I can't honestly say that things are where I'd like them... we still have patent issues and even the EISA bus had to be licensed... chips are very closed usually... so we are a far cry away from a truly "Open PC".
I'm not suggesting that these companies do anything for any other reason than profit. And I'm not saying that Apple stuff isn't better than PC stuff.
But Apple still stands out as a poster child for proprietary hardware and software, even over M$ and IBM, which is an accomplishment.
Well, you are not "straight" yet. The poster said that in 1986 "most home computers probably still had built in chips" and that talked about "IBM clones that only did text." I corrected him about that (by 1987 you had the Mac II and VGA)
Yes, Macs were closed systems. Are you disputing this? That's nuts. Microchannel? Really? I get that you might be one of these rabid Apple fanbois I've heard about, but that doesn't make me an IBM apologist. What does MCA have to do with this discussion? Ease up. I've owned an Apple II, TI 99/4a, Trash 80, PCs, Mac, a VAX in the basement at one point, and even a Mac Mini... computers are computers, and corporations do what corporations do...
It is true that IBM never intended the PC to be "open" - that was an accident. The MCA was an attempt to go back. At first the VGA may have been MCA-only (way to miss the point) but CGA and EGA were very popular open standards and the VGA standard became the most popular of all. The ISA bus was a mistake as far as IBM was concerned. But by this point in time, the "industry" (the "I" in ISA and EISA) had gotten together to clone all the BIOS and create open standards. Apple did not (and doesn't) have open standards, and I remember leaning towards PCs because of that. Everybody knows this, and many people feel like this hurt Apple in the late 80s and 90s, regardless of their "superior video cards". Some people (me) think that while Apple may have done some very cool things lately, this very old (and common) attitude ("it's just like 1986 again") will hurt them, and even if it doesn't hurt Apple it will hurt consumers and the industry. And so far, we've only been talking about hardware. Don't even get me started on software development.
Hmm, not sure what you are getting at... the mac II came out in 1987 without on-board video and was a very closed platform (remember those expensive Radius cards?)... at the same time the VGA standard came out. If you were there, his description of the market (and Apple's strategy) back then sounds about right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vga
Chance you "randomly" pick a "5" -> 1/1000
Chance you randomly roll a "5" -> 1/1000
Chance of both events happening together -> 1/1000 * 1/1000
Otherwise correct I guess. I'm not buying any of these calculations, however. 1 in a 1000 chance to observe a certain kind of planet? What does that even mean?
According to intel, asyncronous events at the chip level can be categorized like this:
Interupts
Exceptions (Traps, Faults, Aborts)
In this way, all "faults" are hardware faults. Now some "faults" - such as the "Double Fault" - can cause the OS to hang... windows for example will blue screen on a double fault. What is the "cause" of the Double Fault? Well, it's either a software error (kernel bug) or something physically wrong with the machine, such as bad memory.
But I think by "fault" you mean something like the "blue screen of death."
So are you saying "most blue screens are caused by physical hardware problems" or that "most blue screens are caused by microprocessor faults"? Because "most faults are hardware faults" is at best trivially true, at worst flat-out wrong because ALL faults are hardware faults by definition, i.e. being exceptions, raised by the microprocessor.
I would suggest something like "while most kernel failures are caused by hardware faults (by definition), and a correct kernel could theoretically prevent 100% of failures caused by kernel bugs, there will always be kernel failures due to hardware issues that you cannot prevent with formal review."
But I guess that's so obvious nobody would bother posting that. On the other hand, nobody will call "bullshit" either.
Again, no proof - just hope. I can't say it enough... if you want proof, or a sign, there is none.
-Me
This isn't an argument you've made, so I'm still at a loss for how you get there rationally.
-You
You don't see the problem here? I can't help you see something I'm not suggesting. You can't get there rationally. Reason can inform your personal theology (you can call it a 'bastardization' if you need to) but I would never suggest that you can get there through any mechanism other than the philosophical equivalent of jumping off a cliff. You sensed at first that I am - somehow - more rational than others perhaps, but in your desire to 'tease' some Spinoza-like proof from me you miss my point completely.
Actually, it would not. Occam's razor does not call for the simplest and most obvious answer - it seeks to eliminate elements that are immaterial to the discussion.
Lex parsimoniae. You would have it 'more likely' that there are whole swaths of missing quotations of Jesus (or perhaps they never even existed) and that legions of followers instead choose to invent and/or believe his Messiah message a generation or two after the fact. This, in spite of little (or zero) empirical evidence to the contrary (e.g. fragments of Mark where Jesus said, 'But hey, I'm not God or anything!', you know... something we could actually discuss). I posit that, if you don't believe any of this already (via irrational faith in something), considering the popularity of the Messiah concept at the time, and the subsequent popularity of the idea later on, a far more 'frugal' explanation with fewer 'entities' involved in the causation would be that Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, and he merely lied about it. I have no idea why you want to correct me here about Occam's razor, either in it's actual form, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or in its vulgar form.
But that's the not the point.
The unreasonable part of that assumption is to believe that what we have today is an accurate representation of his words and teachings (for countless reasons that I've pointed out throughout this thread).
Which is the point. In spite of your countless reasons, I say that this, for you, is some kind of a priori analytic knowledge or something. If I wasn't feeling generous I'd simply call it petitio principii. I'm confident that I will not convince you of that. On the other hand, I merely suggest that you could make a solid, inductive argument that "there probably was a man Jesus and he more than likely said the things recorded in these so-called synoptic Gospels." The ultimate truth of such an argument would be debatable, of course. Yet you say it is "unreasonable."
Now you're either not paying attention or starting to take my questions and comments more personally.
If you say so. I find my very reasonable opinion has been repeatedly tossed into the ring of Christian apologetics, with no small amount of "straw man" tactics at that. My paraphrasing is my honest view of your argument. Maybe I'm not paying attention after all... after rereading your post, this caught my attention.
I am intrigued by some of the philosophy of Buddhism and Taoism, but I find just as ridicules the trappings of the various formal religions erected around them.
I am very sorry I didn't catch that. I could have made my point so much clearer if I had simply said
I am intrigued by some of the prophecies of Christianity, but I find just as ridicules the trappings of the various formal religions erected around them
Apparently, that's a reasonable and logical position after all. That is, unless there is something logical and rational about reincarnation, karma, or Samara that I'm not aware of, and something equally irrational about prophecy (which we are all well aware of). And this was, after all, all that I was originally saying. Do you think rebirth is 'logically' more intriguing than say, the Book of Revelation?
As to your insinuation that Christianity couldn't be a cult or scam simply because of how quickly and significantly it grew
Never. I said it was a fantasy to suggest that a scam - involving a non-existent Jesus or a Jesus that never claimed to be more than a rabbi - could have taken over Israel and later the whole Roman empire, particularity in the face of such persecution. Not impossible, unlikely to the extreme, which is still just an opinion. It's as likely as having the current growth of Scientology yet with L Ron Hubbard in actual fact being a Christian TV preacher, and everyone being tricked into thinking he wrote things OT III when he really didn't, I suppose. I can give you that. And that seems like exactly what you are suggesting to be the case with Jesus. Do people actually believe this idea?
Perhaps you are still just confused about my position. Again, I'm not saying (in this argument) that Christianity is any more true than say, Scientology, Islam or Buddhism. I'm attacking your contention that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. This is absolutely fantastic to me.
Did Zoroaster teach free will? I say, yes.
Did Buddha teach the Four Noble Truths. Yes.
Did Pythagoras say eating beans was bad? Yes.
Did Muhammad teach "God is One"? Oh yes.
Did Joseph Smith claim to have found golden plates? I think so.
Did L. Ron Hubbard write OT III? Of course.
Did Jesus of Nazareth claim to the be Jewish Messiah?
Not merely no but obviously no?
And if I'm not mistaken here, you are actually maintaining that it is irrational to believe that Jesus said he was the Messiah? Not merely the idea that he was, but also the idea that he said he was. Yet you find the teachings of Buddha intriguing. You can't actually be saying this... help me out here.
So I'm not taking it personally, but if I understand this correctly I cannot follow it. What went before that allows you to admit this premise into the argument? And a few of your other arguments in other places that I can follow seem circular to me (as mind do to you), for example, I say that I think the synoptic Gospels are better sources of fact (not the word of God) than say, John or Mary, because they seem to the 'majority opinion' of what is extant. This - I thought - was what historians and courtrooms have relied upon for years and years. You've said
Should we be surprised that the Bible assembled by early church leaders selected texts that basically
I am aware that some of my comments may not be 100% relevant to you; your view is somewhat unique... but you are ignoring what I told you about my journey... Of course, my research methods are separate from how I discuss the issue
Fair enough, but I'm having a hard time because I can't fight these other battles. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I'm getting a distinct message from your posts. Your position seems to be something like:
Christianity and the Bible, taken together as a whole, seamless concept, a package so to speak, is obviously problematic to the point of absurdity. Internal contradictions, a general lack of self-consistency, 'clear' myths such as deluges and rainbows and arks, and then there is the that you can never really know that any of these people even said any of these things in the first place. If you don't take it together as a whole, then why are you taking any of it? And how can you call that 'Christianity' anyway?
Or something like that.
It seems to me that you've now made you mind up about a lot of this, and no, you're not discussing how you got there very much.
I do not believe that a man named Adam and a woman named Eve were the first humans, created and placed in a near-perfect garden. I do not believe that there was a man named Noah...
I mean, Noah? Where did that come from? I have to believe in Noah if I believe in Christ? I understand that 'most' Christians think this way... but this is slashdot... I thought we made fun of what 'most' people think about 'most things anyway. Now I find that my words are getting mixed up with every crazy thing you've heard any Christian say... and your arguments continue to be mixed up with retorts to arguments I never made...
As I think I've said about Jesus, he likely did exist and probably was a Jewish teacher who focused on the outcasts of Jewish society. However, I find no reason to believe that he was the fleshy incarnation of the all powerful creator or even claimed as much himself.
