Conversely, no athiest has ever done evil deeds in the name of atheism.
You've tried to fit my argument into your own preconceived biases. Yes I've heard the argument you are complaining about before as I am atheist myself, it is not the argument I am making.
My point was not that religion stops people from doing evil, or that a lack of religion encourages evil, but rather that people will do evil simply because they are people. That they will always find some sort of way to rationalise their evil and religion is hardly necessary to do so.
Ah, "... surveys also show that, on average... " - generalization pulled out of author's ass.
Hey, you want to hand-wave deny something that the editors and fact-checkers signed off on at one of the most prominent newspapers in this country, go ahead. Just don't expect it that will do your argument any bit of good.
So 'tarring entire group' somehow is the same as caring about differences between one bunch of religious nuts and another? Interesting, must be some kind of 'religious logic'.
I have no clue what two groups you think you are distinguishing between. Especially since you said that you don't care about any such differences.
Nice strawman. I hope it will be easier discussion opponent for you.
Really? A strawman you say? So you aren't defending the statement that "anybody who is older than 25 and still believes in a god should be euthanized?" If you aren't defending that, just wtf are you doing in this thread them? Really. What is your point? Because my participation here began and ended with the point that such a claim was absolutely ignorant and misguided.
Eliminating one reason is still a progress. What exactly makes you think that it makes all other reasons OK?
All that matters is whether the people in the hospital spread MRSA so whether or not any reason is "OK" or not is irrelevant.
Oh look, generalization pulled out of your ass.
Nope. Catholic health systems have been criticized, along with other nonprofit hospitals, as not dedicating enough resources to the communityâ(TM)s benefit. But surveys also show that, on average, they provide higher-quality performance than other hospitals and are more likely to offer specialty services that are not profit centers. ' https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/us/21nuns.html?pagewanted=all
What a meaningless drivel. Substitute Bible for any other book title (religious or not) and it is still right.
Really? That's the best you've got? With all your sputtering rage the best you can do is to ignore the fact that religious people look for direction from their scripture (part of your central criticism of such people) while most people don't look for direction from "any other book." Hypocrite.
I really don't care what particular brand of brain damage they have.
Sure as shit sounds like you do. All of your arguments amount to nothing more than tarring an entire group with the actions of a handful of extremists.
What's really funny is that you are demonstrating exactly what you are condemning. Statements like, "I believe that anybody who is older than 25 and still believes in a god should be euthanized" is pure irrational zealotry.
They can actually convince otherwise decent people that monstrous acts of evil are morally acceptable because their deity has decreed it to be so.
No they can't. No matter how zealous we all ultimately make decisions for ourselves. If "otherwise decent people" are so willing to commit monstrous acts, well those people weren't really all that decent to begin with. It isn't like non-religious people are particularly immune to rationalising monstrous acts of their own - see the Khmer Rouge for example.
Abraham's decision to take Issac to the altar should be universally condemned - killing your own child to appease a powerful figure in your life is never justifiable.
I always liked the heretic's interpretation of that event - that it wasn't God testing Abraham, but Abraham testing God. That if God hadn't finally told Abraham to stop, then Abraham would have known that he was not a worthy God to begin with.
I don't want no damn yokel haphazardly fostering MRSAs in my hospital, just because he doesn't believe that "eva-lution mumbo-jumbo."
But if he does it for some other reason, then that's OK? If not then it seems like your problem isn't with what people believe but what they do and focusing on just one source of motivation is ineffective at best.
Besides, some the of best hospitals in this country are run by Catholics and one of the main reasons they are the best is precisely because of their religion's tenet about the sanctity of human life - which translates into making the patient's care their central focus instead of the dollar like it has become at many secular hospitals.
I once heard a jesuit say that, "When you read the Bible, the Bible reads you." I think it applies to just about any religion, substitute Torah, Quran, Bhagavad Gita. etc for Bible and the meaning is the same - if you have ignorance in your heart, then you will find justification for ignorance in the Bible, If you have truth and love in your heart then you will find support for truth and love in the Bible.
As an atheist, I think you'd be far better off worrying about what is people's hearts rather than any faith they may use to explain it.
This is an issue that is hot and current. Here is the current situation, which is coming to a head in the next few months.
How incredibly fortunate that this uber-terrorist's plot should come to light at such a timely and opportune moment. It really makes it clear just how important it is to regulate this enormously dangerous hobby. I sure am glad that those FBI agents didn't arrest the man when he made cell-phones into bomb triggers and tried to ship them to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. It really was important that they kept grooming him until his arrest could really have an impact on the american political process.
subsequently courts sided with 'the law' that you must provide identification at all times including on your own property.
