Given that it's impossible to kill "Free" Software, how come OSS hasn't really innovated at all in the last 15 years?
Some might fall outside your arbitrary little time frame, but OSS has email, the internet, WWW, Usenet, P2P, bittorrent, and pretty much everything else you use a computer for. What innovations does MS have exactly? Yeah, that's right. SFA.
In eveery case where I've done that I've ended up regretting it because one partition or another was full long before the others, requiring a nasty mess of symlinks to keep the system functional without wiping the drive entirely.
Which is why you use LVM or similar for building your partitions. It doesn't matter whether it's a server or a desktop. Like he said, you have a *lot* to learn about system administration.
You're looking at it from a consumer perspective, not from a producer perspective.
Well, the point I was making is that they are trying to benefit from globalized labor without dealing with the reality of globalized products. Of course they want to jack up their profits far above what they could get in a free market which is the entire point of them doing this whole region nonsense.
What would happen without their government enforced market manipulation is the prices would come *down* in the more expensive regions. That is an entirely good thing for everybody except them, which means it really is a good thing.
I understand their purpose in doing it. I disagree with your conclusion that prices would stay so high here if they had to deal with an actual market. I think their profits would drop tremendously, and I think that is great.
Each of those being again cut into 4's just amazes me... the city would be like 30% street and only 70% building! Maybe SimCity is more realistic than I thought.
Hmmm.... I don't know if those percentages work out right or not. A rough guess from looking out my window would say a bit less street and a bit more building, but there is a third dimension as well.
I'm at about 1600 North and 1600 West which puts me 2 miles north and 2 miles west of 0,0 which is more or less the middle of downtown (not much east here unless you like swimming). My neighborhood (Wicker Park) is a lot of 2-4 story dwellings (in general, one floor == one family/set of roommates etc, although a lot of these are set up as single family dwellings as well.) with some taller buildings for condos and the like. There are a lot of people in close proximity, but also a lot of cool places to go in walking distance. I'm also pretty much dead center between the Metra (Amtrack) and the 'L'. 4 blocks to each. The freeway entrance is 2 blocks away, so getting anywhere is a snap.
So, living in the city is very different from the burbs or from rural areas, and there are things to be said for each. Things are much closer together, which is really good for being able to do anything you care to do easily and close to home, but you don't have the space you would otherwise.
The grid system and the regular size of the blocks does make it really easy to learn your way around when you first arrive.
Region-coding isn't there to make high prices higher, but to make low price sales in low income regions possible.
No, like has been said many times, it is there for the sole purpose of maximizing their profits. The fundamental problems with their system are that it is inherently unfair, deceitful, and entirely based upon buying anti-citizen laws.
Think it through, The movie industry has no problem whatsoever with the decision to shoot a film in...say...Vancouver instead of New York because it costs them less to do it. By the exact same reasoning, why wouldn't I buy the exact same DVD from somewhere else where it is cheaper even after shipping?!? That is inherently unfair. They are seeking to manipulate the rules of the market through laws which hurt the citizens of the given nation for their sole benefit. At the same time, they seek to benefit from the inequities to save on their costs.
It is deceitful because they seek to play it off as "evil pirates" and other assorted nonsense when anybody with a scrap of sense and any interest knows full well that the only reason for it is as listed above.
It is entirely based on buying laws because it couldn't happen otherwise.
So, we're certainly in agreement about the evils of cartels and government involvement in the whole arena, but you haven't demonstrated anything to justify the actions of the cartel. Certainly their profits would go down, but that is an entirely good thing for everybody in the world except for them. That's the enntire point of a cartel: to reap greater than market value for their products.
Free for the first hit? Your comparison is ridiculous -....
Well, his comparison isn't exactly good or anything, but it's far from ridiculous.
Odds are that Microsoft makes far more from your choice to use their product that you ever will from selling yours. Network effects, platform entrenchment and the like are far and away the biggest money makers for MS.
And in a country where blame is shifted from one person to another, where the pop-culture emphasizes sense-gratification, and where people are masters at cheating, lying, and stealing, does it come as a surprise that everyone wants to be Godless?
No, the surprise is that this country is about the most gung-ho pro religion country around.
