Well it's not so much a matter of snobbery but that the intellegentia no longer participate in education or social debate and little to no social relevance. Western education, science and art have become completely alienated from popular culture. People are merely indoctrinated into working for companies and have no intellectual self reliance whatsoever, no real education, little literacy and no discernible intellectual skills. People are not able to think critically or appraise arguements, so political discussion for example is reduced to whether people look trustworthy or not. Western culture has become a thing of surface appearances. Truth is measured by whether the person wears an expensive suit or not.
We live in an entertainment age where common sense and thinking about things is seen as uncool. Nobody goes to art galleries, hardly anybody reads and those that do read populist trash. The amazing discoveries of Science occuring as we speak are irrelevant to a population that mostly believes in fundamantalist Christianity, indifference and blind ignorance. People believe what suits them and can't even appraise facts.
What's even more worrying however is the previllance of anti-intellectualism. It's become fashionable to equate intellectual pursuits with snobbery. High Art is seens as completely useless, and Science is seen as being a way to stigmatise yourself in society.
The media has portrayed intellectuals so poorly, that people are only capable of rehashing cliched stereotypes that they've learned from television. Western Culture is viewed as you've illustrated all so clearly, as being some sort of nostalgic illusion of the past.
It's a hell of a lot worse than opera. The average American for instance doesn't understand things like the Geneva Convention or the United Nations - so their politicians (on either side) are free to do as they please regardless of international law and treaty. It's deliberate ignorance, used to keep people in their place, and it's certainly nothing to brag about or take pride in.
Any chance Western culture had of retaining it's thousand of years legacy of science and the arts went out the door with television and the rise of post-modernism and consumer culture.
Is it really any surprise that the sciences and arts are all going out the window. After all, most of Western culture nowadays is anti-intellectual anyhow. Society rewards degenerate rappers on the television who can't speak coherent English and actors extolled as role models. Reality television actually gets watched! Who of these people will become a physicist despite the fact that we're on the brink of physics' new golden age?
With Hollywood churning out so many vacuous and innanely stupid movies, along with the mindless slop music industry, is it any wonder that kids would rather not go into jobs that afford them no respect or decent pay. Most of them wouldn't get the chance at a sufficient education to become a physicist anyhow even if they wanted it.
God's existance, or lack thereof, is either undetermined or indeterminable, or that's how I understand the agnostic perspective. Stating "God doesn't exist" (or implying it as you do above) would be an atheist perspective - that either God's lack of existance is determined, or that the preponderance of evidence leads them to believe that God doesn't exist. So I'm not sure that "I'm agnostic" and "God would have to exist before I could hate him" quite go together. Now, if you mean "I would have to believe God exists before I could hate him," then that makes much more sense.
I'm open to the God's existence, but I think that the atheist point of view is the most compelling given the evidence. I'm happy with my comments as they were given.
And just because god didn't prove that he exists to you doesn't mean he didn't prove that he exists to himself;-)
Possibly also true, but you could just as easily replace the word "God" here for the Easter Bunny. In any case, I would imagine that perhaps existence and non existence wouldn't be a limiting factor for a god. Nonetheless, most Christians seem to think that God and existence are mutually exclusive. So their god is merely a god that exists within the universe, and is subject to existence which is of course a physical law. So really their god is just a bearded man with super powers.
I disagree. My faith and belief are strongly grounded in reality. That they are not formal proofs acceptable to the whole world, I'm ok with. I'm not asking you to accept them as scientific truths, merely as one rational way of viewing the world.
To be rational, they would have to be based on some form of valid evidence, and there isn't any to be found whatsoever. So it's not likely that something can be grounded in reality when reality shows no signs of God. You of course think your faith is rational, but still there's no god whatsoever to be found. you may still be right all the same, but the only reason that I can see why people would belive in God is to rationalise their fear of death and make sense of the senselessness and brutality of their mortal existence.
