This! People say, "ZOMG! Nintendoze is doomz!!! mak 99c iphone gamze!!11!!!" But I see history repeating itself. Low quality software killed the 2600. High quality software made the NES a success.
Except the iPad's games (with some exceptions) aren't up to the quality of the games on the 3DS. An example is "Scribblenauts Remixed". Here, 5th Cell failed an opportunity to make something great. Instead of producing the definitive version of Scribblenauts, they made a gimpped version that removes everything that made Scribblenauts great such as multiple play environments, a level editor, etc... If you look at "Scribblenauts Unlimited", it has all of those features plus the ability to create your own objects! Until recently, the iPad version of "Phoenix Wright" had the same resolution as the DS version! So it looked like crap. About the only game that was actually better on the iPad was "Ghost Trick".
That being said, the iPad does have some great games such as "Plants vs. Zombies", "Angry Birds", etc... But all in all, I'm more excited about the 3DS's lineup than the iPad's and I'm willing to spend more money on 3DS games.
Coming from a Southern Baptist, yes some Christians are gullible. No, not all of them are. Just like there are all kinds of atheists (yes, there are gullible ones too), there are all kinds of Christians. Contrast someone like William Lane Craig with Pat Robertson and you'll see what I mean.
I agree that nobody should rely on this for security, but I think it would be more secure if it was a 3D camera instead of a 2D one. Then it could work more similarly to Kinect. But I suppose then that someone could take a picture of a person on their Nintendo 3DS and trick the phone that way.:)
Agreed. And you're a person, not a duck. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I think that Salem's Hypothesis is interesting. Here, I post it word for word here for those who might not want to click through a link.
In any Evolution vs. Creation debate, A person who claims scientific credentials and sides with Creation will most likely have an Engineering degree.
And
An education in the Engineering disciplines forms a predisposition to Creation/ID viewpoints
The first premise doesn't really apply to this debate since we're arguing "Do religious people enter careers that are not related to the church and useful to society?" We're not having a Creationism vs Evolution debate. Nor am I inviting anyone to enter such a debate.
The second point says that engineers tend to form a predisposition to intelligent design. To summarize, Those whose role in society it is to create are more likely to believe in a Creator That makes sense to me. So to summarize even further Those whose role in society is to create are more likely to be 'religious'. So let me take that as the first premise of the argument you're building for me.
Here's my second premise: "Those whose role in society is to create is useful to society"
So my conclusion: "Therefore those who are religious may occupy jobs that are useful to society"
It's obvious that you were trying to refute me somehow since I've offended your religious beliefs, but you actually strengthen my argument. Congratulations.:)
Because all religious people wind up working for churches? I did not grow up in a religious home, however I am a theist. I'm also an engineer. The idea that religious people somehow do not or cannot contribute to society is weird at best. In fact there are other engineers on my team who are also theists and they do an excellent job. One coming to a logical conclusion that there is a God does not correlate to their ability to do work.
Now my daughter is being home schooled. Not for religious reasons but because public schools teaches to the lowest common denominator. If she was going to public school, she would be in pre-school, but she already reads, adds, subtracts, multiplies, does simple algebra (2 times duck = 2 ducks) and has basic science concepts. The only place she is lacking is writing (she writes like a kindergartner) and history/government. But she's only 5 and Kindergarten doesn't even teach that. So this weird concept on Slashdot that th== dumb is plain academic intolerance in action.
The problem is that I'm an engineer. I think in logic, not fantasy, emotion, and politics. So people like Dawkins don't appeal to me. I'd like to hear more p's and q's and less political emotional nonsense.
I'm not suggesting God nor am I trying to prove God. I'm suggesting anything. Since stuff exist, it's always always been here, or came into existence. There really isn't an in between here. There is no gap in this logic. If so, I'd love to hear it, but all you neoathiests do is go back to God which is not even being argued here.
So postulating about multiverse, quantum soups, etc... is wrong? You simply can't ever believe in anything other than everything came from an uncreated something unless you're willfully ignorant. To believe otherwise would be like believing that 6 == 7. It's just not true. This isn't opinion either. Here let me point out the various example scenarios:
1.) God created it - God is the uncreated something OR 2.) Universe came from quantum soup (Krauss's position) - Quantum soup is the uncreated something OR 3.) Reality did not exist and then it did. Reality is the uncreated something. OR 4.) Something else entirely.
