I get quite a bit more than you think, which is why I can come up with my list. I have studied this issues at hand for easily a decade, but unintentionally studied it quite a bit longer (not realizing how bad the problem would become).
We can speculate about flaws in the electorate system all we want, however we have only tested the rules one time. This was when Ross Perot was running. The system worked as was expected and designed, and Perot won much more than anyone wanted. Perot was a victim of media, not the electorate. Nobody knew, or rather the media didn't discuss what the Bush campaign did to get him off the campaign trail. The media showed enough of Perot to make him look like an insane person, much more so after the election was done. There were no investigations following the known blackmail to get him to drop out of the race, which continued as threats to him and his family after he lost that election. Anyone that asked questions was labeled by the media and dismissed.
If we take that lesson and expand it, there is still a chance to set things right in the country. People have to know that the media will be against anyone not propped up by the current system. They must be taught by word of mouth, emails, books, etc.. because the currently corrupt media won't talk bad about each other, let alone themselves.
Bullshit! A candidate does not come in, plop down every one of their beliefs and get a "yes" or "no" vote on the package you idiot! They have to draft them out one at a time, and pass them through one at a time. Please stop posting this drivel.
If you focus on the label and not the overall goals, you are the problem. The division is taught to you, but it's a damn shame that you simply accept the rhetoric and never stop to think about it.
Not the military at all, in fact the Government is downsizing the military and increasing the scope, power, and budgets for people not the Military. The 5 branches of Service are trained to protect the USA from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Obviously this means that if DHS started shooting people, the US Military forces should fight against them.
In addition to boosting agencies not subject to posse comitatus, more and more domestic work is being funneled to private mercenary companies like "Craft" aka Blackwater. This should cause great amounts of concern to all Citizens. In fact, a rather disturbing fact is that Craft was all over Boston during the Marathon while allegedly two lone wolves planted and detonated bombs.
While I agree with much of what you said, it does not change the point made. No matter what the reason, US Citizens are not standing up to the Government when it's needed.
Personally, I believe that the main reason people don't is pure ignorance. You post the same thing I hear over and over, and have to teach people what their function should be.
1. You can petition to get people on ballots. Recruit friends and family and get someone on the ballot that is trustworthy and not interested in self gain. Most importantly, make sure that they have no desire to remain in politics after their term (which is exactly how the designers of the Republic stated it must work).
2. Teach others step 1, and tell them to teach others step 1. Follow through!
3. In your teaching, make sure you focus on not finding politicians to put on the ballot. If you read Plato's Republic, you will know why. If you don't read it, take my word for it, but tell other people to read The Republic.
4. Teach people to ignore the fallacies that will plague you as you get through steps 1-3. The following statements are absolutely fallacies. a) "If you don't vote Republican or Democrat you waste your vote.". b) "You need a lot of political experience to run for office." c) "You need to be a lawyer to be in politics." d) "You can have no police record at all to run for office, even a parking ticket." Think of all the side rhetoric that will be related to those 3 items, and teach people to ignore it. We don't need more allegedly perfect politicians in Government, we need human beings with high moral standards and a sense of duty to their country.
I get the frustration when people petition and politicians ignore them and follow a corporate agenda. Citizens are the employers of Politicians! Fire the people that don't do the job, and hire people that will do the job! Obviously what society has been doing for the last 30 years has not been working.
There were several factual errors, starting from your revisionist claims of BB theory, which I showed wrong. Buy the G. Gamow's book I mentioned, or better yet, find Gamow's BB nucleosynthesis article from 1948 (that's before event there was the rather misleading name "Big Bang theory").
I gave no false facts. The BB theory by Gamow's concept was a ball of mass exploding which matches what I stated. It also does not change the _fact_ that there are numerous different competing BB theories. Size of mass, energy required, age of the Universe are all different. BB was proven to be a rather funny joke, which is why it had to adopt EV theories to remain relevant. Let me guess, you never looked at the U of M web site did you?
Kraus not demanding a punishment does not change the fact that he want's the teaching of specific subject matter illegal. Making such a claim is pure idiocy and I believe you know it, but to be nice lets just call it an easy to spot logical fallacy. I gave the answer previously, maybe re-read what I wrote?
Further, you calling your children names has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of teaching them to answer to question creation. Ad hominem != theory. Teaching them to think about a theory is not a harmful act, calling names or hitting them is, or at least has greater potential.
If you want to claim "Religion is not proven" then the same punishment should be proper for teaching them Big Bang or EV theory. They are all theories. Do you support punishing parents for teaching their kids String theory too? How about any other theory that they might learn?
Stalin used Marxist theories, and condemned Religious people to death. Please don't try and re-write easy to verify history. Marx's doctrine specifically states that the state must control or abolish Religion in communism. Hitler had questionable Religious history. I keep him off the list because there is a lot of conflicting information regarding his faith. Some say he was pagan, others into witch craft, others satanic, others point at his 1/2 Jewish birth. He sure was _not_ Christian and did not act on behalf of the Christian religion. You have to go back quite a ways to blame them for a major war, you know, like to the Crusades.
The point of the examples of Catholicism are that you can't blame Religion for shitty things people do, as is the atheist tendency. It's easy to spot when you claim that teaching a kid faith is like giving them heroin. It's idiocy, and I believe my statement proves it.