We all have our coloured glasses when we look at the world, whether that colour is one of faith in a god, faith in the lack of gods, or abject disinterest to the entire subject of gods. While the latter is certainly quite pragmatic, only one of the first two will be right;-). We just can't prove either to everyone's satisfaction, which is where the agnostics are entirely correct.
I think however that the burden of proof lies with those who claim that god does in fact exist. I don't claim other unprovable things exist, so there's no argument to be had with me claiming absurd. So if you claim that something exists, I think unless you're able to prove it, you're merely wishing that God exists - you really don't know one way or the other.
Just out of curiosity... safer in what definition? Safer for your eternal soul, if we even have them? Or safer in a contemporary intellectual perspective? If even the answer is more along the lines of "safer from the perspective of a more self-consistant answer", then I'd like to point out those coloured glasses again. Many rational human beings believe that the existance of god(s) is more self-consistant. It's just the perspective of their viewpoint.
(Safer in terms of being correct). Trying to blur the lines because people have varying viewpoints is a common muddying the water tactic, but it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. We can argue about the relative moral worth of this or that, but if you have to reduce all knowledge to nihlistic relativism, I'm afraid you already have your hands full. We can argue for instance that canibalism is a subjective idea and that it is not necessarily wrong, but this isn't a ethical question - it's a question of reality. A chair either exists and can be seen or not - there's no relativism whatsoever. In
My post was really more philosophical then anything else. In short "There are more things on this Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your Philosophy"
I certainly wouldn't disagree with this, but my essential point is that unless a thing is known and proven then it is fantasy unless proven.
Saying that someone is wrong about their beliefs serves no purpose when those beliefs aren't readily demonstrable. To say that there is no god implies that you possess such a full knowledge of the world that you in fact would be god.
One doesn't need full knowledge of the world however to arrive at understanding.
Your paradox of perfect knowledge also defeats it's own argument. You would need to have perfect knowledge of the world in order to make any statement about perfect knowledge and the existence of god - as you clearly don't have this knowledge, so your argument defeats itself.
There isn't any demonstration of god whatsoever in the modern world, none whatsoever. If these are the facts, then one could conclude that god is outside of reality as mankind knows it, but this is merely superstitious belief.
Saying that such a powerful god exists that he can exist without being detected by current or future means is equally valid.
This is a self defeating argument. If it thing can not be known then it is unknowable and non existent. Unknowable is exactly the same as non existent. A thing with no cause, no effect and no characteristics whatoever - just doesn't exist.
In the world as we know it, there is no hint whatsoever of a god. No god in dna, no god in atoms, no god in gravity, no god anywhere whatsoever.
Really? So you fully understand the intricate functioning of dna, atoms, gravity, and everything else? Man what are you doing posting on slashdot? Go write a book explaining general relativity and make millions. Otherwise don't speak of what you can't prove.
Yes really, there's no God pushing the electrons around, and there's no god making the tides go back and forth. It's all easily explained by science and God hasn't been found under any microscope anywhere.
To therefore conclude that doubting god is irrational is a very flawed argument. The onus is on you to prove in non existant things.
This statement is most defiantly atheistic.
If you are prepared to claim in the existence of god, then by all means demonstrate this belief. Otherwise, I can't believe in your non existent thing.
You claim to be agnostic, but things like this make it apparent that you refuse to acknowledge even the possiblity of a god. That requires as much faith and blind trust in a doctrine as the most devout religious.
The god that I hear about from Christians is a simpleton god. He spends all his time worrying about evolution and abortion, and is really quite uptight and overally moralistic. His powers are limited - parting seas and so forth - not very impressive compared to modern technology really. I mean medicine heals more people than Jesus was ever claimed to have healed. A paramedic brings more people back to life - frankly, the god of mankind is clearly man's own left hand being pointed to by their right hand. Childish nonsence. If there is a god, god is certainly not the god of mankind. The atheists might be wrong, but the evidence is in their favour. I'm an agnostic because I don't think that this is neccesarily the final conclusion, but it certainly appears to be so.
Then prove that computers exist.
Simple - here's some. The fact that you're using one also shouldn't ellude you. Now let's see you do the same with god.