This is something I can address, and have been trying.
Why one and not the other? You believe he existed. I presume you believe he said things like 'blessed are the poor', correct? But NOT things like 'destroy this temple and I'll raise it up again in three days'? Or 'I am the way and the life' or 'I have come to fulfill the law' or any of the gazillion other quotes that clearly show he said that he was much more than a teacher? Why? I know you said you haven't been sharing your 'research methods' with me, perhaps now is the time to do so.
I mentioned Caesar because 'we' believe a lot of things about him too, and I don't think the historical evidence for these ideas is really all that different than for our ideas about Christ. That might be hard to accept, but that is how I see it. You say Jesus existed, not everyone does. I find it harder to believe that a small personality cult - effectively a scam perpetuated by a fisherman and tax collector - could take over the whole empire in one or two generations. That really seems like fantasy.
Did Caesar think he was a God? Descended from Venus? Caesar's actions shaped (at least) 500 years of Roman life. I absolutely think Caesar thought he was a God. I do not think he was a God. I absolutely do think Jesus said he was the 'Son of God'. I believe this to be true, as well, as you know. But let's continue to focus on the question of if Jesus said these things or not. If I, for some reason, maintained that Venus was real and that Caesar was a descendant of Venus, you would just call me nuts, not go so far out of your way to show me that he never even thought that. I'm not offended, but it's one thing to say 'You believe a myth' and 'You believe a lie.' You need more evidence to support the latter allegation. Do you have i
No, I'm totally for LOGO. If you use something modern like "microworlds" (see link below) then you get some OOP and audio/visual feedback as well. Think Lisp with 2D sprites and other cool stuff. My nephew was writing Lisp routines for his 2D scroller at 10 years old. Now he designs Quake levels. I'm trying to get him to push right on to C, C++ or (maybe) Java. Maybe I'll try Quake C. I want him into pointers and recursion as soon as possible.:)
It's all about graphics and games with the 'kids today', unfortunately. I had to content myself with writing a cheesy database (OPEN FOR INPUT) and sad 'games' (CALL CHAR) on my TI/994A.
One nice thing about microworlds (hate to plug something that costs $150) but it also interfaces with the LEGO NXT robot thing. You can definately engage a kid with writing LOGO for a LEGO turtle.
There are, of course, plenty of FOSS versions that do the same thing, or work with the cricket.
I grew up in a Baptist church in a religious family... I could either stop and close my mind... or... challenge my bigger core beliefs....extremely vague stories that sound more like Nostradamus. Of course, I'm not going into it looking for confirmation of what I already know to be true
And, here we see a big danger in these prophesies.... there are Christian sects today actively promoting this conflict in the Middle East...
Just as the writers of the Jewish texts were mining all sorts of local myths... just because you... believe this particular set of stories doesn't make them special.
But how can you judge objectively? You don't know who wrote any of the texts or whether they even knew Jesus (almost assuredly they didn't) personally.
(Taking these together.)
I certainly take no offense at anything you've said; you've been very polite and your arguments are clear. However, and no offense meant from my side either, but you seem very well prepared for a fight that I'm not picking. I don't have your background... so excuse me if I do not factor the 'dangers' of Christian prophecy (historical texts you mean?) when I read them and find application (if any) for my life. It sounds very much to me like you are 'going into it looking for confirmation of what I already know to be' FALSE.
Yes, I call it 'thinking.'
With all due respect, accepting something as true that you know unlikely to be true just because it makes you feel better is not 'thinking'.
This is what I'm talking about. Perhaps I wasn't clear. 'Paul's letters do not CLAIM to be the word of God, therefore I feel no compulsion to regard them as so.' THAT'S the 'THINKING' part, and I share that with you. 'I follow Christ as Lord and Savior. I believe certain people who CLAIM to have seen visions or prophecies regarding Jesus to have actually done so, and that they are true.' THAT's the 'FAITH' part, and I have no 'good' reason for it. You and I DO NOT share that aspect.
Can I be any clearer than that?
Because the red words are actual quotes from Jesus? I don't mean to be pedantic, but how can you put much weight in what the Gospels say Jesus said? The texts were written one or two generations after Jesus died by people who never met him.... If this is really true, then why the Christian god? Why not his Islamic alter ego or the Jewish version? Why not Taoism, Buddhism, Zen, or any of the other Asian philosophies?
Let's pretend that I'm not a Christian Software Consultant. Instead, let's say I'm a Physicist by day, Buddhist by night. I'm a professor at MIT and I've won the Nobel Prize, all that, you get it. I'm clearly 'rational' and 'scientific', by anyone's standard, no? Let's say I like to meditate. Let's say I do believe in reincarnation. Also, let's say I freely admit that I have a mystical side and that my belief in reincarnation has NO foundation in empirical data or proof. It's just... a belief.
Would you actually bother to point out to me that Siddhartha Gautama surely never even claimed to have been 'enlightened' in the first place, but it's more likely that some monks that came later made all that up? That he was just a 'smart dude' and 'had a lot of good ideas' but probably never thought he was going to reach Parinirvana... some monks just made all that up later to spread their phony religion?
If so, I hope you have more proof of THAT than you've shown me about what Christ is supposed to have said. It's one thing to say Siddhartha wasn't enlightened in any 'special' way... and how irrational it is to believe such a thing. BUT it's quite another to say 'there probably never really was a Siddhartha, and if there was, he probably never really said all these things.'
While I think this is mostly a pointless sidebar by now... what exactly do you believe this mark to mean?
Sidebar, yes. Pointless, well, I'm trying my best to stick to one. I have no idea what the 'mark of the beast' means. Really. John seems to be talking about universal (global) government regulation restricting commerce to members of a personality cult of some sort. My point was that the Apocalypse of John was merely interesting and not obvious nonsense because it's talks about things that had no historical precedent at the time, no contemporary analog, and were quite fantastical, and 2000 years later do not seem to be so far out of the realm of possibility. I mentioned several things, for example, a 200 million man army coming out of the East, which I think would have been insane to contemplate 2000 years ago, but certainly isn't now. I also mentioned the rise of Hitler (and implicitly the Holocaust), the results of which I think are unprecedented in history, yet clearly echo John's vision.
I think you have a point that with folks like Nero around, these things didn't seem that far out, but I still maintain that the specifics of the Revelation are outside the normal course of human history. I stand by that. You mentioned Nero as the target of the text, who was a real man, so I ask 'did this real man fit a real, literal interpretation'? And I think the answer is close, but not completely. Hitler didn't either.
Yes, I do happen to believe that John saw a vision that actually was inspired by God, but no matter how hard you try, I will never give you a good reason to believe in them, other than simple faith. I'm not trying to prove that the prophecies are, in fact, true, or even n% likely to occur. I'm certainly not asking 'OMG why do you believe!?! It's in the BIBLE!'.
But neither do they "clearly" refer to the current events of 90 AD or that they are "obviously" ridiculous claptrap that anyone with a mind can see through. I find quite the opposite.
Let's be clear. Yes, Nero was a great persecutor of the Christians. Titus was no friend of the Jews (what with the temple and all). But no Roman emperor I know of matches the full description of the 'the' Antichrist in John. According to John, 'The' Antichrist is on some sort of explicit, satanically inspired mission to destroy Jews and Christians both, in addition to other clear points, such as controlling the global economy (not just all of Europe and Gaul, the top of Africa and the Middle East), setting up a world cult with himself as Messiah, uniting the world's religions, and so forth. Before Hitler, in my opinion, this would seem like pure fantasy. After Hitler, and Mao, and Stalin, a rational personal should say, "wow, something like this could actually happen." Should you believe these are true prophecies? I've said nothing that would convince a normal, rational person of this. Should you stop dismissing Daniel and John so completely? Well, obviously I think so.
sizable segment of biblical historians who are convinced that this clearly refers to Nero... 666 neatly converts
It will be very hard for me to refute nameless 'historians' who are 'convinced' that something 'clearly refers' to something. Sorry. One of my points was that the 'Antichrist' of John (if taken literally) has attributes that are a superset of the historical Nero. For example, I know of nothing Nero did that would compare to "causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads." If the argument is: "this is not a prophecy proper... it refers to current events... fulfilled clearly by Nero... but let's not take it too literally..."
Then I can't follow that reasoning. But I understand that this is a common theory.
when research shows the Daniel was still being revised and rewritten within a generation or two of Jesus
We will have the same issue here. I do not do biblical research professionally (software consultant) but while I've seen both sides of the dating of Daniel, I am not personally convinced. Perhaps it's confirmation bias, perhaps not. This would take longer than it takes to post to slashdot to resolve. I would suggest that confirmation bias can operate both ways (skeptics and true believers alike), as I've been in many conversations where the debate gets shut down because some 'result' is 'well-known' by 'researchers' or something or another. Perhaps, but I have to make up my own mind in the matter... and there is no substitute for rolling up your sleeves and getting into it.
I've read a lot about Daniel (not everything obviously, probably not even most) and I'm not convinced about any date at this point. Most people (and this is correct) would apply Occam's razor at this point and say "well of course these prophecies were written after the fact." Which was my point.
However, if we can agree that Daniel stabilized a generation or two before Jesus... then there is the fact that Daniel speaks of the Jewish Messiah arriving in the early first century AD (dated from the end of the Babylonian exile) and being rejected and killed, the temple being destroyed "by the people of the ruler who will come" yet also speaks of the temple existing in the "last days." This is VERY interesting to me (and I do not consider myself a fool) because not only did Daniel 'predict' that the Jewish Messiah would be killed (which is shocking, in fact), he predicts the destruction of the second temple as well. The second temple didn't even exist in Daniel's time. If you go with the later date then this is not interesting, yet he still predicts the destruction of the second temple after the Messiah is killed (70 AD) and that is interesting. If the earlier date could be proven, then it's amazing. And Daniel also predicts the creation of a third temple (which we've not seen). While the temple business might have been a good guess (what temple stands forever?), and the Jesus thing a "self-fulfilling" prophecy, and the third temple perhaps a not so big deal either, you can hardly blame someone who, 2000 years later, notices that (even if it's a coincidence) when the Jews returned to that part of the world and created the modern state of Israel, suddenly some 'impossible' prophecies became 'likely' to come true. And if there ever is a third temple it would be built on the Dome of Rock, and that sounds like a big conflict waiting to happen, which is 'foretold' in other prophecies.
