The simple truth of the matter is that we can never prove it either way. But for some reason, you will only advocate thinking your way. In odds, it's an exact 50/50 split. There either is, or is not a creator.
Ask yourself, if it's a 50/50 split why would you not want people to hear what the odds are for and learn to think about the answer for themselves?
That is a very simple paradox to answer. Just like "Well, if God is all powerful can he make a stone so heavy he can't lift it" is simple to answer.
People that fail to think of course find holes in any argument. Atheist evangelists really blow my mind with how the only thing that can possibly be an answer is nothing. Even with no proof either way, their way has to be right.
Yes, there is a way to prove there is no Santa. OTOH, its not possible to prove a multi-verse, parallel negative universe, string theory, 29 dimensions, or any of the other bullshit so-called scientists put out to make money.
Now, the odd thing is, that even with all the pseudo science being put, the question of a creator does not change. The waters become more muddy, and hell maybe that's the point! Reduce the question to the base level and the argument remains the same.
#$%^ why to people fail to read? Where did I ever mention God? Never, not once, never. I said a creator. It's a concept that has nothing to do with a book, or several books, or scrolls, or magic.
Magic is claiming that the Universe just appeared for no reason out of nothing and started moving and doing shit. That the laws of physics just magically appeared about the time of the big bang, and that suddenly we had atoms and molecules where just.6 seconds ago.. wholly fuck it was nothing, not even empty space!
Look, I admit it is not an easy concept. It's frigging hard, it took me probably 8-10 years of debating with Philosophers and finally getting it because I was all wrapped up in my own biases.
This is why I tell people over and over.. Read Aristotle's arguments for "The Un-Caused Cause". It's simple work really, but incredibly relevant. Debate with some people that like to debate Philosophy. If you can get the answer, wholly fuck you win the Universe! Of course you are going to have to learn how to resolve paradoxes, understand rhetoric and building your arguments, and lots of other things to go with your study. Chances are, you won't be able to answer the question and you won't win the Universe. You can spend your whole life trying to answer this question as hundreds of Philosophers have done.
What? I can spend a lifetime and never have an answer? What kind of bull%^& is that? Because you can't ever answer the question is it somehow wrong to try? It's not a paradoxical question, and it really does have an answer. It relates to everything else we study and see, so is pretty important.
Wrong, it is very relevant to science unless you fail to find deductive reasoning of value. The search for Morals is also part of Science, and defining moral boundaries is critical to science. Unfortunately, the rhetoric from atheists is just as bad as someone shaking a book in many cases.
See above, this is my favorite exercise to get people to think and deduce. Aristotle's work shows that there most likely is a creator. It's been reworked over and over and over, but the same result always comes out. Simply put: "Something had to start the shit."
The hard part, is to clear your head of all your bias while debating the topic. Funny how much we are taught and how biased we are, even if (and usually especially if) one claims to be atheist.
Read up on Aristotle's un-caused cause. Because you are here, there is most likely a creator. This is deductive reasoning at it's finest, but requires an incredible amount of thought to get to. It also requires that one puts all of their biases aside and thinks of a creator outside the context of what they were taught (theist or atheist).
Your questions are not relevant to anything I stated. I was very explicit that it must be taught in generic terms. A creator without a Religion is a fundamental part of Philosophy. You would know if you studied just a bit, I think we covered Socrates and Plato's version in the first week of the first semester. AFAIK, that was a bit ahead of any of the common Religions. Aristotle's "uncaused cause" is another fine example of creation without Religion.
Instead of immediately being defensive try to do a bit of reading.
What I really find both sad and amusing is that Atheists, especially those that claim to be smart, evangelize with much more conviction than any named Religion I know. Zealots just like them people in Robes.
There is not a single shred of evidence to prove there is not a creator. Not one. So why do we teach evolution as the only answer? Well, the concepts we learn are useful right? And the art of thinking, reasoning, and logical deduction are somehow lost because we say "creator"? Come now, your bias is showing.
I'm talking a creator in a very generic system which is a fundamental thought process in the study of Philosophy. Very much like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes arguments. There is no particular Religion involved in the logic.
I like your last sentence. This is the appeal of Jersey Shore and other reality shows full of morons being glorified.