If you look at the difference between religious and atheist regimes, atheist regimes almost always commit atrocities on a scale far greater than religious ones. Consider the likes of Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, etc...
Well, 2 out of 3 anyhow. Hitler's regime was *extremist* Christian in every aspect. Look it up. Anyhow, a "state Religion" versus the State as the religion is merely semantics.
As was your insistence on comparing God to a petulant 5 year old. It's not my insistence. There is no other reasonable conclusion that can possibly be drawn from Judeo Christian beliefs. Seriously, try to counter that and you will be instantly swallowed up in contradictions and apologetics.
God doesn't hide his existence from mankind - if He did, why do so many people believe in him?
They don't believe in "him", they believe in literally millions of different gods, many of whom demand that their followers murder the followers of the other ones. That's either an entirely incompetent diety, or a petulant child who enjoys *causing* all the suffering that has ever been caused in the name of religion because he was too fucking evil to speak plainly. Hell, he could turn the whole sky into a giant display and xspeak his message loud and clear, but he doesn't.
Do you expect us to believe that the whole world - apart from a few atheists - is really just a bunch of morons who do whatever people tell them, and believe whatever their told?
No, not everybody, but most people tend in that direction. It's made much easier to keep people ignorant sheep when they're brainwashed by their parents from birth to believe that some utter nonsense that doesn't stand up to a scrap of reason is absolute truth. The fact that they are brainwashed into blind ignorant acceptance by terroristic threats from birth has a major affect of their later abilities to think rationally on that subject.
It is an absolute fact that religion's primary use throughout history has been to keep the masses stupid and compliant.
Not that I think you're a bad person, but I keep hearing this same anti-religious mantra repeated over and over, without any proof.
Point out one thing I've said that isn't 100% obviously true and absolutely proven and I will prove it to you absolutely. The laughable part of your point is that the sole basis and the only requirement for your entire religion is that you blindly and without possibility of proof believe that an all powerful deity considers the most important thing to be for people to ignore all reason and accept his existence without one single scrap of proof having been offered throughout the entire history of the world.
Usually, when proof is offered, it is limited to a very specific time and place, ignoring the rest of recorded history.
Again with this nonsense. The entire burden is on you. Unless you can prove your side, there is no reason for any sane person to even believe such a far out wacky idea is even remotely possible. The fact that evil oppressive theocracies ruled over our ancestors for thousands of years is the only reason so many people still buy into such nonsensical crap. The fact that parents force it down their children's throats is a truly evil act even by the stated Christian beliefs. That utterly destroys free will. If you really believed your religion, and really believed free will, then nobody would tell their kids crap about it until they were old enough to understand it. They would then explain all the various religions and the histories thereof and the fact that they *believe* in their particular version even though there is nothing at all to distinguish it as being better than any others (including flying spaghetti monsterism) and then they would let their kids make up their own minds.
Nobody does that though. Their religion would be dead. Unless they brainwash their children into *blindly* accepting it, then practically nobody would buy into it once they'd reached ma
And don't give me the "because I'm right and he's wrong" argument until you can prove that there is no god.
Bullshit alert!!!!!!
Until you can prove that there *is* a god, then there is no value in it whatsoever. Quit the circular reasoning. You are claiming that your god is the flying spaghetti monster. Until you quit assuming the only thing you're trying to demonstrate you will be unable to construct a coherent argument on the subject.
Unless there were any rational reason at all to believe in your magical invisible friend (who ain't the same as the one other people who claim to share your religion have), opting not to doesn't create a new religion.
I don't understand the anti-religous crusade so many people seem to take on as their own little holy war.
By "so many", I have to assume you mean "nobody" The OP wasn't crusading, he was expressing his feelings about the issue. Seriously, "crusade" is a heinous word fully equivalent in meaning to "holocaust". There is no difference in the intent, the malice, or the reality of those events. Well, except, of course, that the holocaust only lasted a few years, not hundreds.
Why the hell can't you leave me alone?
Neither the OP, nor (I'll bet) anybody else has done a god damned thing to you.
You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want. I won't teach your kids to believe what I do, and you can just stay away from mine.