I am currently typing on something that seems solid to the touch, and appears to reflect, absorb, and emit light in such ways that my eyes percieve it, but last night I had a dream that I was standing on a banana floating through space and in the dr
To interact with man God can take a finite part of himself of arbitrary non-infinite size and expose man to it. Man however can only truly interact with this finite segment, and because the segment is finite, man can not determine whether the whole itself is infinite.
I'm sorry, but god would likely first have to exist for any interaction to actually occur and the rest of your comment is quite the mystic mumbo jumbo. As you've failed to demonstrate how this can happen, the rest of your argument are unquantifiable mystical ideas here and clearly conjecture.
You could determine that this person claiming to be God is standing in your yard shooting fire from eyes and parting your birdbath is more powerful than an actual human, but you could never logically establish that he is God.
By this argument, Abraham, Moses and Jesus also were incapable of recognising their "God". Therefore, no god. God is a human idea and so a human would define their god acording to their capacity however flawed this fantasy may be.
The main point I'm trying to make here is that your belief system is no more or less irrational than anyone else's, and nobody gains anything from sweeping statements from either side.
You don't seem to have made the point sufficiently to convince me that doubting the existence of god is irrational or that all beliefs are irrational. In the world as we know it, there is no hint whatsoever of a god. No god in dna, no god in atoms, no god in gravity, no god anywhere whatsoever. To therefore conclude that doubting god is irrational is a very flawed argument. The onus is on you to prove in non existant things. I can prove computers exist, as I can prove that rainbows exist. I can also infer quite easily that the tooth fairy and santa claus are non existent, just like god. Oh, and if you think holding any view whatoever is irrational, then you should aim that argument on your own views.
I personally am getting very tired of proselytizers on both sides shoving their supposed axioms on others without provocation.
If you tire of discussion, it's likely that your participation is beyond your ability. I'm not here to shape my views acording to your personal tastes.
No idea sorry, I'm agnostic myself. God would have to exist before I could hate him anyhow. A child can even prove that they exist, so why can't god manage to do such a small thing?
If you have no proof for God, maybe it is because God doesn't think that you deserve the proof.
Equally so, we have no proof for Santa Claus. Perhaps his elves have made him an invisible cloak too and we don't deserve proof from him. It's much more likely that you're just wishing.
The kind of proof that the faithful have can not be shared with others. That is why it is called faith.
Certainly, but faith and belief are merely that. They have no grounds in reality whatsoever and can never be facts. They're a conclusion without the evidence. It's cetainly possible that God exists, but no more likely than Santa Claus in actual facts.
Oh, and by the way, if you can't prove something, that doesn't mean that it isn't so.
True indeed, but if your god is so afraid of showing himself, then why all the miracles in the past? God may exist but He certainly hasn't parted any Red Seas recently or raised any dead, which is quite suspicious considering he was up to all sorts of tricks a while back. It's safer to infer that God is fiction just like any other fiction one is likely to cook up in ones head.
theology and science used to be the same thing in ancient times. Now people like you have your science and you also have a lot of hubris.
Actually, it was the occult (magic) and science that used to be one - Alchemy, astrology etc. Christianity hated and persecuted that too. Deep down I guess you Christians knew that it was only a mater of time before people realised that there is no disernible god or gods.
Humility is a much better trait than intelligence as far as I can see. I would rather spend a day with a down-syndrome patient than some MIT drone who wants to play at being god.
Humility to what? Truth isn't a matter of taste you see regardless of your personal preferences. Your elusive god isn't impressive enough for my tastes anyhow.
If you had seen Yahweh, you certainly wouldn't be spreading your Atheist nonsense.
I agree. If he corrected my denial of him, I'd gladly repent. If you see him, tell him to pop by and tell me off ASAP. I'd gladly be proven wrong, because I would prefer that there was indeed a benevolent creator looking over us. Unfortunately however, this just isn't likely.
Also, you seem to treat science as an idol.