I do however take issue with your affront (or seeming to be) to being taught creationism in school. While not a fan of traditional religions myself, the concept and proof of a creator is an exceptional part of Philosophy, Logic, Ethics, Rhetoric, etc... There is nothing wrong with teaching creationism, in the correct way. Spending over 20 years studying Philosophy I can tell you that there is no reason to not believe in a creator. Einstein believed in God, and we tend to forget that in all of his Genius he still believed in a creator. He also believed in a well rounded education so was a fan of Philosophy.
The questions are not all answered, but many claim to have answers to questions nobody asked.
Secret evidence is a common thing in the US court systems. Just Google that, you will see. Are you sure we are not doing everything listed just because most of it does not make media? I mean... awe hell, I won't even start on the media bashing. To easy of a target.
Sorry, but of all the examples you could have possibly given this is the worst. Was Abu-ghraib right? Don't even be foolish enough to ask. Hell shooting someone in the face is not right, neither is having someone else try to shoot you in the face. Abu-Ghraib is a very unfortunate side effect of war.
Before you say "but but but but" I'll ask you to volunteer for the Military and go see for yourself. Watch a few of your friends die and get hit by a bullet or two. Lets see how you react when you capture someone and they spit in your face and tell you they will hunt down your whole family and kill them. Try helping out someone asking for help and watching them kill a few innocents, and then yell "he did it!".
Look, I in no way am condoning atrocities from any side. But in a war, when you have your ass on the line 24/7/365 and you watch people die.. Well, lets just say that it becomes very unhealthy. This is why we should avoid war, instead of mongering as we have been for years.
SB 1860, much better example. NSA, TSA, both other fine examples. Checkpoints on roads and highways, more prime examples. There are countless Occupy people that have been arrested and detained without bail or trial for weeks. Recently the DEA nearly starved a kid in California to death after locking him in a holding cell and forgetting about him. If not for him needing to be hospitalized, we may have never known that happened.
Sadly, this is a very common theme with the Iranian Government. Usually this is to get the person on board with them. They get out when they are on-board, and often family members are jailed to be sure that they stay on-board.
As long as crap is in power, crap like this happens. How many brilliant people did Stalin and Hitler kill? So many that we have no way of knowing.
KDE4 has been superior to everything else I have used for Linux Desktop. Kiosk features make it friendly for the company, and the windows-like feel makes it simple for showing new people how to use Linux.
I have never liked Gnome myself. It's slow, non-intuitive, and not very flexible. Unity takes flexibility to an all new low point for Desktops. RedHat + KDE or Fedora + KDE at home is how I have worked for the last 10 years. I'm a fan of KDevelop, which plays a role in that also. At the DoD, Linux on the desktop was almost impossible to get approved until KDE3 finally had all the kinks worked out of the Kiosk features. As soon as we showed them it worked, it was approved.
320.00 USD for basic, $700.00 for standard, and 1,200.00 for advance support. So much for "free Linux" right? And more expensive than RedHat, plus pay for items like Landscape. Redhat basic is like 70 bucks.
MMhmm, I heard that same thing with CentOS last year. Sorry, but you don't build corporate support over night. No cert process, no infrastructure, but yes now you 'can' pay for Ubuntu support. This is where RedHat and SuSE were about 10 years ago.
Now, about 90% of the corporations in the US have two versions of Linux in the supported and approved category. RedHat and SUSE. Those took years to make the lists. Maybe Ubuntu will get there, but it may also go the same way every other flavor of the month distro goes. Way to early to tell.
Your argument is mute because Windows nor Mac nor Linux do everything consumers want it to do. Every OS requires that you go download something. Shit until Windows 7 you had to download software on Windows just to burn a DVD. That's not even including all the browser plug-ins you need on pretty much all platforms.
Like it or not, Ubuntu is the best hope for Linux in the real world. It is becoming big enough that software companies and consumers can focus on one Linux product. If Ubuntu is just the flavor of the day and fades like Red Hat etc, I will give up hope of Linux ever really "making it" to the desktop for the average user.
There is a reason Redhat is the number one selling Linux in the world, followed by SUSE (mostly in Europe) and why Ubuntu can't take their place. Enterprise Support.
