Much of the reason for that is difficult to blame on the technical people. Companies no longer have budgets for training, let alone following best practices. Compound that with expectation that a technical person can handle any gawd awful technology you tell them they have to support.
5 years ago, I was much better with security than I am now. 5 years ago, I handled Solaris (2 versions), Redhat (2 versions), Sun and HP hardware, 2 vendors HBA cards, and 2 SAN vendors.
Today, 47 operating systems, 3 different PC hardware vendors (unfortunately much is from a home grown slap it together cheap shop), Sun (equipment dating back 12 years to present). OSes must include Windows, ESX, Citrix Xen*, Solaris 8-11, disparate versions of Ubuntu, CentOS, RHEL, Fedora, Gentoo, NetBSD, FreeBSD, plus many tasks that 5 years ago were the job of a staffed Network person. That's in addition to Netapp and some other cheap NAS vendored gear.
I generally laugh when I get recruiter postings for jobs demanding candidates be senior level SAN admin, Unix Admin, Windows Admin, VMWare admin, Cisco Admin, and what ever else they can stick on to a single person's job the sounds technical. I also cry because nobody can be an expert with anything in a market making those demands.
Security has to take a back seat. I just make it a point of telling people when they are demanding insecure solutions to cover my ass.
I'm not so sure since what they keep cutting, like Services, are what make them the most profit. IBM is heading down the same path. It's much harder to manage services, but also the most profit. HP want's everything fixed cost, easily managed, and most importantly no headcount doing any work outside of management.
There are specific fees documented in Sweden for paying a Noble instead of letting them bang the new bride. That is very much proof of the practice as law, though I'm willing to guess that you will insist that everyone was allowed to pay or could afford to pay.
Well, first I'll ask for some citations on that.
I'm beginning to question whether or not you actually read the paper or just picked out pieces that backed your position. The same paper states the fees and entitlements, so there should be no need for a citation. I was however wrong in stating it was Sweden, it was Switzerland which I caught re-reading. Pay very close attention to that first sentence I have in bold in the large paragraph.
II. The jus primae noctis as a power display in the late Middle Ages
We have quite a few examples showing how the popular belief in a former jus primae noctis influenced social relations between lords and peasants in Switzerland, France and Catalonia in the 15th and 16th centuries. One of these stems from a Swiss village in the vicinity of Zurich. In a customal from about 1400 A.D., the rights of the inhabitants of Maur were itemised by the local "Meier", a representative of the lord of Maur, which at that time was the convent of Zurich. "Item, who wants to enter the holy state of marriage in the village and court of Maur, whoever he may be, shall hand over the woman to Us for the first night or he may buy her out, as it is custom and tradition and written in the old customals. If he doesn't do so, he must pay a fine of 30 pennies." (STAZ [Staatsarchiv des Kantons Zürich]. Urkunden Stadt und Land Nr. 2563; copy of the 15th century, cf. Wettlaufer 1999: 251). One hundred and fifty years later, the text had been slightly altered: in the 1543 version, written by a successor of the first editor, one reads "... and when the wedding starts, the bridegroom shall allow the sergeant to lie with his bride for the first night, or he shall buy her off with 5 pounds and 4 pennies." (STAZ C. I 2562, [1543 AD] cf. Wettlaufer 1999: 255).
For the philosophy of Separating Church and State try doing a Google search. There are discussions dating back to the late 1600s. It is from those various Philosophies that you will find the reasons for separating Church and State. Part of which is the separation of Powers. Also read some history regarding the Lutheran reform to see how much power Nobles had in the Church, then the Protestant reform, etc.. etc... etc... What you are asking is relatively easy to find, and way to lengthy to site citations here.
One more quick point, then done. The obvious answer to the riddle is that the box is not relevant. It's the space inside the box that is relevant. That is such an obvious flaw in your logic I could not help but mention it.
I am not a physicist, but I do know enough about physics to point out that nothing you claim in your "experiment" is remotely close to what atheistic scientists "believe". I have never heard anyone claim that it is likely a universe can pop into existance inside another universe.
The inner part of Box 1 is exactly 1 cubic foot larger than you would claim the Universe came from if you believe in a big bang with no creator. The conditions however are identical . No matter, no energy, suddenly there is this thing that blows up and becomes the Universe. So yes, it would be perfectly logical according to that belief to run a simulation and see a Universe spring up out of the modeled boxes. Hell, shrink the empty space to nothing and run it, you still would never get a new Universe. That is your claim if you believe in the big bang and are an atheist.
Last post, since now you seem to be in fantasy land.
Some Atheists will go a bit further, and claim that there was a big giant ball of mass spinning at an incredibly fast rate which exploded
They will? You are just making shit up now, are you not?
You don't believe in the big bang? Good for you, obviously you are in a very small crowd. Notice also that I stated very specifically "some" atheists, not all. There are a few that believe the Universe has always been here and never changed, so there is no need for the big bang. Maybe you think I made up the part regarding the giant ball of mass and explosion, in which case you need to do some homework on big bang theory.
You see atheists believe, or perhaps only want you to believe, that Box 1, Box 2, and Box 3 can all pop up Universes just like ours full of materials, energy, and even life
Do we? Could you please point me in the direction of any articles showing this? Here is a clue: you have just proven that you know as much about atheism as you do about science.
Perhaps correct, I should say "some" there also. If you believe in a Universe with no creator, then in essence yes that is what you believe. Sorry, the truth is a bummer. As mentioned repeatedly, don't use "YOUR" definition of a creator. Use the definition proposed by Aristotle and Plato. The definition makes a huge difference, but most people are so biased they fail to grasp a creator without a "God".
