No, shitbrick, you didn't. You mentioned them both. That's like saying you like Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, then saying you got Brad Pitt confused for Matt Damon.
That's not even relevant to my comment. At all. The GP was comparing "we don't know why it works, but tests show it does" to "we don't know why it works, but tests show it works in exactly the same timeline as you would expect if it does nothing".
What you missed is the fact that it takes 1-2 weeks to help you get over the cold, which is exactly how long it could take to get over a really bad cold anyways.
1. You're a fucking idiot. There is no "synergy". It's CHEMISTRY. 2. Homeopathy was invented within the last 120 years by a Western hackjob named Hahnemann.
Agreed. I work for a nuclear propulsion research lab operated for the government by Bechtel, and we had to go through the big, long, complicated security clearance process, 'secret' background check included.
Yes, I have read the whole Bible. No, I am not certain. Certainty is an emotional feeling, not a representation of fact. And I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you think I have to disprove that which is not proved.
Who am I to judge your ideas? Who ELSE? Human beings judge each other's ideas. It's part of what we do. If I find your beliefs silly, and you take PERSONAL offense at an insult to your beliefs, that's YOUR problem, not mine. I'm not insulting you.
I don't have to be open-minded to things I think are stupid. YES, I am closed-minded to nonsense. I was a fundamentalist Christian for several years. It's BULLSHIT. Every bit of it. And if you don't like that response, TOUGH.
"Conveniently you have sidestepped the question, Why if "you believe in evolution, you instantly invalidate the concept of original sin, thus making Jesus' crucifixion a meaningless slaughter."?"
My entire other post was about that. The NT talks about the original sin of Adam being passed down to all of mankind and being washed away by Jesus' sacrifice. If Adam didn't exist, original sin doesn't exist. Jesus talked about Adam as a literal person, so no, it's not just a metaphor for 'everyone'.
"But to answer *your* question I stated the churches opinion because they have some knowledge in what "invalidate(s) the concept of original sin"."
Can you demonstrate that it's knowledge, and not just another opinion? Otherwise I have no reason to give it any more regard
"Why should it provide either, that's science's job. You attempt to invalidate that people who maintain a faith in God can't be concerned that science's place in society is being undermined. Science and Religion and two separate bodies of knowledge and neither are mutually exclusive."
If religion has any use, it should give us answers about reality. It is religion's job. And you're clearly not understanding my position. I know that you're worried about science's place in society. That's a separate issue.
Also, religion is not a body of knowledge. Religion is a body of philosophy. Believing in something is not a way of determining whether or not it is true.
"Faith *and* doubt are the opposite of certainty."
Nonsense. People with faith believe in the face of a lack of evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary. They're certain that their beliefs are right.
"Rubbish. It has meaning for the people that are lobbying politicians to have science education in our schools dismantled. I, personally, as someone who *has* a faith in God, do not want to see I.D promoted at the expense of science. Obviously the deception spreads far and wide, but you go on, and make the fundamentalists proud. It's not silly to them, the results won't be silly to you either."
And you know that's not what I said, at all. I said that BLASPHEMY is a meaningless concept to me. I deal with facts, not dogma. ID is factually ridiculous.
"Your reasoning is flawed, letters to the churches are written in Revelation 2-3. The Bible isn't a religion, it is what the "Christian" religions are based on."
Nice circumvention of my entire point. I said: "If you can somehow demonstrate that you don't need a holy book to "know" anything about a deity, I'd be interested." Again, please explain how you can know something about a deity without evidence that it actually exists.
"What incredibly arrogant presumptions you have made."
It's arrogant to think I don't need the thought police to be able to do good? How so? Your theology seems to presume that I'm a sinful, evil person who needs to be cleansed of my filthy ways. That is arrogance.
"If you actually took the time to read what I said rather than manipulate it to promote your own agenda, I stated I viewed the story of creation and the Garden of Eden as allegorical...not the entire bible."
I understand this. That was my point. If you're going to say part of the book is literal and part is metaphorical, you have to be able to justify your interpretations. After all, I have no reason to believe that god himself is anything but a metaphor.
"And if you are looking for literal truth anywhere then I think faith is something that will forever elude you."
I don't see faith as a useful tool.
"The point I was trying to make, which was clearly lost on you, was that as old as the scrolls are they are still much more recent than the stories they contain supporting my opinion that they are not accurate depictions of the events of creation or the Graden of Eden."