Generally I see Christians treating their own silly opinions about God as idols. Nonethless, I don't believe that science is the panacea to mankind, but certainly rationality and beliefs based on what can be seen to be true is indeed my guiding light. The alternative is to believe in any number of unprovable fairy stories made by foolish men pretending to be or know god.
Bogus- I don't mean mountain. He was associated with mountains and hills, but he was a sky god.
"Yahweh appears to have been originally a sky god - a god of thunder and lightning. He was associated with mountains and was called by the enemies of Israel 'a god of the hills'. His manifestation was often as fire, as at Mount Sinai and in the burning bush." "A shorter form, 'Yah', was also used (Exodus 15:2) and some scholars believe that this is the older form, originating in an exclamation to God - 'Yah!' - which came to be accepted as the divine name. Others claim that it is from the root 'hayah', 'to be' or 'to become', and that it meant 'I am that I am' or I will be that I will be'. According to one tradition of the call of Moses, the divine name Yahweh was revealed to him in Egypt:"
- Great Events of Bible Times
Humans playing God, creating life. Theology may well be shaken to its very foundations.
What nonsence - humans save lives and create life every day of the week. I haven't seen any overinflated sky gods (aka Yahweh) doing much for humanity lately.
Theology would really be shaken to it's foundations if there was any proof of God's existence in any way whatsoever.
Um, a model is someone who is hired to be looked at. I don't see how this is different.
By your defintion, you wouldn't see a difference, but your definition is incorrect.
A model is not a person who is to be looked at. A model models clothing or jewellery etc - they may be looked at, but they actually model something. A promotions person doesn't model anything, they promote something. The two terms are not interchangable. A model for instance must conform to certain aesthethic standards, but a promotions person can be anyone. A fashion model has a certain look to their face, a certain height range and a certain figure - these things are known and recognised in the fashion industry.
A promotions person is often a dancer/fitness instructor etc, etc who likes the idea of making money with their appearance but can't get into actual modelling because they don't have the right looks for it. Usually promotion jobs are quite demeaning to the women who do them. It generally involves flashing lots of skin and making loosers think that you're interested in talking to them whilst they try to sell them things.
Everyone wants to be a model, and it's often though to be some sort of badge of merit to call yourself one. But if you don't model clothes for a professional fashon house like Dior, Chanel etc, then youy're simply not a model. These people might be spokepeople, promotions people, PR assistants, sales people, promotions people - but they are not models.
The article poster is confusing "models" with "promotions" people.
A model walks on a catwalk or is seen in a fashion magazine, wheras a "promotions person" wears does the type of job you're mentioning. Models have a fashion type of look and this is normally their professional career while it lasts, wheras promotions people are expected to be a sort of good looking sales person and can look any sort of look. Generally people who can't get into fashion end up doing depressing and explotitive jobs like promotion work. A model wouldn't be seen dead doing this type of work.
Additionally, if they were modelling clothes, they wouldn't mind being photographed. The fact is however that promotions girls are just tits and ass.
"The Lord of Murder shall perish, but in his doom he shall spawn a score of mortal progeny. Chaos shall be sown from their passage. So Sayeth the Wise Alaundo."
The "Lord of Murder" is clearly Interplay France. The "score of mortal progeny" are the former Interplay employees. Finally, the "Chaos" will be Electronic Arts churning out crud games.
It seems AMD is spending more time investigating this than on releasing their new Alchemy chipset which boasts direct transfer of video from digital video recorders to portable players without the need to transcode through a PC."
Funny, I didn't read that or infer that from the article. Perhaps you have special glasses that let you read invisible ink?
Slashdot Mirror
Well it's not so much a matter of snobbery but that the intellegentia no longer participate in education or social debate and little to no social relevance. Western education, science and art have become completely alienated from popular culture. People are merely indoctrinated into working for companies and have no intellectual self reliance whatsoever, no real education, little literacy and no discernible intellectual skills. People are not able to think critically or appraise arguements, so political discussion for example is reduced to whether people look trustworthy or not. Western culture has become a thing of surface appearances. Truth is measured by whether the person wears an expensive suit or not.