You simply cannot believe that everything was created. At some point, you get to an uncaused uncreated something. Whether that's an infinite number of multiverses in the past (an eternal uncreated something) or the universe just popped into existence one day (a finite uncreated something). All of you highly emotional neoatheists have not provided one piece of logic to even support the whole "I don't know" answer. I don't know if 6 == 7? Really? That's your best response? Let me know when athiests can debate logic. Every example of "I don't know" possibilities have been uncreated somethings.
So my arguments stands - you cannot ridicule the theist for believing in an uncreated something when everyone believes (though knows not necessarily what) in an uncreated something.
The reason for equating neoatheism with emotionalistic responses is this:
1.) I state that everyone believe an uncreated something must exist, but not everyone agrees what that uncreated something is (universe, quantum soup (what Krauss calls "nothing"), God, whatever). 2.) I conclude that therefore using the argument, "Theists are stupid because who created God" is a silly argument since both the theist and atheist must agree that there exists something uncreated. They disagree only on what that is. There really isn't a dispute here. 3.) I get dozens of response arguing about the existence or non existence of God.
See, I wasn't trying to even prove God, but rather that the argument used against the theist was invalid since the theist and the atheist believe the same thing. Namely, something has always existed. But just as a nominal Catholic or your average Pentecostal will get super emotional when they halfway kinda sorta not really suspect someone might be dissing their God, the neoatheist response similarly. It's like an over emotional religious atheist.
This seems to be the nature of neoatheists. Take this video for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Np0nrxbGQik I'm annoyed at the editing a bit (it's a bit over the top), but it demonstrates my point. My brother and I were discussing this the other day. I'd love to listen to a challenging, thought provoking atheist pod cast that is on the level of a Dr. Craig, but I can't seem to find one. Atheist appear to use emotion rather than logic to illustrate their point. I'd be happy if someone could prove me wrong and provide me a podcast that uses logic rather than emotion to argue an atheistic position.
This thread is too much fun. The funny thing about you neoatheists is that you're just as emotional as Pentecostals. Here let me break it down for you:
Something cannot be created from nothing (and I'm talking about real nothing (ex nihilo), not Krauss's "nothing" (the quantum soup)) Stuff exists Therefore something is uncreated.
If you want to argue that the quantum soup always has existed, that's fine. If you want to argue that God has always existed, that's fine. But it is impossible to come to a conclusion where "something" is uncreated. That's why you hear about multiverse theories, big crunch/big bang cycles, etc... Because no rational person thinks that there was nothing ex nihilo and then there was something. There's nothing fantastical about the above.
Well when you redefine nothing, it all works out, doesn't it. Everything came from nothing because nothing is something doesn't get you anywhere. In fact it reiterates my point that you must believe the absurd notion that there is an uncreated something to which everything came from.
I don't think so. I think when I find a pocket watch on the ground, it is less complex for me to believe that it was intelligently designed than to believe that it came about through a mathematical (not necessarily random) process.
The last time I looked into a mirror, I didn't look like a pocket watch, I did, however, look like a bag of organic molecules. Now we know that nuts, bolts, cogs, and wheels don't spring up in nature by themselves, but on the other hand we have observed complex organic molecules arising when simple elements are banged together using some energy. Doesn't that at least nudge you into realizing how flawed your analogy is?
I'm not sure how it proves my analogy is flawed. After all, it is an analogy. No one believes that I am suggesting that people are watches. Now as far as banging molecules together, other than me having sex with my wife (or other life forms mating for that matter), I can think of no examples of humans banging two things together that result in something as complex as life. Life is a prerequisite to life.
Likewise, when I exist in such an unnatural state as life.
You don't know that life is an unnatural state. Scientists operate with the idea that it actually may be perfectly natural, if not inevitable, given the laws of physics around here. So far, the results look promising to me. Don't expect this problem to be solved overnight.