[star wars and the bible are] fairly entertaining epic stories set mostly outside the realm of reality
It's not hard to create a compelling narrative from these scriptures. Yes, just like 'Star Wars.' However, taking Daniel again, these temples DID exist, a Jewish 'Messiah' WAS killed, and these Jews (which certainly still exist) HAVE rebuilt their nation after 2000 years, the existence of which none of thes
But, shouldn't it matter that the author of The Apocalypse of John most assuredly was quite familiar with the earlier prophecies in Ezekiel and Isaiah?
Absolutely. My point (and it is a fine one) is not that there are really any convincing arguments (that is, proof-based) for most theological matters, including the existence of God or if this prophecy is true or whatnot. What you say here is spot on (and I thought of that when I wrote it) but I think the point here is simply that if John contradicts the other (related) prophecies then you would certainly have a logical problem. Not so much that it is proof of anything. The only test for a prophet is 'did it come true?' One view is that these are future events, so, there is no way to prove this one way or the other, as usual.
Again, ultimately, I don't think I have a single theological belief that isn't sourced by 'faith.' My point is that too many religious folk either won't accept this (and try to 'prove' things in some goofy way) or else completely turn off their intellects and start believing in 'Bible Codes' or something equally goofy. Neither is necessary.
I have a lot of Buddhist friends. I can't think of anything sillier than one of them trying to 'prove' to me that through meditating they will achieve nirvana in the next life, or me trying to 'prove' to them that God wants us to love one another.
It would have been no fantasy to the Jewish and Christian world that was ruled by the iron fist of Roman emperors like Nero.
True, true. There may be a slight difference in degree. The events of the Apocalypse are beyond Nero (but just barely) in many ways, and there are wild things like the infamous 'mark of the beast' that had no historic precedent at the time (and still do not). And yes, the "whole world" was smaller back then. I think I was referring to some of the more "outlandish" aspects that would NOT have been so believable... 200 million man armies, events that the "whole world" witness, fire from the sky, cosmic events that had never been actually observed or theorized about at the time, but are commonplace in astronomy texts now, so forth.
And crazy ideas like an earth-centered universe, a round earth, natural explanations for earthquakes and eclipses, and countless other things that religion historically claimed to answer (and sometimes violently so), but we now know better. Yet, I'm not sure how this lends any support to anything you've said.
Well, honestly, I read nothing in the Bible that says the Earth (or the sun) is the center of the universe, that Pi is 3.0000 or that God causes eclipses because he's angry. There is one (fairly isolated) story of the 'day standing still' and frankly, do I believe it? Not really. Could a 'God' do it? Absolutely. Did he? Beats me.
Again, I'm not really saying what you are saying I'm saying. I think.:) I'm not saying one should believe John because it is unlikely that he would have 'invented' some of these things that now we take as common place. That may be a good argument, though not one I'm making. Rather I'm saying, IF you already believe in God and in Jesus in particular, THEN John in many ways is consistent with the old testament, things Jesus has been reported to have said, and ALSO, there is a good chance that these are yet FUTURE events because, and so forth, etc, etc.
The idea is that it is a GOOD THING for believers to be as logical and rational as possible within the context of their 'pure' beliefs. I think a lot of people are just rolling their eyes right now; I'm just saying you can be intelligent, rational, and informed, yet still have faith.
However, I WILL say that in Daniel there are some prophecies that we could debate like this. I mean, you and I could actually debate the dating of the texts, the interpretations, and if, in fact, they came true or not. It still would
probability of the existence of a God in infinitesimal
No, I do not find. I think you need to re-read Dawkins. What he says in The God Delusion is a little more specific that what you've stated. Here is my best attempt at fixing your quote, feel free to correct me as well.
based on all known physical evidence and current scientific thinking, the hypothesis that an intelligent being (a deity) created, guided, shaped the universe, life, ect. has an infinitesimal chance of being true
And I, of course, completely agree with that, as you can infer from my post. Dawkins I think is clear on two things, one that there is a difference between some 'Einsteinian' God and a 'personal deity' and also that he ostensibly is speaking from a scientific point of view. If Dawkins is speaking as a metaphysical philosopher then shame on him. And I'm not saying that Dawkins leaves room for some unprovable, generic Einsteinian God, he doesn't, as the following quote shows:
If, by 'God', you mean love, nature, goodness, the universe, the laws of physics, the spirit of humanity, or Planck's constant, none of the above applies....As the distinguished American physicist Steven Weinberg said, "If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal."
-Dawkins
In my post I rule out completely the idea that you can have some empirical knowledge or even a deductive proof that God (either Einsteinian or personal) exists. You missed this.
My point was fairly simple, that logic and reason form an integral part of any theology (although the ultimate origins of any theology is admittedly non-empirical), and furthermore, too many strive very hard to ignore them and cast them out.
I had a second point (which you are responding to) that essentially stated that inductive reasoning CAN inform your theological ideas as well, and that in some way (though absolutely not anything like a deductive proof) you might even say you came to some theological conclusions via inductive logic. Dawkins and his scientific, empirical reason are completely out, by the way. No, they cannot prove the existence of a God, we said that already.
Here is an example.
First though, just to be clear, we are not calculating odds of God's existence based on what we know about quantum mechanics or the fossil record. Which, really, should have nothing to do with it. Quantum mechanics and the fossil record may tell you plenty about the Intelligent Design hypothesis (if you want to call it that) and a lot about specific interpretations of certain religious texts, but what in the world would we learn about the existence of some ultimate prime mover from these subjects? That entropy increases? That energy is conserved? What do these things say about God?
Example follows now. In mathematics and computability, we have certain, related paradoxes, the best example of which is "Russell's paradox". Also see Epimenides, the word 'heterological,' Kleene-Rosser, Incompleteness, ect. and so on. Also, a great place to read about how these things may be intertwined is Hofstadter.
These are all examples of "strange loops" which, for me, are empirical evidence that "no system can contain everything" or "there is no universe" (these are slight abuses of the math). Coupled with the "prime mover" problem, i.e., that we do not yet know the origins of the initial energy used in the creating of our universe. From here I can use this as a premise in a ontological argument for the existence of God, or at least for something greater than the universe that somehow exists outside of it yet in it at the same time, something we'll call 'God'. Not necessarily the God of the Bible, not even a personal God, but yet a God somehow "more transcendent" than Dawkin's Einsteinian non-God God. The odds of this kind of inductive argument being valid and true are non-zero and greater than lim x as x approaches zero from the right.
Has anyone else heard such a thing? Or is the local evangelical pastor mixing up his Mayan and Biblical eschatologies?
Possibly. Most people, particularly bible-thumpers, have a problem with rational thinking in general. I am a Christian and I believe in "prophecy" but I know the difference between my faith and my "provable knowledge," and more importantly I know the difference between what our faith really teaches and what the "conventional wisdom" might be.
In other words, and to answer your question, there are several ways to get to 2012 in Christian eschatology. Most of this stems from the "rebirth of Israel" in 1949 and some things Christ said about His return which puts us within a decade or so of some events that will supposedly take 7 years to complete, significant milestones midway, and depending on certain calculations involving the Passover, you can get there. There is no formal connection to the Maya, but I doubt anyone who believes this would listen to you. Once you've heard a pastor talk about how many letters are in the 'Reagan,' UPC barcodes, or that Obama is going to lead a Muslim revolution, you tune out. A Christian business owner I know of once even switched from Unix to Windows because he watched a consultant type 'chmod 666.'
As soon as a Christian begins listening to their local 'inspired' pastor, watching the Discovery/History channel, reading Bible Codes, the "Left Behind" series, and throwing out logic and reason and indulging in magical thinking in general, all hope is lost for them making any sense. I don't know about your inlaws, but the 2012 stuff seems to fall into this category for me.
There IS a "star" that falls in the Revelation to John. It does "poison the waters" and it is called "wormwood." I don't really know what all that means, but it is clear that it is NOT the "end of the world" and there is absolutely NO reason to assume that it will happen in our lifetimes, or in 2012 for that matter. People who say things like that have abandoned reason, which is (according to Wesley) one of the four key paths to working out your personal theology.
Which is NOT to say that believing these (or some of these) prophecies are true is necessarily irrational. If you KNOW you don't have scientific or empirical proof, YET you still believe that God exists and that he spoke to one of us through a dream/hallucination/vision 2000 years ago, AND you find it consistent with other prophecies (Ezekiel, Isaiah) and things that Christ is supposed to have said, that is perfectly sound reasoning. You may be completely wrong in the end, but there is no logical error here. There are risks with assigning probabilities without all the facts, but hey, that's induction. And being human.
When presented with a choice and there is no proof either way (such as 'is there a God') you can either ignore the question, or make your best, inductive guess. Either position is reasonable.
Contrary to popular opinion around here, religious or philosophical beliefs are not necessarily irrational in themselves. Most of my "religious" beliefs are clearly conclusions I've come to WITHOUT conclusive evidence or proof. Knowing - and acknowledging - this is key. Most inductive reasoning (not mathematical induction) is the same, and is not necessarily illogical or without value. Logic and reason are not orthogonal to faith in a creator, or even a savior. Bible codes, Intelligent Design, "bibliolatry", and the circular reasoning rampant in religion (and of all faiths) are all very much mutually exclusive to sound reason.
Personally, I find the Judeo-Christian prophetic tradition to be very interesting, and required reading if you want to understand the faith(s). The book of Daniel is amazing to me (though technically not a prophecy) and is so amazing the writing has been dated to much later than traditionally held because, in part... it "predicts" the future... and that's impossible.