We live in an entertainment age where common sense and thinking about things is seen as uncool. Nobody goes to art galleries, hardly anybody reads and those that do read populist trash. The amazing discoveries of Science occuring as we speak are irrelevant to a population that mostly believes in fundamantalist Christianity, indifference and blind ignorance. People believe what suits them and can't even appraise facts.
What's even more worrying however is the previllance of anti-intellectualism. It's become fashionable to equate intellectual pursuits with snobbery. High Art is seens as completely useless, and Science is seen as being a way to stigmatise yourself in society.
The media has portrayed intellectuals so poorly, that people are only capable of rehashing cliched stereotypes that they've learned from television. Western Culture is viewed as you've illustrated all so clearly, as being some sort of nostalgic illusion of the past.
It's a hell of a lot worse than opera. The average American for instance doesn't understand things like the Geneva Convention or the United Nations - so their politicians (on either side) are free to do as they please regardless of international law and treaty. It's deliberate ignorance, used to keep people in their place, and it's certainly nothing to brag about or take pride in.
hehehe - what a useful piece of advice.
Australia's going the same way too.
The proletariat be damned. The problem is however that the intellegentia are falling apart.
Now that's a brilliant idea.
There's nothing quite like a fundamentalist to stand in the way of the pursuit of truth and science. It just never gets old for them.
Dear God, please protect me from your insane followers.
Any chance Western culture had of retaining it's thousand of years legacy of science and the arts went out the door with television and the rise of post-modernism and consumer culture.
Is it really any surprise that the sciences and arts are all going out the window. After all, most of Western culture nowadays is anti-intellectual anyhow. Society rewards degenerate rappers on the television who can't speak coherent English and actors extolled as role models. Reality television actually gets watched! Who of these people will become a physicist despite the fact that we're on the brink of physics' new golden age?
With Hollywood churning out so many vacuous and innanely stupid movies, along with the mindless slop music industry, is it any wonder that kids would rather not go into jobs that afford them no respect or decent pay. Most of them wouldn't get the chance at a sufficient education to become a physicist anyhow even if they wanted it.
...and so it begins.
God's existance, or lack thereof, is either undetermined or indeterminable, or that's how I understand the agnostic perspective. Stating "God doesn't exist" (or implying it as you do above) would be an atheist perspective - that either God's lack of existance is determined, or that the preponderance of evidence leads them to believe that God doesn't exist. So I'm not sure that "I'm agnostic" and "God would have to exist before I could hate him" quite go together. Now, if you mean "I would have to believe God exists before I could hate him," then that makes much more sense.
;-)
;-). We just can't prove either to everyone's satisfaction, which is where the agnostics are entirely correct.
... safer in what definition? Safer for your eternal soul, if we even have them? Or safer in a contemporary intellectual perspective? If even the answer is more along the lines of "safer from the perspective of a more self-consistant answer", then I'd like to point out those coloured glasses again. Many rational human beings believe that the existance of god(s) is more self-consistant. It's just the perspective of their viewpoint.
I'm open to the God's existence, but I think that the atheist point of view is the most compelling given the evidence. I'm happy with my comments as they were given.
And just because god didn't prove that he exists to you doesn't mean he didn't prove that he exists to himself
Possibly also true, but you could just as easily replace the word "God" here for the Easter Bunny. In any case, I would imagine that perhaps existence and non existence wouldn't be a limiting factor for a god. Nonetheless, most Christians seem to think that God and existence are mutually exclusive. So their god is merely a god that exists within the universe, and is subject to existence which is of course a physical law. So really their god is just a bearded man with super powers.
I disagree. My faith and belief are strongly grounded in reality. That they are not formal proofs acceptable to the whole world, I'm ok with. I'm not asking you to accept them as scientific truths, merely as one rational way of viewing the world.