That's the entire point of the ID debate, but you have it entirely reversed. It's sick *religious* fuckholes trying to shove their idiotic nonsense down everybody'd throat at gunpoint that is the entire problem here. Now, keep in mind, by "idiotic nonsense" I'm referring to the fact that they are so desperate to try and shove *their* god into everyone's face that they have entirely reduced their god to being 100% indistinguishable from a flying mass of spaghetti and meatballs. It seems like you believe in god. Do you believe that your god is a flying pile of pasta?!? If not, then STFU. You are not persecuted, you are defending the people who are forcing your god into a fucking pasta maker.
And don't think that atheism isn't a faith: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If you can't even bother to figure out what you're talking about, then STFU. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has nothing to do with atheism. You're claiming that absense of evidence is all the reason you need to believe that whatever nonsense there is no evidence *for* should be believed.
There is no evidence whatsoever for *any* of the thousands of gods that have been invented over the years. Hence no reason to believe in *any* of them. You're making the fundamental error in any attempt to argue for religion. You're assuming it's true to start out with. There is no point of even discussing evidence of absence without any evidence for it to start out with. Hence our noodly overlord.
Actually, I kind of regard the absence of religious belief as an indicator of lack of intelligence.
Then you have put no real thought into the subject at all.
The willingness to arbitrarily ignore 4,000 years of human experience suggests that they lack the intelligence necessary to cope with difficult and sometimes contradictory data.
Which is proven by the fact that you attempt to relate lack of religious belief to *ignoring* humanities experience with religion rather than to paying attention to it.
Truly your point is most made laughable by limiting it to 4000 years. What about all the years before that particular god was invented?!?
What about the fact that religion of all stripes has almost always throughout history been used as a tool to fuck the many for the benefit of the few?
Damn, dude.
Ignoring the history of religion is how it perpetuates. Dealing with the reality of the history and the present of religion is the number one reason for anybody with a scrap of intelligence to reject it.
Because, really, how much sense does it make for an all powerful perfect being to have as its sole purpose to hide *all* evidence of its existence and then torture everybody who doesn't believe in him in spite of every single relevant fact. Further torture those who happen to get some nonsense trivial details wrong. That isn't a deity, that's a petulant 5 year old who desperately needs a spanking.
Change a few details for any non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion.
Thus the simple aligning to create the infinitely complex is much more complicated than the existence of a creator.
Which is complete and utter nonsense.
You are postulating that something *far* more complex than the universe had to have arisen in order to then create the far simpler universe. Of course any creator *has* to be far more complex than the universe since he had the entire blueprint as part of him.
So, yes, your idea utterly fails Occam's razor. It also does nothing to address the infinite string of creators which are absolutely required for your idea to make any sense whatsoever.
The only reason this isn't obvious to you is that you have arbitrarily decided to believe that what you think is absolute truth so you necessarilly have to bend all the rest of reality to fit your predefined model.
The noble prizes have started to loose the prestige they once held and this journal is heading down the same road.
Really? When did that happen?
I know many of you don't see this as a liberal vs conservative thing, but I truly believe it is.
Well, those labels are pretty inadequate for any real discussion, but even so, this isn't really true. It's an extremist religious zealot versus anyone who believes in freedom or reason thing, certainly, but what that has to do with people who believe in fiscal responsibility is beyond me (see how inadequate those words are). And it is entirely driven by the extremist zealot side of the equation.
Not to start this debate again, but nobody has explained to me where the big bang gases came from that created the universe. What gave the gases the properties to react to one another? Or the elements game from and their properties that evolved into the fist cell.
Oh come on now. That one's transparantly obvious. I don't know, you don't know, and nobody else in the entire world knows. Anybody who says they do is lying. Anybody who tells you God did it has chosen to *believe* that's the case, but by claimint it *is* what happened, they are lying.
I agree Creation is debatable, but Intelligent Design seems to be logical to me.
Then you don't understand logic. You just entirely contradicted yourself. Creationism == ID.
At some point in time an intelligent being had to be involved. Seriously, how can you deny that some intelligent being had a hand in the creation of the universe at some point in time?
Yep, no understanding of logic whatsoever. "I don't know so it has to be magic". Plus, all you do is add a turtle. By your "logic" another entirely separate designer is required to design your designer and so on and so on.....
The elements that created everything had to come from somewhere.
If it had to be true, prove it. Are you beginning to realise why the whole ID thing is utter nonsense (in a scientific context)?