"Con" means "confidence", and no one is really arguing that it means something else. I am suggesting that "cons" are a proper subset of "tricks" or "scams". If you want to treat them as synonyms, no one is stopping you. The actual con artists and authors on the subject use this word differently than you, does that count as etymology, or are you just going to look up the dictionary definition of "confidence?"
This
interview should give you the line of thought I'm following.
Q: What does it take to be a successful con man, besides good luck? Who is the most successful con man you've personally known?
A: I think I could write a book answering your question. But here's a short version. Luck rarely comes into a play with a con. Being a con man requires a thorough understanding of human nature and human greed. W. C. Fields's expression "You can't cheat an honest man" is at the core of any good con. And a con man must be willing to spend long hours (sometimes weeks or even months) to execute a successful con. Planning is everything. The most successful con man I've ever met must remain anonymous. He got out of the rackets and now runs a successful business.
If you are seriously interested, just read through these cons on wiki:
list of cons
My "argument" is that it is pointless to call everything deceptive or sneaky a "con." Waiting till you leave your house and breaking in to stealing your TV is not a "con." Fixing you up with an ugly girl so I can date her friend is not a "con". Cheating on a test is not a "con."
Do you call the lottery a "con?" Why or why not? Because the dictionary says so? Read through the most common "cons" and see if you see a pattern. My argument holds plenty of water.
Greed is the primary element in the "classic cons." I didn't make this up. What are you smoking?
etymology : The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible.
Well, to be honest, I have no idea how to handle a customer sending me a check for too much. I would probably just call them and figure something out.
:)
But I would want to do it "the right way" whatever that is...
By credit memo, I just mean we'll keep the money and credit the customer's receivable account. They'll owe us less. Again, I've never done this for a check that was too much, so maybe there is something I'm missing. It was just an example of a better bookkeeping option, but of course, it would only apply for trade credit.
Cash sales with checks (esp. checks that are too much) are tricky and I usually avoid them altogether. Credit cards much better. Yes, just walk away rather than do something flaky, I agree.
And I'm sorry, I was not implying that you were a fraudster, just annoyed with the "you don't know what you are talking about" comment, obviously.
I probably should have said "SEC" instead of "IRS" anyway, but you know what I mean.
I do tend to see most "altruistic" and "benevolent" behavior as ultimately self-serving (if not exactly greedy).
I would like to think that we have the capacity to do the "right thing," however. It may because you want to think of yourself as a "right person" (pride) or because you love order in the universe (a selfish aesthetic sense) or because of common sense (selfish desire for a functioning society).
I also would like to think children try to please their parents because they want to be loved (as opposed to merely fed and clothed). I would also like to think that some humans want to please their God (or their wives) in the same way.
Either way though, I think you "busted" me and yes, I am probably pessimistic when it comes to human nature and human altruism. But I still believe that it is hard to "con" someone who appeals to a higher ethic ("no such thing as a free lunch" or "honesty"), regardless of whatever selfish motive they have.
I do not, however, equate selfishness with greed. You may have selfish reasons for not being greedy, but what's wrong with that?
Thanks for the interesting comment... this has me thinking about the Nash equilibrium again...
Although english isn't my first language, I suspect that fraud is a legal term and that "con" is just another word for an elaborate trick.
YES. Feel free to believe that 'lie', 'fraud', 'cheat', 'trick' and 'confidence game' are all synonyms. If you want to pretend the girl in the station was running a "confidence game" on you, I guess I can try and talk you out of it, but it looks like it'll be tough to convince you. My point was simply that 'con' != 'lie'. Confidence games are a proper subset of lies, but not all lies are confidence games.
But this is getting pointless. I might as well try and suggest hacker != cracker next.
You don't know what you are talking about. Do you honestly believe that the IRS would mind if your customers pays you too much?
Well, yes, I kinda do know what I'm talking about.
Do you think the IRS would drag you to jail if I sent $1000 to your bank account for no reason?
Uh, yes. Well, no one said anything about jail, but if I give you $1000 dollars for "no reason" then it's considered a "gift" and if you call it "revenue" then you are a liar. If you book $500 COGS on that $1000, then either you made $500 dollars profit, and I received something in return, or you are a liar.
What you are describing is called "money laundering." We're not talking about accidental "overpayments," I said "knowingly" misstating journal records, i.e. inventing or deliberately misstating transactions in your books. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Running a business doesn't mean you are running it correctly, or that you understand accounting and book keeping, or can read very carefully.
I said if you "knowingly sell a $10 thing for $100 and then 'fix it later'" you are lying. I didn't say if you sold something that cost you $10 for $100 you were lying. For fuck's sake, that's just called profit. No, there's the "fix it later" part you forgot to read.
Some advice for you. If in your business, someone "overpays" with a check for, say, $10,000 on a $1000 sale... and wants you to simply send them a check for the difference... and they are in a rush... it has to happen right away... why don't you tell your customer to stop payment on the check, send a new one, and (if you've already deposited it) make a few adjusting transactions in your books? Or I suppose you could go ahead with the bullshit transaction and just say later that the con artist took advantage of your "honesty." Whatever works I guess.
Ever heard of a company that books revenue fraudulently? There was a whole bunch of that during the tech boom a few years ago and Enron was pulling that. Yeah, it's kinda wrong.
But I'm suggesting that there is a BIG difference between merely lying to someone and "gaining their confidence." I'm suggesting that wiki (and several people here on slashdot) are missing the whole point of confidence games if you call mere deception a "con."
I'm also suggesting that people are not taking a true inventory of their own "greed." Wiki gives something similar to the craiglist check scam as an example of how to cheat an "honest man." Well, I think wiki and the poster above an you too are wrong and you are forgetting that the desire to make the sale is what's driving this con... impatience, greed. A business keeping solid books would simply undo the transaction properly (even if it means you might lose the sale) and redo it... not "forward the difference before the check clears." I could NEVER run this scam on my corporate vendors. They would just laugh and say, "Uh, we don't d
Well, the distinction is only important if you actually care about the mechanics of a con. My point is that there is a difference (and it's a not-so-subtle one) between mere, crass dishonesty, a "scam," a "short con" and a confidence scheme proper.
I know that "con" is short for "confidence," thanks for that. And that's the point. If a guy comes up to me on the street and tells me a hard luck story and I give him $20, you can call it a "con job" if you want, I'll call it a lie and continue to reserve "con job" for when the trickster has truly brought me into his confidence. You really don't need all these different words, not the way you're using them.
I'll sleep ok no matter what word you use, by the way. My point is that if I ever give money to somebody because of a hard luck story (and it has happened) I'm not so naive to assume that he's not lying. There is no confidence here, just charity, freely given with no expectations and not a little bit of suspicion. Same goes for giving to the Red Cross. I know that the Red Cross uses an inordinate amount of resources doing fundraising; I'd prefer my donation only go to helping others, not for raising more money. But if I give anyway, let's not call it a "con job". A "scam," maybe, or perhaps just reality.
open source
Well, that's interesting. I can only assume that you signed over your copyrights on somebody's word that the final product was going to be released under the GPL or similar. Is this a con? Maybe. If you were honestly altruistic then why not release your code into the public domain without any credit? Oh, you wanted some credit? You want some control over the final product (GPL)? Yet you didn't do your own open source project, you decided to join this one. Why? If you can't see that you are not 100% disinterested in this (and the would-be consters were playing you) then I'm not sure I can convince you of that.
Besides, if the code-base was already GPL then no con of this sort if possible. So you would have had to do the work and sign over the copyrights all without seeing anything ever GPL'd? Why on earth would you do that?
I would like a term that I can apply for a deceptive act, where I loose something, yet thought I was getting something, moreover I thought I was getting more than I thought I deserved. The pigeon drop, the Spanish prisoner, get rich quick schemes, advance fee schemes, so forth and etc are NOT the same thing as not disclosing mold in your walls before you sell your house, paying with wooden nickles, melon drops, or change raising at a fast food restaurant. For these disparate things, we have different terms: scam, lie, cheat, short con, counterfeiting, so on. Three Card Monte or the shell game is not a con... just a scam. Vegas is a scam, not a con. Lotteries are scams, not cons. Three Card Monte BECOMES a scam when a shill is involved... making the intrepid gambler (who was about to be scammed anyway from the dishonest game) actually play or bet more by thinking the game is easy, therefore his greed kicks in.
Is this all so hard to understand?
I'm not saying to not trust people. Or telling you how to sleep better at night. I'm simply jumping in on these comments because
We have all kinds of terms for these things, let's use them (correctly)
The "con" (and the subject of the article) only works if the mark is "greedy" - if it doesn't it's not a con
Feel free to disagree, but understand what I'm saying (and not saying) first.
If you follow the philosophy of "there's no such thing as a free lunch" then you will never be "conned." If you are an "honest man" you will never be "conned." You may still be lied to, you may still buy a bad automobile, you may even give some money to a bad charity, but you won't be "conned" if you understand what that actually means.
If you want to continue to trust people, and yet you still don't want to be lied to, you'll have to be like Ronald Reagan and "Trust But Verify."
I think his point was that a "confidence trick" involves gaining the mark's (or taking the mark into) the confidence of the trickster, as opposed to merely getting the mark to feel "confident" that the trickster is not lying.
If you watch the linked video, you'll see the guy explaining about "inner circles" and "outer circles" and the con relies upon the mark thinking he's in the inner circle. Using the term "confidence trick" to describe a car salesmen who sells you a lemon renders the term meaningless. That kind of thinking eventually waters down our language to the point where every word is a synonym for "good" or "bad."
Cons are cons. Frauds are frauds. Lies are lies.
If your friend says, "hey man can I borrow $20 I'll pay you back later" and never does... well, you can call that a "con" if you want. I don't.
I don't think the "Christian Children's Fund" or "UNICEF" or the "Red Cross" are exactly what we mean when we use the word "confidence scheme."
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, you got me. I stand corrected.
Sorry, just to clarify
PC industry == kind of open
I can't honestly say that things are where I'd like them... we still have patent issues and even the EISA bus had to be licensed... chips are very closed usually... so we are a far cry away from a truly "Open PC".