You seem to have missed my closing, so I'll re-quote.
Believing in a creator is rational and logical. Just as logical as claiming there is none. I agree with people that claim we can't prove it, but that does not diminish the importance of the question. That one question can shape how we think. Not because of Religious significance, but because the debate can become so complex and filled with rhetoric and fallacy. You and I have different answers, because neither of us can prove our arguments. That is absolutely fine, and normal. It does not make either of us wrong, let alone criminals. We have our opinions.
If you agree with that last statement, there should be no reason for us not to teach others how we came to our answers. What is very wrong, is only presenting our answers and claiming anyone else is wrong/criminal/insane/etc... And yes, atheists like Krauss do exactly the wrong thing. They get paid a whole lot of money to do the wrong to boot!
There were no factual errors. If I claim that you must believe like me, then I'm a horrible Religious person correct? So Krauss does this as an atheist, and it's not just as horrible? Krauss states what I have said in numerous interviews. It's more than Krauss with his specific beliefs requiring the punishment of anyone that digs for the prime question and comes to a conclusion different than his.
Provide quotation for the requirement of jailing the parents. Saying that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse doesn't mean claiming that the parents should be jailed for that.
What is the punishment for Child abuse? Now you are nitpicking and not making sense at all. In addition to removal of children from custody, it's a felony. Duration for imprisonment depends on the State as well as the Judicial system (Jury, Judges, Lawyers, etc...). If I say "atheists should be charged as murders" it won't mean anything if I don't say "and they should go to jail for X years!"? Sorry, it does not work that way in any language.
That does not follow at all. The laws in my country say that hard drugs like heroin are illegal, and I wouldn't be a criminal by determining that hard drugs are necessary for people.
Did you decide that someone believing that there is a creator is as harmful to society as feeding a child heroin. You know that is untrue, and don't take the fringe cases as your main argument. Stop blaming fucked up people on Religion, it's absolute rubbish! The two biggest mass murders in history committed their atrocities for power and were atheists. In the process, they deemed it necessary to kill anyone of any Religion. Does that mean that every atheist in the world is as fucked up as Mao and Stalin? Obviously the answer is "no".
Religion is not to blame for fucking things up, people are to blame for fucking things up. Think about it for a minute. If the Catholic Church doctrine told their followers to be pedophiles, would they have done so? Hell no. Further, if the congregations knew that Priests were abusing children, would they have allowed it? Again, hell no. Vigilantes would have killed a whole lot of priests. Did the congregations want it covered up? Again, hell no. People in power did cover things up to prevent vigilante justice as more normal forms of justice. People in power did so to remain in power, not because of "Religion".
Take that same example and move to any Religion and you get the same thing. And what do Judea Christian Religions teach? (root, not fringe). The 10 commandments. Sorry dude, that does not harm society at all. Don't kill, don't steal, respect your parents and others, etc... And don't go quote some typical atheist argument from a piece of scripture not used, because that is not being taught. Don't quote the extremists, because fucked up people are everywhere.
Back to the point of the argument: Believing in a creator is rational and logical. Just as logical as claiming there is none. I agree with people that claim we can't prove it, but that does not diminish the importance of the question. That one question can shape how we think. Not because of Religious significance, but because the debate can become so complex and filled with rhetoric and fallacy. You and I have different answers, because neither of us can prove our arguments. That is absolutely fine, and normal. It does not make either of us wrong, let alone criminals. We have our opinions.
If you agree with that last statement, there should be no reason for us not to teach others how we came to our answers. What is very wrong, is only presenting our answers and claiming anyone else is wrong/criminal/insane/etc... And yes, atheists like Krauss do exactly the wrong thing. They get paid a whole lot of money to do the wrong to boot! Question why?
And Krauss also claims that anyone teaching any Religion to a child should be jailed for Child abuse. So people that look for the answer, and determine that there needs to be a creator are criminals to him. This is not bias against looking for the answer to the prime question? Wholly fuck you are thick if you believe that.
One more point to make. Go back to what I said earlier and what is important to me in the debate. People are taught not to look for the beginning of all things. Whether you believe that somehow shit just happens or you believe in a creator, you are taught and tricked into not looking. Atheists do it the same way Religions do it, with rhetorical fallacy. That is a huge issue.
Don't mistake the concept of creator with a Theology. It's not the same thing. Look at the question from a purely Socratic perspective. Theology does not come in to the question until after you have an answer.
Who are paid to claim those things? The vocal atheists are saying that in light of the evidence (or lack of it), it seems very unlikely that there is a god or gods, and that we have a framework which does a god job in explaining what we see about our universe at the moment.
Did you even bother to listen to any of the 5-10 minute segments with Larry Kraus in them? Kraus is not the best person to publicly speak on the EV theory, yet he does and gets paid a lot of money to do so. If you watch his segments and see him using ad hominem against Religion, should you not wonder if that's why he's getting paid assloads of money to speak on EVs behalf? He gets book promotions, as do many others that denounce all Religion and push atheism in science. Government grant's go to papers that denounce a creator while similar work gets nothing. It's not new, shit that has been happening for years and years. It's something I noticed so started to question.