If you search independent sources, you will see that amount of inmates has steadily been increasing, not decreasing
Ah lovely. You automatically think there is a causation or strong correlation where you see some covariation. Perfect example of ignorance.
If you really believe what has been released by certain agencies without checking facts outside of those agencies, then I'm sure you also believe that unemployment is not a problem in the US either. The recession by many Government statistics was over before President Obama took office, so I'm sure you believe that as well. Checking one source, especially when the results tend to be self serving, is generally not a sound scientific practice. If the amount of inmates has been increasing, we have more crime per 100,000, and we have more crimes going without prosecution, the obvious answer is that crime is not decreasing as you suggest. I will back you if you were only talking about "Violent" crimes, but you said crime in general.
Your second thing first: It's not going to be possible to teach all of the various philosophies that occurred around and before the American Revolution. Remember that Ben Franklin was not just in France to bang hookers and get drunk, but to learn from them what Philosophies and Policies worked the best after all of the hell that was the French Revolution. My suggestion would be to start reading backward from Franklin, Jefferson, etc... It's simply way to much to try and reply to. Make sure you don't neglect Adam Smith and his contemporaries since it does related to how we were founded.
For the first part which is longer, I believe you may have overlooked the more obvious quote which backs the practice. In the late medieval times, perhaps you are correct. Earlier, we have documentation suggesting otherwise. Also, outside of Europe there is widespread accounts of the practice. Reasons are generally different outside of Europe for the most part, tending to be Religious as opposed to simply power of title.
Pay attention to that first quote, and go back and read the paper. There are specific fees documented in Sweden for paying a Noble instead of letting them bang the new bride. That is very much proof of the practice as law, though I'm willing to guess that you will insist that everyone was allowed to pay or could afford to pay.
In Eurasian literature the right of the first night is the privilege of a powerful man to have the first sexual intercourse with the bride of another. This archaic theme was perpetuated through the Middles Ages and probably became connected to marriage fines because of the particularities and traditions of Germanic marriage customs for unfree people.
For the late medieval European period we can speak of the right of the first night as a widespread popular belief in an ancient privilege of the lord of the manor to share a bed with the bride on her wedding night. In some places, symbolic gestures reflecting this belief were developed by the lords and used as a sign of superiority over the dependent peasants in a time of diminishing status differences.
For other non-European cultures, we should speak of "ritual defloration" rather than a "right of the first night". This custom was part of the preparation of girls for the wedding night and first sexual intercourse with their bridegrooms, and was often connected to transition rites at or before puberty. In most of these cultures the ritual was performed by a chief or priest, or manually by the girl’s mother.
Obviously not everything in movies is factual, however with the right of first night I did some digging long ago after Men in Tights was released. It was the first time I had heard of such a thing, which is not surprising considering my age.
This paper does a better job than I could based on memories over 20 years ago, so here is a link. Paper.
Of course you may say "Well, it's just stories". Reality is that much of real life is captured in stories since they did not generally attempt to account for history until the 16th century. Even then, the history they kept then was often extremely biased, so we rely on the stories and tales that were written to get a better idea of the truth. I'm guessing based on your earlier comments that you will understand that.
Forced tithing was a practice, but I agree that there were numerous ways for people to take property back then. If you were a person of title, all sorts of measures could be taken to get your stuff if a Noble wanted it. There are accounts outside of your link that back the historical truth of lords banging newly weds first. I can't tell you if the historical accounts I read long ago were England, but can tell you that the practice was not restricted to just England. There was historical significance in adding that plot to movies. Robin Hood Men in Tights had the plot long before Braveheart.
Now, was it a written law? Probably not, but that does not mean it was not practiced or enforced. Many morally questionable laws were never written, but were practiced. Noble's were not so ignorant they could not see problems writing down certain laws.
Actually you are not correct, but I get the point. It is still a crime. Whether or not those people are prosecuted is a different question outside of legality.
How was that childish? Honestly? If you are unable to form a moral framework for your life without the threat of a bogey man, you are mentally at the level of a child
It's childish for several reasons. First, your concept of a creator is extremely immature. As mentioned previously, you fail to understand the logic based on numerous Philosophers that have offered a presentation of a creator that goes outside of a traditional religion. According to you, the only way one can see a creator is in the Abrahamic God (your words and only example, not mine).
The main reason this becomes childish is because instead of actually doing any work to validate your opinion, you resort to fallacy by ridicule to try and prove your point, and argue with the one thing you have been brainwashed in to believing (see paragraph above).
Your statement defending your immature position is extremely incorrect. Socrates taught a theory of "The Good", which was continued by Plato. This is very similar and often translated to "The God" though the translation is not correct in that context. This became the basis for several other positions such as "The un-cause" (See Aristotle), "The un-made maker", "The un-moved mover", etc... etc.. All of those have been expanded upon by Philosophers way to many to count, but you could start with Descartes. None of those have been invalidated by reasonable arguments, so what happens in the atheist mind is invalidation by generally 3 arguments. Argument by denial (it does not matter, or denial of the argument as a whole), Argument by fallacy of Ridicule (see your whole position), or Argument by non-truth (see portions of your argument, but there are far better examples). On rare occasions, the Paradox argument is used as invalidation attempt, however a paradox does not mean something is untrue.
I'll post the logical puzzle below, but since it's lengthy I'll address your last point first.
