You say it yourself: it's their word against ours. You are assuming quite a bit: that they aren't lying, that these Gospel accounts weren't just made up, that they weren't tricked, etc. All of these explanations are much more plausible than someone actually rising from the dead after 3 days.
When you watch a magician performing pulling a rabbit out of his hat or sawing a girl in half, do you first assume that he's really doing magic? Why not? Of course not, you assume that it's a trick. Why? Because you know that rabbits don't appear out of thin air and girls die if you really saw them in half.
And you are still dodging the question. How many times has a court ever been convinced of a supernatural explanation for a crime or whatever? What if I claimed that I had been resurrected after 3 days of death, and all my friends testified to it. Would you believe me? Would you worship me as the returned savior if I said I was? Why not?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Because they said so" doesn't really meet that definition, at least not for me. Christopher Hitchens also has a nice saying: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Maybe specifically it DID happen to Jesus, but without some better evidence than "they said so", at least I won't be convinced. If you say that it all comes down to having faith, then I'm sorry but I just don't have any respect for that viewpoint.
If your list of doctors and scientists have issues with evolution beyond just "I don't personally believe it", they should show the evidence against it and win a Nobel prize.
Also, is this list supposed to impress anyone? I mean c'mon, how many of them are named Steve?!"
You'll need more than just a short list of arguments from authority if you want anyone to take you seriously or even care about what you think.
In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "Name me an ethical (or moral) statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."
To date, I don't believe anyone has come up with an answer to that, although you could easily come up with numerous answers to the opposite: unethical or immoral that could only come from having belief in a deity. History is rife with examples.
Maybe because Julius Caesar didn't claim to be born of a virgin, claim to be the incarnate son of a deity, spontaneously resurrect from death after 3 days, etc etc etc. When you begin claiming a bunch of nonsense, it throws the rest of your claims, even the mundane, into suspect. Claims such as these tend to bring down the more mundane claim of "There existed a man named Jesus", but the opposite is not necessarily true: if it can be shown that there was, in fact, a man named Jesus who perhaps was crucified, that doesn't show anything except.... that there was a man named Jesus who was crucified. It still doesn't lend any weight to the idea that he was born of a virgin, resurrection, or any of the rest of that junk.
More likely, it developed from the primitive notion that "someone made the world" to someone else figuring out they could use that belief as leverage to get someone else to do what they wanted or else "someone who made the world" can and will do bad things to you because, um, he told me so! Yeah! So get to doing what I said or else! And give me money!
That's a good point, although (and I haven't read it myself) I suspect that the Live terms of service probably cover these issues pretty comprehensively/"explicitly". If they don't, then MS is certainly leaving an ambiguity that could potentially be taken advantage of.
I feel, however, that if it came down to it MS would have a pretty tight case of "these were our rules, your box broke the rules (not your account), your box isn't allowed (although your account is).
You're paying for your account on the Live service, not the ability of a specific box to connect to it. I can't see how a court could be convinced otherwise.
I don't understand how you think it's the decision of the vendor that's "ruining" your so-called value. You are certainly welcome to play on their network, provided that you haven't altered your box because of the very high chance that you did so to either 1) cheat or 2) play games you haven't paid for. You're also certainly welcome to modify your box however you wish, with the understanding that it's no longer valid to play on MS's network with it because they can no longer guarantee the fairness of your participation. That, however, if your choice.
You may think that they are being unfair to you, but the millions of other players out there who are paying good money for the chance to play on an even field and don't want to play against a potential cheater... how is that anything but fair to them? You can say "well I'm not doing it to cheat!" but unfortunately you would be in an insignificant minority.
You paid for a box that has certain features and signed up for a service with the agreement that you wouldn't change these features. Then you went and changed them. How is it not fair that you're now cut off after you broke your end of the deal.
If you need a car analogy, it's like you bought a car from a manufacturer that has ownership of a really sweet road system that lets you get where you want really, really quickly, and it's a fun ride. Then you modified your car so that it ran others off the road so you could go even faster than everyone else. You ruined everyone else's experience for the benefit of yours. So now you're kicked off the road.
I would imagine MS would still win that. You're certainly still allowed to keep your account, but you aren't allowed to break the TOS by connecting your modded box to their network. You wouldn't have any problem connecting with an unmodded box that doesn't break the TOS. The service is still supplied; whether or not you can connect to it is really up to you.
In that case, the government should also take away any free health care incentives such as free hospitalization if you can't afford it if you so choose to put yourself there through drug use. Hell, any government assistance whatsoever without some kind of drug screening. I can't believe we aren't doing that already. You should probably also be denied health insurance by private companies as well.
Destroying your own life and health might really suck for you and your family, but it also isn't free either, for you or for me. Same thing with refusing to wear a seatbelt, bike helmet, etc... No?
You could, but it would probably end up doing nothing but, for one, posting welcomes to its own overlord self over and over until it exploded hot grits. That would be so hilarious.
Evolution is explained perfectly well for anyone who isn't willing misunderstanding it. It boils down to this:
Population A ----> filter --------->Population A'
Population A' -----> reproduce (insert chance of random mutation here) ----> Population B
Repeat over and over again.
The filter is the environment. It "filters out" parts of the population that, due to various mutations, aren't fit to survive as well as others.
The population that does survive to reproduce.... does reproduce. During reproduction, random mutations happen. The next generation has new mutations that may increase their chances of surviving to reproduce, may decrease their chances or surviving to reproduce, or may not change that chance at all. Some mutations may simply be changes in alleles, some might be new genes altogether, or genes that combine, or split apart. Some are helpful; they get passed along and persist. Some are harmful; they don't get passed along because that creature dies. Some are neutral (for now); they may or may not get passed along depending on other mutations.