Come on. An extraordinary claim like that requires at least some sort of support. The only recent ruling that I am aware of from the SCOTUS on the requirement to provide identification is Hiibel which ultimately ruled that Hiibel, who was on public land, had to identify himself by name only.
You missed my point. I restated the golden rule: treat others as you would have them treat you. It's not about getting something out of it (preferential treatment by the government), it's about doing the right thing.
When the senator voluntarily joined a group with a long and storied history of abusing the golden rule not only did he invalidate any claim to it, he practically asked to end up on the wrong end of it.
In particular, his past issues regarding personal privacy of political opponents suggests the criticism is not baseless. You may not like the hyperbole used to express that skepticism, but that's your problem. A pol who would take that personally would be to thin skinned to ever get elected in the first place.
If you would not want the government to do the same to you, maybe you could find it in your character to walk back those accusations.
Yeah, because if the time ever comes when members of the government might want to publicly smear a private citizen they will certain back off once they check his record and see that he's always been extremely respectful of those elected to office.
Funny thing about being a grammar nazi - practically no actual linguists fall into that category because the people who study it professionally know that language is fluid and that colloquialisms are used and understood by just about everyone.
So unless slashdot has suddenly adopted a mandatory style guide, you can blow me.
I already did in another post in this same thread. It was written in response to someone who didn't seem so absolutely dead-set on framing the debate as being stupid vs obvious.
So it's win/win. If things were the other way around, I'd happily translate Spanish or Japanese into English.
Actually, you've hit on probably the best test for fairness -- asking "what if things were the other way around?"
Let's say that I took a Spanish script and translated it into English and then charged, say $20/copy for that English version. Would Valve come along and write a video game around that script and then donate it to me so that I could bundle it with each $20 copy of the translated script?
Of course not.
So yeah, there ain't nobody forcing these people into freely giving their labor to Valve. But that doesn't make Valve any less scummy for encouraging it, much less simply taking it when, if the tables were reversed, they would never do such a thing themselves.
It isn't a straw man because the parent said "his objection is to doing work for free", as if somehow they were being coerced into doing it.
Again, you are misunderstanding the objection. Do you care that there may be more to the argument than you realize or are you only interested in declaring how stupid anyone with a different opinion must be?
You are the first person to mention "forcing" in this thread. You might want to consider that your defense is misdirected at a strawman. Or you could wave your hands about a narrow interpretation of the summary as a way to avoid trying to understand where the other posters here are coming from.
Honestly, I've got enough bad associations with the Blockbuster name that it would turn me away from a new product, whatever the features or terms. I can't be the only one, am I?
Nope you are not. Back when they were king of the hill they jacked us around with lots of customer-unfriendly policies. I especially remember how they tried to make people buy late DVDs and advertised the new policy as "the end of late fees."
Now that they aren't king anymore they can't get away with that kind of shit. But some of us have long memories.
(Slashdot, some random story about spam) Blah blah blah paragon of virtue morals everyone should do what's right holier than thou...
(Slashdot, some random story about copyright infringement) whine anger pout serves them right greedy thieving fascists yeah it's wrong but *&^% those &^%*# I'll keep on downloading stuff I haven't bought until the day I die (justify blindly, etc....)
(Slashdot, some random poster complaining that slashdot users don't all share the same world-view)
(Slashdot, some random poster complaining that his own personal world-view is the only valid world-view, and implying that anyone who doesn't conform is a hypocrite)
You don't understand. Displaying an advert with a custom "sale" that the user then avails themselves of is enough to transfer that information to the company that purchased the ad. For example, think of an advertisement for a free candy bar targeted only at mormons who have also bought condoms. Ever candy bar mailed out will go to a person who isn't following their church's doctrine.
Its only difference of degree, not kind, between outright selling a list of who bought item X and selling ads that are only displayed to people to purchased item X.
Yeah, because it is sooooo much more difficult to take out a card and swipe it than it is to take my phone out of its case, unlock it, find and launch the app, and then "tap" it on some reader thing.
I would totally go for such a thing if it worked like a disposable credit card number. Those significantly increase my privacy by preventing merchants from using a service to cross-reference my purchases based on my CC#.
Of course Google would love to use their privileged access to become the only company capable of providing such a cross-referencing service, so the idea is moot in this context. Doesn't mean someone else couldn't do it better though.
Slashdot Mirror
Conversely, no athiest has ever done evil deeds in the name of atheism.
You've tried to fit my argument into your own preconceived biases. Yes I've heard the argument you are complaining about before as I am atheist myself, it is not the argument I am making.
My point was not that religion stops people from doing evil, or that a lack of religion encourages evil, but rather that people will do evil simply because they are people. That they will always find some sort of way to rationalise their evil and religion is hardly necessary to do so.
Ah, " ... surveys also show that, on average ... " - generalization pulled out of author's ass.