As a parent (in Kansas, no less), I can tell you that evolution is usually not taught as theory, but as fact.
Maybe that's for the simple basic obvious reason that it is a 100% absolute fact. Don't believe it? Need proof? Ever seen a dog? A seedless watermelon? There you go. absolute positive undeniable proof that evolution is a fact.
The fact that you and the rest of the ignorant dipshits like you who are pushing this garbage clearly don't have a clue what these words even mean yet keep blathering on about it menas that you are 100% absolutely an idiotic dipshit.
Sorry to break it to you like that, but as long as you continue to whine about nonsense without even bothering to figure out what the issue is, you will continue to be treated as an idiotic dipshit by *all* decent, sane, rational people.
If you could even tell the difference between evolution (*fact*) and the Theory of Evolution (potential mechanisms by which it occurs) then you would look like you weren't an absolute moron.
You are so pathetic though, that you can't even tell the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. I'm sure you've been told this many times, but being the ignorant dipshit you are, you refuse to listen and continue to whine like a little bitch about shit you're too stupid to even bother learning about before you condemn it.
So, in conclusion, fuck off. Militantly ignorant morons like you are embarassing our nation and our species.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that it's impossible to kill "Free" Software, how come OSS hasn't really innovated at all in the last 15 years?
Some might fall outside your arbitrary little time frame, but OSS has email, the internet, WWW, Usenet, P2P, bittorrent, and pretty much everything else you use a computer for.
What innovations does MS have exactly?
Yeah, that's right. SFA.
In eveery case where I've done that I've ended up regretting it because one partition or another was full long before the others, requiring a nasty mess of symlinks to keep the system functional without wiping the drive entirely.
Which is why you use LVM or similar for building your partitions. It doesn't matter whether it's a server or a desktop.
Like he said, you have a *lot* to learn about system administration.
No, you're all wrong.
;-)
Yours,
The Antichrist
Yeah, we're going to take *your* word on that
It was closed down about a year after my story happened due to some sort of investigation.
/., their case can be closed.
Some sort of investigation, my ass.
If the Flagstaff PD reads
You're like a bunch of eunuchs; ask your women to give you back your balls already.
;-)
Dammit do not give them those sorts of ideas.
I'm happily married to a hot British chick who had to come over here to get some real action
You're looking at it from a consumer perspective, not from a producer perspective.
Well, the point I was making is that they are trying to benefit from globalized labor without dealing with the reality of globalized products.
Of course they want to jack up their profits far above what they could get in a free market which is the entire point of them doing this whole region nonsense.
What would happen without their government enforced market manipulation is the prices would come *down* in the more expensive regions. That is an entirely good thing for everybody except them, which means it really is a good thing.
I understand their purpose in doing it. I disagree with your conclusion that prices would stay so high here if they had to deal with an actual market. I think their profits would drop tremendously, and I think that is great.
Each of those being again cut into 4's just amazes me... the city would be like 30% street and only 70% building! Maybe SimCity is more realistic than I thought.
Hmmm.... I don't know if those percentages work out right or not. A rough guess from looking out my window would say a bit less street and a bit more building, but there is a third dimension as well.
I'm at about 1600 North and 1600 West which puts me 2 miles north and 2 miles west of 0,0 which is more or less the middle of downtown (not much east here unless you like swimming). My neighborhood (Wicker Park) is a lot of 2-4 story dwellings (in general, one floor == one family/set of roommates etc, although a lot of these are set up as single family dwellings as well.) with some taller buildings for condos and the like. There are a lot of people in close proximity, but also a lot of cool places to go in walking distance. I'm also pretty much dead center between the Metra (Amtrack) and the 'L'. 4 blocks to each. The freeway entrance is 2 blocks away, so getting anywhere is a snap.
So, living in the city is very different from the burbs or from rural areas, and there are things to be said for each. Things are much closer together, which is really good for being able to do anything you care to do easily and close to home, but you don't have the space you would otherwise.
The grid system and the regular size of the blocks does make it really easy to learn your way around when you first arrive.
Region-coding isn't there to make high prices higher, but to make low price sales in low income regions possible.
