different results by teaching a different belief.
Thanks for the warning, but I have debated this topic quite often and am very well read on the subjects. Krauss's expanding vacuum theory requires that something exists ahead of his explanation of the Universe. Space, Matter, Energy, and all of the rules of physics must already exist for Krauss's theory to work. His theory is very interesting, an worth reading (for those that have not read his books). As intelligent as he is, he misses the mark when it comes to answering the first question.
It is impossible to say if it's similar to Descartes who simply declared God exists after doing such a great job of explaining self awareness, or if Krauss made his claim of atheism for loads of money.
You are correct that there are two approaches to not knowing something, but your examples are not true and not related to the question but the conclusion. The question of causality can be answered by logical method. You and I can come to different results because we lack proof, but that does not invalidate the question.
A theist first answers the question as "yes, something is required to start the Universe". Based on that answer, they try to put a definition on what created the Universe.
An atheist answers the question as "no" and has no need to put a definition on what created the Universe.
Both of the applications of answers are rational and logical approaches.
What tends to happen after each side has their answer is that they use irrational arguments and strong fallacy to get other people to avoid the question and believe the same conclusion that they do. As much as you can claim theists use aggression, atheists have done the same (Stalin, Mao). Theists may be guilty of using "hell" while the atheist is guilty of "flying spaghetti monster", both of which are reducto ad absurdum to persuade.
Read your 2nd and last sentence. Even though you admit that we can't answer the question you claim the other belief is wrong and that their approach to the question is illogical. That is called bias and projection. I don't count your first sentence since you claim I'm wrong but then agree with the premise I present.
Oh, and if you didn't understand the reference to Expanding Vacuum it was in the first paragraph. It has the same problems with disproving a creator that the old "Big Bang" did, in that it requires something to exist ahead of the theory.
Hawking and Kraus both claim that it can happen, if you have enough vacuum to start with (and of course the matter, energy, and physics must also exist in that small vacuum). Hawking for all his math skills is truly an idiot when it comes to Philosophy, he sold out long ago to what makes his masters happy. If you have doubts, you can read Hawking not very long ago claiming that he believed a creator was needed but didn't believe in theology (which matches Einstein's belief).
Since you have already showed your mad Google skills I think you can find that information without my help.
If you use the scientific method and break the question down, you end up with this. Does the Universe require something to exist, or can it just happen?
This question does not have anything to do with theology, or evolution, or science because we can not prove the answer. The only thing you can puzzle over is the logical aspects. It's a very interesting and thought provoking question, that tends to be ignored. Atheists will claim "it does not matter because "big bang" and theists will claim "God did it", and neither of those two things answer the question.
That said, if you can determine that the Universe does require something to exist, then theology becomes important. Not because it's true, but because there is really something we can't explain. If you claim "it can just happen" you don't end up in the same with something unexplained, but you basically just made an anti-thesis for everything we know about physics.
As I said, it's a great thinking exercise if nothing else.
But since we can not prove either side correct, it's wrong to claim either side is incorrect. Not only do the theists hate that fact, but atheists do as well.
If you are storing passed the duration of the transaction the Database should be off line and inaccessible. That is common sense for anyone that worked in compliance and security.
Target broke several cardinal rules. Not only was the DB accessible, they were storing PIN numbers in addition to card data.
The whole point of PCI is to control what and who can access the Database, Encrypt the Database, and separate data into different databases so that if you get a single DB server hacked a hacker does not have everything needed to commit fraud. Target admitted to storing PIN numbers (wholly fuck you have to be kidding me) in addition to having no separation to the DB as well as direct exposure. They broke every PCI rule you can think of, and quite frankly I will never ever shop there again (even with cash).
The Target spin of "It happens to other companies all the time" and that the breech is "unlawful access to customer data" is pathetic. source
Storing whole card data beyond the point where the company receives funds from the bank is asinine. What they are supposed to store is unique identification data. And they are never ever supposed to store a PIN.