In the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Douglass Adams humorously and accurately concludes that the universe is unpopulated. His reasoning for such a conclusion is solid and I agree with it. That being said, since only the tiniest fraction of the whole Universe has life, then using Occam's Razor, it would be easy to conclude that life is indeed unnatural.
When I have the extraordinary supernatural ability to self determine what I do, how I think, etc...
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. How do you know that this "ability" is not an illusion caused by our way of perceiving things?
Is it just me or do you also see the contradiction in what you just said? 1. It is wishful thinking - Implies choice 2. This ability could be an illusion - Implies no choice
Since you're arguing with yourself, let me help you out. If it is no choice then this argument is like the bot Alice arguing with the bot Alice. So why care? If it is a choice then your argument that it is not a choice instantly invalidates itself.
So in your point of view theists are silly because of your contradictory "logic"?
I don't think so. I think when I find a pocket watch on the ground, it is less complex for me to believe that it was intelligently designed than to believe that it came about through a mathematical (not necessarily random) process. This does not give me any insight into the nature of the designer. Was it a computer? Human? Aliens? I don't know. Nor does it give me insight into how it was designed. Was it an iterative process? Was it carefully planned? Was the designer just plain gifted? In any case it would not be extraordinarily irrational for me to assume that the pocket watch was designed.
Likewise, when I exist in such an unnatural state as life. When I have the extraordinary supernatural ability to self determine what I do, how I think, etc... When all of the animals on this earth use this database system that somehow determines how it looks and behaves. When I can love a woman and be rewarded with tiny new humans that grow... something beyond what we as humans can create. It is not more complex for me to believe that life is designed. It does not prove nor disprove a deity, but it does prove that it is not irrational to think that life is designed by a deity.
Now I'm not trying to tell you what to believe other than theologians may not be idiots since there exists the possibility that they may very well be correct.
A man was eating pizza one day when suddenly a guy eating a double cheeseburger approaches him and says, "You know eating pizza will make you fat."
You say that it is silly to believe in an uncreated creator while believing in an uncreated universe/multiverse/etc...
Not that it matters, but your logic is flawed anyway. The definition of a divine creator is an entity that just is and was never created. Since such a creator would have created even time itself, it is nonsensical to ask who created the creator since that would imply that time existed before creation.
In any case, it doesn't matter if you're a theist or atheist; at some point you have to believe in the absurd notion that everything came from an uncreated something.
I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of what you're saying. I agree that there are a lot of people making money from Christianity in a distasteful way. That being said, I do not feel that it is being compensated for work is wrong. Should a preacher/priest work for free because he is doing the work of God? If not, then why would bands such as Lifehouse and Owl City be disqualified from selling their albums because they have songs on such albums that have Christian themes to them?
I tend to look at this like the parable about the weeds. If we were to say that being compensated for art that glorifies God is prohibited then we would artificially take away a medium that could change the lives of others. I think it would comfort you to read Phillipians 1:15-18. Despite having the wrong motives, the Gospel is being preached. Trust me, the business side of Christianity bothers me too, but it is a comfort that there are those who find salvation despite men's corruptible motives.
I will have to disagree with you on the business of Protestants all using KJV translations or translations that use KJV as a source. Most modern translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, etc... use the best available original sources that they can find, not the KJV. The KJV also used the best available sources of its time. With the ease of obtaining a Bible translation, it doesn't bother me that the translators get compensated.
Yes, I agree that there are those who buy fancy Bible translations as a status symbol. Heck, we see this in the book "Tom Sawyer". What does Tom want with a Bible anyway? Status. For me, I just use my iPad since the youversion app gives me many different translations to use for free on and off line. When I first started using it, people would say, "I prefer a 'real' Bible". Can we say, "status"? It's as if a digital Bible app is ineligible to be read outside of church and that somehow owning a real one makes you a better Christian. Now people are more accepting of using a kindle, phone, or tablet.
Apparently stating my opinion is considered intolerant, but yours somehow isn't?
Yes. My opinion was that people should not feel guilty receiving compensation for work. This is a very inclusive opinion which leaves room for dialog. Your "opinion" is that anyone who does not share your religious belief system is a brainwash idiot.