Why has crime been on a downward spiral? Simple, it has not been on a downward spiral. This is statistical bunk that again you have been brainwashed in to believing. A simple check of the Wiki page will show you how wrong your statement is. Do you find it odd that instead of checking a very simple fact you lie? This should make you question how much you have been brainwashed. Reality is such a bitch!
If what you say is true then there should be a percentage point difference in the amount of criminals in jail and convicted annually. If you search independent sources, you will see that amount of inmates has steadily been increasing, not decreasing. This is also true for court systems which continue to struggle with increased case loads. The statistical magic generally comes when they remove things like plea bargains from the list of cases, or remove first time offenders from the list, remove long term offenders from the list, or remove gang related cases, etc... The amount of political corruption is also at an all time high, but again you need to search independent sources since the MSM will tell you nothing of the sort.
A complete version of this resides here. Leap of Faith which contains quite a bit of commentary as well as the text below.
The Great Creationist Experiment
To make our experiment, we must set up a hypothetical scenario. This is usually the point where an atheist yells "Hey, if you can't build the experiment physically and I can't see it then it must be false!". To which I have a very simple response. Please build me a working model of "The Big Bang", or it's false.
So you know, someone could easily build this experiment mathematically and in simulation software, which is how we handle complex issues when we can't build working physical models.
I had a doctor explain to me long ago that drinking with a meal was not as healthy, though with medical knowledge changing so often I'm not sure his point would still be considered valid. The reason was that Saliva begins the digestive processes. Drinking reduces the body's need to create saliva, so your food is less digested as it moves to the stomach. This is of course assuming you chew the recommended 20-28 times per bite of food to ensure saliva permeates as much of the food as possible.
I'm with you on the fluids things though, many people don't realize how important drinking fluids (namely clear fluids, not soda) is for good health.
Isn't mashed potatoes a condiment similar to ketchup? Great on meat and veggies, and sometimes gravy solo but mostly good with other things. Mashed potato's on a fork is the easiest, and tastiest, way for me to pick up and eat corn off the cob.
Even without the brine I never make dry turkey, sounds like it may be cooked at too high of a temperature. 325 max for a Turkey, basting every 1/2 hour or so. The other part of a dry bird is normally letting it set to long uncovered after removing from the oven. Until you are ready to cut, keep a big sheet of foil over it. After cutting, replace the foil so the rest does not get dry while you eat.
Call me odd, but I prefer Turkey and Chicken over Beef and Pork. I eat beef maybe once a week, and pork maybe every other week.
From TFA, it's not that they are trying to pair two pieces of sugar. It's more like they are taking the chemicals from oranges, more for the acid molecules, and mixing them with buttermilk which may have similar acid molecules. This differs in that it's not the major flavor they are trying to pair, but the other components we don't notice. Warning!: Trying that combination may lead to curdled milk in your stomach and cause vomiting.
I'm with most that say it's all bunk, and could not be made in to a science. First, taste is extremely subjective. What I like is probably very different than what you like, this becomes more different based on foods we grew up eating. Those "likes" and "dislikes" have little to do with whether what we are about to eat is extremely healthy or even toxic, but more that we are trained over time to enjoy certain flavors. Second, our bodies do not taste foods the same way over and over. Dairy products when someone is ill taste and react totally different than when they are healthy. This would be true with all foods of course, not just dairy. Last, environmental factors play a role in how things taste to us. When it's hot, ice cream may taste very good. When it's cool, Ice cream has a different less appealing flavor. That's not even mentioning that the temperature of the food changes flavor drastically.
I like you use nVidia on Linux since ATI simply fails to release working drivers most of the time. I can't say I envy the NVidia position. Giving away to much could harm them, but giving away nothing harms Linux.
Both of the big players in GPU do the same thing, but at least I can get the NVidia gear working.
Yes, I was not very clear on the Hegel aspects. Trying to hate on Citrix and think is not always as productive as I like. With the exception of the dialectic, Hegel's works were very related to other French Philosophers and a continuation of their works. Important of course, but not unique as is true with most philosophers works. The US founders were influenced by the same people that influenced Hegel's works. There were several distinct philosophies during that time, many of the people you mentioned were anti-aristocracy. Been a while since reading that particular history, I'll make some time to review what you linked.
I'll also make time to read the book you mentioned from Pinker.
I agree with the premise that major powers have not warred in a long while, but that does not mean that major powers are innocent, or that numbers show an overall decline necessarily. Egypt, Lybia, pretty much every country in Africa, Yemen, and even many EU countries have recently been hammered with deaths. The one big difference now is that super power direct involvement is less, and when they are involved more precise methods of killing are used more often.
Looking at now vs. WWI for example, or Vietnam and Korea, we have less innocent's dieing and less aggressors dieing. The actual casualties for other combatants is higher. Part of this is due to the military strategy required for Gorilla combat. You don't wound Gorillas, you kill them. In standing armies, you wound as opposed to kill to reduce the amount of soldiers in combat. More of this is actually the aggressor being allowed to fight from a stand off position. Predators are used as snipers, however their kill radius often kills innocents as well as intended targets.
So as I just went through the process of writing that paragraph, it dawned on me that you very well may be statistically correct. I'm doubtful still, but will look further. Another consideration is that if all of the fights are one sided, has this been better for humanity overall?
There is a strong correlation between education level and religiosity.
What generally happens is this: The more one is educated in Liberal arts, namely Philosophy, the more one tends to believe in a creator, but the less likely they will be to believe in a traditional Religion. The more one trains in other areas and ignores the liberal arts, the more apt one is to no longer believe in a creator.