Again, to claim that there are several BB theories shows ignorance of the subject. High-energy initial state, nucleosynthesis for the light elements, expansion and cooling down, formatio
I know you messed up the quote, no biggie. From that statement however, it is clearly you that are ignorant. Search for the Big Bang and you will find numerous competing theories. U of M's web site has some of the history. The U of M web site calls "EV" theory "Big Bang". There was a massive publication in the last year that claimed that the Ball of mass that blew up must have been 270million light years in diameter. So the Big Bang still depends on who you care to believe. Some date the Universe at 13billion years old, others as much as 19 billion, some claim that there was a massive ball of matter that exploded (in fact that was all theories until rather recently) while others jumped ship on that and went to the EV model.
Do all of the theories have similar threads? Absolutely, that's kind of how science and math works. That does not make them the same, and you not realizing that there are huge differences depending on who's work you read means you are ignorant (willful or otherwise).
Naw, you have to stop using selective facts to support your opinion. I guess you forgot about how Mao and Stalin crushed religion by slaughtering anyone involved in any Religion. Those are the big two, but history has numerous similar characters some of whom are much more recent. Many people with a similar mind set are in the US, however they are not necessarily in leadership positions ready to do the same. Though the DOD announced that Soldiers could not discuss faith in public without facing possible court marshals. Source.
Take the blinders off and look around, or don't and remain ignorant.
We have already seen that the US main media outlets are absolutely controlled. My son who was 13 at the time noticed it without me mentioning it (some things are not worth worrying a young man about). OWS for example, had almost no coverage beyond the media calling them pot smokers and dead beats. This was done on every major news channel, without ever mentioning what the initial movement was about. He was interested and studied up on the 2008 financial collapse. He was extremely upset because of the media not only being biased, but fabricating a narrative to dismiss the movement.
We saw the same with Ron Paul (my brilliant son noticed this also) where the media flat out ignored him and what he said. He had almost no coverage, and what they did cover was reporters calling him "Crazy", "Insane", and "Dangerous". If they did an interview, they would only show something like the reporter asking "What do you think about being (blah's) running mate" and no serious issues. That happened in both 2008 and 2012.
The point is that our media is controlled, and our media does keep people ignorant. We may be old enough to joke about the Pravda or smart enough to point out how Chinese media is used as a control, but the US media has become the exact same. Many of us are living under the delusion that the media is still honest and investigating.
There is simply no risk involved until more people figure that out, and look to independent news sources.
I believe I was cordial and respecting in my post. Since you did not return the respect, I'll respond in your tone.
These questions show that you know very little about the Big Bang (BB) theories. First one: There was no ball of mass. The current prevailing inflationary BB theories suggest that after a period of exponential expansion, the observable universe was formed from the energy released from the inflation field in a phase change, giving rise to a high energy state. Second question is basically just a rephrasing of the first one.
That is not the Big Bang theory in earnest, that is the Expanding Vacuum theory. The Big Bang was so fucked up and easily disproved, that they adopted the EV theory and claim that they never said there was an exploding ball of mass. Revisionist bullshit, go read a book on the Big Bang written any time in the 1900s.
Rubbish. Produce the exact quote in context.
My 9 year old Nephew has no trouble using Google and finding videos on Youtube, why can't you? He is easy to find since he's been on dozens of nationally broadcast TV shows like "The Colbert Report", "The Daily Show" and more. In addition to numerous taped presentations at Universities and other public places.
Again, rubbish. The scientific position is that as we have no theory extending to the beginning of our universe, the question is unanswerable. If there is some sort of a specific beginning or a cause, it could be eternal inflation, a guy starting up his computer universe simulator, or Odin. We have no way of differentiating between those options.
If that were true, then people would not be being paid to claim that there is no God, no Creator, and that the Big Bang and EV theories are all you need to know! I can see that even when propaganda is spelled out for you, you refuse to believe it exists. I can't fix your mental deficiency, I can only point it out.
No. Anyone asking the question *within BB theory* is ignorant of the theory, in the same way that someone asking about the origin of life on Earth with the theory of evolution is ignorant of the theory.
Which Big Bang theory are you claiming to be true? There are dozens. Use "Google", as mentioned previously a 9 year old can do it so you can as well. Also, stay on topic. This is something else my 9 year old nephew has no issues with.
The rest of your post is just you banging on your straw man.
Oooh, a big word for someone that just presented numerous false statements in addition to showing that they have no motivation to understand what was said. You obviously fail at rhetoric, since I introduced no straw man at all.
Fringe elements are not the "normal", they are fringe elements. I made it clear by stating "most". If you want to generalize, you have to use the majority for the generalization. Using the minority is not a rational process.
If you tell me that religion really doesn't play a possible factor in seeking medical/mental health services, then you'll really need to start citing your sources for me to take you seriously.
Poppy cock, I believe it's you that need to cite sources proving Religion impacts the frequency at which people seek medical treatment. Sure, you will have a couple of very abnormal cases, like COS and a few others that believe in only faith healing and denying doctors. That is not main stream Religion, and not something main stream Religion teaches or preaches.