Hey, you want to hand-wave deny something that the editors and fact-checkers signed off on at one of the most prominent newspapers in this country, go ahead. Just don't expect it that will do your argument any bit of good.
So 'tarring entire group' somehow is the same as caring about differences between one bunch of religious nuts and another? Interesting, must be some kind of 'religious logic'.
I have no clue what two groups you think you are distinguishing between. Especially since you said that you don't care about any such differences.
Nice strawman. I hope it will be easier discussion opponent for you.
Really? A strawman you say? So you aren't defending the statement that "anybody who is older than 25 and still believes in a god should be euthanized?" If you aren't defending that, just wtf are you doing in this thread them? Really. What is your point? Because my participation here began and ended with the point that such a claim was absolutely ignorant and misguided.
Eliminating one reason is still a progress. What exactly makes you think that it makes all other reasons OK?
All that matters is whether the people in the hospital spread MRSA so whether or not any reason is "OK" or not is irrelevant.
Oh look, generalization pulled out of your ass.
Nope.
Catholic health systems have been criticized, along with other nonprofit hospitals, as not dedicating enough resources to the communityâ(TM)s benefit. But surveys also show that, on average, they provide higher-quality performance than other hospitals and are more likely to offer specialty services that are not profit centers. '
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/us/21nuns.html?pagewanted=all
What a meaningless drivel. Substitute Bible for any other book title (religious or not) and it is still right.
Really? That's the best you've got? With all your sputtering rage the best you can do is to ignore the fact that religious people look for direction from their scripture (part of your central criticism of such people) while most people don't look for direction from "any other book." Hypocrite.
I really don't care what particular brand of brain damage they have.
Sure as shit sounds like you do. All of your arguments amount to nothing more than tarring an entire group with the actions of a handful of extremists.
What's really funny is that you are demonstrating exactly what you are condemning. Statements like, "I believe that anybody who is older than 25 and still believes in a god should be euthanized" is pure irrational zealotry.
They can actually convince otherwise decent people that monstrous acts of evil are morally acceptable because their deity has decreed it to be so.
No they can't. No matter how zealous we all ultimately make decisions for ourselves. If "otherwise decent people" are so willing to commit monstrous acts, well those people weren't really all that decent to begin with. It isn't like non-religious people are particularly immune to rationalising monstrous acts of their own - see the Khmer Rouge for example.
Abraham's decision to take Issac to the altar should be universally condemned - killing your own child to appease a powerful figure in your life is never justifiable.
I always liked the heretic's interpretation of that event - that it wasn't God testing Abraham, but Abraham testing God.
That if God hadn't finally told Abraham to stop, then Abraham would have known that he was not a worthy God to begin with.
I don't want no damn yokel haphazardly fostering MRSAs in my hospital, just because he doesn't believe that "eva-lution mumbo-jumbo."
But if he does it for some other reason, then that's OK? If not then it seems like your problem isn't with what people believe but what they do and focusing on just one source of motivation is ineffective at best.
Besides, some the of best hospitals in this country are run by Catholics and one of the main reasons they are the best is precisely because of their religion's tenet about the sanctity of human life - which translates into making the patient's care their central focus instead of the dollar like it has become at many secular hospitals.
I once heard a jesuit say that, "When you read the Bible, the Bible reads you." I think it applies to just about any religion, substitute Torah, Quran, Bhagavad Gita. etc for Bible and the meaning is the same - if you have ignorance in your heart, then you will find justification for ignorance in the Bible, If you have truth and love in your heart then you will find support for truth and love in the Bible.
As an atheist, I think you'd be far better off worrying about what is people's hearts rather than any faith they may use to explain it.
This is an issue that is hot and current. Here is the current situation, which is coming to a head in the next few months.
How incredibly fortunate that this uber-terrorist's plot should come to light at such a timely and opportune moment.
It really makes it clear just how important it is to regulate this enormously dangerous hobby.
I sure am glad that those FBI agents didn't arrest the man when he made cell-phones into bomb triggers and tried to ship them to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
It really was important that they kept grooming him until his arrest could really have an impact on the american political process.
Right now I have it open to a single tab and it's using 154MB of RAM and 226MB of virtual memory, so 380MB total.
Parent doesn't understand virtual memory.
Exactly what I was thinking too.
subsequently courts sided with 'the law' that you must provide identification at all times including on your own property.
Come on. An extraordinary claim like that requires at least some sort of support.
The only recent ruling that I am aware of from the SCOTUS on the requirement to provide identification is Hiibel which ultimately ruled that Hiibel, who was on public land, had to identify himself by name only.
You missed my point. I restated the golden rule: treat others as you would have them treat you. It's not about getting something out of it (preferential treatment by the government), it's about doing the right thing.