So the point you make is really not validated unless you restrict education from the liberal arts. Remember that we no longer teach liberal arts in schools, this was dropped in the late 50s I believe in favor of teaching mechanical steps to pass tests. Most college degrees don't require any liberal arts, so one can gain numerous degrees without ever learning critical thinking skills. Some students learn critical thinking, rhetoric, and philosophy by curiosity however.
Funny that you state I'm childish when you make this statement: "Adults, as opposed to sniveling children, don't need a big bogey man behind the door to scare them into moral behavior.".
This is what you have been brain washed in to believing a creator is, not what reasoning would take you to. I'll simply ask you to read Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle for examples. I doubt you will, but hell it's worth a shot.
The moral play field in the US is the lowest it has ever been, even by most main stream media reports corruption is at an all time high. Sorry, but you are looking at a specific set of facts that back your point, and not the actual laws that are in place protecting corruption and corrupt people.
Really, you believe the justice system is fair? Is it more fair now than lets say 40 years ago? How many guilty rich people have committed crimes and walked away? How many have committed crimes and never been charged? How is it fair that the US tax code is over 60,000 pages long (can you or I afford to take advantage of the system, let alone be sure we are being legally correct when we file?)?
Wholly shit man, the moral compass for the US is extremely low overall. That does not mean that there are no good people, but the laws have been adapted to be taken advantage of by very few, and the court systems won't touch you if you have a bit of power.
And no, this is not an OJ slam. Go higher to people with a lot more wealth that have been robbing you and I legally for a very long time. Hint, it's what started the OWS movement. My guess is that like most people you only see them as freeloading pot heads since that's all you will find on MSM regarding the movement. Search some other sources and find out what started the movement. If you do, something else to ask yourself is "why is MSM manipulating your reality?"
I never stated a separation of Church and State, I said very specifically Atheism. What you point at in France was a separation, very much like we implemented in the USA. Marx advocated the state disallowing any Religion for any reason. Marx's work was mostly based on Hegel's works (ironically as is much of the foundation of the USA.).
Unlike Marx, Hegel believe in freedom and liberty as well as universal equality (at least to a degree politically safe at the time). Of course many will only point at his critiques of revolution and the requirement of learning by blood to advance society.
Hegel also like Plato believed that humans tended to elevate to a higher moral ground. This view is extremely contradictory to Marx's later works.
Marx very early on did believe more similar to Hegel. The point of Utopia was that until humans can mentally evolve a Utopia is not possible.
The other names you mentioned I have never seen any works stating that atheism is required for the Government to control the population. Maybe it was mentioned at some point, but I stand by what I stated since Marx pushed it as a requirement of control, not a "we don't want it because".
Now, it's easy to say "it does not matter". Of course everything is perception right? Well, if I wanted to destabilize a country what would I try and do?
Of course to take that information and do anything with it, you need to look more closely at the numerous agendas that have been running simultaneously in the US for the same length of time. Such as stacking the Judicial branch with certain mind sets, reduction of House and Senate power, extensions of power to the President, lack of judiciary control over Government, etc.. etc...
You can of course just study a part and never look at the whole, at which point you are correct that it does not matter. You can also just deny all of the other things, and again it does not matter.
It is pretty clear that over time, religiosity has gone down. But over the last few hundred years, the overall violence level when measured by the percentage of the population that dies violent deaths has gone down.
I do not agree with that statement. You need to consider state sponsored violence when making that assumption, and that is obviously not in your equation for you to make such a statement.
That is a logical fail, and maybe that was your point. The issue with Crime in Poverty comes from 2 angles. Those in poverty of course need to eat, so crime increases. At the same time, those in power tend to abuse their power to get more. A bit of history lessons are probably in order for you to understand.
More Americans should be asking why the people running the banks that gambled with other peoples money, and lost it all, while themselves making millions to billions of dollars are not in jail for fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy since this has been a repeated issue for the last 5 years by the same people over and over.
You fail at history. While the United States was founded as a "non-religious" country, Christianity is the foundation for the laws of the land. What you had back then were Kings and Nobles that gave themselves military ranks and positions within the Church, making themselves both Religious, Political, and Military leaders. The US tried to separate all aspects of Political leadership from Religion because you end up with the policies such as you had in England where a Lord had the right to bang a newly wed wife before the Husband, or steal your property in the name of religion.
The premise from the founders was that the abuse of power will happen, so the types of power must be separated. You will note that they originally designed the country with 3 distinct branches of Government with separated powers for that exact same reason.
Of course the Brits and others were yammering "Heathens!" because our leaders wanted this separation. The logic in doing so should be painfully obvious.
There are numerous studies that indicate this same thing, and it is a known for a very long time from a Philosophical perspective. This is the problem we have in society where instead of advancing thought and morals, we advance an atheist agenda lacking in morals. More simply put, without any moral guide lines we only have survival of the fittest to guide us. Guess what happens to people with no moral guide lines? Well, you simply need to look at the declining mental and moral health of the USA to see how this turns out. If you want more advanced looks, see Russia and China where the only thing keeping people in line is the threat of death or jail. And in the case of Russia and China, those in power with nothing to fear.. well...
By the way, the first major proponent for National atheism is Carl Marx. This is something to think very strongly about, though I very much doubt that people will do so even after reading that statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Much of the reason for that is difficult to blame on the technical people. Companies no longer have budgets for training, let alone following best practices. Compound that with expectation that a technical person can handle any gawd awful technology you tell them they have to support.