No, like has been said many times, it is there for the sole purpose of maximizing their profits. The fundamental problems with their system are that it is inherently unfair, deceitful, and entirely based upon buying anti-citizen laws.
Think it through, The movie industry has no problem whatsoever with the decision to shoot a film in...say...Vancouver instead of New York because it costs them less to do it.
By the exact same reasoning, why wouldn't I buy the exact same DVD from somewhere else where it is cheaper even after shipping?!? That is inherently unfair. They are seeking to manipulate the rules of the market through laws which hurt the citizens of the given nation for their sole benefit. At the same time, they seek to benefit from the inequities to save on their costs.
It is deceitful because they seek to play it off as "evil pirates" and other assorted nonsense when anybody with a scrap of sense and any interest knows full well that the only reason for it is as listed above.
It is entirely based on buying laws because it couldn't happen otherwise.
So, we're certainly in agreement about the evils of cartels and government involvement in the whole arena, but you haven't demonstrated anything to justify the actions of the cartel.
Certainly their profits would go down, but that is an entirely good thing for everybody in the world except for them. That's the enntire point of a cartel: to reap greater than market value for their products.
a typical city block (1/4 mile by 1/4 mile according to my estimates?)
Well, in Chicago anyhow it's 8 blocks to the mile so 1/8 by 1/8.
Heinlein, who grew up in the Bible Belt in Missouri, knew the U.S. was on a tightrope, fighting a century-old battle against fundamentalist takeover.
When I was a kid reading his stories that dealt with the American theocracy I thought he was wack.
Turns out he understood much better than I did.
you forgot the "superficial" before pro religion :P
;-)
Well, there are plenty of adjectives that could fit there
Yes and 80% of the world are morons
;-)
Excellent statistic. I believe i will add that to my test of the '4 out of 5 statistics are made up' theory.
Well, 4 out of 5 *is* 80 %
Free for the first hit? Your comparison is ridiculous -....
Well, his comparison isn't exactly good or anything, but it's far from ridiculous.
Odds are that Microsoft makes far more from your choice to use their product that you ever will from selling yours.
Network effects, platform entrenchment and the like are far and away the biggest money makers for MS.
If a refridgerator magnet needs a power source, what is the power source for the Post-It(tm) note hanging beside it?
Gluons, duh.
On a serious note, you should give moose a try sometime. Pretty dang tasty.
Yep, caribou and elk as well.
and I bet theres been plenty of insect matter hidden in those greens!
So does insect poop count as an animal product?
And in a country where blame is shifted from one person to another, where the pop-culture emphasizes sense-gratification, and where people are masters at cheating, lying, and stealing, does it come as a surprise that everyone wants to be Godless?
No, the surprise is that this country is about the most gung-ho pro religion country around.
If you look at the difference between religious and atheist regimes, atheist regimes almost always commit atrocities on a scale far greater than religious ones. Consider the likes of Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, etc...
Well, 2 out of 3 anyhow. Hitler's regime was *extremist* Christian in every aspect.
Look it up.
Anyhow, a "state Religion" versus the State as the religion is merely semantics.
As was your insistence on comparing God to a petulant 5 year old.
It's not my insistence. There is no other reasonable conclusion that can possibly be drawn from Judeo Christian beliefs. Seriously, try to counter that and you will be instantly swallowed up in contradictions and apologetics.
God doesn't hide his existence from mankind - if He did, why do so many people believe in him?
They don't believe in "him", they believe in literally millions of different gods, many of whom demand that their followers murder the followers of the other ones.
That's either an entirely incompetent diety, or a petulant child who enjoys *causing* all the suffering that has ever been caused in the name of religion because he was too fucking evil to speak plainly.
Hell, he could turn the whole sky into a giant display and xspeak his message loud and clear, but he doesn't.
Do you expect us to believe that the whole world - apart from a few atheists - is really just a bunch of morons who do whatever people tell them, and believe whatever their told?
No, not everybody, but most people tend in that direction. It's made much easier to keep people ignorant sheep when they're brainwashed by their parents from birth to believe that some utter nonsense that doesn't stand up to a scrap of reason is absolute truth. The fact that they are brainwashed into blind ignorant acceptance by terroristic threats from birth has a major affect of their later abilities to think rationally on that subject.
It is an absolute fact that religion's primary use throughout history has been to keep the masses stupid and compliant.