When the senator voluntarily joined a group with a long and storied history of abusing the golden rule not only did he invalidate any claim to it, he practically asked to end up on the wrong end of it.
In particular, his past issues regarding personal privacy of political opponents suggests the criticism is not baseless. You may not like the hyperbole used to express that skepticism, but that's your problem. A pol who would take that personally would be to thin skinned to ever get elected in the first place.
If you would not want the government to do the same to you, maybe you could find it in your character to walk back those accusations.
Yeah, because if the time ever comes when members of the government might want to publicly smear a private citizen they will certain back off once they check his record and see that he's always been extremely respectful of those elected to office.
Wow, grammar nazi for the fail.
Funny thing about being a grammar nazi - practically no actual linguists fall into that category because the people who study it professionally know that language is fluid and that colloquialisms are used and understood by just about everyone.
So unless slashdot has suddenly adopted a mandatory style guide, you can blow me.
And do you care to explain what more there is?
I already did in another post in this same thread.
It was written in response to someone who didn't seem so absolutely dead-set on framing the debate as being stupid vs obvious.
So it's win/win. If things were the other way around, I'd happily translate Spanish or Japanese into English.
Actually, you've hit on probably the best test for fairness -- asking "what if things were the other way around?"
Let's say that I took a Spanish script and translated it into English and then charged, say $20/copy for that English version. Would Valve come along and write a video game around that script and then donate it to me so that I could bundle it with each $20 copy of the translated script?
Of course not.
So yeah, there ain't nobody forcing these people into freely giving their labor to Valve. But that doesn't make Valve any less scummy for encouraging it, much less simply taking it when, if the tables were reversed, they would never do such a thing themselves.
It isn't a straw man because the parent said "his objection is to doing work for free", as if somehow they were being coerced into doing it.
Again, you are misunderstanding the objection. Do you care that there may be more to the argument than you realize or are you only interested in declaring how stupid anyone with a different opinion must be?
Nobody is forcing them to do it for fucks sake!
You are the first person to mention "forcing" in this thread.
You might want to consider that your defense is misdirected at a strawman.
Or you could wave your hands about a narrow interpretation of the summary as a way to avoid trying to understand where the other posters here are coming from.
You get lots of benefit if you're a Korean who wants to use Steam.
Right. You get the benefit of Valve deciding to accept your money.
Honestly, I've got enough bad associations with the Blockbuster name that it would turn me away from a new product, whatever the features or terms. I can't be the only one, am I?
Nope you are not. Back when they were king of the hill they jacked us around with lots of customer-unfriendly policies. I especially remember how they tried to make people buy late DVDs and advertised the new policy as "the end of late fees."
Now that they aren't king anymore they can't get away with that kind of shit. But some of us have long memories.
(Slashdot, some random story about spam) Blah blah blah paragon of virtue morals everyone should do what's right holier than thou...
(Slashdot, some random story about copyright infringement) whine anger pout serves them right greedy thieving fascists yeah it's wrong but *&^% those &^%*# I'll keep on downloading stuff I haven't bought until the day I die (justify blindly, etc....)
(Slashdot, some random poster complaining that slashdot users don't all share the same world-view)
(Slashdot, some random poster complaining that his own personal world-view is the only valid world-view, and implying that anyone who doesn't conform is a hypocrite)
PayPal, like Microsoft, just want your money. Google, on the other hand, wants to know everything about you.
Correction -- Paypal, like Microsoft just wants money. That means they have lots of incentive to monetize any scrap of data they collect about you.
They only secure payment option is cash.
TFA doesn't say Intel is going to be bringing out RISC technology, though, just that it's "taking aim" at markets that are still RISC strongholds:
Yeah, this is more about adding fault tolerance features than it is about anything that would qualify as RISC.
You don't understand. Displaying an advert with a custom "sale" that the user then avails themselves of is enough to transfer that information to the company that purchased the ad. For example, think of an advertisement for a free candy bar targeted only at mormons who have also bought condoms. Ever candy bar mailed out will go to a person who isn't following their church's doctrine.
So do gangsters. What's your point?
That even gangsters are human too.
Its only difference of degree, not kind, between outright selling a list of who bought item X and selling ads that are only displayed to people to purchased item X.
Yeah, because it is sooooo much more difficult to take out a card and swipe it than it is to take my phone out of its case, unlock it, find and launch the app, and then "tap" it on some reader thing.
I would totally go for such a thing if it worked like a disposable credit card number. Those significantly increase my privacy by preventing merchants from using a service to cross-reference my purchases based on my CC#.
Of course Google would love to use their privileged access to become the only company capable of providing such a cross-referencing service, so the idea is moot in this context. Doesn't mean someone else couldn't do it better though.