Maybe for script kiddies and wannabes yelling 'Ubuntu is the shizznit', it's the shizznit ((We heard that same argument for Debian, CentOS, Gentoo, Lindows, and God only knows how many other variants)). Enterprise grade support is not there, and without it you end up with a mickey mouse support structure that chokes itself out in a short time.
Look, if all you want is to watch pr0n on your Linux box, I'm sure Ubuntu is better. In an enterprise, you need to have a support structure. Go ahead and try to manage a few thousand Ubuntu boxes at 87 different release levels and either a nightmare puppet/chef setup or free for all (usually the case is free for all).
Sorry, I deal with the mentality every day that "Ubuntu is free, and everything free is what we should be doing in a corporation". It's the wrong mentality, especially for us in the trenches. Microsoft makes a killing not because their support fixes most of the issues. They make a killing so that system admins have someone to blame and buy time while they fix the problems. We pay for Solaris, HP-UX, and AIX support mostly for that same reason.
Don't like RedHat something? Hell volunteer to make changes. I do, have, and will again.
Leadership perhaps, but even those leaders would be an extreme minority. The majority of the military is made up of people just like you and I. I'm not saying it would not take a revolt at several levels mind you.
Al Franken is correct in questioning. This is exactly what a person that represents the "People" should be doing. Sadly, Rand Paul, Al Franken, Ron Paul, and a couple others are in such a minority that we won't hear much about this. Mega Media corps will make sure this does not reach Network News in any form to boot, so what ever Al uncovers will be quickly muted by what ever nonsense they feel will cover up the 5 minute news spot.
We really are at a point where the house needs to be cleaned completely. I think if it started to happen, we'd quickly have a police state. The Government has been gearing up for it at least. We can hope the Military prevents it from happening.
OT: Sadly in the tech world there are very few honest reviewers any more. Tom's hardware used to be, but fell prey to loads of cash from Intel and MS. Now you can pay them and gift them to tell you turds are the next great quantum computer.
Slashdot Mirror
The simple truth of the matter is that we can never prove it either way. But for some reason, you will only advocate thinking your way. In odds, it's an exact 50/50 split. There either is, or is not a creator.
Ask yourself, if it's a 50/50 split why would you not want people to hear what the odds are for and learn to think about the answer for themselves?
That is a very simple paradox to answer. Just like "Well, if God is all powerful can he make a stone so heavy he can't lift it" is simple to answer.
People that fail to think of course find holes in any argument. Atheist evangelists really blow my mind with how the only thing that can possibly be an answer is nothing. Even with no proof either way, their way has to be right.
Yes, there is a way to prove there is no Santa. OTOH, its not possible to prove a multi-verse, parallel negative universe, string theory, 29 dimensions, or any of the other bullshit so-called scientists put out to make money.
Now, the odd thing is, that even with all the pseudo science being put, the question of a creator does not change. The waters become more muddy, and hell maybe that's the point! Reduce the question to the base level and the argument remains the same.
#$%^ why to people fail to read? Where did I ever mention God? Never, not once, never. I said a creator. It's a concept that has nothing to do with a book, or several books, or scrolls, or magic.
Magic is claiming that the Universe just appeared for no reason out of nothing and started moving and doing shit. That the laws of physics just magically appeared about the time of the big bang, and that suddenly we had atoms and molecules where just .6 seconds ago.. wholly fuck it was nothing, not even empty space!
Look, I admit it is not an easy concept. It's frigging hard, it took me probably 8-10 years of debating with Philosophers and finally getting it because I was all wrapped up in my own biases.
This is why I tell people over and over.. Read Aristotle's arguments for "The Un-Caused Cause". It's simple work really, but incredibly relevant. Debate with some people that like to debate Philosophy. If you can get the answer, wholly fuck you win the Universe! Of course you are going to have to learn how to resolve paradoxes, understand rhetoric and building your arguments, and lots of other things to go with your study. Chances are, you won't be able to answer the question and you won't win the Universe. You can spend your whole life trying to answer this question as hundreds of Philosophers have done.
What? I can spend a lifetime and never have an answer? What kind of bull%^& is that? Because you can't ever answer the question is it somehow wrong to try? It's not a paradoxical question, and it really does have an answer. It relates to everything else we study and see, so is pretty important.