I will say that you are close to how I have seen and worked with PCI data. iptables rules locks DB connections to 1 host, which acts as a middle man. Internet -> Load Balancer -> WebApp -> Load Balancer -> DB (HA). Rules lock every connection except for the load balancer accepting internet connections. It takes discipline and money, and those things are supposed to be so much better in massive companies.
Going to the bank is the same as walking out your frond door? Sure, there are places we expect to see CCTV and accept those locations as a trade off for giving banks the ability to catch robbers. This is not the same as being tracked by your mobile phone, NSA having access to turn on your web-cams, and people volunteering _your_ location and information because they think a gadget is "cool".
The scope of the majority of surveillance has been hidden from view, so claiming "everyone's okay with something" that they have no knowledge of is asinine. The backlash after the whistle blowers from the public should make that abundantly clear, which is why you rarely hear stories on propaganda^wNews about what Snowden revealed, you only hear about the horrible opinion the Government has for a whistle blower.
Seems to me that anti-glass outrage is largely fueled by the Apple media cult and its astonishing capacity for being angry about any technology not invented in cupertino. Had this been "Apple iSight" it would have been widely hailed as revolutionary and obsoleting all other forms of computing overnight.
Well, that assumption is due to you being an imbecile. Grats on that by the way. If Apple had the same product, there would still be the same response because it's an issue of "PRIVACY" and not who made the thing.
And before you cry "ad hominem" you had best re-read your post and ask yourself if I was making a valid observation and not using ad hominem.
Neanderthal luddite? hardly needed here, anyone with half a brain will give you intellectual reasons not to use this technology and why it's harmful for society. Of course you won't listen, because you know.. we never ever have proven conspiracies and governments can never be dangerous.
I have not given a citations for what? I claimed that your belief in the theory is not different than someone's belief in creationism or any other theory that explains evolution. Belief == Belief. You keep diverting the topic, making untrue claims (plain old lies), resorting to ad hominem, using obviously circular and broken logic, trying to re-define words that have nothing to do with "belief", and in general trying to convince yourself that your belief is not a belief.
You want to be better than those other guys, because your belief is not a belief in your mind. It's the same way lots of those "religious" people are, irrational and illogical.
To that I say: A Theory is the strongest statement one can make in science,
Bullshit, the strongest statement you can make in science is "we have proven that". Your failure to simply make a google search to show you are wrong demonstrates your failure to even attempt to rationally think. Your continued ignoring of the original point, and questions I asked, demonstrate that you are simply a troll. Go find a local sand box and pound some, I'll waste no more time trying to debate a person so gleeful in their ignorance. "
Not liberal, libertarian and philosophical. Interesting fact, in the 1940s-1950s under the "industrial education programs" the first things banned philosophical works related to critical thinking.
I've made my point that Christians have no business banning books owing to their having used the Bible to murder millions, a fact that ought to serve, if we're banning books, in having it banned everywhere.
Which is somehow worse than the tyrants in history that burned libraries, or different than the special interests in the US that have been banning more books than any Christians? The same tyrants and special interests that have killed thousands of times more people than those Christians?
No matter how _YOU_ try and twist your ignorance on the subject, the facts are that non-Christians can be far worse than Christians. Ask some of the hundreds of millions of Chines that were murdered under Mao, or the 80 million that Stalin murdered. How about the millions in Iraq and Afghanistan to be more recent and killed by special interests than any Religious war. Or people like Genghis Khan if you want to go back in history to before the Crusades. Talk about selective history and facts, wholly shit.
I have no idea what world you live in that is trying to push everything to be Christian, is it perhaps "Fantasy Island"?