I'm not suggesting that these companies do anything for any other reason than profit. And I'm not saying that Apple stuff isn't better than PC stuff.
But Apple still stands out as a poster child for proprietary hardware and software, even over M$ and IBM, which is an accomplishment.
Well, you are not "straight" yet. The poster said that in 1986 "most home computers probably still had built in chips" and that talked about "IBM clones that only did text." I corrected him about that (by 1987 you had the Mac II and VGA)
Yes, Macs were closed systems. Are you disputing this? That's nuts. Microchannel? Really? I get that you might be one of these rabid Apple fanbois I've heard about, but that doesn't make me an IBM apologist. What does MCA have to do with this discussion? Ease up. I've owned an Apple II, TI 99/4a, Trash 80, PCs, Mac, a VAX in the basement at one point, and even a Mac Mini... computers are computers, and corporations do what corporations do...
It is true that IBM never intended the PC to be "open" - that was an accident. The MCA was an attempt to go back. At first the VGA may have been MCA-only (way to miss the point) but CGA and EGA were very popular open standards and the VGA standard became the most popular of all. The ISA bus was a mistake as far as IBM was concerned. But by this point in time, the "industry" (the "I" in ISA and EISA) had gotten together to clone all the BIOS and create open standards. Apple did not (and doesn't) have open standards, and I remember leaning towards PCs because of that. Everybody knows this, and many people feel like this hurt Apple in the late 80s and 90s, regardless of their "superior video cards". Some people (me) think that while Apple may have done some very cool things lately, this very old (and common) attitude ("it's just like 1986 again") will hurt them, and even if it doesn't hurt Apple it will hurt consumers and the industry. And so far, we've only been talking about hardware. Don't even get me started on software development.
Oh, and the point?
Open >> Closed
Apple==closed
PC industry==open
PC industry != Microsoft or IBM
Facts, facts, and more facts.
Thanks
Hmm, not sure what you are getting at... the mac II came out in 1987 without on-board video and was a very closed platform (remember those expensive Radius cards?)... at the same time the VGA standard came out. If you were there, his description of the market (and Apple's strategy) back then sounds about right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vga
Chance you "randomly" pick a "5" -> 1/1000
Chance you randomly roll a "5" -> 1/1000
Chance of both events happening together -> 1/1000 * 1/1000
Otherwise correct I guess. I'm not buying any of these calculations, however. 1 in a 1000 chance to observe a certain kind of planet? What does that even mean?
In this way, all "faults" are hardware faults. Now some "faults" - such as the "Double Fault" - can cause the OS to hang... windows for example will blue screen on a double fault. What is the "cause" of the Double Fault? Well, it's either a software error (kernel bug) or something physically wrong with the machine, such as bad memory. But I think by "fault" you mean something like the "blue screen of death." So are you saying "most blue screens are caused by physical hardware problems" or that "most blue screens are caused by microprocessor faults"? Because "most faults are hardware faults" is at best trivially true, at worst flat-out wrong because ALL faults are hardware faults by definition, i.e. being exceptions, raised by the microprocessor. I would suggest something like "while most kernel failures are caused by hardware faults (by definition), and a correct kernel could theoretically prevent 100% of failures caused by kernel bugs, there will always be kernel failures due to hardware issues that you cannot prevent with formal review." But I guess that's so obvious nobody would bother posting that. On the other hand, nobody will call "bullshit" either.
Find the invisible man and you'll have a power set...
Again, no proof - just hope. I can't say it enough... if you want proof, or a sign, there is none.
-Me
This isn't an argument you've made, so I'm still at a loss for how you get there rationally.
-You
You don't see the problem here? I can't help you see something I'm not suggesting. You can't get there rationally. Reason can inform your personal theology (you can call it a 'bastardization' if you need to) but I would never suggest that you can get there through any mechanism other than the philosophical equivalent of jumping off a cliff. You sensed at first that I am - somehow - more rational than others perhaps, but in your desire to 'tease' some Spinoza-like proof from me you miss my point completely.
Actually, it would not. Occam's razor does not call for the simplest and most obvious answer - it seeks to eliminate elements that are immaterial to the discussion.
Lex parsimoniae. You would have it 'more likely' that there are whole swaths of missing quotations of Jesus (or perhaps they never even existed) and that legions of followers instead choose to invent and/or believe his Messiah message a generation or two after the fact. This, in spite of little (or zero) empirical evidence to the contrary (e.g. fragments of Mark where Jesus said, 'But hey, I'm not God or anything!', you know... something we could actually discuss). I posit that, if you don't believe any of this already (via irrational faith in something), considering the popularity of the Messiah concept at the time, and the subsequent popularity of the idea later on, a far more 'frugal' explanation with fewer 'entities' involved in the causation would be that Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, and he merely lied about it. I have no idea why you want to correct me here about Occam's razor, either in it's actual form, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or in its vulgar form.
But that's the not the point.
The unreasonable part of that assumption is to believe that what we have today is an accurate representation of his words and teachings (for countless reasons that I've pointed out throughout this thread).
Which is the point. In spite of your countless reasons, I say that this, for you, is some kind of a priori analytic knowledge or something. If I wasn't feeling generous I'd simply call it petitio principii. I'm confident that I will not convince you of that. On the other hand, I merely suggest that you could make a solid, inductive argument that "there probably was a man Jesus and he more than likely said the things recorded in these so-called synoptic Gospels." The ultimate truth of such an argument would be debatable, of course. Yet you say it is "unreasonable."
Let's call it then. Impasse.
Now you're either not paying attention or starting to take my questions and comments more personally.
If you say so. I find my very reasonable opinion has been repeatedly tossed into the ring of Christian apologetics, with no small amount of "straw man" tactics at that. My paraphrasing is my honest view of your argument. Maybe I'm not paying attention after all... after rereading your post, this caught my attention.
I am intrigued by some of the philosophy of Buddhism and Taoism, but I find just as ridicules the trappings of the various formal religions erected around them.
I am very sorry I didn't catch that. I could have made my point so much clearer if I had simply said
I am intrigued by some of the prophecies of Christianity, but I find just as ridicules the trappings of the various formal religions erected around them
Apparently, that's a reasonable and logical position after all. That is, unless there is something logical and rational about reincarnation, karma, or Samara that I'm not aware of, and something equally irrational about prophecy (which we are all well aware of). And this was, after all, all that I was originally saying. Do you think rebirth is 'logically' more intriguing than say, the Book of Revelation?
As to your insinuation that Christianity couldn't be a cult or scam simply because of how quickly and significantly it grew
Never. I said it was a fantasy to suggest that a scam - involving a non-existent Jesus or a Jesus that never claimed to be more than a rabbi - could have taken over Israel and later the whole Roman empire, particularity in the face of such persecution. Not impossible, unlikely to the extreme, which is still just an opinion. It's as likely as having the current growth of Scientology yet with L Ron Hubbard in actual fact being a Christian TV preacher, and everyone being tricked into thinking he wrote things OT III when he really didn't, I suppose. I can give you that. And that seems like exactly what you are suggesting to be the case with Jesus. Do people actually believe this idea?
Perhaps you are still just confused about my position. Again, I'm not saying (in this argument) that Christianity is any more true than say, Scientology, Islam or Buddhism. I'm attacking your contention that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. This is absolutely fantastic to me.
Not merely no but obviously no?
And if I'm not mistaken here, you are actually maintaining that it is irrational to believe that Jesus said he was the Messiah? Not merely the idea that he was, but also the idea that he said he was. Yet you find the teachings of Buddha intriguing. You can't actually be saying this... help me out here.
So I'm not taking it personally, but if I understand this correctly I cannot follow it. What went before that allows you to admit this premise into the argument? And a few of your other arguments in other places that I can follow seem circular to me (as mind do to you), for example, I say that I think the synoptic Gospels are better sources of fact (not the word of God) than say, John or Mary, because they seem to the 'majority opinion' of what is extant. This - I thought - was what historians and courtrooms have relied upon for years and years. You've said
Should we be surprised that the Bible assembled by early church leaders selected texts that basically
I am aware that some of my comments may not be 100% relevant to you; your view is somewhat unique... but you are ignoring what I told you about my journey... Of course, my research methods are separate from how I discuss the issue
Fair enough, but I'm having a hard time because I can't fight these other battles. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I'm getting a distinct message from your posts. Your position seems to be something like:
Christianity and the Bible, taken together as a whole, seamless concept, a package so to speak, is obviously problematic to the point of absurdity. Internal contradictions, a general lack of self-consistency, 'clear' myths such as deluges and rainbows and arks, and then there is the that you can never really know that any of these people even said any of these things in the first place. If you don't take it together as a whole, then why are you taking any of it? And how can you call that 'Christianity' anyway?
Or something like that.
It seems to me that you've now made you mind up about a lot of this, and no, you're not discussing how you got there very much.
I do not believe that a man named Adam and a woman named Eve were the first humans, created and placed in a near-perfect garden. I do not believe that there was a man named Noah...
I mean, Noah? Where did that come from? I have to believe in Noah if I believe in Christ? I understand that 'most' Christians think this way... but this is slashdot... I thought we made fun of what 'most' people think about 'most things anyway. Now I find that my words are getting mixed up with every crazy thing you've heard any Christian say... and your arguments continue to be mixed up with retorts to arguments I never made...
As I think I've said about Jesus, he likely did exist and probably was a Jewish teacher who focused on the outcasts of Jewish society. However, I find no reason to believe that he was the fleshy incarnation of the all powerful creator or even claimed as much himself.
This is something I can address, and have been trying.
Why one and not the other? You believe he existed. I presume you believe he said things like 'blessed are the poor', correct? But NOT things like 'destroy this temple and I'll raise it up again in three days'? Or 'I am the way and the life' or 'I have come to fulfill the law' or any of the gazillion other quotes that clearly show he said that he was much more than a teacher? Why? I know you said you haven't been sharing your 'research methods' with me, perhaps now is the time to do so.