5 years ago, I was much better with security than I am now. 5 years ago, I handled Solaris (2 versions), Redhat (2 versions), Sun and HP hardware, 2 vendors HBA cards, and 2 SAN vendors.
Today, 47 operating systems, 3 different PC hardware vendors (unfortunately much is from a home grown slap it together cheap shop), Sun (equipment dating back 12 years to present). OSes must include Windows, ESX, Citrix Xen*, Solaris 8-11, disparate versions of Ubuntu, CentOS, RHEL, Fedora, Gentoo, NetBSD, FreeBSD, plus many tasks that 5 years ago were the job of a staffed Network person. That's in addition to Netapp and some other cheap NAS vendored gear.
I generally laugh when I get recruiter postings for jobs demanding candidates be senior level SAN admin, Unix Admin, Windows Admin, VMWare admin, Cisco Admin, and what ever else they can stick on to a single person's job the sounds technical. I also cry because nobody can be an expert with anything in a market making those demands.
Security has to take a back seat. I just make it a point of telling people when they are demanding insecure solutions to cover my ass.
And here I was thinking the post was going to be marked as flame bait and vanish.. :D
I'm not so sure since what they keep cutting, like Services, are what make them the most profit. IBM is heading down the same path. It's much harder to manage services, but also the most profit. HP want's everything fixed cost, easily managed, and most importantly no headcount doing any work outside of management.
There are specific fees documented in Sweden for paying a Noble instead of letting them bang the new bride. That is very much proof of the practice as law, though I'm willing to guess that you will insist that everyone was allowed to pay or could afford to pay.
Well, first I'll ask for some citations on that.
I'm beginning to question whether or not you actually read the paper or just picked out pieces that backed your position. The same paper states the fees and entitlements, so there should be no need for a citation. I was however wrong in stating it was Sweden, it was Switzerland which I caught re-reading. Pay very close attention to that first sentence I have in bold in the large paragraph.
II. The jus primae noctis as a power display in the late Middle Ages
We have quite a few examples showing how the popular belief in a former jus primae noctis influenced social relations between lords and peasants in Switzerland, France and Catalonia in the 15th and 16th centuries. One of these stems from a Swiss village in the vicinity of Zurich. In a customal from about 1400 A.D., the rights of the inhabitants of Maur were itemised by the local "Meier", a representative of the lord of Maur, which at that time was the convent of Zurich. "Item, who wants to enter the holy state of marriage in the village and court of Maur, whoever he may be, shall hand over the woman to Us for the first night or he may buy her out, as it is custom and tradition and written in the old customals. If he doesn't do so, he must pay a fine of 30 pennies." (STAZ [Staatsarchiv des Kantons Zürich]. Urkunden Stadt und Land Nr. 2563; copy of the 15th century, cf. Wettlaufer 1999: 251). One hundred and fifty years later, the text had been slightly altered: in the 1543 version, written by a successor of the first editor, one reads "... and when the wedding starts, the bridegroom shall allow the sergeant to lie with his bride for the first night, or he shall buy her off with 5 pounds and 4 pennies." (STAZ C. I 2562, [1543 AD] cf. Wettlaufer 1999: 255).
For the philosophy of Separating Church and State try doing a Google search. There are discussions dating back to the late 1600s. It is from those various Philosophies that you will find the reasons for separating Church and State. Part of which is the separation of Powers. Also read some history regarding the Lutheran reform to see how much power Nobles had in the Church, then the Protestant reform, etc.. etc... etc... What you are asking is relatively easy to find, and way to lengthy to site citations here.
One more quick point, then done. The obvious answer to the riddle is that the box is not relevant. It's the space inside the box that is relevant. That is such an obvious flaw in your logic I could not help but mention it.
I am not a physicist, but I do know enough about physics to point out that nothing you claim in your "experiment" is remotely close to what atheistic scientists "believe". I have never heard anyone claim that it is likely a universe can pop into existance inside another universe.
The inner part of Box 1 is exactly 1 cubic foot larger than you would claim the Universe came from if you believe in a big bang with no creator. The conditions however are identical . No matter, no energy, suddenly there is this thing that blows up and becomes the Universe. So yes, it would be perfectly logical according to that belief to run a simulation and see a Universe spring up out of the modeled boxes. Hell, shrink the empty space to nothing and run it, you still would never get a new Universe. That is your claim if you believe in the big bang and are an atheist.
Last post, since now you seem to be in fantasy land.
Some Atheists will go a bit further, and claim that there was a big giant ball of mass spinning at an incredibly fast rate which exploded
They will? You are just making shit up now, are you not?
You don't believe in the big bang? Good for you, obviously you are in a very small crowd. Notice also that I stated very specifically "some" atheists, not all. There are a few that believe the Universe has always been here and never changed, so there is no need for the big bang. Maybe you think I made up the part regarding the giant ball of mass and explosion, in which case you need to do some homework on big bang theory.
You see atheists believe, or perhaps only want you to believe, that Box 1, Box 2, and Box 3 can all pop up Universes just like ours full of materials, energy, and even life
Do we? Could you please point me in the direction of any articles showing this? Here is a clue: you have just proven that you know as much about atheism as you do about science.
Perhaps correct, I should say "some" there also. If you believe in a Universe with no creator, then in essence yes that is what you believe. Sorry, the truth is a bummer. As mentioned repeatedly, don't use "YOUR" definition of a creator. Use the definition proposed by Aristotle and Plato. The definition makes a huge difference, but most people are so biased they fail to grasp a creator without a "God".