Making such a claim would be like claiming every Religion teaches mass suicide because of a couple of cults in the US, and a very small set of extremists in the Muslim world. While I can see how you could convince yourself it's true, it's simply not a fact based thought process (in other words, it is an irrational thought process).
You can easily use Google to find out what a militant atheist is. They are usually the people yelling "Death to Religion". They tend to be just as biased and ignorant to their own rhetoric as a religious fundamentalist.
It's called being human. I've been driving for 30+ years, and I don't think a dozen incidents where I was distracted is bad. I have 0 accidents and 0 tickets in that time, so am both mentally normal and a good driver.
If your mom passes away and you are on the way to the funeral home, and you are not emotionally distraught, I believe you should be considered psychologically unstable. Either that, or you are on some strong medication that removes your normal emotional responses. Either way, that does not make me abnormal.
I'm not sure I follow you here - this whole article is about replacing phones with phones, not primary work machines with phones.
The premise in the article may be about phones, but think bigger. Why would a company require me to bring a smart device to use as just a phone? Kind of silly really. Most people want the ability to bring in their own devices like tablets, Macbook Air, etc... The use of the device as a phone is such a small niche it's not worthy of much debate. The use of the device as a workstation is much more accurate to the claim "require you to bring in a smart device".
To the first point, on a BYOD there are very few non-intrusive compensating controls. Load that iPhone with AV, Firewall software, force locking, etc.. and you can have confidential data on it. You also remove a huge reason why people use their own devices to begin with, making them slower with lots of tools that slow down work. When CEO Jerry finds out that you can not only wipe his iPad, but it's noticeably slower because of required add on software and he would probably just go back to doing things against policy/law.
The telephone, calculus, and the special theory of relativity were all made or discovered very close to each other.
Not to be a dick, but you should check your facts before posting. Calculus predates the telephone and theory of relativity by a couple thousand years. If you are referring to infinitesimal calculus, then you are still off by at least a couple hundred years. Here is a reference.
Classified Data on personal devices is strictly prohibited by every DOD and Government agency there is (NISPOM, JFAN, etc...). PCI does not exclude it, however the requirements to have said data on a personal device are so complex that it really cannot be on a personal device and remain compliant.
Further, any company that allows confidential or classified data on a personal device is looking for a lawsuit by someone, and prohibits it if they are smart.
Lets be realistic here as well. How many people can function on a tiny ass phone and be productive workers? No programmers would be productive if they were forced to work on their iPhone, and even on a tablet productivity goes down a huge amount. Exec's and Sales that need to look at and not make Powerpoints and such? Okay, I'll give you that one. Not many others are effective on a Phone or Tablet.
No, you absolutely do not get it. It's not "Republican" or "Democrat" doing it, go back and read what I wrote!
I get it, media brainwashes you in to thinking there is still a difference. There is no difference, and it does not take a whole lot of investigation to see what has been happening. The people pulling the strings want you to think that way. They pit us against each other any way that they can in order to keep us from looking at them! You fell for it hook line and sinker. Will you continue to be duped or look around and see what's happening? I will warn you, the rabbit hole is deep and pretty scary.
Nearly everything you hear on main stream media regarding politics (foreign and domestic) is propaganda. It's rhetoric convincing you that they are right to do what ever they want to do.
Example: Yesterday it was reported that most of the anti Assad regime are the same terrorists we went to war with in Afghanistan. Today, Obama want's to give them arms. The rebel forces have used chemical weapons at least 3 times but you have to go to foreign media sources to find that out. Assad has used none that we can prove, nor will you find any references to this in foreign media. The guys the president now want's to back with weapons (in addition to the billions of US tax dollars he already gave them) broke his proverbial line in the sand.
It's to the point now, where they don't even try to follow their own rhetoric. They are shitting on you and your fellow humans.
I don't agree that everything we hear is "OIL BAD", because you miss the other half of the market that claims everything except for oil will fail. Wind turbines were claimed to be killing birds. Solar power (not obama backed) has made progress but all people discuss in media is Solyndra.
Facts not discussed? How about the fact that Solyndra and other companies are being put out of business by Chinese companies that have more government money than our companies do, to ensure Chinese monopolization? Yet we refuse to address trade imbalance, enforce tariffs, and are planning to expand NAFTA to the Asia Pacific.
How about the fact that monopolization of energy has ensured that some companies simply fail? Why don't we punish the monopolies and/or collusion instead of ignoring it?
How about the fact that lobbyists (who should be jailed for offering bribes) are writing laws deregulating some industries while over regulating others?
There are many things to fix around the issue of oil. That does not make oil infinite as some people want you to believe. It also does not make coal/oil cleaner and safer than alternatives (which is what the overwhelming majority of "ego*" people are concerned with.).
At the same time, regulations must be put in place to ensure that Corporations do not endanger society. I agree with most of what you state, but you omit that critical piece. Collusion in countless businesses (like Oil) is rampant, as is Bribery with Politicians. 40 years ago, this shit was regulated to some degree. Not perfect mind you, but look what happened to AT&T in the 70s compared to Microsoft in the 90s and you will see that there is no regulation keeping the public safe.
Slashdot Mirror
I get quite a bit more than you think, which is why I can come up with my list. I have studied this issues at hand for easily a decade, but unintentionally studied it quite a bit longer (not realizing how bad the problem would become).