Curious?
Nobody's buying into it, so quit trying.
Sorry you feel so victimized all the time.
The straw man accepts your apologies.
It must be difficult when so much of the western world follows your same fantasy.
This makes no sense. If you assert your attack on the straw man to be true then the majority of his peers would agree with him and therefore the straw man would not be a victim.
This lack of critical thinking skills is surprising for an engineer. I'm guessing it's because you're so religiously emotional about your belief system, that your brain has shut off. I see it happen a lot with nominal Christians too. Their brains shut off when defending a faith system they know little about; but otherwise they're brilliant. Do keep in mind that I'm not attacking your religious belief in an everlasting universe, multiverse, whatever; but rather attacking your ability to function in society without getting super emotional when people disagree with you. You'll go farther in your career if you learn to practice tolerance.
Uh... I'm a Christian and I have no idea what you just said. I'm guessing you're an atheist troll trying to make people who believe in a diety look like idiots.
While I think that open source free software is great and all, I don't think it's a crime to be paid for your work. I have no problem getting paid to write software. Likewise, I have no problem with experts dedicating their time to translating the Bible. Copyrights have not really prevented people from purchasing Bible translations anyway.
Such an insightful flame bait^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hobservation. Oh you have shown me the way, wjousts. I may have lived on happily with my wife and kids believing in an imaginary fairy tale my whole life if it wasn't for you.
Just for the record, sarcasm is used often in the Bible.:)
In all seriousness, this kind of intolerance makes it difficult for you to be taken seriously except from other intolerant people.
You're incorrect. Most Bible translations are based on the best sources that we have available. We have better sources today than in the seventeenth century. So most Bible translations are more accurate (accurate meaning closer to the original source) than they were in the time of King James.
Slashdot Mirror
This! People say, "ZOMG! Nintendoze is doomz!!! mak 99c iphone gamze!!11!!!" But I see history repeating itself. Low quality software killed the 2600. High quality software made the NES a success.
Except the iPad's games (with some exceptions) aren't up to the quality of the games on the 3DS. An example is "Scribblenauts Remixed". Here, 5th Cell failed an opportunity to make something great. Instead of producing the definitive version of Scribblenauts, they made a gimpped version that removes everything that made Scribblenauts great such as multiple play environments, a level editor, etc... If you look at "Scribblenauts Unlimited", it has all of those features plus the ability to create your own objects! Until recently, the iPad version of "Phoenix Wright" had the same resolution as the DS version! So it looked like crap. About the only game that was actually better on the iPad was "Ghost Trick".
That being said, the iPad does have some great games such as "Plants vs. Zombies", "Angry Birds", etc... But all in all, I'm more excited about the 3DS's lineup than the iPad's and I'm willing to spend more money on 3DS games.
Coming from a Southern Baptist, yes some Christians are gullible. No, not all of them are. Just like there are all kinds of atheists (yes, there are gullible ones too), there are all kinds of Christians. Contrast someone like William Lane Craig with Pat Robertson and you'll see what I mean.
I agree that nobody should rely on this for security, but I think it would be more secure if it was a 3D camera instead of a 2D one. Then it could work more similarly to Kinect. But I suppose then that someone could take a picture of a person on their Nintendo 3DS and trick the phone that way. :)
I miss lobster day. It always came with a side of caviar.
Maybe if you win a Nobel Prize in Economics, you can receive a higher prize.
Also because wife says so.
This! ^^^
Sometimes the best answer is because my wife likes it that way. ^_^
Agreed. And you're a person, not a duck. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I think that Salem's Hypothesis is interesting. Here, I post it word for word here for those who might not want to click through a link.
In any Evolution vs. Creation debate, A person who claims scientific credentials and sides with Creation will most likely have an Engineering degree.
And
An education in the Engineering disciplines forms a predisposition to Creation/ID viewpoints
The first premise doesn't really apply to this debate since we're arguing "Do religious people enter careers that are not related to the church and useful to society?" We're not having a Creationism vs Evolution debate. Nor am I inviting anyone to enter such a debate.