If you search independent sources, you will see that amount of inmates has steadily been increasing, not decreasing
Ah lovely. You automatically think there is a causation or strong correlation where you see some covariation. Perfect example of ignorance.
If you really believe what has been released by certain agencies without checking facts outside of those agencies, then I'm sure you also believe that unemployment is not a problem in the US either. The recession by many Government statistics was over before President Obama took office, so I'm sure you believe that as well. Checking one source, especially when the results tend to be self serving, is generally not a sound scientific practice. If the amount of inmates has been increasing, we have more crime per 100,000, and we have more crimes going without prosecution, the obvious answer is that crime is not decreasing as you suggest. I will back you if you were only talking about "Violent" crimes, but you said crime in general.
Your second thing first: It's not going to be possible to teach all of the various philosophies that occurred around and before the American Revolution. Remember that Ben Franklin was not just in France to bang hookers and get drunk, but to learn from them what Philosophies and Policies worked the best after all of the hell that was the French Revolution. My suggestion would be to start reading backward from Franklin, Jefferson, etc... It's simply way to much to try and reply to. Make sure you don't neglect Adam Smith and his contemporaries since it does related to how we were founded.
For the first part which is longer, I believe you may have overlooked the more obvious quote which backs the practice. In the late medieval times, perhaps you are correct. Earlier, we have documentation suggesting otherwise. Also, outside of Europe there is widespread accounts of the practice. Reasons are generally different outside of Europe for the most part, tending to be Religious as opposed to simply power of title.
Pay attention to that first quote, and go back and read the paper. There are specific fees documented in Sweden for paying a Noble instead of letting them bang the new bride. That is very much proof of the practice as law, though I'm willing to guess that you will insist that everyone was allowed to pay or could afford to pay.
In Eurasian literature the right of the first night is the privilege of a powerful man to have the first sexual intercourse with the bride of another. This archaic theme was perpetuated through the Middles Ages and probably became connected to marriage fines because of the particularities and traditions of Germanic marriage customs for unfree people.
For the late medieval European period we can speak of the right of the first night as a widespread popular belief in an ancient privilege of the lord of the manor to share a bed with the bride on her wedding night. In some places, symbolic gestures reflecting this belief were developed by the lords and used as a sign of superiority over the dependent peasants in a time of diminishing status differences.
For other non-European cultures, we should speak of "ritual defloration" rather than a "right of the first night". This custom was part of the preparation of girls for the wedding night and first sexual intercourse with their bridegrooms, and was often connected to transition rites at or before puberty. In most of these cultures the ritual was performed by a chief or priest, or manually by the girl’s mother.
Obviously not everything in movies is factual, however with the right of first night I did some digging long ago after Men in Tights was released. It was the first time I had heard of such a thing, which is not surprising considering my age.
This paper does a better job than I could based on memories over 20 years ago, so here is a link. Paper.
Of course you may say "Well, it's just stories". Reality is that much of real life is captured in stories since they did not generally attempt to account for history until the 16th century. Even then, the history they kept then was often extremely biased, so we rely on the stories and tales that were written to get a better idea of the truth. I'm guessing based on your earlier comments that you will understand that.
Forced tithing was a practice, but I agree that there were numerous ways for people to take property back then. If you were a person of title, all sorts of measures could be taken to get your stuff if a Noble wanted it. There are accounts outside of your link that back the historical truth of lords banging newly weds first. I can't tell you if the historical accounts I read long ago were England, but can tell you that the practice was not restricted to just England. There was historical significance in adding that plot to movies. Robin Hood Men in Tights had the plot long before Braveheart.
Now, was it a written law? Probably not, but that does not mean it was not practiced or enforced. Many morally questionable laws were never written, but were practiced. Noble's were not so ignorant they could not see problems writing down certain laws.
Actually you are not correct, but I get the point. It is still a crime. Whether or not those people are prosecuted is a different question outside of legality.
How was that childish? Honestly? If you are unable to form a moral framework for your life without the threat of a bogey man, you are mentally at the level of a child
It's childish for several reasons. First, your concept of a creator is extremely immature. As mentioned previously, you fail to understand the logic based on numerous Philosophers that have offered a presentation of a creator that goes outside of a traditional religion. According to you, the only way one can see a creator is in the Abrahamic God (your words and only example, not mine).
The main reason this becomes childish is because instead of actually doing any work to validate your opinion, you resort to fallacy by ridicule to try and prove your point, and argue with the one thing you have been brainwashed in to believing (see paragraph above).
Your statement defending your immature position is extremely incorrect. Socrates taught a theory of "The Good", which was continued by Plato. This is very similar and often translated to "The God" though the translation is not correct in that context. This became the basis for several other positions such as "The un-cause" (See Aristotle), "The un-made maker", "The un-moved mover", etc... etc.. All of those have been expanded upon by Philosophers way to many to count, but you could start with Descartes. None of those have been invalidated by reasonable arguments, so what happens in the atheist mind is invalidation by generally 3 arguments. Argument by denial (it does not matter, or denial of the argument as a whole), Argument by fallacy of Ridicule (see your whole position), or Argument by non-truth (see portions of your argument, but there are far better examples). On rare occasions, the Paradox argument is used as invalidation attempt, however a paradox does not mean something is untrue.
I'll post the logical puzzle below, but since it's lengthy I'll address your last point first.