Your first point was a completely untrue statement, that the Bible caused more deaths than anything else ever. That is wrong, fabrication, untrue, delusion, or what ever else you want to label it as which means "false"
Now you make another false claim that Christians are trying to take over government and acting tyrannical? How exactly are they doing that? Because of all the Religious Christmas specials that aired on national TV this year? All of the no longer existent nativity scenes blocking your view of the parking lot? All of the "Happy Holiday" cards you read because Christians are afraid of saying "Merry Christmas" for fear of being sued or attacked by the ACLU or the Rainbow Coalition?
If anything, Christianity has been oppressed in this country which is supposedly believing in "Free Religion". If I'm an atheist, a minority, homosexual, and/or transgender I can do and say what ever I feel like. Hell, I'll get national air time if it's offensive enough to those "Religious People".
In other words, your second point is just as false as your first. As to my defensive statement, it was not defensive you clod. It was pointing out that you are propagating hate speech. If I pointed out that Mao and Stalin were atheists, so all atheists were mass murdering commies would you be defensive? Because it's a true statement, or because it's wrong? Whether or not you were atheist should make no difference in pointing out the failed logic and the negative impact it has on society.
Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler called to tell you that you are wrong. People that have banned Religion have caused way more deaths than any single book, and as far as I can tell each of them believed pretty strongly in a book called "The Communist Manifesto".
That said, I don't blame Marx's book for people dieing either. Why not blame horrible events on horrible people bent on control and power instead of a book? Your comment was not informative, it's meant to insight hatred. If it was true I'd let it slide, but it's a fabrication meant to insight hatred.
Your issue is speciation... "A Prometheus-type event"... hmm you mean a race of aliens creates another race of aliens to ship to Earth to devour the current inhabitants
If you are not sure what someone is discussing why not ask instead of inventing your own? The theory was previously mentioned without a name, but since there was a recent movie I shortened the theory to 'Prometheus'. The theory is that DNA was manipulated by aliens. The movie used some of the cosmologists theories regarding alien intervention, and from what I know of the book it did the same.
Go back and read what I stated, because I never stated that I agree with the theory. Not once, ever. I did state that it's a competing theory. I also stated that without proof for evolution the theory is plausible (not to be confused with probable, likely, or what ever else your imagination triess to manipulate that statement to be.)
And of course you ignored my questions, which is not a surprise. You keep changing the debate to be what you want it to be instead of addressing my original point (which I have remade numerous times) because you want me to be a creationist. I'm not, but I'm also logical enough to realize that my _belief_ is a _belief_ and not "fact".
Troll! In History it's people in power under tyrannical rule that burn books and ban education. More recently in the US it's been special interests, mostly claiming to be working for equality. Special interest groups on both sides have tried to ban Tolkien's works because, you know, it's anti-Christian enough for those Christian's to ban yet Christian enough for special interests to ban because it's too similar to Christianity. Citation because Google can be difficult for trolls.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that your statements need clarification. _YOU_ believe that God and Theoretic Physics are in the same bucket. _YOU_ believe that contemplating philosophical questions that we can prove today is "nuts". That does not mean that others believe the same as you do, and to them the questions have enough merit to pursue.
To me, I see things quite differently. All inquiry leads to new inquiry. While we can certainly prove some things wrong over time, if the questions were ignored because someone labelled them "nuts" we really would be lacking in knowledge.
If you were referring to messages publicly posted, of course people should not expect that to be private. If the same company provides a "PRIVATE message service" there absolutely is an expectation of privacy, it's in the name for pity sake.
I am not gullible enough, and neither should anyone be, to believe that wording is always correct. "Workers Rights" laws for example are not really "workers rights" for example. That said, I can read the laws to see how they will be used. I can't do the same thing with a private company that can change their use without notice.
If Facebook gave fair warning that your "private messages" would not be private this would be a non story. Facebook may have sent out a message at some point that stated something to that effect, but that is not fair notice without an amount of reinforcement and disclosure.
No, we really can't, that's complete and utter bullshit.
Do I really need to Google that one for you too? There is a fascinating interview with an engineer designing one of the first working quantum computer that points out this very phenomenon. If you consider that observation changes results, this is not so far fetched. I'll go two for two, but what do I get for my efforts?