We can speculate about flaws in the electorate system all we want, however we have only tested the rules one time. This was when Ross Perot was running. The system worked as was expected and designed, and Perot won much more than anyone wanted. Perot was a victim of media, not the electorate. Nobody knew, or rather the media didn't discuss what the Bush campaign did to get him off the campaign trail. The media showed enough of Perot to make him look like an insane person, much more so after the election was done. There were no investigations following the known blackmail to get him to drop out of the race, which continued as threats to him and his family after he lost that election. Anyone that asked questions was labeled by the media and dismissed.
If we take that lesson and expand it, there is still a chance to set things right in the country. People have to know that the media will be against anyone not propped up by the current system. They must be taught by word of mouth, emails, books, etc.. because the currently corrupt media won't talk bad about each other, let alone themselves.
Bullshit! A candidate does not come in, plop down every one of their beliefs and get a "yes" or "no" vote on the package you idiot! They have to draft them out one at a time, and pass them through one at a time. Please stop posting this drivel.
If you focus on the label and not the overall goals, you are the problem. The division is taught to you, but it's a damn shame that you simply accept the rhetoric and never stop to think about it.
Not the military at all, in fact the Government is downsizing the military and increasing the scope, power, and budgets for people not the Military. The 5 branches of Service are trained to protect the USA from all enemies both foreign and domestic . Obviously this means that if DHS started shooting people, the US Military forces should fight against them.
In addition to boosting agencies not subject to posse comitatus, more and more domestic work is being funneled to private mercenary companies like "Craft" aka Blackwater. This should cause great amounts of concern to all Citizens. In fact, a rather disturbing fact is that Craft was all over Boston during the Marathon while allegedly two lone wolves planted and detonated bombs.
While I agree with much of what you said, it does not change the point made. No matter what the reason, US Citizens are not standing up to the Government when it's needed.
Personally, I believe that the main reason people don't is pure ignorance. You post the same thing I hear over and over, and have to teach people what their function should be.
1. You can petition to get people on ballots. Recruit friends and family and get someone on the ballot that is trustworthy and not interested in self gain. Most importantly, make sure that they have no desire to remain in politics after their term (which is exactly how the designers of the Republic stated it must work).
2. Teach others step 1, and tell them to teach others step 1. Follow through!
3. In your teaching, make sure you focus on not finding politicians to put on the ballot. If you read Plato's Republic, you will know why. If you don't read it, take my word for it, but tell other people to read The Republic.
4. Teach people to ignore the fallacies that will plague you as you get through steps 1-3. The following statements are absolutely fallacies. a) "If you don't vote Republican or Democrat you waste your vote.". b) "You need a lot of political experience to run for office." c) "You need to be a lawyer to be in politics." d) "You can have no police record at all to run for office, even a parking ticket." Think of all the side rhetoric that will be related to those 3 items, and teach people to ignore it. We don't need more allegedly perfect politicians in Government, we need human beings with high moral standards and a sense of duty to their country.
I get the frustration when people petition and politicians ignore them and follow a corporate agenda. Citizens are the employers of Politicians! Fire the people that don't do the job, and hire people that will do the job! Obviously what society has been doing for the last 30 years has not been working.
There were several factual errors, starting from your revisionist claims of BB theory, which I showed wrong. Buy the G. Gamow's book I mentioned, or better yet, find Gamow's BB nucleosynthesis article from 1948 (that's before event there was the rather misleading name "Big Bang theory").
I gave no false facts. The BB theory by Gamow's concept was a ball of mass exploding which matches what I stated. It also does not change the _fact_ that there are numerous different competing BB theories. Size of mass, energy required, age of the Universe are all different. BB was proven to be a rather funny joke, which is why it had to adopt EV theories to remain relevant. Let me guess, you never looked at the U of M web site did you?
Kraus not demanding a punishment does not change the fact that he want's the teaching of specific subject matter illegal. Making such a claim is pure idiocy and I believe you know it, but to be nice lets just call it an easy to spot logical fallacy. I gave the answer previously, maybe re-read what I wrote?
Further, you calling your children names has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of teaching them to answer to question creation. Ad hominem != theory. Teaching them to think about a theory is not a harmful act, calling names or hitting them is, or at least has greater potential.
If you want to claim "Religion is not proven" then the same punishment should be proper for teaching them Big Bang or EV theory. They are all theories. Do you support punishing parents for teaching their kids String theory too? How about any other theory that they might learn?
Stalin used Marxist theories, and condemned Religious people to death. Please don't try and re-write easy to verify history. Marx's doctrine specifically states that the state must control or abolish Religion in communism. Hitler had questionable Religious history. I keep him off the list because there is a lot of conflicting information regarding his faith. Some say he was pagan, others into witch craft, others satanic, others point at his 1/2 Jewish birth. He sure was _not_ Christian and did not act on behalf of the Christian religion. You have to go back quite a ways to blame them for a major war, you know, like to the Crusades.
The point of the examples of Catholicism are that you can't blame Religion for shitty things people do, as is the atheist tendency. It's easy to spot when you claim that teaching a kid faith is like giving them heroin. It's idiocy, and I believe my statement proves it.