Why has crime been on a downward spiral? Simple, it has not been on a downward spiral. This is statistical bunk that again you have been brainwashed in to believing. A simple check of the Wiki page will show you how wrong your statement is. Do you find it odd that instead of checking a very simple fact you lie? This should make you question how much you have been brainwashed. Reality is such a bitch!
If what you say is true then there should be a percentage point difference in the amount of criminals in jail and convicted annually. If you search independent sources, you will see that amount of inmates has steadily been increasing, not decreasing. This is also true for court systems which continue to struggle with increased case loads. The statistical magic generally comes when they remove things like plea bargains from the list of cases, or remove first time offenders from the list, remove long term offenders from the list, or remove gang related cases, etc... The amount of political corruption is also at an all time high, but again you need to search independent sources since the MSM will tell you nothing of the sort.
A complete version of this resides here. Leap of Faith which contains quite a bit of commentary as well as the text below.
The Great Creationist Experiment
To make our experiment, we must set up a hypothetical scenario. This is usually the point where an atheist yells "Hey, if you can't build the experiment physically and I can't see it then it must be false!". To which I have a very simple response. Please build me a working model of "The Big Bang", or it's false.
So you know, someone could easily build this experiment mathematically and in simulation software, which is how we handle complex issues when we can't build working physical models.
- The 3 Boxes
Our experiment requires 3 boxes.
Sorry, I don't drink alcoholic beverages.
I had a doctor explain to me long ago that drinking with a meal was not as healthy, though with medical knowledge changing so often I'm not sure his point would still be considered valid. The reason was that Saliva begins the digestive processes. Drinking reduces the body's need to create saliva, so your food is less digested as it moves to the stomach. This is of course assuming you chew the recommended 20-28 times per bite of food to ensure saliva permeates as much of the food as possible.
I'm with you on the fluids things though, many people don't realize how important drinking fluids (namely clear fluids, not soda) is for good health.
Isn't mashed potatoes a condiment similar to ketchup? Great on meat and veggies, and sometimes gravy solo but mostly good with other things. Mashed potato's on a fork is the easiest, and tastiest, way for me to pick up and eat corn off the cob.
Even without the brine I never make dry turkey, sounds like it may be cooked at too high of a temperature. 325 max for a Turkey, basting every 1/2 hour or so. The other part of a dry bird is normally letting it set to long uncovered after removing from the oven. Until you are ready to cut, keep a big sheet of foil over it. After cutting, replace the foil so the rest does not get dry while you eat.
Call me odd, but I prefer Turkey and Chicken over Beef and Pork. I eat beef maybe once a week, and pork maybe every other week.
From TFA, it's not that they are trying to pair two pieces of sugar. It's more like they are taking the chemicals from oranges, more for the acid molecules, and mixing them with buttermilk which may have similar acid molecules. This differs in that it's not the major flavor they are trying to pair, but the other components we don't notice. Warning!: Trying that combination may lead to curdled milk in your stomach and cause vomiting.
I'm with most that say it's all bunk, and could not be made in to a science. First, taste is extremely subjective. What I like is probably very different than what you like, this becomes more different based on foods we grew up eating. Those "likes" and "dislikes" have little to do with whether what we are about to eat is extremely healthy or even toxic, but more that we are trained over time to enjoy certain flavors. Second, our bodies do not taste foods the same way over and over. Dairy products when someone is ill taste and react totally different than when they are healthy. This would be true with all foods of course, not just dairy. Last, environmental factors play a role in how things taste to us. When it's hot, ice cream may taste very good. When it's cool, Ice cream has a different less appealing flavor. That's not even mentioning that the temperature of the food changes flavor drastically.
Don't forget lobbyist, lobby companies, and large donation companies, individuals, and whomever they want to add to the list.
I like you use nVidia on Linux since ATI simply fails to release working drivers most of the time. I can't say I envy the NVidia position. Giving away to much could harm them, but giving away nothing harms Linux.
Both of the big players in GPU do the same thing, but at least I can get the NVidia gear working.
Yes, I was not very clear on the Hegel aspects. Trying to hate on Citrix and think is not always as productive as I like. With the exception of the dialectic, Hegel's works were very related to other French Philosophers and a continuation of their works. Important of course, but not unique as is true with most philosophers works. The US founders were influenced by the same people that influenced Hegel's works. There were several distinct philosophies during that time, many of the people you mentioned were anti-aristocracy. Been a while since reading that particular history, I'll make some time to review what you linked.
I'll also make time to read the book you mentioned from Pinker.
I agree with the premise that major powers have not warred in a long while, but that does not mean that major powers are innocent, or that numbers show an overall decline necessarily. Egypt, Lybia, pretty much every country in Africa, Yemen, and even many EU countries have recently been hammered with deaths. The one big difference now is that super power direct involvement is less, and when they are involved more precise methods of killing are used more often.
Looking at now vs. WWI for example, or Vietnam and Korea, we have less innocent's dieing and less aggressors dieing. The actual casualties for other combatants is higher. Part of this is due to the military strategy required for Gorilla combat. You don't wound Gorillas, you kill them. In standing armies, you wound as opposed to kill to reduce the amount of soldiers in combat. More of this is actually the aggressor being allowed to fight from a stand off position. Predators are used as snipers, however their kill radius often kills innocents as well as intended targets.
So as I just went through the process of writing that paragraph, it dawned on me that you very well may be statistically correct. I'm doubtful still, but will look further. Another consideration is that if all of the fights are one sided, has this been better for humanity overall?
There is a strong correlation between education level and religiosity.