The second point says that engineers tend to form a predisposition to intelligent design. To summarize, Those whose role in society it is to create are more likely to believe in a Creator That makes sense to me. So to summarize even further Those whose role in society is to create are more likely to be 'religious'. So let me take that as the first premise of the argument you're building for me.
Here's my second premise: "Those whose role in society is to create is useful to society"
So my conclusion: "Therefore those who are religious may occupy jobs that are useful to society"
It's obvious that you were trying to refute me somehow since I've offended your religious beliefs, but you actually strengthen my argument. Congratulations. :)
Because all religious people wind up working for churches? I did not grow up in a religious home, however I am a theist. I'm also an engineer. The idea that religious people somehow do not or cannot contribute to society is weird at best. In fact there are other engineers on my team who are also theists and they do an excellent job. One coming to a logical conclusion that there is a God does not correlate to their ability to do work.
Now my daughter is being home schooled. Not for religious reasons but because public schools teaches to the lowest common denominator. If she was going to public school, she would be in pre-school, but she already reads, adds, subtracts, multiplies, does simple algebra (2 times duck = 2 ducks) and has basic science concepts. The only place she is lacking is writing (she writes like a kindergartner) and history/government. But she's only 5 and Kindergarten doesn't even teach that. So this weird concept on Slashdot that th== dumb is plain academic intolerance in action.
The problem is that I'm an engineer. I think in logic, not fantasy, emotion, and politics. So people like Dawkins don't appeal to me. I'd like to hear more p's and q's and less political emotional nonsense.
I'm not suggesting God nor am I trying to prove God. I'm suggesting anything. Since stuff exist, it's always always been here, or came into existence. There really isn't an in between here. There is no gap in this logic. If so, I'd love to hear it, but all you neoathiests do is go back to God which is not even being argued here.
So postulating about multiverse, quantum soups, etc... is wrong? You simply can't ever believe in anything other than everything came from an uncreated something unless you're willfully ignorant. To believe otherwise would be like believing that 6 == 7. It's just not true. This isn't opinion either. Here let me point out the various example scenarios:
1.) God created it - God is the uncreated something
OR
2.) Universe came from quantum soup (Krauss's position) - Quantum soup is the uncreated something
OR
3.) Reality did not exist and then it did. Reality is the uncreated something.
OR
4.) Something else entirely.
You simply cannot believe that everything was created. At some point, you get to an uncaused uncreated something. Whether that's an infinite number of multiverses in the past (an eternal uncreated something) or the universe just popped into existence one day (a finite uncreated something). All of you highly emotional neoatheists have not provided one piece of logic to even support the whole "I don't know" answer. I don't know if 6 == 7? Really? That's your best response? Let me know when athiests can debate logic. Every example of "I don't know" possibilities have been uncreated somethings.
So my arguments stands - you cannot ridicule the theist for believing in an uncreated something when everyone believes (though knows not necessarily what) in an uncreated something.
The reason for equating neoatheism with emotionalistic responses is this:
1.) I state that everyone believe an uncreated something must exist, but not everyone agrees what that uncreated something is (universe, quantum soup (what Krauss calls "nothing"), God, whatever).
2.) I conclude that therefore using the argument, "Theists are stupid because who created God" is a silly argument since both the theist and atheist must agree that there exists something uncreated. They disagree only on what that is. There really isn't a dispute here.
3.) I get dozens of response arguing about the existence or non existence of God.
See, I wasn't trying to even prove God, but rather that the argument used against the theist was invalid since the theist and the atheist believe the same thing. Namely, something has always existed. But just as a nominal Catholic or your average Pentecostal will get super emotional when they halfway kinda sorta not really suspect someone might be dissing their God, the neoatheist response similarly. It's like an over emotional religious atheist.
This seems to be the nature of neoatheists. Take this video for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Np0nrxbGQik I'm annoyed at the editing a bit (it's a bit over the top), but it demonstrates my point. My brother and I were discussing this the other day. I'd love to listen to a challenging, thought provoking atheist pod cast that is on the level of a Dr. Craig, but I can't seem to find one. Atheist appear to use emotion rather than logic to illustrate their point. I'd be happy if someone could prove me wrong and provide me a podcast that uses logic rather than emotion to argue an atheistic position.