You seem to have missed my closing, so I'll re-quote.
Believing in a creator is rational and logical. Just as logical as claiming there is none. I agree with people that claim we can't prove it, but that does not diminish the importance of the question. That one question can shape how we think. Not because of Religious significance, but because the debate can become so complex and filled with rhetoric and fallacy. You and I have different answers, because neither of us can prove our arguments. That is absolutely fine, and normal. It does not make either of us wrong, let alone criminals. We have our opinions.
If you agree with that last statement, there should be no reason for us not to teach others how we came to our answers. What is very wrong, is only presenting our answers and claiming anyone else is wrong/criminal/insane/etc... And yes, atheists like Krauss do exactly the wrong thing. They get paid a whole lot of money to do the wrong to boot!
There were no factual errors. If I claim that you must believe like me, then I'm a horrible Religious person correct? So Krauss does this as an atheist, and it's not just as horrible? Krauss states what I have said in numerous interviews. It's more than Krauss with his specific beliefs requiring the punishment of anyone that digs for the prime question and comes to a conclusion different than his.
Provide quotation for the requirement of jailing the parents. Saying that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse doesn't mean claiming that the parents should be jailed for that.
What is the punishment for Child abuse? Now you are nitpicking and not making sense at all. In addition to removal of children from custody, it's a felony. Duration for imprisonment depends on the State as well as the Judicial system (Jury, Judges, Lawyers, etc...). If I say "atheists should be charged as murders" it won't mean anything if I don't say "and they should go to jail for X years!"? Sorry, it does not work that way in any language.
That does not follow at all. The laws in my country say that hard drugs like heroin are illegal, and I wouldn't be a criminal by determining that hard drugs are necessary for people.
Did you decide that someone believing that there is a creator is as harmful to society as feeding a child heroin. You know that is untrue, and don't take the fringe cases as your main argument. Stop blaming fucked up people on Religion, it's absolute rubbish! The two biggest mass murders in history committed their atrocities for power and were atheists. In the process, they deemed it necessary to kill anyone of any Religion. Does that mean that every atheist in the world is as fucked up as Mao and Stalin? Obviously the answer is "no".
Religion is not to blame for fucking things up, people are to blame for fucking things up. Think about it for a minute. If the Catholic Church doctrine told their followers to be pedophiles, would they have done so? Hell no. Further, if the congregations knew that Priests were abusing children, would they have allowed it? Again, hell no. Vigilantes would have killed a whole lot of priests. Did the congregations want it covered up? Again, hell no. People in power did cover things up to prevent vigilante justice as more normal forms of justice. People in power did so to remain in power, not because of "Religion".
Take that same example and move to any Religion and you get the same thing. And what do Judea Christian Religions teach? (root, not fringe). The 10 commandments. Sorry dude, that does not harm society at all. Don't kill, don't steal, respect your parents and others, etc... And don't go quote some typical atheist argument from a piece of scripture not used, because that is not being taught. Don't quote the extremists, because fucked up people are everywhere.
Back to the point of the argument: Believing in a creator is rational and logical. Just as logical as claiming there is none. I agree with people that claim we can't prove it, but that does not diminish the importance of the question. That one question can shape how we think. Not because of Religious significance, but because the debate can become so complex and filled with rhetoric and fallacy. You and I have different answers, because neither of us can prove our arguments. That is absolutely fine, and normal. It does not make either of us wrong, let alone criminals. We have our opinions.
If you agree with that last statement, there should be no reason for us not to teach others how we came to our answers. What is very wrong, is only presenting our answers and claiming anyone else is wrong/criminal/insane/etc... And yes, atheists like Krauss do exactly the wrong thing. They get paid a whole lot of money to do the wrong to boot! Question why?
And Krauss also claims that anyone teaching any Religion to a child should be jailed for Child abuse. So people that look for the answer, and determine that there needs to be a creator are criminals to him. This is not bias against looking for the answer to the prime question? Wholly fuck you are thick if you believe that.
One more point to make. Go back to what I said earlier and what is important to me in the debate. People are taught not to look for the beginning of all things. Whether you believe that somehow shit just happens or you believe in a creator, you are taught and tricked into not looking. Atheists do it the same way Religions do it, with rhetorical fallacy. That is a huge issue.
Don't mistake the concept of creator with a Theology. It's not the same thing. Look at the question from a purely Socratic perspective. Theology does not come in to the question until after you have an answer.
Who are paid to claim those things? The vocal atheists are saying that in light of the evidence (or lack of it), it seems very unlikely that there is a god or gods, and that we have a framework which does a god job in explaining what we see about our universe at the moment.
Did you even bother to listen to any of the 5-10 minute segments with Larry Kraus in them? Kraus is not the best person to publicly speak on the EV theory, yet he does and gets paid a lot of money to do so. If you watch his segments and see him using ad hominem against Religion, should you not wonder if that's why he's getting paid assloads of money to speak on EVs behalf? He gets book promotions, as do many others that denounce all Religion and push atheism in science. Government grant's go to papers that denounce a creator while similar work gets nothing. It's not new, shit that has been happening for years and years. It's something I noticed so started to question.