What generally happens is this: The more one is educated in Liberal arts, namely Philosophy, the more one tends to believe in a creator, but the less likely they will be to believe in a traditional Religion. The more one trains in other areas and ignores the liberal arts, the more apt one is to no longer believe in a creator.
So the point you make is really not validated unless you restrict education from the liberal arts. Remember that we no longer teach liberal arts in schools, this was dropped in the late 50s I believe in favor of teaching mechanical steps to pass tests. Most college degrees don't require any liberal arts, so one can gain numerous degrees without ever learning critical thinking skills. Some students learn critical thinking, rhetoric, and philosophy by curiosity however.
Funny that you state I'm childish when you make this statement: "Adults, as opposed to sniveling children, don't need a big bogey man behind the door to scare them into moral behavior.".
This is what you have been brain washed in to believing a creator is, not what reasoning would take you to. I'll simply ask you to read Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle for examples. I doubt you will, but hell it's worth a shot.
The moral play field in the US is the lowest it has ever been, even by most main stream media reports corruption is at an all time high. Sorry, but you are looking at a specific set of facts that back your point, and not the actual laws that are in place protecting corruption and corrupt people.
Really, you believe the justice system is fair? Is it more fair now than lets say 40 years ago? How many guilty rich people have committed crimes and walked away? How many have committed crimes and never been charged? How is it fair that the US tax code is over 60,000 pages long (can you or I afford to take advantage of the system, let alone be sure we are being legally correct when we file?)?
Wholly shit man, the moral compass for the US is extremely low overall. That does not mean that there are no good people, but the laws have been adapted to be taken advantage of by very few, and the court systems won't touch you if you have a bit of power.
And no, this is not an OJ slam. Go higher to people with a lot more wealth that have been robbing you and I legally for a very long time. Hint, it's what started the OWS movement. My guess is that like most people you only see them as freeloading pot heads since that's all you will find on MSM regarding the movement. Search some other sources and find out what started the movement. If you do, something else to ask yourself is "why is MSM manipulating your reality?"
I never stated a separation of Church and State, I said very specifically Atheism. What you point at in France was a separation, very much like we implemented in the USA. Marx advocated the state disallowing any Religion for any reason. Marx's work was mostly based on Hegel's works (ironically as is much of the foundation of the USA.).
Unlike Marx, Hegel believe in freedom and liberty as well as universal equality (at least to a degree politically safe at the time). Of course many will only point at his critiques of revolution and the requirement of learning by blood to advance society.
Hegel also like Plato believed that humans tended to elevate to a higher moral ground. This view is extremely contradictory to Marx's later works.
Marx very early on did believe more similar to Hegel. The point of Utopia was that until humans can mentally evolve a Utopia is not possible.
The other names you mentioned I have never seen any works stating that atheism is required for the Government to control the population. Maybe it was mentioned at some point, but I stand by what I stated since Marx pushed it as a requirement of control, not a "we don't want it because".
Now, it's easy to say "it does not matter". Of course everything is perception right? Well, if I wanted to destabilize a country what would I try and do?
Of course to take that information and do anything with it, you need to look more closely at the numerous agendas that have been running simultaneously in the US for the same length of time. Such as stacking the Judicial branch with certain mind sets, reduction of House and Senate power, extensions of power to the President, lack of judiciary control over Government, etc.. etc...
You can of course just study a part and never look at the whole, at which point you are correct that it does not matter. You can also just deny all of the other things, and again it does not matter.
It is pretty clear that over time, religiosity has gone down. But over the last few hundred years, the overall violence level when measured by the percentage of the population that dies violent deaths has gone down.
I do not agree with that statement. You need to consider state sponsored violence when making that assumption, and that is obviously not in your equation for you to make such a statement.
That is a logical fail, and maybe that was your point. The issue with Crime in Poverty comes from 2 angles. Those in poverty of course need to eat, so crime increases. At the same time, those in power tend to abuse their power to get more. A bit of history lessons are probably in order for you to understand.
More Americans should be asking why the people running the banks that gambled with other peoples money, and lost it all, while themselves making millions to billions of dollars are not in jail for fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy since this has been a repeated issue for the last 5 years by the same people over and over.
You fail at history. While the United States was founded as a "non-religious" country, Christianity is the foundation for the laws of the land. What you had back then were Kings and Nobles that gave themselves military ranks and positions within the Church, making themselves both Religious, Political, and Military leaders. The US tried to separate all aspects of Political leadership from Religion because you end up with the policies such as you had in England where a Lord had the right to bang a newly wed wife before the Husband, or steal your property in the name of religion.
The premise from the founders was that the abuse of power will happen, so the types of power must be separated. You will note that they originally designed the country with 3 distinct branches of Government with separated powers for that exact same reason.
Of course the Brits and others were yammering "Heathens!" because our leaders wanted this separation. The logic in doing so should be painfully obvious.
There are numerous studies that indicate this same thing, and it is a known for a very long time from a Philosophical perspective. This is the problem we have in society where instead of advancing thought and morals, we advance an atheist agenda lacking in morals. More simply put, without any moral guide lines we only have survival of the fittest to guide us. Guess what happens to people with no moral guide lines? Well, you simply need to look at the declining mental and moral health of the USA to see how this turns out. If you want more advanced looks, see Russia and China where the only thing keeping people in line is the threat of death or jail. And in the case of Russia and China, those in power with nothing to fear.. well...
By the way, the first major proponent for National atheism is Carl Marx. This is something to think very strongly about, though I very much doubt that people will do so even after reading that statement.