If the meaning of the Bible is a matter of opinion, it can't be the word of a god. The theology is internally incoherent.
Like this one? "Why? The Catholic church seems to be ok with evolution. It's only fairly recently that this has started to change." Somehow this is more valid to you, because it comes from a church.
"What about people who believe in god, think Intelligent Design is blasphemous and that science is the only way to describe god's works?"
How does a belief in god help them understand the way the world works? It doesn't provide any answers, and adding god to an equation that otherwise works just fine without him is meaningless.
"I think the thing that is forgotten in this whole debate is not being able to prove god exists is the point of faith. There is never proof, only opinions, it's your choice. Besides how would you prove or disprove a being who can shape the laws of nature, time and space if that being doesn't want any proof to exist?"
I don't need to disprove it. If it does not manifest in any sense in our reality, I can simply assume it doesn't exist. That which is transcendent and non-manifesting is identical to that which is nonexistent.
"Intelligent Design is blasphemous, if you want to defend science's place in society, say that to the lobbying fundamentalist who are deceived into doing satan's work to dismantle sciences place. The argument is handed to the atheists on a plate, but they are too dogmatic with *their* beliefs to see it."
It's not a matter of dogma. As someone who doesn't believe in god, the concept of blasphemy is meaningless to me. It's silly to debate over the theological implications of a hypothesis such as ID. That only has meaning for you.
"Do atheists realise many see Religion and God as separate things. Religion was created by man and is flawed with the original sin you speak of."
This is a tenet of the Christian religion, written in the holy book of the Christian religion by human beings. If you can somehow demonstrate that you don't need a holy book to "know" anything about a deity, I'd be interested.
"The enduring irony is that many moderate people of faith see atheists as the ones doing god's work right now."
I don't need to be working for a nonexistent being to defend reality.
"Let's clear up one thing, in Christianity Jesus died for our sins not for Adam biting the apple."
This is simply not true.
Rom. 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"
Rom. 5:19, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners"
1 Cor. 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
I understand that many people consider Biblical stories to be allegorical. That's entirely the point. If you can take some of the stories as allegory and some as literal fact, you have to come up with some sort of rationalization for your decisions, beyond simply "this one seems true". Otherwise, there is no merit to the claim that the Bible has any literal truth and should be taken seriously.
The Dead Sea scrolls were not the source of the Old Testament, by the way. We had the OT long before we found them in the 1800s.
"It all depends on your interpretation and your faith."
And thus, since what matters is what's "true to me", it is not an objective source of knowledge or truth.
I'm sure you think your remark was clever and witty, but the point he was making is that if the whole book is metaphorical, the belief is meaningless. There is nothing to literally believe. If you "believe" a metaphor, you're worshiping a figure of speech.
If you are a Christian, and you believe in evolution, you instantly invalidate the concept of original sin, thus making Jesus' crucifixion a meaningless slaughter.
The two are not compatible. And only one is supported by evidence.
On a separate subject, humans *are* apes, and we *are* monkeys. The distinction between 'ape' and 'monkey' is nothing more than an English semantic argument. The most recent "common ancestor" between apes, humans, and monkeys is... [insert the name of your parents here].
"You might be right that porn is not the cause of rape, but it sure is the cause of many broken homes and dead beat dads. Infidelity is one of the major roots of divorce and finding your husband of X years is addicted to porn shakes many many marriages."
Nice try. You just equated porn with infidelity. Besides, do you have any studies to back this up?
"I contend that we learn from experience and our brains are poorly equipped to separate 'virtual' experience from those of reality, and I think this has been demonstrated many times over."
All well and good, but do you have studies to back this up?
No, it DOES NOT call home to North Africa. That was a lie put out by trolls from 4chan. The fact that they didn't specify a country is proof enough that they're pulling this 'fact' out of their ass.
"inside info from a friend that works there" is not a source any more than "I know a guy who knows a guy" is a source.
I'm sure you could name this friend and tell us where he works.
Oh, but wait, let me guess - *THEY* might get him, right?
Slashdot Mirror
No, shitbrick, you didn't. You mentioned them both. That's like saying you like Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, then saying you got Brad Pitt confused for Matt Damon.
Their own website says it *IS* regulated by the FDA.
Innumerate.