I'm not sure what you're arguing. It sounds like you're agreeing with me. Something (universe, God, computer, whatever) is uncreated.
This thread is too much fun. The funny thing about you neoatheists is that you're just as emotional as Pentecostals. Here let me break it down for you:
Something cannot be created from nothing (and I'm talking about real nothing (ex nihilo), not Krauss's "nothing" (the quantum soup))
Stuff exists
Therefore something is uncreated.
If you want to argue that the quantum soup always has existed, that's fine. If you want to argue that God has always existed, that's fine. But it is impossible to come to a conclusion where "something" is uncreated. That's why you hear about multiverse theories, big crunch/big bang cycles, etc... Because no rational person thinks that there was nothing ex nihilo and then there was something. There's nothing fantastical about the above.
Well when you redefine nothing, it all works out, doesn't it. Everything came from nothing because nothing is something doesn't get you anywhere. In fact it reiterates my point that you must believe the absurd notion that there is an uncreated something to which everything came from.
I don't think so. I think when I find a pocket watch on the ground, it is less complex for me to believe that it was intelligently designed than to believe that it came about through a mathematical (not necessarily random) process.
The last time I looked into a mirror, I didn't look like a pocket watch, I did, however, look like a bag of organic molecules. Now we know that nuts, bolts, cogs, and wheels don't spring up in nature by themselves, but on the other hand we have observed complex organic molecules arising when simple elements are banged together using some energy. Doesn't that at least nudge you into realizing how flawed your analogy is?
I'm not sure how it proves my analogy is flawed. After all, it is an analogy. No one believes that I am suggesting that people are watches. Now as far as banging molecules together, other than me having sex with my wife (or other life forms mating for that matter), I can think of no examples of humans banging two things together that result in something as complex as life. Life is a prerequisite to life.
Likewise, when I exist in such an unnatural state as life.
You don't know that life is an unnatural state. Scientists operate with the idea that it actually may be perfectly natural, if not inevitable, given the laws of physics around here. So far, the results look promising to me. Don't expect this problem to be solved overnight.
In the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Douglass Adams humorously and accurately concludes that the universe is unpopulated. His reasoning for such a conclusion is solid and I agree with it. That being said, since only the tiniest fraction of the whole Universe has life, then using Occam's Razor, it would be easy to conclude that life is indeed unnatural.
When I have the extraordinary supernatural ability to self determine what I do, how I think, etc...
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. How do you know that this "ability" is not an illusion caused by our way of perceiving things?
Is it just me or do you also see the contradiction in what you just said?
1. It is wishful thinking - Implies choice
2. This ability could be an illusion - Implies no choice
Since you're arguing with yourself, let me help you out. If it is no choice then this argument is like the bot Alice arguing with the bot Alice. So why care? If it is a choice then your argument that it is not a choice instantly invalidates itself.
So in your point of view theists are silly because of your contradictory "logic"?
I don't think so. I think when I find a pocket watch on the ground, it is less complex for me to believe that it was intelligently designed than to believe that it came about through a mathematical (not necessarily random) process. This does not give me any insight into the nature of the designer. Was it a computer? Human? Aliens? I don't know. Nor does it give me insight into how it was designed. Was it an iterative process? Was it carefully planned? Was the designer just plain gifted? In any case it would not be extraordinarily irrational for me to assume that the pocket watch was designed.
Likewise, when I exist in such an unnatural state as life. When I have the extraordinary supernatural ability to self determine what I do, how I think, etc... When all of the animals on this earth use this database system that somehow determines how it looks and behaves. When I can love a woman and be rewarded with tiny new humans that grow... something beyond what we as humans can create. It is not more complex for me to believe that life is designed. It does not prove nor disprove a deity, but it does prove that it is not irrational to think that life is designed by a deity.
Now I'm not trying to tell you what to believe other than theologians may not be idiots since there exists the possibility that they may very well be correct.
A man was eating pizza one day when suddenly a guy eating a double cheeseburger approaches him and says, "You know eating pizza will make you fat."
You say that it is silly to believe in an uncreated creator while believing in an uncreated universe/multiverse/etc...