To be rational, they would have to be based on some form of valid evidence, and there isn't any to be found whatsoever. So it's not likely that something can be grounded in reality when reality shows no signs of God. You of course think your faith is rational, but still there's no god whatsoever to be found. you may still be right all the same, but the only reason that I can see why people would belive in God is to rationalise their fear of death and make sense of the senselessness and brutality of their mortal existence.
We all have our coloured glasses when we look at the world, whether that colour is one of faith in a god, faith in the lack of gods, or abject disinterest to the entire subject of gods. While the latter is certainly quite pragmatic, only one of the first two will be right
I think however that the burden of proof lies with those who claim that god does in fact exist. I don't claim other unprovable things exist, so there's no argument to be had with me claiming absurd. So if you claim that something exists, I think unless you're able to prove it, you're merely wishing that God exists - you really don't know one way or the other.
Just out of curiosity
(Safer in terms of being correct). Trying to blur the lines because people have varying viewpoints is a common muddying the water tactic, but it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. We can argue about the relative moral worth of this or that, but if you have to reduce all knowledge to nihlistic relativism, I'm afraid you already have your hands full. We can argue for instance that canibalism is a subjective idea and that it is not necessarily wrong, but this isn't a ethical question - it's a question of reality. A chair either exists and can be seen or not - there's no relativism whatsoever. In
My post was really more philosophical then anything else. In short "There are more things on this Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of
in your Philosophy"
I certainly wouldn't disagree with this, but my essential point is that unless a thing is known and proven then it is fantasy unless proven.
Saying that someone is wrong about their beliefs serves no purpose when those beliefs aren't readily demonstrable. To say that there is no god implies that you possess such a full knowledge of the world that you in fact would be god.
One doesn't need full knowledge of the world however to arrive at understanding.
Your paradox of perfect knowledge also defeats it's own argument. You would need to have perfect knowledge of the world in order to make any statement about perfect knowledge and the existence of god - as you clearly don't have this knowledge, so your argument defeats itself.
There isn't any demonstration of god whatsoever in the modern world, none whatsoever. If these are the facts, then one could conclude that god is outside of reality as mankind knows it, but this is merely superstitious belief.
Saying that such a powerful god exists that he can exist without being detected by current or future means is equally valid.
This is a self defeating argument. If it thing can not be known then it is unknowable and non existent. Unknowable is exactly the same as non existent. A thing with no cause, no effect and no characteristics whatoever - just doesn't exist.
In the world as we know it, there is no hint whatsoever of a god. No god in dna, no god in atoms, no god in gravity, no god anywhere whatsoever.
Really? So you fully understand the intricate functioning of dna, atoms, gravity, and everything else? Man what are you doing posting on slashdot? Go write a book explaining general relativity and make millions. Otherwise don't speak of what you can't prove.
Yes really, there's no God pushing the electrons around, and there's no god making the tides go back and forth. It's all easily explained by science and God hasn't been found under any microscope anywhere.
To therefore conclude that doubting god is irrational is a very flawed argument. The onus is on you to prove in non existant things.
This statement is most defiantly atheistic.
If you are prepared to claim in the existence of god, then by all means demonstrate this belief. Otherwise, I can't believe in your non existent thing.
You claim to be agnostic, but things like this make it apparent that you refuse to acknowledge even the possiblity of a god. That requires as much faith and blind trust in a doctrine as the most devout religious.
The god that I hear about from Christians is a simpleton god. He spends all his time worrying about evolution and abortion, and is really quite uptight and overally moralistic. His powers are limited - parting seas and so forth - not very impressive compared to modern technology really. I mean medicine heals more people than Jesus was ever claimed to have healed. A paramedic brings more people back to life - frankly, the god of mankind is clearly man's own left hand being pointed to by their right hand. Childish nonsence. If there is a god, god is certainly not the god of mankind. The atheists might be wrong, but the evidence is in their favour. I'm an agnostic because I don't think that this is neccesarily the final conclusion, but it certainly appears to be so.
Then prove that computers exist.
Simple - here's some. The fact that you're using one also shouldn't ellude you. Now let's see you do the same with god.