That's not even relevant to my comment. At all. The GP was comparing "we don't know why it works, but tests show it does" to "we don't know why it works, but tests show it works in exactly the same timeline as you would expect if it does nothing".
What you missed is the fact that it takes 1-2 weeks to help you get over the cold, which is exactly how long it could take to get over a really bad cold anyways.
s/120 years/200 years/
1. You're a fucking idiot. There is no "synergy". It's CHEMISTRY. 2. Homeopathy was invented within the last 120 years by a Western hackjob named Hahnemann.
Agreed. I work for a nuclear propulsion research lab operated for the government by Bechtel, and we had to go through the big, long, complicated security clearance process, 'secret' background check included.
Yes, I have read the whole Bible. No, I am not certain. Certainty is an emotional feeling, not a representation of fact. And I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you think I have to disprove that which is not proved.
Who am I to judge your ideas? Who ELSE? Human beings judge each other's ideas. It's part of what we do. If I find your beliefs silly, and you take PERSONAL offense at an insult to your beliefs, that's YOUR problem, not mine. I'm not insulting you.
I don't have to be open-minded to things I think are stupid. YES, I am closed-minded to nonsense. I was a fundamentalist Christian for several years. It's BULLSHIT. Every bit of it. And if you don't like that response, TOUGH.
You seem to think I would benefit from bad thinking.
I can't even imagine the sort of mental gymnastics you have to go through to believe the sort of nonsense you just posted.
"Conveniently you have sidestepped the question, Why if "you believe in evolution, you instantly invalidate the concept of original sin, thus making Jesus' crucifixion a meaningless slaughter."?"
My entire other post was about that. The NT talks about the original sin of Adam being passed down to all of mankind and being washed away by Jesus' sacrifice. If Adam didn't exist, original sin doesn't exist. Jesus talked about Adam as a literal person, so no, it's not just a metaphor for 'everyone'.
"But to answer *your* question I stated the churches opinion because they have some knowledge in what "invalidate(s) the concept of original sin"."
Can you demonstrate that it's knowledge, and not just another opinion? Otherwise I have no reason to give it any more regard
"Why should it provide either, that's science's job. You attempt to invalidate that people who maintain a faith in God can't be concerned that science's place in society is being undermined. Science and Religion and two separate bodies of knowledge and neither are mutually exclusive."
If religion has any use, it should give us answers about reality. It is religion's job. And you're clearly not understanding my position. I know that you're worried about science's place in society. That's a separate issue.
Also, religion is not a body of knowledge. Religion is a body of philosophy. Believing in something is not a way of determining whether or not it is true.
"Faith *and* doubt are the opposite of certainty."
Nonsense. People with faith believe in the face of a lack of evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary. They're certain that their beliefs are right.
"Rubbish. It has meaning for the people that are lobbying politicians to have science education in our schools dismantled. I, personally, as someone who *has* a faith in God, do not want to see I.D promoted at the expense of science. Obviously the deception spreads far and wide, but you go on, and make the fundamentalists proud. It's not silly to them, the results won't be silly to you either."
And you know that's not what I said, at all. I said that BLASPHEMY is a meaningless concept to me. I deal with facts, not dogma. ID is factually ridiculous.
"Your reasoning is flawed, letters to the churches are written in Revelation 2-3. The Bible isn't a religion, it is what the "Christian" religions are based on."
Nice circumvention of my entire point. I said: "If you can somehow demonstrate that you don't need a holy book to "know" anything about a deity, I'd be interested." Again, please explain how you can know something about a deity without evidence that it actually exists.
"What incredibly arrogant presumptions you have made."
It's arrogant to think I don't need the thought police to be able to do good? How so? Your theology seems to presume that I'm a sinful, evil person who needs to be cleansed of my filthy ways. That is arrogance.
"If you actually took the time to read what I said rather than manipulate it to promote your own agenda, I stated I viewed the story of creation and the Garden of Eden as allegorical...not the entire bible."
I understand this. That was my point. If you're going to say part of the book is literal and part is metaphorical, you have to be able to justify your interpretations. After all, I have no reason to believe that god himself is anything but a metaphor. "And if you are looking for literal truth anywhere then I think faith is something that will forever elude you."
I don't see faith as a useful tool.
"The point I was trying to make, which was clearly lost on you, was that as old as the scrolls are they are still much more recent than the stories they contain supporting my opinion that they are not accurate depictions of the events of creation or the Graden of Eden."