I realize that Google is hard, but this was simple to find. I don't expect an apology, but a correction to your fabrication should follow.
So do you dismiss the theory of wormholes that would allow time travel? Perhaps you only dismiss the fact that we live long enough to take advantage of wormholes?
I am very much a skeptic, but to resort to reducto ad absurdum when we believe the physics to be correct is baffling. If you think the physics is wrong, lets hear it.
That, and the fact that over a year before the event a similar attack was mapped out by a couple 3 letter agencies discussing planes crashing into WTC. The really weird part is that they all claimed "We never even thought of that." after reading those reports. I think the time travelers played a trick on them and swapped the reports out with Penthouse Forum!
Maybe. There was an interesting experiment where people's bodies would detect erotic images before they saw them. We know that trying to measure or detect quantum events changes the outcome quantum events. Another great experiment is (or was) trying to detect global awareness and they also have some interesting results (It's been many years since I saw that project). Those are three areas where we can say "Hrm, something is happening" not to be confused with "this must be ESP".
I think you are correct that these strange events are weak but we lack data to know for sure. Scientists don't really study these things for fear of ridicule as much as lacking funding. As we can change quantum events by thinking about them, perhaps we can get different results by teaching a different belief.
Thanks for the warning, but I have debated this topic quite often and am very well read on the subjects. Krauss's expanding vacuum theory requires that something exists ahead of his explanation of the Universe. Space, Matter, Energy, and all of the rules of physics must already exist for Krauss's theory to work. His theory is very interesting, an worth reading (for those that have not read his books). As intelligent as he is, he misses the mark when it comes to answering the first question.
It is impossible to say if it's similar to Descartes who simply declared God exists after doing such a great job of explaining self awareness, or if Krauss made his claim of atheism for loads of money.
You are correct that there are two approaches to not knowing something, but your examples are not true and not related to the question but the conclusion. The question of causality can be answered by logical method. You and I can come to different results because we lack proof, but that does not invalidate the question.
A theist first answers the question as "yes, something is required to start the Universe". Based on that answer, they try to put a definition on what created the Universe.
An atheist answers the question as "no" and has no need to put a definition on what created the Universe.
Both of the applications of answers are rational and logical approaches.
What tends to happen after each side has their answer is that they use irrational arguments and strong fallacy to get other people to avoid the question and believe the same conclusion that they do. As much as you can claim theists use aggression, atheists have done the same (Stalin, Mao). Theists may be guilty of using "hell" while the atheist is guilty of "flying spaghetti monster", both of which are reducto ad absurdum to persuade.
Read your 2nd and last sentence. Even though you admit that we can't answer the question you claim the other belief is wrong and that their approach to the question is illogical. That is called bias and projection. I don't count your first sentence since you claim I'm wrong but then agree with the premise I present.
Oh, and if you didn't understand the reference to Expanding Vacuum it was in the first paragraph. It has the same problems with disproving a creator that the old "Big Bang" did, in that it requires something to exist ahead of the theory.
Hawking and Kraus both claim that it can happen, if you have enough vacuum to start with (and of course the matter, energy, and physics must also exist in that small vacuum). Hawking for all his math skills is truly an idiot when it comes to Philosophy, he sold out long ago to what makes his masters happy. If you have doubts, you can read Hawking not very long ago claiming that he believed a creator was needed but didn't believe in theology (which matches Einstein's belief).
Since you have already showed your mad Google skills I think you can find that information without my help.
If you use the scientific method and break the question down, you end up with this. Does the Universe require something to exist, or can it just happen?
This question does not have anything to do with theology, or evolution, or science because we can not prove the answer. The only thing you can puzzle over is the logical aspects. It's a very interesting and thought provoking question, that tends to be ignored. Atheists will claim "it does not matter because "big bang" and theists will claim "God did it", and neither of those two things answer the question.