I mentioned Caesar because 'we' believe a lot of things about him too, and I don't think the historical evidence for these ideas is really all that different than for our ideas about Christ. That might be hard to accept, but that is how I see it. You say Jesus existed, not everyone does. I find it harder to believe that a small personality cult - effectively a scam perpetuated by a fisherman and tax collector - could take over the whole empire in one or two generations. That really seems like fantasy.
Did Caesar think he was a God? Descended from Venus? Caesar's actions shaped (at least) 500 years of Roman life. I absolutely think Caesar thought he was a God. I do not think he was a God. I absolutely do think Jesus said he was the 'Son of God'. I believe this to be true, as well, as you know. But let's continue to focus on the question of if Jesus said these things or not. If I, for some reason, maintained that Venus was real and that Caesar was a descendant of Venus, you would just call me nuts, not go so far out of your way to show me that he never even thought that. I'm not offended, but it's one thing to say 'You believe a myth' and 'You believe a lie.' You need more evidence to support the latter allegation. Do you have i
No, I'm totally for LOGO. If you use something modern like "microworlds" (see link below) then you get some OOP and audio/visual feedback as well. Think Lisp with 2D sprites and other cool stuff. My nephew was writing Lisp routines for his 2D scroller at 10 years old. Now he designs Quake levels. I'm trying to get him to push right on to C, C++ or (maybe) Java. Maybe I'll try Quake C. I want him into pointers and recursion as soon as possible. :)
It's all about graphics and games with the 'kids today', unfortunately. I had to content myself with writing a cheesy database (OPEN FOR INPUT) and sad 'games' (CALL CHAR) on my TI/994A.
One nice thing about microworlds (hate to plug something that costs $150) but it also interfaces with the LEGO NXT robot thing. You can definately engage a kid with writing LOGO for a LEGO turtle.
There are, of course, plenty of FOSS versions that do the same thing, or work with the cricket.
http://www.microworlds.com/solutions/mwex.html
http://www.microworlds.com/solutions/mwexrobotics.html
Titus -> Tiberius
oops
Putting the sidebar in another post.
I grew up in a Baptist church in a religious family... I could either stop and close my mind... or... challenge my bigger core beliefs. ...extremely vague stories that sound more like Nostradamus. Of course, I'm not going into it looking for confirmation of what I already know to be true
And, here we see a big danger in these prophesies.... there are Christian sects today actively promoting this conflict in the Middle East...
Just as the writers of the Jewish texts were mining all sorts of local myths... just because you... believe this particular set of stories doesn't make them special.
But how can you judge objectively? You don't know who wrote any of the texts or whether they even knew Jesus (almost assuredly they didn't) personally.
(Taking these together.)
I certainly take no offense at anything you've said; you've been very polite and your arguments are clear. However, and no offense meant from my side either, but you seem very well prepared for a fight that I'm not picking. I don't have your background... so excuse me if I do not factor the 'dangers' of Christian prophecy (historical texts you mean?) when I read them and find application (if any) for my life. It sounds very much to me like you are 'going into it looking for confirmation of what I already know to be' FALSE.
Yes, I call it 'thinking.'
With all due respect, accepting something as true that you know unlikely to be true just because it makes you feel better is not 'thinking'.
This is what I'm talking about. Perhaps I wasn't clear. 'Paul's letters do not CLAIM to be the word of God, therefore I feel no compulsion to regard them as so.' THAT'S the 'THINKING' part, and I share that with you. 'I follow Christ as Lord and Savior. I believe certain people who CLAIM to have seen visions or prophecies regarding Jesus to have actually done so, and that they are true.' THAT's the 'FAITH' part, and I have no 'good' reason for it. You and I DO NOT share that aspect.
Can I be any clearer than that?
Because the red words are actual quotes from Jesus? I don't mean to be pedantic, but how can you put much weight in what the Gospels say Jesus said? The texts were written one or two generations after Jesus died by people who never met him.... If this is really true, then why the Christian god? Why not his Islamic alter ego or the Jewish version? Why not Taoism, Buddhism, Zen, or any of the other Asian philosophies?
Let's pretend that I'm not a Christian Software Consultant. Instead, let's say I'm a Physicist by day, Buddhist by night. I'm a professor at MIT and I've won the Nobel Prize, all that, you get it. I'm clearly 'rational' and 'scientific', by anyone's standard, no? Let's say I like to meditate. Let's say I do believe in reincarnation. Also, let's say I freely admit that I have a mystical side and that my belief in reincarnation has NO foundation in empirical data or proof. It's just... a belief.
Would you actually bother to point out to me that Siddhartha Gautama surely never even claimed to have been 'enlightened' in the first place, but it's more likely that some monks that came later made all that up? That he was just a 'smart dude' and 'had a lot of good ideas' but probably never thought he was going to reach Parinirvana... some monks just made all that up later to spread their phony religion?
If so, I hope you have more proof of THAT than you've shown me about what Christ is supposed to have said. It's one thing to say Siddhartha wasn't enlightened in any 'special' way... and how irrational it is to believe such a thing. BUT it's quite another to say 'there probably never really was a Siddhartha, and if there was, he probably never really said all these things.'
I mean, do yo
While I think this is mostly a pointless sidebar by now... what exactly do you believe this mark to mean?
Sidebar, yes. Pointless, well, I'm trying my best to stick to one. I have no idea what the 'mark of the beast' means. Really. John seems to be talking about universal (global) government regulation restricting commerce to members of a personality cult of some sort. My point was that the Apocalypse of John was merely interesting and not obvious nonsense because it's talks about things that had no historical precedent at the time, no contemporary analog, and were quite fantastical, and 2000 years later do not seem to be so far out of the realm of possibility. I mentioned several things, for example, a 200 million man army coming out of the East, which I think would have been insane to contemplate 2000 years ago, but certainly isn't now. I also mentioned the rise of Hitler (and implicitly the Holocaust), the results of which I think are unprecedented in history, yet clearly echo John's vision.
I think you have a point that with folks like Nero around, these things didn't seem that far out, but I still maintain that the specifics of the Revelation are outside the normal course of human history. I stand by that. You mentioned Nero as the target of the text, who was a real man, so I ask 'did this real man fit a real, literal interpretation'? And I think the answer is close, but not completely. Hitler didn't either.
Yes, I do happen to believe that John saw a vision that actually was inspired by God, but no matter how hard you try, I will never give you a good reason to believe in them, other than simple faith. I'm not trying to prove that the prophecies are, in fact, true, or even n% likely to occur. I'm certainly not asking 'OMG why do you believe!?! It's in the BIBLE!'.
But neither do they "clearly" refer to the current events of 90 AD or that they are "obviously" ridiculous claptrap that anyone with a mind can see through. I find quite the opposite.
Let's be clear. Yes, Nero was a great persecutor of the Christians. Titus was no friend of the Jews (what with the temple and all). But no Roman emperor I know of matches the full description of the 'the' Antichrist in John. According to John, 'The' Antichrist is on some sort of explicit, satanically inspired mission to destroy Jews and Christians both, in addition to other clear points, such as controlling the global economy (not just all of Europe and Gaul, the top of Africa and the Middle East), setting up a world cult with himself as Messiah, uniting the world's religions, and so forth. Before Hitler, in my opinion, this would seem like pure fantasy. After Hitler, and Mao, and Stalin, a rational personal should say, "wow, something like this could actually happen." Should you believe these are true prophecies? I've said nothing that would convince a normal, rational person of this. Should you stop dismissing Daniel and John so completely? Well, obviously I think so.
sizable segment of biblical historians who are convinced that this clearly refers to Nero ... 666 neatly converts
It will be very hard for me to refute nameless 'historians' who are 'convinced' that something 'clearly refers' to something. Sorry. One of my points was that the 'Antichrist' of John (if taken literally) has attributes that are a superset of the historical Nero. For example, I know of nothing Nero did that would compare to "causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads." If the argument is: "this is not a prophecy proper... it refers to current events... fulfilled clearly by Nero... but let's not take it too literally..."
Then I can't follow that reasoning. But I understand that this is a common theory.
when research shows the Daniel was still being revised and rewritten within a generation or two of Jesus
We will have the same issue here. I do not do biblical research professionally (software consultant) but while I've seen both sides of the dating of Daniel, I am not personally convinced. Perhaps it's confirmation bias, perhaps not. This would take longer than it takes to post to slashdot to resolve. I would suggest that confirmation bias can operate both ways (skeptics and true believers alike), as I've been in many conversations where the debate gets shut down because some 'result' is 'well-known' by 'researchers' or something or another. Perhaps, but I have to make up my own mind in the matter... and there is no substitute for rolling up your sleeves and getting into it.
I've read a lot about Daniel (not everything obviously, probably not even most) and I'm not convinced about any date at this point. Most people (and this is correct) would apply Occam's razor at this point and say "well of course these prophecies were written after the fact." Which was my point.
However, if we can agree that Daniel stabilized a generation or two before Jesus... then there is the fact that Daniel speaks of the Jewish Messiah arriving in the early first century AD (dated from the end of the Babylonian exile) and being rejected and killed, the temple being destroyed "by the people of the ruler who will come" yet also speaks of the temple existing in the "last days." This is VERY interesting to me (and I do not consider myself a fool) because not only did Daniel 'predict' that the Jewish Messiah would be killed (which is shocking, in fact), he predicts the destruction of the second temple as well. The second temple didn't even exist in Daniel's time. If you go with the later date then this is not interesting, yet he still predicts the destruction of the second temple after the Messiah is killed (70 AD) and that is interesting. If the earlier date could be proven, then it's amazing. And Daniel also predicts the creation of a third temple (which we've not seen). While the temple business might have been a good guess (what temple stands forever?), and the Jesus thing a "self-fulfilling" prophecy, and the third temple perhaps a not so big deal either, you can hardly blame someone who, 2000 years later, notices that (even if it's a coincidence) when the Jews returned to that part of the world and created the modern state of Israel, suddenly some 'impossible' prophecies became 'likely' to come true. And if there ever is a third temple it would be built on the Dome of Rock, and that sounds like a big conflict waiting to happen, which is 'foretold' in other prophecies.