I am currently typing on something that seems solid to the touch, and appears to reflect, absorb, and emit light in such ways that my eyes percieve it, but last night I had a dream that I was standing on a banana floating through space and in the dr
Yeah, silly me dude. I guess all the other books and links on it were cherry picking too.
Thanks for your informative and insightful comments moron.
hehehe - you'd have to take a number, but unfortunately I'm male.
To interact with man God can take a finite part of himself of arbitrary non-infinite size and expose man to it. Man however can only truly interact with this finite segment, and because the segment is finite, man can not determine whether the whole itself is infinite.
I'm sorry, but god would likely first have to exist for any interaction to actually occur and the rest of your comment is quite the mystic mumbo jumbo. As you've failed to demonstrate how this can happen, the rest of your argument are unquantifiable mystical ideas here and clearly conjecture.
You could determine that this person claiming to be God is standing in your yard shooting fire from eyes and parting your birdbath is more powerful than an actual human, but you could never logically establish that he is God.
By this argument, Abraham, Moses and Jesus also were incapable of recognising their "God". Therefore, no god. God is a human idea and so a human would define their god acording to their capacity however flawed this fantasy may be.
The main point I'm trying to make here is that your belief system is no more or less irrational than anyone else's, and nobody gains anything from sweeping statements from either side.
You don't seem to have made the point sufficiently to convince me that doubting the existence of god is irrational or that all beliefs are irrational. In the world as we know it, there is no hint whatsoever of a god. No god in dna, no god in atoms, no god in gravity, no god anywhere whatsoever. To therefore conclude that doubting god is irrational is a very flawed argument. The onus is on you to prove in non existant things. I can prove computers exist, as I can prove that rainbows exist. I can also infer quite easily that the tooth fairy and santa claus are non existent, just like god. Oh, and if you think holding any view whatoever is irrational, then you should aim that argument on your own views.
I personally am getting very tired of proselytizers on both sides shoving their supposed axioms on others without provocation.
If you tire of discussion, it's likely that your participation is beyond your ability. I'm not here to shape my views acording to your personal tastes.
What is up with you God hating Atheists?
No idea sorry, I'm agnostic myself. God would have to exist before I could hate him anyhow. A child can even prove that they exist, so why can't god manage to do such a small thing?
If you have no proof for God, maybe it is because God doesn't think that you deserve the proof.
Equally so, we have no proof for Santa Claus. Perhaps his elves have made him an invisible cloak too and we don't deserve proof from him. It's much more likely that you're just wishing.
The kind of proof that the faithful have can not be shared with others. That is why it is called faith.
Certainly, but faith and belief are merely that. They have no grounds in reality whatsoever and can never be facts. They're a conclusion without the evidence. It's cetainly possible that God exists, but no more likely than Santa Claus in actual facts.
Oh, and by the way, if you can't prove something, that doesn't mean that it isn't so.
True indeed, but if your god is so afraid of showing himself, then why all the miracles in the past? God may exist but He certainly hasn't parted any Red Seas recently or raised any dead, which is quite suspicious considering he was up to all sorts of tricks a while back. It's safer to infer that God is fiction just like any other fiction one is likely to cook up in ones head.
theology and science used to be the same thing in ancient times. Now people like you have your science and you also have a lot of hubris.
Actually, it was the occult (magic) and science that used to be one - Alchemy, astrology etc. Christianity hated and persecuted that too. Deep down I guess you Christians knew that it was only a mater of time before people realised that there is no disernible god or gods.
Humility is a much better trait than intelligence as far as I can see. I would rather spend a day with a down-syndrome patient than some MIT drone who wants to play at being god.
Humility to what? Truth isn't a matter of taste you see regardless of your personal preferences. Your elusive god isn't impressive enough for my tastes anyhow.
If you had seen Yahweh, you certainly wouldn't be spreading your Atheist nonsense.
I agree. If he corrected my denial of him, I'd gladly repent. If you see him, tell him to pop by and tell me off ASAP. I'd gladly be proven wrong, because I would prefer that there was indeed a benevolent creator looking over us. Unfortunately however, this just isn't likely.