That said, if you can determine that the Universe does require something to exist, then theology becomes important. Not because it's true, but because there is really something we can't explain. If you claim "it can just happen" you don't end up in the same with something unexplained, but you basically just made an anti-thesis for everything we know about physics.
As I said, it's a great thinking exercise if nothing else.
But since we can not prove either side correct, it's wrong to claim either side is incorrect. Not only do the theists hate that fact, but atheists do as well.
If you are storing passed the duration of the transaction the Database should be off line and inaccessible. That is common sense for anyone that worked in compliance and security.
Target broke several cardinal rules. Not only was the DB accessible, they were storing PIN numbers in addition to card data.
The whole point of PCI is to control what and who can access the Database, Encrypt the Database, and separate data into different databases so that if you get a single DB server hacked a hacker does not have everything needed to commit fraud. Target admitted to storing PIN numbers (wholly fuck you have to be kidding me) in addition to having no separation to the DB as well as direct exposure. They broke every PCI rule you can think of, and quite frankly I will never ever shop there again (even with cash).
The Target spin of "It happens to other companies all the time" and that the breech is "unlawful access to customer data" is pathetic. source
Storing whole card data beyond the point where the company receives funds from the bank is asinine. What they are supposed to store is unique identification data. And they are never ever supposed to store a PIN.
I will say that you are close to how I have seen and worked with PCI data. iptables rules locks DB connections to 1 host, which acts as a middle man. Internet -> Load Balancer -> WebApp -> Load Balancer -> DB (HA). Rules lock every connection except for the load balancer accepting internet connections. It takes discipline and money, and those things are supposed to be so much better in massive companies.
Going to the bank is the same as walking out your frond door? Sure, there are places we expect to see CCTV and accept those locations as a trade off for giving banks the ability to catch robbers. This is not the same as being tracked by your mobile phone, NSA having access to turn on your web-cams, and people volunteering _your_ location and information because they think a gadget is "cool".
The scope of the majority of surveillance has been hidden from view, so claiming "everyone's okay with something" that they have no knowledge of is asinine. The backlash after the whistle blowers from the public should make that abundantly clear, which is why you rarely hear stories on propaganda^wNews about what Snowden revealed, you only hear about the horrible opinion the Government has for a whistle blower.
>
Seems to me that anti-glass outrage is largely fueled by the Apple media cult and its astonishing capacity for being angry about any technology not invented in cupertino. Had this been "Apple iSight" it would have been widely hailed as revolutionary and obsoleting all other forms of computing overnight.
Well, that assumption is due to you being an imbecile. Grats on that by the way. If Apple had the same product, there would still be the same response because it's an issue of "PRIVACY" and not who made the thing.
And before you cry "ad hominem" you had best re-read your post and ask yourself if I was making a valid observation and not using ad hominem.
Neanderthal luddite? hardly needed here, anyone with half a brain will give you intellectual reasons not to use this technology and why it's harmful for society. Of course you won't listen, because you know.. we never ever have proven conspiracies and governments can never be dangerous.
I have not given a citations for what? I claimed that your belief in the theory is not different than someone's belief in creationism or any other theory that explains evolution. Belief == Belief. You keep diverting the topic, making untrue claims (plain old lies), resorting to ad hominem, using obviously circular and broken logic, trying to re-define words that have nothing to do with "belief", and in general trying to convince yourself that your belief is not a belief.
You want to be better than those other guys, because your belief is not a belief in your mind. It's the same way lots of those "religious" people are, irrational and illogical.
To that I say: A Theory is the strongest statement one can make in science,
Bullshit, the strongest statement you can make in science is "we have proven that". Your failure to simply make a google search to show you are wrong demonstrates your failure to even attempt to rationally think. Your continued ignoring of the original point, and questions I asked, demonstrate that you are simply a troll. Go find a local sand box and pound some, I'll waste no more time trying to debate a person so gleeful in their ignorance. "
Not liberal, libertarian and philosophical. Interesting fact, in the 1940s-1950s under the "industrial education programs" the first things banned philosophical works related to critical thinking.