Not that it matters, but your logic is flawed anyway. The definition of a divine creator is an entity that just is and was never created. Since such a creator would have created even time itself, it is nonsensical to ask who created the creator since that would imply that time existed before creation.
In any case, it doesn't matter if you're a theist or atheist; at some point you have to believe in the absurd notion that everything came from an uncreated something.
I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of what you're saying. I agree that there are a lot of people making money from Christianity in a distasteful way. That being said, I do not feel that it is being compensated for work is wrong. Should a preacher/priest work for free because he is doing the work of God? If not, then why would bands such as Lifehouse and Owl City be disqualified from selling their albums because they have songs on such albums that have Christian themes to them?
I tend to look at this like the parable about the weeds. If we were to say that being compensated for art that glorifies God is prohibited then we would artificially take away a medium that could change the lives of others. I think it would comfort you to read Phillipians 1:15-18. Despite having the wrong motives, the Gospel is being preached. Trust me, the business side of Christianity bothers me too, but it is a comfort that there are those who find salvation despite men's corruptible motives.
I will have to disagree with you on the business of Protestants all using KJV translations or translations that use KJV as a source. Most modern translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, etc... use the best available original sources that they can find, not the KJV. The KJV also used the best available sources of its time. With the ease of obtaining a Bible translation, it doesn't bother me that the translators get compensated.
Yes, I agree that there are those who buy fancy Bible translations as a status symbol. Heck, we see this in the book "Tom Sawyer". What does Tom want with a Bible anyway? Status. For me, I just use my iPad since the youversion app gives me many different translations to use for free on and off line. When I first started using it, people would say, "I prefer a 'real' Bible". Can we say, "status"? It's as if a digital Bible app is ineligible to be read outside of church and that somehow owning a real one makes you a better Christian. Now people are more accepting of using a kindle, phone, or tablet.
I wasn't aware I was being intolerant.
And that is why you have no friends...
Apparently stating my opinion is considered intolerant, but yours somehow isn't?
Yes. My opinion was that people should not feel guilty receiving compensation for work. This is a very inclusive opinion which leaves room for dialog. Your "opinion" is that anyone who does not share your religious belief system is a brainwash idiot.
Curious?
Nobody's buying into it, so quit trying.
Sorry you feel so victimized all the time.
The straw man accepts your apologies.
It must be difficult when so much of the western world follows your same fantasy.
This makes no sense. If you assert your attack on the straw man to be true then the majority of his peers would agree with him and therefore the straw man would not be a victim.
This lack of critical thinking skills is surprising for an engineer. I'm guessing it's because you're so religiously emotional about your belief system, that your brain has shut off. I see it happen a lot with nominal Christians too. Their brains shut off when defending a faith system they know little about; but otherwise they're brilliant. Do keep in mind that I'm not attacking your religious belief in an everlasting universe, multiverse, whatever; but rather attacking your ability to function in society without getting super emotional when people disagree with you. You'll go farther in your career if you learn to practice tolerance.
Now in case you were trying to be funny through sarcasm, it didn't work for me. Here's a knowledge base article that may help: http://www.microsoft.com/education/en-us/Training/Competencies/Pages/humor.aspx
Uh... I'm a Christian and I have no idea what you just said. I'm guessing you're an atheist troll trying to make people who believe in a diety look like idiots.
Touché! :)
While I think that open source free software is great and all, I don't think it's a crime to be paid for your work. I have no problem getting paid to write software. Likewise, I have no problem with experts dedicating their time to translating the Bible. Copyrights have not really prevented people from purchasing Bible translations anyway.
Such an insightful flame bait^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hobservation. Oh you have shown me the way, wjousts. I may have lived on happily with my wife and kids believing in an imaginary fairy tale my whole life if it wasn't for you.
Just for the record, sarcasm is used often in the Bible. :)
In all seriousness, this kind of intolerance makes it difficult for you to be taken seriously except from other intolerant people.
You're incorrect. Most Bible translations are based on the best sources that we have available. We have better sources today than in the seventeenth century. So most Bible translations are more accurate (accurate meaning closer to the original source) than they were in the time of King James.