Wrong, it is very relevant to science unless you fail to find deductive reasoning of value. The search for Morals is also part of Science, and defining moral boundaries is critical to science. Unfortunately, the rhetoric from atheists is just as bad as someone shaking a book in many cases.
Thank you for pointing out what atheists do constantly to anyone with a belief other than atheism.
See above, this is my favorite exercise to get people to think and deduce. Aristotle's work shows that there most likely is a creator. It's been reworked over and over and over, but the same result always comes out. Simply put: "Something had to start the shit."
The hard part, is to clear your head of all your bias while debating the topic. Funny how much we are taught and how biased we are, even if (and usually especially if) one claims to be atheist.
Read up on Aristotle's un-caused cause. Because you are here, there is most likely a creator. This is deductive reasoning at it's finest, but requires an incredible amount of thought to get to. It also requires that one puts all of their biases aside and thinks of a creator outside the context of what they were taught (theist or atheist).
Citation was given, scroll up.
A quick google search should be all that's needed however. Looks like some AC is reproducing myth to me.
Your questions are not relevant to anything I stated. I was very explicit that it must be taught in generic terms. A creator without a Religion is a fundamental part of Philosophy. You would know if you studied just a bit, I think we covered Socrates and Plato's version in the first week of the first semester. AFAIK, that was a bit ahead of any of the common Religions. Aristotle's "uncaused cause" is another fine example of creation without Religion.
Instead of immediately being defensive try to do a bit of reading.
What I really find both sad and amusing is that Atheists, especially those that claim to be smart, evangelize with much more conviction than any named Religion I know. Zealots just like them people in Robes.
Idiotic AC, read up on Einstein. He was a devout Jew and very much for a Zionist run country. Here you go.
There is not a single shred of evidence to prove there is not a creator. Not one. So why do we teach evolution as the only answer? Well, the concepts we learn are useful right? And the art of thinking, reasoning, and logical deduction are somehow lost because we say "creator"? Come now, your bias is showing.
I'm talking a creator in a very generic system which is a fundamental thought process in the study of Philosophy. Very much like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes arguments. There is no particular Religion involved in the logic.
I like your last sentence. This is the appeal of Jersey Shore and other reality shows full of morons being glorified.
I do however take issue with your affront (or seeming to be) to being taught creationism in school. While not a fan of traditional religions myself, the concept and proof of a creator is an exceptional part of Philosophy, Logic, Ethics, Rhetoric, etc... There is nothing wrong with teaching creationism, in the correct way. Spending over 20 years studying Philosophy I can tell you that there is no reason to not believe in a creator. Einstein believed in God, and we tend to forget that in all of his Genius he still believed in a creator. He also believed in a well rounded education so was a fan of Philosophy.
The questions are not all answered, but many claim to have answers to questions nobody asked.
Secret evidence is a common thing in the US court systems. Just Google that, you will see. Are you sure we are not doing everything listed just because most of it does not make media? I mean... awe hell, I won't even start on the media bashing. To easy of a target.
Read TFA that you linked for yourself instead of defending garbage.
He talked about how Ubuntu, its derivatives and Goobuntu (Google's customized Ubuntu based distro) are used by Google developers.
It's so enterprise ready Google custom built their own version. Mmhmm, good show.
Sorry, but of all the examples you could have possibly given this is the worst. Was Abu-ghraib right? Don't even be foolish enough to ask. Hell shooting someone in the face is not right, neither is having someone else try to shoot you in the face. Abu-Ghraib is a very unfortunate side effect of war.
Before you say "but but but but" I'll ask you to volunteer for the Military and go see for yourself. Watch a few of your friends die and get hit by a bullet or two. Lets see how you react when you capture someone and they spit in your face and tell you they will hunt down your whole family and kill them. Try helping out someone asking for help and watching them kill a few innocents, and then yell "he did it!".
Look, I in no way am condoning atrocities from any side. But in a war, when you have your ass on the line 24/7/365 and you watch people die.. Well, lets just say that it becomes very unhealthy. This is why we should avoid war, instead of mongering as we have been for years.
SB 1860, much better example. NSA, TSA, both other fine examples. Checkpoints on roads and highways, more prime examples. There are countless Occupy people that have been arrested and detained without bail or trial for weeks. Recently the DEA nearly starved a kid in California to death after locking him in a holding cell and forgetting about him. If not for him needing to be hospitalized, we may have never known that happened.