I've made my point that Christians have no business banning books owing to their having used the Bible to murder millions, a fact that ought to serve, if we're banning books, in having it banned everywhere.
Which is somehow worse than the tyrants in history that burned libraries, or different than the special interests in the US that have been banning more books than any Christians? The same tyrants and special interests that have killed thousands of times more people than those Christians?
No matter how _YOU_ try and twist your ignorance on the subject, the facts are that non-Christians can be far worse than Christians. Ask some of the hundreds of millions of Chines that were murdered under Mao, or the 80 million that Stalin murdered. How about the millions in Iraq and Afghanistan to be more recent and killed by special interests than any Religious war. Or people like Genghis Khan if you want to go back in history to before the Crusades. Talk about selective history and facts, wholly shit.
I have no idea what world you live in that is trying to push everything to be Christian, is it perhaps "Fantasy Island"?
Your first point was a completely untrue statement, that the Bible caused more deaths than anything else ever. That is wrong, fabrication, untrue, delusion, or what ever else you want to label it as which means "false"
Now you make another false claim that Christians are trying to take over government and acting tyrannical? How exactly are they doing that? Because of all the Religious Christmas specials that aired on national TV this year? All of the no longer existent nativity scenes blocking your view of the parking lot? All of the "Happy Holiday" cards you read because Christians are afraid of saying "Merry Christmas" for fear of being sued or attacked by the ACLU or the Rainbow Coalition?
If anything, Christianity has been oppressed in this country which is supposedly believing in "Free Religion". If I'm an atheist, a minority, homosexual, and/or transgender I can do and say what ever I feel like. Hell, I'll get national air time if it's offensive enough to those "Religious People".
In other words, your second point is just as false as your first. As to my defensive statement, it was not defensive you clod. It was pointing out that you are propagating hate speech. If I pointed out that Mao and Stalin were atheists, so all atheists were mass murdering commies would you be defensive? Because it's a true statement, or because it's wrong? Whether or not you were atheist should make no difference in pointing out the failed logic and the negative impact it has on society.
Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler called to tell you that you are wrong. People that have banned Religion have caused way more deaths than any single book, and as far as I can tell each of them believed pretty strongly in a book called "The Communist Manifesto".
That said, I don't blame Marx's book for people dieing either. Why not blame horrible events on horrible people bent on control and power instead of a book? Your comment was not informative, it's meant to insight hatred. If it was true I'd let it slide, but it's a fabrication meant to insight hatred.
Your issue is speciation... "A Prometheus-type event"... hmm you mean a race of aliens creates another race of aliens to ship to Earth to devour the current inhabitants
If you are not sure what someone is discussing why not ask instead of inventing your own? The theory was previously mentioned without a name, but since there was a recent movie I shortened the theory to 'Prometheus'. The theory is that DNA was manipulated by aliens. The movie used some of the cosmologists theories regarding alien intervention, and from what I know of the book it did the same.
Go back and read what I stated, because I never stated that I agree with the theory. Not once, ever. I did state that it's a competing theory. I also stated that without proof for evolution the theory is plausible (not to be confused with probable, likely, or what ever else your imagination triess to manipulate that statement to be.)
And of course you ignored my questions, which is not a surprise. You keep changing the debate to be what you want it to be instead of addressing my original point (which I have remade numerous times) because you want me to be a creationist. I'm not, but I'm also logical enough to realize that my _belief_ is a _belief_ and not "fact".
Troll! In History it's people in power under tyrannical rule that burn books and ban education. More recently in the US it's been special interests, mostly claiming to be working for equality. Special interest groups on both sides have tried to ban Tolkien's works because, you know, it's anti-Christian enough for those Christian's to ban yet Christian enough for special interests to ban because it's too similar to Christianity. Citation because Google can be difficult for trolls.