[star wars and the bible are] fairly entertaining epic stories set mostly outside the realm of reality
It's not hard to create a compelling narrative from these scriptures. Yes, just like 'Star Wars.' However, taking Daniel again, these temples DID exist, a Jewish 'Messiah' WAS killed, and these Jews (which certainly still exist) HAVE rebuilt their nation after 2000 years, the existence of which none of thes
But, shouldn't it matter that the author of The Apocalypse of John most assuredly was quite familiar with the earlier prophecies in Ezekiel and Isaiah?
Absolutely. My point (and it is a fine one) is not that there are really any convincing arguments (that is, proof-based) for most theological matters, including the existence of God or if this prophecy is true or whatnot. What you say here is spot on (and I thought of that when I wrote it) but I think the point here is simply that if John contradicts the other (related) prophecies then you would certainly have a logical problem. Not so much that it is proof of anything. The only test for a prophet is 'did it come true?' One view is that these are future events, so, there is no way to prove this one way or the other, as usual.
Again, ultimately, I don't think I have a single theological belief that isn't sourced by 'faith.' My point is that too many religious folk either won't accept this (and try to 'prove' things in some goofy way) or else completely turn off their intellects and start believing in 'Bible Codes' or something equally goofy. Neither is necessary.
I have a lot of Buddhist friends. I can't think of anything sillier than one of them trying to 'prove' to me that through meditating they will achieve nirvana in the next life, or me trying to 'prove' to them that God wants us to love one another.
It would have been no fantasy to the Jewish and Christian world that was ruled by the iron fist of Roman emperors like Nero.
True, true. There may be a slight difference in degree. The events of the Apocalypse are beyond Nero (but just barely) in many ways, and there are wild things like the infamous 'mark of the beast' that had no historic precedent at the time (and still do not). And yes, the "whole world" was smaller back then. I think I was referring to some of the more "outlandish" aspects that would NOT have been so believable... 200 million man armies, events that the "whole world" witness, fire from the sky, cosmic events that had never been actually observed or theorized about at the time, but are commonplace in astronomy texts now, so forth.
And crazy ideas like an earth-centered universe, a round earth, natural explanations for earthquakes and eclipses, and countless other things that religion historically claimed to answer (and sometimes violently so), but we now know better. Yet, I'm not sure how this lends any support to anything you've said.
Well, honestly, I read nothing in the Bible that says the Earth (or the sun) is the center of the universe, that Pi is 3.0000 or that God causes eclipses because he's angry. There is one (fairly isolated) story of the 'day standing still' and frankly, do I believe it? Not really. Could a 'God' do it? Absolutely. Did he? Beats me.
Again, I'm not really saying what you are saying I'm saying. I think. :) I'm not saying one should believe John because it is unlikely that he would have 'invented' some of these things that now we take as common place. That may be a good argument, though not one I'm making. Rather I'm saying, IF you already believe in God and in Jesus in particular, THEN John in many ways is consistent with the old testament, things Jesus has been reported to have said, and ALSO, there is a good chance that these are yet FUTURE events because, and so forth, etc, etc.
The idea is that it is a GOOD THING for believers to be as logical and rational as possible within the context of their 'pure' beliefs. I think a lot of people are just rolling their eyes right now; I'm just saying you can be intelligent, rational, and informed, yet still have faith.
However, I WILL say that in Daniel there are some prophecies that we could debate like this. I mean, you and I could actually debate the dating of the texts, the interpretations, and if, in fact, they came true or not. It still would
probability of the existence of a God in infinitesimal
No, I do not find. I think you need to re-read Dawkins. What he says in The God Delusion is a little more specific that what you've stated. Here is my best attempt at fixing your quote, feel free to correct me as well.
based on all known physical evidence and current scientific thinking, the hypothesis that an intelligent being (a deity) created, guided, shaped the universe, life, ect. has an infinitesimal chance of being true
And I, of course, completely agree with that, as you can infer from my post. Dawkins I think is clear on two things, one that there is a difference between some 'Einsteinian' God and a 'personal deity' and also that he ostensibly is speaking from a scientific point of view. If Dawkins is speaking as a metaphysical philosopher then shame on him. And I'm not saying that Dawkins leaves room for some unprovable, generic Einsteinian God, he doesn't, as the following quote shows:
If, by 'God', you mean love, nature, goodness, the universe, the laws of physics, the spirit of humanity, or Planck's constant, none of the above applies....As the distinguished American physicist Steven Weinberg said, "If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal."
-Dawkins
In my post I rule out completely the idea that you can have some empirical knowledge or even a deductive proof that God (either Einsteinian or personal) exists. You missed this. My point was fairly simple, that logic and reason form an integral part of any theology (although the ultimate origins of any theology is admittedly non-empirical), and furthermore, too many strive very hard to ignore them and cast them out. I had a second point (which you are responding to) that essentially stated that inductive reasoning CAN inform your theological ideas as well, and that in some way (though absolutely not anything like a deductive proof) you might even say you came to some theological conclusions via inductive logic. Dawkins and his scientific, empirical reason are completely out, by the way. No, they cannot prove the existence of a God, we said that already.
Here is an example.
First though, just to be clear, we are not calculating odds of God's existence based on what we know about quantum mechanics or the fossil record. Which, really, should have nothing to do with it. Quantum mechanics and the fossil record may tell you plenty about the Intelligent Design hypothesis (if you want to call it that) and a lot about specific interpretations of certain religious texts, but what in the world would we learn about the existence of some ultimate prime mover from these subjects? That entropy increases? That energy is conserved? What do these things say about God?
Example follows now. In mathematics and computability, we have certain, related paradoxes, the best example of which is "Russell's paradox". Also see Epimenides, the word 'heterological,' Kleene-Rosser, Incompleteness, ect. and so on. Also, a great place to read about how these things may be intertwined is Hofstadter.
These are all examples of "strange loops" which, for me, are empirical evidence that "no system can contain everything" or "there is no universe" (these are slight abuses of the math). Coupled with the "prime mover" problem, i.e., that we do not yet know the origins of the initial energy used in the creating of our universe. From here I can use this as a premise in a ontological argument for the existence of God, or at least for something greater than the universe that somehow exists outside of it yet in it at the same time, something we'll call 'God'. Not necessarily the God of the Bible, not even a personal God, but yet a God somehow "more transcendent" than Dawkin's Einsteinian non-God God. The odds of this kind of inductive argument being valid and true are non-zero and greater than lim x as x approaches zero from the right.
Yes, exactly, thank you.
Has anyone else heard such a thing? Or is the local evangelical pastor mixing up his Mayan and Biblical eschatologies?
Possibly. Most people, particularly bible-thumpers, have a problem with rational thinking in general. I am a Christian and I believe in "prophecy" but I know the difference between my faith and my "provable knowledge," and more importantly I know the difference between what our faith really teaches and what the "conventional wisdom" might be.
In other words, and to answer your question, there are several ways to get to 2012 in Christian eschatology. Most of this stems from the "rebirth of Israel" in 1949 and some things Christ said about His return which puts us within a decade or so of some events that will supposedly take 7 years to complete, significant milestones midway, and depending on certain calculations involving the Passover, you can get there. There is no formal connection to the Maya, but I doubt anyone who believes this would listen to you. Once you've heard a pastor talk about how many letters are in the 'Reagan,' UPC barcodes, or that Obama is going to lead a Muslim revolution, you tune out. A Christian business owner I know of once even switched from Unix to Windows because he watched a consultant type 'chmod 666.'
As soon as a Christian begins listening to their local 'inspired' pastor, watching the Discovery/History channel, reading Bible Codes, the "Left Behind" series, and throwing out logic and reason and indulging in magical thinking in general, all hope is lost for them making any sense. I don't know about your inlaws, but the 2012 stuff seems to fall into this category for me.
There IS a "star" that falls in the Revelation to John. It does "poison the waters" and it is called "wormwood." I don't really know what all that means, but it is clear that it is NOT the "end of the world" and there is absolutely NO reason to assume that it will happen in our lifetimes, or in 2012 for that matter. People who say things like that have abandoned reason, which is (according to Wesley) one of the four key paths to working out your personal theology.
Which is NOT to say that believing these (or some of these) prophecies are true is necessarily irrational. If you KNOW you don't have scientific or empirical proof, YET you still believe that God exists and that he spoke to one of us through a dream/hallucination/vision 2000 years ago, AND you find it consistent with other prophecies (Ezekiel, Isaiah) and things that Christ is supposed to have said, that is perfectly sound reasoning. You may be completely wrong in the end, but there is no logical error here. There are risks with assigning probabilities without all the facts, but hey, that's induction. And being human.
When presented with a choice and there is no proof either way (such as 'is there a God') you can either ignore the question, or make your best, inductive guess. Either position is reasonable.
Contrary to popular opinion around here, religious or philosophical beliefs are not necessarily irrational in themselves. Most of my "religious" beliefs are clearly conclusions I've come to WITHOUT conclusive evidence or proof. Knowing - and acknowledging - this is key. Most inductive reasoning (not mathematical induction) is the same, and is not necessarily illogical or without value. Logic and reason are not orthogonal to faith in a creator, or even a savior. Bible codes, Intelligent Design, "bibliolatry", and the circular reasoning rampant in religion (and of all faiths) are all very much mutually exclusive to sound reason.
Personally, I find the Judeo-Christian prophetic tradition to be very interesting, and required reading if you want to understand the faith(s). The book of Daniel is amazing to me (though technically not a prophecy) and is so amazing the writing has been dated to much later than traditionally held because, in part... it "predicts" the future... and that's impossible.
Let the reader decide.
Prophecy doesn't "predict"
Etymology? That's what we're talking about!
Herman Melville is probably the most responsible to popularizing this term. So what?