Not that I think you're a bad person, but I keep hearing this same anti-religious mantra repeated over and over, without any proof.
Point out one thing I've said that isn't 100% obviously true and absolutely proven and I will prove it to you absolutely.
The laughable part of your point is that the sole basis and the only requirement for your entire religion is that you blindly and without possibility of proof believe that an all powerful deity considers the most important thing to be for people to ignore all reason and accept his existence without one single scrap of proof having been offered throughout the entire history of the world.
Usually, when proof is offered, it is limited to a very specific time and place, ignoring the rest of recorded history.
Again with this nonsense. The entire burden is on you. Unless you can prove your side, there is no reason for any sane person to even believe such a far out wacky idea is even remotely possible. The fact that evil oppressive theocracies ruled over our ancestors for thousands of years is the only reason so many people still buy into such nonsensical crap. The fact that parents force it down their children's throats is a truly evil act even by the stated Christian beliefs. That utterly destroys free will.
If you really believed your religion, and really believed free will, then nobody would tell their kids crap about it until they were old enough to understand it.
They would then explain all the various religions and the histories thereof and the fact that they *believe* in their particular version even though there is nothing at all to distinguish it as being better than any others (including flying spaghetti monsterism) and then they would let their kids make up their own minds.
Nobody does that though. Their religion would be dead. Unless they brainwash their children into *blindly* accepting it, then practically nobody would buy into it once they'd reached ma
while PC gamers get left with sequels that play the same, but have a hard time running on modern hardware (I'm looking at you, Civ 4).
Or, more specifically, run like a quad amputee through frozen molasses on double the reccommended system requirements.
And don't give me the "because I'm right and he's wrong" argument until you can prove that there is no god.
Bullshit alert!!!!!!
Until you can prove that there *is* a god, then there is no value in it whatsoever.
Quit the circular reasoning. You are claiming that your god is the flying spaghetti monster. Until you quit assuming the only thing you're trying to demonstrate you will be unable to construct a coherent argument on the subject.
Unless there were any rational reason at all to believe in your magical invisible friend (who ain't the same as the one other people who claim to share your religion have), opting not to doesn't create a new religion.
I don't understand the anti-religous crusade so many people seem to take on as their own little holy war.
By "so many", I have to assume you mean "nobody"
The OP wasn't crusading, he was expressing his feelings about the issue.
Seriously, "crusade" is a heinous word fully equivalent in meaning to "holocaust".
There is no difference in the intent, the malice, or the reality of those events.
Well, except, of course, that the holocaust only lasted a few years, not hundreds.
Why the hell can't you leave me alone?
Neither the OP, nor (I'll bet) anybody else has done a god damned thing to you.
You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want. I won't teach your kids to believe what I do, and you can just stay away from mine.
That's the entire point of the ID debate, but you have it entirely reversed.
It's sick *religious* fuckholes trying to shove their idiotic nonsense down everybody'd throat at gunpoint that is the entire problem here.
Now, keep in mind, by "idiotic nonsense" I'm referring to the fact that they are so desperate to try and shove *their* god into everyone's face that they have entirely reduced their god to being 100% indistinguishable from a flying mass of spaghetti and meatballs.
It seems like you believe in god. Do you believe that your god is a flying pile of pasta?!?
If not, then STFU.
You are not persecuted, you are defending the people who are forcing your god into a fucking pasta maker.
And don't think that atheism isn't a faith: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If you can't even bother to figure out what you're talking about, then STFU.
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has nothing to do with atheism.
You're claiming that absense of evidence is all the reason you need to believe that whatever nonsense there is no evidence *for* should be believed.
There is no evidence whatsoever for *any* of the thousands of gods that have been invented over the years. Hence no reason to believe in *any* of them.
You're making the fundamental error in any attempt to argue for religion. You're assuming it's true to start out with.
There is no point of even discussing evidence of absence without any evidence for it to start out with.
Hence our noodly overlord.
Actually, I kind of regard the absence of religious belief as an indicator of lack of intelligence.
Then you have put no real thought into the subject at all.
The willingness to arbitrarily ignore 4,000 years of human experience suggests that they lack the intelligence necessary to cope with difficult and sometimes contradictory data.