Over time, the filter can change. So now different organisms may be filtered out. A previously beneficial change might now be detrimental, and the opposite is true. A previously neutral mutation might now make a difference, for better or worse. Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.
It's not a matter of "information" unless you're looking at it after the fact and assigning some meaning to it. It's a mechanical process, one that has the ability to copy itself.
Explain what you would mean by "more information being encoded" and what you would accept as a valid example of this.
Slashdot Mirror
When you watch a magician performing pulling a rabbit out of his hat or sawing a girl in half, do you first assume that he's really doing magic? Why not? Of course not, you assume that it's a trick. Why? Because you know that rabbits don't appear out of thin air and girls die if you really saw them in half.
And you are still dodging the question. How many times has a court ever been convinced of a supernatural explanation for a crime or whatever? What if I claimed that I had been resurrected after 3 days of death, and all my friends testified to it. Would you believe me? Would you worship me as the returned savior if I said I was? Why not?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Because they said so" doesn't really meet that definition, at least not for me. Christopher Hitchens also has a nice saying: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Maybe specifically it DID happen to Jesus, but without some better evidence than "they said so", at least I won't be convinced. If you say that it all comes down to having faith, then I'm sorry but I just don't have any respect for that viewpoint.
Also, is this list supposed to impress anyone? I mean c'mon, how many of them are named Steve?!"
You'll need more than just a short list of arguments from authority if you want anyone to take you seriously or even care about what you think.
To date, I don't believe anyone has come up with an answer to that, although you could easily come up with numerous answers to the opposite: unethical or immoral that could only come from having belief in a deity. History is rife with examples.
Why doesn't he try applying these rules to the Lord Of The Rings and see what happens? It makes about as much sense.
That's the difference.
Geddy Lee, is that you?!
More likely, it developed from the primitive notion that "someone made the world" to someone else figuring out they could use that belief as leverage to get someone else to do what they wanted or else "someone who made the world" can and will do bad things to you because, um, he told me so! Yeah! So get to doing what I said or else! And give me money!
Such as?
I feel, however, that if it came down to it MS would have a pretty tight case of "these were our rules, your box broke the rules (not your account), your box isn't allowed (although your account is).
You're paying for your account on the Live service, not the ability of a specific box to connect to it. I can't see how a court could be convinced otherwise.
You may think that they are being unfair to you, but the millions of other players out there who are paying good money for the chance to play on an even field and don't want to play against a potential cheater... how is that anything but fair to them? You can say "well I'm not doing it to cheat!" but unfortunately you would be in an insignificant minority.
You paid for a box that has certain features and signed up for a service with the agreement that you wouldn't change these features. Then you went and changed them. How is it not fair that you're now cut off after you broke your end of the deal.
If you need a car analogy, it's like you bought a car from a manufacturer that has ownership of a really sweet road system that lets you get where you want really, really quickly, and it's a fun ride. Then you modified your car so that it ran others off the road so you could go even faster than everyone else. You ruined everyone else's experience for the benefit of yours. So now you're kicked off the road.
I would imagine MS would still win that. You're certainly still allowed to keep your account, but you aren't allowed to break the TOS by connecting your modded box to their network. You wouldn't have any problem connecting with an unmodded box that doesn't break the TOS. The service is still supplied; whether or not you can connect to it is really up to you.
No one will miss you. Seriously.
Otisberg?!
Destroying your own life and health might really suck for you and your family, but it also isn't free either, for you or for me. Same thing with refusing to wear a seatbelt, bike helmet, etc... No?
You could, but it would probably end up doing nothing but, for one, posting welcomes to its own overlord self over and over until it exploded hot grits. That would be so hilarious.
You can still do that. Spending all your time and money on hookers and blow will put you well on your way to your last days.
Thank you, Anonymous Coward. It's good to know that there are people out there that get it. You should have signed in.
I hadn't seen that before, that's freaking awesome. Thank you for that. Down with the creationists!
Population A ----> filter --------->Population A'
Population A' -----> reproduce (insert chance of random mutation here) ----> Population B
Repeat over and over again.
The filter is the environment. It "filters out" parts of the population that, due to various mutations, aren't fit to survive as well as others. The population that does survive to reproduce.... does reproduce. During reproduction, random mutations happen. The next generation has new mutations that may increase their chances of surviving to reproduce, may decrease their chances or surviving to reproduce, or may not change that chance at all. Some mutations may simply be changes in alleles, some might be new genes altogether, or genes that combine, or split apart. Some are helpful; they get passed along and persist. Some are harmful; they don't get passed along because that creature dies. Some are neutral (for now); they may or may not get passed along depending on other mutations.
Over time, the filter can change. So now different organisms may be filtered out. A previously beneficial change might now be detrimental, and the opposite is true. A previously neutral mutation might now make a difference, for better or worse. Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.
It's not a matter of "information" unless you're looking at it after the fact and assigning some meaning to it. It's a mechanical process, one that has the ability to copy itself.
Explain what you would mean by "more information being encoded" and what you would accept as a valid example of this.
"This message came on my screen, I don't know what to do!"
"What does it say?"
"I don't know, I just clicked ok!"
Man, everytime I think I'm really, really nerdy, all I have to do is come to /. and boom. I'm nobody.
O RLY?!
Now with brine shrimp!
One word: Nanobots.
Or Red Windshield of Death, now in extra-liquidy!