Read books about cons. Watch movies about cons. Study where this word started and how it has evolved as part of the language and culture.
William Thompson Melville
"Con" means "confidence", and no one is really arguing that it means something else. I am suggesting that "cons" are a proper subset of "tricks" or "scams". If you want to treat them as synonyms, no one is stopping you. The actual con artists and authors on the subject use this word differently than you, does that count as etymology, or are you just going to look up the dictionary definition of "confidence?"
This interview should give you the line of thought I'm following.
Q: What does it take to be a successful con man, besides good luck? Who is the most successful con man you've personally known?
A: I think I could write a book answering your question. But here's a short version. Luck rarely comes into a play with a con. Being a con man requires a thorough understanding of human nature and human greed. W. C. Fields's expression "You can't cheat an honest man" is at the core of any good con. And a con man must be willing to spend long hours (sometimes weeks or even months) to execute a successful con. Planning is everything. The most successful con man I've ever met must remain anonymous. He got out of the rackets and now runs a successful business.
If you are seriously interested, just read through these cons on wiki: list of cons
My "argument" is that it is pointless to call everything deceptive or sneaky a "con." Waiting till you leave your house and breaking in to stealing your TV is not a "con." Fixing you up with an ugly girl so I can date her friend is not a "con". Cheating on a test is not a "con."
Do you call the lottery a "con?" Why or why not? Because the dictionary says so? Read through the most common "cons" and see if you see a pattern. My argument holds plenty of water.
Greed is the primary element in the "classic cons." I didn't make this up. What are you smoking?
etymology : The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible.
Well, to be honest, I have no idea how to handle a customer sending me a check for too much. I would probably just call them and figure something out.
But I would want to do it "the right way" whatever that is...
By credit memo, I just mean we'll keep the money and credit the customer's receivable account. They'll owe us less. Again, I've never done this for a check that was too much, so maybe there is something I'm missing. It was just an example of a better bookkeeping option, but of course, it would only apply for trade credit.
Cash sales with checks (esp. checks that are too much) are tricky and I usually avoid them altogether. Credit cards much better. Yes, just walk away rather than do something flaky, I agree.
And I'm sorry, I was not implying that you were a fraudster, just annoyed with the "you don't know what you are talking about" comment, obviously.
I probably should have said "SEC" instead of "IRS" anyway, but you know what I mean.
I do tend to see most "altruistic" and "benevolent" behavior as ultimately self-serving (if not exactly greedy).
I would like to think that we have the capacity to do the "right thing," however. It may because you want to think of yourself as a "right person" (pride) or because you love order in the universe (a selfish aesthetic sense) or because of common sense (selfish desire for a functioning society).
I also would like to think children try to please their parents because they want to be loved (as opposed to merely fed and clothed). I would also like to think that some humans want to please their God (or their wives) in the same way.
Either way though, I think you "busted" me and yes, I am probably pessimistic when it comes to human nature and human altruism. But I still believe that it is hard to "con" someone who appeals to a higher ethic ("no such thing as a free lunch" or "honesty"), regardless of whatever selfish motive they have.
I do not, however, equate selfishness with greed. You may have selfish reasons for not being greedy, but what's wrong with that?
Thanks for the interesting comment... this has me thinking about the Nash equilibrium again...
Although english isn't my first language, I suspect that fraud is a legal term and that "con" is just another word for an elaborate trick.
YES. Feel free to believe that 'lie', 'fraud', 'cheat', 'trick' and 'confidence game' are all synonyms. If you want to pretend the girl in the station was running a "confidence game" on you, I guess I can try and talk you out of it, but it looks like it'll be tough to convince you. My point was simply that 'con' != 'lie'. Confidence games are a proper subset of lies, but not all lies are confidence games.
But this is getting pointless. I might as well try and suggest hacker != cracker next.
You don't know what you are talking about. Do you honestly believe that the IRS would mind if your customers pays you too much?
Well, yes, I kinda do know what I'm talking about.
Do you think the IRS would drag you to jail if I sent $1000 to your bank account for no reason?
Uh, yes. Well, no one said anything about jail, but if I give you $1000 dollars for "no reason" then it's considered a "gift" and if you call it "revenue" then you are a liar. If you book $500 COGS on that $1000, then either you made $500 dollars profit, and I received something in return, or you are a liar.
What you are describing is called "money laundering." We're not talking about accidental "overpayments," I said "knowingly" misstating journal records, i.e. inventing or deliberately misstating transactions in your books. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Running a business doesn't mean you are running it correctly, or that you understand accounting and book keeping, or can read very carefully.
I said if you "knowingly sell a $10 thing for $100 and then 'fix it later'" you are lying. I didn't say if you sold something that cost you $10 for $100 you were lying. For fuck's sake, that's just called profit. No, there's the "fix it later" part you forgot to read.
Some advice for you. If in your business, someone "overpays" with a check for, say, $10,000 on a $1000 sale... and wants you to simply send them a check for the difference... and they are in a rush... it has to happen right away... why don't you tell your customer to stop payment on the check, send a new one, and (if you've already deposited it) make a few adjusting transactions in your books? Or I suppose you could go ahead with the bullshit transaction and just say later that the con artist took advantage of your "honesty." Whatever works I guess.
Ever heard of a company that books revenue fraudulently? There was a whole bunch of that during the tech boom a few years ago and Enron was pulling that. Yeah, it's kinda wrong.
Enron's Endgame
My whole point is that people usually say (incorrectly) that "confidence games" take advantage of people's greed AND honesty. Even wiki says so
confidence trick
But I'm suggesting that there is a BIG difference between merely lying to someone and "gaining their confidence." I'm suggesting that wiki (and several people here on slashdot) are missing the whole point of confidence games if you call mere deception a "con."
I'm also suggesting that people are not taking a true inventory of their own "greed." Wiki gives something similar to the craiglist check scam as an example of how to cheat an "honest man." Well, I think wiki and the poster above an you too are wrong and you are forgetting that the desire to make the sale is what's driving this con... impatience, greed. A business keeping solid books would simply undo the transaction properly (even if it means you might lose the sale) and redo it... not "forward the difference before the check clears." I could NEVER run this scam on my corporate vendors. They would just laugh and say, "Uh, we don't d
Well, the distinction is only important if you actually care about the mechanics of a con. My point is that there is a difference (and it's a not-so-subtle one) between mere, crass dishonesty, a "scam," a "short con" and a confidence scheme proper.
I know that "con" is short for "confidence," thanks for that. And that's the point. If a guy comes up to me on the street and tells me a hard luck story and I give him $20, you can call it a "con job" if you want, I'll call it a lie and continue to reserve "con job" for when the trickster has truly brought me into his confidence. You really don't need all these different words, not the way you're using them.
I'll sleep ok no matter what word you use, by the way. My point is that if I ever give money to somebody because of a hard luck story (and it has happened) I'm not so naive to assume that he's not lying. There is no confidence here, just charity, freely given with no expectations and not a little bit of suspicion. Same goes for giving to the Red Cross. I know that the Red Cross uses an inordinate amount of resources doing fundraising; I'd prefer my donation only go to helping others, not for raising more money. But if I give anyway, let's not call it a "con job". A "scam," maybe, or perhaps just reality.
open source
Well, that's interesting. I can only assume that you signed over your copyrights on somebody's word that the final product was going to be released under the GPL or similar. Is this a con? Maybe. If you were honestly altruistic then why not release your code into the public domain without any credit? Oh, you wanted some credit? You want some control over the final product (GPL)? Yet you didn't do your own open source project, you decided to join this one. Why? If you can't see that you are not 100% disinterested in this (and the would-be consters were playing you) then I'm not sure I can convince you of that.
Besides, if the code-base was already GPL then no con of this sort if possible. So you would have had to do the work and sign over the copyrights all without seeing anything ever GPL'd? Why on earth would you do that?
I would like a term that I can apply for a deceptive act, where I loose something, yet thought I was getting something, moreover I thought I was getting more than I thought I deserved. The pigeon drop, the Spanish prisoner, get rich quick schemes, advance fee schemes, so forth and etc are NOT the same thing as not disclosing mold in your walls before you sell your house, paying with wooden nickles, melon drops, or change raising at a fast food restaurant. For these disparate things, we have different terms: scam, lie, cheat, short con, counterfeiting, so on. Three Card Monte or the shell game is not a con... just a scam. Vegas is a scam, not a con. Lotteries are scams, not cons. Three Card Monte BECOMES a scam when a shill is involved... making the intrepid gambler (who was about to be scammed anyway from the dishonest game) actually play or bet more by thinking the game is easy, therefore his greed kicks in.
Is this all so hard to understand?
I'm not saying to not trust people. Or telling you how to sleep better at night. I'm simply jumping in on these comments because
Feel free to disagree, but understand what I'm saying (and not saying) first.
If you follow the philosophy of "there's no such thing as a free lunch" then you will never be "conned." If you are an "honest man" you will never be "conned." You may still be lied to, you may still buy a bad automobile, you may even give some money to a bad charity, but you won't be "conned" if you understand what that actually means.
If you want to continue to trust people, and yet you still don't want to be lied to, you'll have to be like Ronald Reagan and "Trust But Verify."
I think his point was that a "confidence trick" involves gaining the mark's (or taking the mark into) the confidence of the trickster, as opposed to merely getting the mark to feel "confident" that the trickster is not lying.
If you watch the linked video, you'll see the guy explaining about "inner circles" and "outer circles" and the con relies upon the mark thinking he's in the inner circle. Using the term "confidence trick" to describe a car salesmen who sells you a lemon renders the term meaningless. That kind of thinking eventually waters down our language to the point where every word is a synonym for "good" or "bad."
Cons are cons. Frauds are frauds. Lies are lies.
If your friend says, "hey man can I borrow $20 I'll pay you back later" and never does... well, you can call that a "con" if you want. I don't.
I don't think the "Christian Children's Fund" or "UNICEF" or the "Red Cross" are exactly what we mean when we use the word "confidence scheme."
But you can, if you want.