Sadly, this is a very common theme with the Iranian Government. Usually this is to get the person on board with them. They get out when they are on-board, and often family members are jailed to be sure that they stay on-board.
As long as crap is in power, crap like this happens. How many brilliant people did Stalin and Hitler kill? So many that we have no way of knowing.
KDE4 has been superior to everything else I have used for Linux Desktop. Kiosk features make it friendly for the company, and the windows-like feel makes it simple for showing new people how to use Linux.
I have never liked Gnome myself. It's slow, non-intuitive, and not very flexible. Unity takes flexibility to an all new low point for Desktops. RedHat + KDE or Fedora + KDE at home is how I have worked for the last 10 years. I'm a fan of KDevelop, which plays a role in that also. At the DoD, Linux on the desktop was almost impossible to get approved until KDE3 finally had all the kinks worked out of the Kiosk features. As soon as we showed them it worked, it was approved.
320.00 USD for basic, $700.00 for standard, and 1,200.00 for advance support. So much for "free Linux" right? And more expensive than RedHat, plus pay for items like Landscape. Redhat basic is like 70 bucks.
MMhmm, I heard that same thing with CentOS last year. Sorry, but you don't build corporate support over night. No cert process, no infrastructure, but yes now you 'can' pay for Ubuntu support. This is where RedHat and SuSE were about 10 years ago.
Now, about 90% of the corporations in the US have two versions of Linux in the supported and approved category. RedHat and SUSE. Those took years to make the lists. Maybe Ubuntu will get there, but it may also go the same way every other flavor of the month distro goes. Way to early to tell.
Your argument is mute because Windows nor Mac nor Linux do everything consumers want it to do. Every OS requires that you go download something. Shit until Windows 7 you had to download software on Windows just to burn a DVD. That's not even including all the browser plug-ins you need on pretty much all platforms.
Like it or not, Ubuntu is the best hope for Linux in the real world. It is becoming big enough that software companies and consumers can focus on one Linux product. If Ubuntu is just the flavor of the day and fades like Red Hat etc, I will give up hope of Linux ever really "making it" to the desktop for the average user.
There is a reason Redhat is the number one selling Linux in the world, followed by SUSE (mostly in Europe) and why Ubuntu can't take their place. Enterprise Support.
Maybe for script kiddies and wannabes yelling 'Ubuntu is the shizznit', it's the shizznit ((We heard that same argument for Debian, CentOS, Gentoo, Lindows, and God only knows how many other variants)). Enterprise grade support is not there, and without it you end up with a mickey mouse support structure that chokes itself out in a short time.
Look, if all you want is to watch pr0n on your Linux box, I'm sure Ubuntu is better. In an enterprise, you need to have a support structure. Go ahead and try to manage a few thousand Ubuntu boxes at 87 different release levels and either a nightmare puppet/chef setup or free for all (usually the case is free for all).
Sorry, I deal with the mentality every day that "Ubuntu is free, and everything free is what we should be doing in a corporation". It's the wrong mentality, especially for us in the trenches. Microsoft makes a killing not because their support fixes most of the issues. They make a killing so that system admins have someone to blame and buy time while they fix the problems. We pay for Solaris, HP-UX, and AIX support mostly for that same reason.
Don't like RedHat something? Hell volunteer to make changes. I do, have, and will again.
Leadership perhaps, but even those leaders would be an extreme minority. The majority of the military is made up of people just like you and I. I'm not saying it would not take a revolt at several levels mind you.
Al Franken is correct in questioning. This is exactly what a person that represents the "People" should be doing. Sadly, Rand Paul, Al Franken, Ron Paul, and a couple others are in such a minority that we won't hear much about this. Mega Media corps will make sure this does not reach Network News in any form to boot, so what ever Al uncovers will be quickly muted by what ever nonsense they feel will cover up the 5 minute news spot.
We really are at a point where the house needs to be cleaned completely. I think if it started to happen, we'd quickly have a police state. The Government has been gearing up for it at least. We can hope the Military prevents it from happening.
OT: Sadly in the tech world there are very few honest reviewers any more. Tom's hardware used to be, but fell prey to loads of cash from Intel and MS. Now you can pay them and gift them to tell you turds are the next great quantum computer.