Again, to claim that there are several BB theories shows ignorance of the subject. High-energy initial state, nucleosynthesis for the light elements, expansion and cooling down, formatio
I know you messed up the quote, no biggie. From that statement however, it is clearly you that are ignorant. Search for the Big Bang and you will find numerous competing theories. U of M's web site has some of the history. The U of M web site calls "EV" theory "Big Bang". There was a massive publication in the last year that claimed that the Ball of mass that blew up must have been 270million light years in diameter. So the Big Bang still depends on who you care to believe. Some date the Universe at 13billion years old, others as much as 19 billion, some claim that there was a massive ball of matter that exploded (in fact that was all theories until rather recently) while others jumped ship on that and went to the EV model.
Do all of the theories have similar threads? Absolutely, that's kind of how science and math works. That does not make them the same, and you not realizing that there are huge differences depending on who's work you read means you are ignorant (willful or otherwise).
Naw, you have to stop using selective facts to support your opinion. I guess you forgot about how Mao and Stalin crushed religion by slaughtering anyone involved in any Religion. Those are the big two, but history has numerous similar characters some of whom are much more recent. Many people with a similar mind set are in the US, however they are not necessarily in leadership positions ready to do the same. Though the DOD announced that Soldiers could not discuss faith in public without facing possible court marshals. Source.
Take the blinders off and look around, or don't and remain ignorant.
I was at the DOD for a decade, I know the rules. That was a joke based on the /. article a few days ago regarding the most commonly used passwords.
123456
conf password is "password"
We have already seen that the US main media outlets are absolutely controlled. My son who was 13 at the time noticed it without me mentioning it (some things are not worth worrying a young man about). OWS for example, had almost no coverage beyond the media calling them pot smokers and dead beats. This was done on every major news channel, without ever mentioning what the initial movement was about. He was interested and studied up on the 2008 financial collapse. He was extremely upset because of the media not only being biased, but fabricating a narrative to dismiss the movement.
We saw the same with Ron Paul (my brilliant son noticed this also) where the media flat out ignored him and what he said. He had almost no coverage, and what they did cover was reporters calling him "Crazy", "Insane", and "Dangerous". If they did an interview, they would only show something like the reporter asking "What do you think about being (blah's) running mate" and no serious issues. That happened in both 2008 and 2012.
The point is that our media is controlled, and our media does keep people ignorant. We may be old enough to joke about the Pravda or smart enough to point out how Chinese media is used as a control, but the US media has become the exact same. Many of us are living under the delusion that the media is still honest and investigating.
There is simply no risk involved until more people figure that out, and look to independent news sources.
I believe I was cordial and respecting in my post. Since you did not return the respect, I'll respond in your tone.
These questions show that you know very little about the Big Bang (BB) theories. First one: There was no ball of mass. The current prevailing inflationary BB theories suggest that after a period of exponential expansion, the observable universe was formed from the energy released from the inflation field in a phase change, giving rise to a high energy state. Second question is basically just a rephrasing of the first one.
That is not the Big Bang theory in earnest, that is the Expanding Vacuum theory. The Big Bang was so fucked up and easily disproved, that they adopted the EV theory and claim that they never said there was an exploding ball of mass. Revisionist bullshit, go read a book on the Big Bang written any time in the 1900s.
Rubbish. Produce the exact quote in context.
My 9 year old Nephew has no trouble using Google and finding videos on Youtube, why can't you? He is easy to find since he's been on dozens of nationally broadcast TV shows like "The Colbert Report", "The Daily Show" and more. In addition to numerous taped presentations at Universities and other public places.
Again, rubbish. The scientific position is that as we have no theory extending to the beginning of our universe, the question is unanswerable. If there is some sort of a specific beginning or a cause, it could be eternal inflation, a guy starting up his computer universe simulator, or Odin. We have no way of differentiating between those options.
If that were true, then people would not be being paid to claim that there is no God, no Creator, and that the Big Bang and EV theories are all you need to know! I can see that even when propaganda is spelled out for you, you refuse to believe it exists. I can't fix your mental deficiency, I can only point it out.
No. Anyone asking the question *within BB theory* is ignorant of the theory, in the same way that someone asking about the origin of life on Earth with the theory of evolution is ignorant of the theory.
Which Big Bang theory are you claiming to be true? There are dozens. Use "Google", as mentioned previously a 9 year old can do it so you can as well. Also, stay on topic. This is something else my 9 year old nephew has no issues with.
The rest of your post is just you banging on your straw man.
Oooh, a big word for someone that just presented numerous false statements in addition to showing that they have no motivation to understand what was said. You obviously fail at rhetoric, since I introduced no straw man at all.
Fringe elements are not the "normal", they are fringe elements. I made it clear by stating "most". If you want to generalize, you have to use the majority for the generalization. Using the minority is not a rational process.
If you tell me that religion really doesn't play a possible factor in seeking medical/mental health services, then you'll really need to start citing your sources for me to take you seriously.
Poppy cock, I believe it's you that need to cite sources proving Religion impacts the frequency at which people seek medical treatment. Sure, you will have a couple of very abnormal cases, like COS and a few others that believe in only faith healing and denying doctors. That is not main stream Religion, and not something main stream Religion teaches or preaches.