Which is proven by the fact that you attempt to relate lack of religious belief to *ignoring* humanities experience with religion rather than to paying attention to it.
Truly your point is most made laughable by limiting it to 4000 years.
What about all the years before that particular god was invented?!?
What about the fact that religion of all stripes has almost always throughout history been used as a tool to fuck the many for the benefit of the few?
Damn, dude.
Ignoring the history of religion is how it perpetuates.
Dealing with the reality of the history and the present of religion is the number one reason for anybody with a scrap of intelligence to reject it.
Because, really, how much sense does it make for an all powerful perfect being to have as its sole purpose to hide *all* evidence of its existence and then torture everybody who doesn't believe in him in spite of every single relevant fact. Further torture those who happen to get some nonsense trivial details wrong.
That isn't a deity, that's a petulant 5 year old who desperately needs a spanking.
Change a few details for any non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion.
Thus the simple aligning to create the infinitely complex is much more complicated than the existence of a creator.
Which is complete and utter nonsense.
You are postulating that something *far* more complex than the universe had to have arisen in order to then create the far simpler universe.
Of course any creator *has* to be far more complex than the universe since he had the entire blueprint as part of him.
So, yes, your idea utterly fails Occam's razor. It also does nothing to address the infinite string of creators which are absolutely required for your idea to make any sense whatsoever.
The only reason this isn't obvious to you is that you have arbitrarily decided to believe that what you think is absolute truth so you necessarilly have to bend all the rest of reality to fit your predefined model.
The noble prizes have started to loose the prestige they once held and this journal is heading down the same road.
Really? When did that happen?
I know many of you don't see this as a liberal vs conservative thing, but I truly believe it is.
Well, those labels are pretty inadequate for any real discussion, but even so, this isn't really true. It's an extremist religious zealot versus anyone who believes in freedom or reason thing, certainly, but what that has to do with people who believe in fiscal responsibility is beyond me (see how inadequate those words are). And it is entirely driven by the extremist zealot side of the equation.
Not to start this debate again, but nobody has explained to me where the big bang gases came from that created the universe. What gave the gases the properties to react to one another? Or the elements game from and their properties that evolved into the fist cell.
Oh come on now. That one's transparantly obvious.
I don't know, you don't know, and nobody else in the entire world knows.
Anybody who says they do is lying. Anybody who tells you God did it has chosen to *believe* that's the case, but by claimint it *is* what happened, they are lying.
I agree Creation is debatable, but Intelligent Design seems to be logical to me.
Then you don't understand logic.
You just entirely contradicted yourself. Creationism == ID.
At some point in time an intelligent being had to be involved. Seriously, how can you deny that some intelligent being had a hand in the creation of the universe at some point in time?
Yep, no understanding of logic whatsoever.
"I don't know so it has to be magic".
Plus, all you do is add a turtle. By your "logic" another entirely separate designer is required to design your designer and so on and so on.....
The elements that created everything had to come from somewhere.
If it had to be true, prove it.
Are you beginning to realise why the whole ID thing is utter nonsense (in a scientific context)?
As a parent (in Kansas, no less), I can tell you that evolution is usually not taught as theory, but as fact.
Maybe that's for the simple basic obvious reason that it is a 100% absolute fact.
Don't believe it? Need proof?
Ever seen a dog? A seedless watermelon?
There you go. absolute positive undeniable proof that evolution is a fact.
The fact that you and the rest of the ignorant dipshits like you who are pushing this garbage clearly don't have a clue what these words even mean yet keep blathering on about it menas that you are 100% absolutely an idiotic dipshit.
Sorry to break it to you like that, but as long as you continue to whine about nonsense without even bothering to figure out what the issue is, you will continue to be treated as an idiotic dipshit by *all* decent, sane, rational people.
If you could even tell the difference between evolution (*fact*) and the Theory of Evolution (potential mechanisms by which it occurs) then you would look like you weren't an absolute moron.
You are so pathetic though, that you can't even tell the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
I'm sure you've been told this many times, but being the ignorant dipshit you are, you refuse to listen and continue to whine like a little bitch about shit you're too stupid to even bother learning about before you condemn it.
So, in conclusion, fuck off. Militantly ignorant morons like you are embarassing our nation and our species.