If the meaning of the Bible is a matter of opinion, it can't be the word of a god. The theology is internally incoherent.
"All you have done is stated an opinion."
Like this one? "Why? The Catholic church seems to be ok with evolution. It's only fairly recently that this has started to change." Somehow this is more valid to you, because it comes from a church.
"What about people who believe in god, think Intelligent Design is blasphemous and that science is the only way to describe god's works?"
How does a belief in god help them understand the way the world works? It doesn't provide any answers, and adding god to an equation that otherwise works just fine without him is meaningless.
"I think the thing that is forgotten in this whole debate is not being able to prove god exists is the point of faith. There is never proof, only opinions, it's your choice. Besides how would you prove or disprove a being who can shape the laws of nature, time and space if that being doesn't want any proof to exist?"
I don't need to disprove it. If it does not manifest in any sense in our reality, I can simply assume it doesn't exist. That which is transcendent and non-manifesting is identical to that which is nonexistent.
"Intelligent Design is blasphemous, if you want to defend science's place in society, say that to the lobbying fundamentalist who are deceived into doing satan's work to dismantle sciences place. The argument is handed to the atheists on a plate, but they are too dogmatic with *their* beliefs to see it."
It's not a matter of dogma. As someone who doesn't believe in god, the concept of blasphemy is meaningless to me. It's silly to debate over the theological implications of a hypothesis such as ID. That only has meaning for you.
"Do atheists realise many see Religion and God as separate things. Religion was created by man and is flawed with the original sin you speak of."
This is a tenet of the Christian religion, written in the holy book of the Christian religion by human beings. If you can somehow demonstrate that you don't need a holy book to "know" anything about a deity, I'd be interested.
"The enduring irony is that many moderate people of faith see atheists as the ones doing god's work right now."
I don't need to be working for a nonexistent being to defend reality.
"Let's clear up one thing, in Christianity Jesus died for our sins not for Adam biting the apple."
This is simply not true.
Rom. 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"
Rom. 5:19, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners"
1 Cor. 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
I understand that many people consider Biblical stories to be allegorical. That's entirely the point. If you can take some of the stories as allegory and some as literal fact, you have to come up with some sort of rationalization for your decisions, beyond simply "this one seems true". Otherwise, there is no merit to the claim that the Bible has any literal truth and should be taken seriously.
The Dead Sea scrolls were not the source of the Old Testament, by the way. We had the OT long before we found them in the 1800s.
"It all depends on your interpretation and your faith."
And thus, since what matters is what's "true to me", it is not an objective source of knowledge or truth.
I'm sure you think your remark was clever and witty, but the point he was making is that if the whole book is metaphorical, the belief is meaningless. There is nothing to literally believe. If you "believe" a metaphor, you're worshiping a figure of speech.
If you are a Christian, and you believe in evolution, you instantly invalidate the concept of original sin, thus making Jesus' crucifixion a meaningless slaughter.
The two are not compatible. And only one is supported by evidence.
On a separate subject, humans *are* apes, and we *are* monkeys. The distinction between 'ape' and 'monkey' is nothing more than an English semantic argument. The most recent "common ancestor" between apes, humans, and monkeys is... [insert the name of your parents here].
get to work, hacker boy! ;D
(--FreePlay)
Yes, it's true. Once you've installed the HBC you don't need the disc anymore.
"You might be right that porn is not the cause of rape, but it sure is the cause of many broken homes and dead beat dads. Infidelity is one of the major roots of divorce and finding your husband of X years is addicted to porn shakes many many marriages."
Nice try. You just equated porn with infidelity. Besides, do you have any studies to back this up?
"I contend that we learn from experience and our brains are poorly equipped to separate 'virtual' experience from those of reality, and I think this has been demonstrated many times over."
All well and good, but do you have studies to back this up?
Blame the games. Because we know how many people are killed each year by mice and Dual Shock controllers.
This is in the same vein as people who blame pornography for rape.
No, it DOES NOT call home to North Africa. That was a lie put out by trolls from 4chan. The fact that they didn't specify a country is proof enough that they're pulling this 'fact' out of their ass.
Wow, no way! A Windows program that *gasp* accesses files? And the registry?
"inside info from a friend that works there" is not a source any more than "I know a guy who knows a guy" is a source. I'm sure you could name this friend and tell us where he works. Oh, but wait, let me guess - *THEY* might get him, right?