Making such a claim would be like claiming every Religion teaches mass suicide because of a couple of cults in the US, and a very small set of extremists in the Muslim world. While I can see how you could convince yourself it's true, it's simply not a fact based thought process (in other words, it is an irrational thought process).
You can easily use Google to find out what a militant atheist is. They are usually the people yelling "Death to Religion". They tend to be just as biased and ignorant to their own rhetoric as a religious fundamentalist.
It's called being human. I've been driving for 30+ years, and I don't think a dozen incidents where I was distracted is bad. I have 0 accidents and 0 tickets in that time, so am both mentally normal and a good driver.
If your mom passes away and you are on the way to the funeral home, and you are not emotionally distraught, I believe you should be considered psychologically unstable. Either that, or you are on some strong medication that removes your normal emotional responses. Either way, that does not make me abnormal.
Nice try at an ad hominem though douchbag.
I'm not sure I follow you here - this whole article is about replacing phones with phones, not primary work machines with phones.
The premise in the article may be about phones, but think bigger. Why would a company require me to bring a smart device to use as just a phone? Kind of silly really. Most people want the ability to bring in their own devices like tablets, Macbook Air, etc... The use of the device as a phone is such a small niche it's not worthy of much debate. The use of the device as a workstation is much more accurate to the claim "require you to bring in a smart device".
To the first point, on a BYOD there are very few non-intrusive compensating controls. Load that iPhone with AV, Firewall software, force locking, etc.. and you can have confidential data on it. You also remove a huge reason why people use their own devices to begin with, making them slower with lots of tools that slow down work. When CEO Jerry finds out that you can not only wipe his iPad, but it's noticeably slower because of required add on software and he would probably just go back to doing things against policy/law.
The telephone, calculus, and the special theory of relativity were all made or discovered very close to each other.
Not to be a dick, but you should check your facts before posting. Calculus predates the telephone and theory of relativity by a couple thousand years. If you are referring to infinitesimal calculus, then you are still off by at least a couple hundred years. Here is a reference.
Classified Data on personal devices is strictly prohibited by every DOD and Government agency there is (NISPOM, JFAN, etc...). PCI does not exclude it, however the requirements to have said data on a personal device are so complex that it really cannot be on a personal device and remain compliant.
Further, any company that allows confidential or classified data on a personal device is looking for a lawsuit by someone, and prohibits it if they are smart.
Lets be realistic here as well. How many people can function on a tiny ass phone and be productive workers? No programmers would be productive if they were forced to work on their iPhone, and even on a tablet productivity goes down a huge amount. Exec's and Sales that need to look at and not make Powerpoints and such? Okay, I'll give you that one. Not many others are effective on a Phone or Tablet.
No, you absolutely do not get it. It's not "Republican" or "Democrat" doing it, go back and read what I wrote!
I get it, media brainwashes you in to thinking there is still a difference. There is no difference, and it does not take a whole lot of investigation to see what has been happening. The people pulling the strings want you to think that way. They pit us against each other any way that they can in order to keep us from looking at them! You fell for it hook line and sinker. Will you continue to be duped or look around and see what's happening? I will warn you, the rabbit hole is deep and pretty scary.
Nearly everything you hear on main stream media regarding politics (foreign and domestic) is propaganda. It's rhetoric convincing you that they are right to do what ever they want to do.
Example: Yesterday it was reported that most of the anti Assad regime are the same terrorists we went to war with in Afghanistan. Today, Obama want's to give them arms. The rebel forces have used chemical weapons at least 3 times but you have to go to foreign media sources to find that out. Assad has used none that we can prove, nor will you find any references to this in foreign media. The guys the president now want's to back with weapons (in addition to the billions of US tax dollars he already gave them) broke his proverbial line in the sand.
It's to the point now, where they don't even try to follow their own rhetoric. They are shitting on you and your fellow humans.
I don't agree that everything we hear is "OIL BAD", because you miss the other half of the market that claims everything except for oil will fail. Wind turbines were claimed to be killing birds. Solar power (not obama backed) has made progress but all people discuss in media is Solyndra.
Facts not discussed? How about the fact that Solyndra and other companies are being put out of business by Chinese companies that have more government money than our companies do, to ensure Chinese monopolization? Yet we refuse to address trade imbalance, enforce tariffs, and are planning to expand NAFTA to the Asia Pacific.
How about the fact that monopolization of energy has ensured that some companies simply fail? Why don't we punish the monopolies and/or collusion instead of ignoring it?
How about the fact that lobbyists (who should be jailed for offering bribes) are writing laws deregulating some industries while over regulating others?
There are many things to fix around the issue of oil. That does not make oil infinite as some people want you to believe. It also does not make coal/oil cleaner and safer than alternatives (which is what the overwhelming majority of "ego*" people are concerned with.).
At the same time, regulations must be put in place to ensure that Corporations do not endanger society. I agree with most of what you state, but you omit that critical piece. Collusion in countless businesses (like Oil) is rampant, as is Bribery with Politicians. 40 years ago, this shit was regulated to some degree. Not perfect mind you, but look what happened to AT&T in the 70s compared to Microsoft in the 90s and you will see that there is no regulation keeping the public safe.