Also, you seem to treat science as an idol.
Generally I see Christians treating their own silly opinions about God as idols. Nonethless, I don't believe that science is the panacea to mankind, but certainly rationality and beliefs based on what can be seen to be true is indeed my guiding light. The alternative is to believe in any number of unprovable fairy stories made by foolish men pretending to be or know god.
Bogus- I don't mean mountain. He was associated with mountains and hills, but he was a sky god.
"Yahweh appears to have been originally a sky god - a god of thunder and lightning. He was associated with mountains and was called by the enemies of Israel 'a god of the hills'. His manifestation was often as fire, as at Mount Sinai and in the burning bush."
"A shorter form, 'Yah', was also used (Exodus 15:2) and some scholars believe that this is the older form, originating in an exclamation to God - 'Yah!' - which came to be accepted as the divine name. Others claim that it is from the root 'hayah', 'to be' or 'to become', and that it meant 'I am that I am' or I will be that I will be'. According to one tradition of the call of Moses, the divine name Yahweh was revealed to him in Egypt:"
- Great Events of Bible Times
Here's a clue dude.
Humans playing God, creating life. Theology may well be shaken to its very foundations.
What nonsence - humans save lives and create life every day of the week. I haven't seen any overinflated sky gods (aka Yahweh) doing much for humanity lately.
Theology would really be shaken to it's foundations if there was any proof of God's existence in any way whatsoever.
Um, a model is someone who is hired to be looked at. I don't see how this is different.
By your defintion, you wouldn't see a difference, but your definition is incorrect.
A model is not a person who is to be looked at. A model models clothing or jewellery etc - they may be looked at, but they actually model something.
A promotions person doesn't model anything, they promote something. The two terms are not interchangable. A model for instance must conform to certain aesthethic standards, but a promotions person can be anyone. A fashion model has a certain look to their face, a certain height range and a certain figure - these things are known and recognised in the fashion industry.
A promotions person is often a dancer/fitness instructor etc, etc who likes the idea of making money with their appearance but can't get into actual modelling because they don't have the right looks for it. Usually promotion jobs are quite demeaning to the women who do them. It generally involves flashing lots of skin and making loosers think that you're interested in talking to them whilst they try to sell them things.
Everyone wants to be a model, and it's often though to be some sort of badge of merit to call yourself one. But if you don't model clothes for a professional fashon house like Dior, Chanel etc, then youy're simply not a model. These people might be spokepeople, promotions people, PR assistants, sales people, promotions people - but they are not models.
Well said Sloppy, exactly so.
>You say that like it is a bad thing!
I prefer sex myself.
The article poster is confusing "models" with "promotions" people.
A model walks on a catwalk or is seen in a fashion magazine, wheras a "promotions person" wears does the type of job you're mentioning. Models have a fashion type of look and this is normally their professional career while it lasts, wheras promotions people are expected to be a sort of good looking sales person and can look any sort of look. Generally people who can't get into fashion end up doing depressing and explotitive jobs like promotion work. A model wouldn't be seen dead doing this type of work.
Additionally, if they were modelling clothes, they wouldn't mind being photographed. The fact is however that promotions girls are just tits and ass.
How about a banner link for the genuine Tsunami charities on Slashdot?
I remember one for 9/11, so why not now?
I wouldn't consider taking the high moral ground as "Right Speech".
That nasty Koveras - yes I did run into him.
"The Lord of Murder shall perish, but in his doom he shall spawn a score of mortal progeny. Chaos shall be sown from their passage. So Sayeth the Wise Alaundo."
The "Lord of Murder" is clearly Interplay France.
The "score of mortal progeny" are the former Interplay employees.
Finally, the "Chaos" will be Electronic Arts churning out crud games.
It seems AMD is spending more time investigating this than on releasing their new Alchemy chipset which boasts direct transfer of video from digital video recorders to portable players without the need to transcode through a PC."
Funny, I didn't read that or infer that from the article. Perhaps you have special glasses that let you read invisible ink?