Learning is not about memorizing lots of trivia. It is about filtering important info from the huge volume of crap and trivia.
This makes me want to put gold stars all over your post... but that would really screw up my LCD.
This is the most truthful and realistic statement I have ever read on Slashdot. Unfortunately, it is also perhaps the most ignored that I have ever encountered in my employment history. I've been passed over for jobs because I didn't have the trivia memorized (not in IT/CS field, though... I'm back in school for that now). It makes no difference to the ignorant horde of managers that you know where to find the information, or even that you can find the information, but you must have a mind full of the useless at the expense of creativity and the ability to actually solve a problem.
Some good points, though I had difficulty connecting them with the main idea. This one, however, screamed out at me.
and we are increasingly becoming a nanny state (deviating from founding American ideas)
This history is incorrect... for the most part, anyway. Consider Puritan New England. The government involved itself in each family directly. There was no "privacy". There was community. And where members of the community "did their own thing", be it lax discipline of children or troubled marriages, the community, the government stepped in and either turned the people back to the path or sent them packing. Other colonies did similar things, too. Those were founding American ideals.
Where you did find different foundational principles was in the company-established colonies, the for-profit colonies like Virginia. You had individualism and privacy there, all right. And it was miserable. No one cared what anyone else did, as long as they stayed away from MY tobacco plantation. And since there was no regulation, no centralization, no government, really, they mistreated their indentured servants (and I'm not talking about just some whipping either), they took advantage of the poor and weak, they were open to attacks, and they made utterly dumb decisions (e.g. the African slave trade). These are the only foundational American ideas that I know of that diverge from the proverbial "nanny state", and it's not something that looks appealing to me.
I don't think that's what I said, but I do subscribe to that notion. Those of us who do, though, admittedly must realize that the legality of our actions is ultimately determined by this government, so things may change legal status from one day to the next. (Example, one day in 1973, infanticide was illegal; the next, it was legal.) With this in mind, we do need to be observant of the tide of change and where our rights (real or imagined) stand. But yes, in short, why should I worry about encroachments on illegal, unethical, and immoral actions and conduct when I'm not participating in them?
I appreciate your input. Let me offer this as a counter-point.
A nanny state doesn't believe that you can think and reason well enough to live on your own
Isn't this true? After all, if we're talking about the US (continuing off-topic, that is), then we are too stupid. That's not a flame or troll. Explanation follows.
The kicker is that this theory destroys the foundation of democracy.
That's not how the United States' government was established. We're not a direct democracy, but a republic. Yes, there is a difference. We Americans choose to be too stupid to live without government management. I will refrain from my own value judgement and present it this way for discussion: Since we have chosen this form of government, isn't the management something that is in our best interest?
What's this sudden rash of the "nanny state" term? Seems like it's popped up whenever there's a "threat" to your right *cough* to view porn, download illegally, etc. This only amounts to some sort of nanny control if you're underage. What's wrong with making it difficult for kids to access such material? I say bah to such cries of control as they likely come from a 15-year-old who's PO'ed that his parents have installed CyberSitter.
Yes, I recognize this is off-topic. To bring it somewhat back to topic, what's this data collection have to do with the so-called nanny state, anyway?
America is founded on one principle: That people are smart enough to rule themselves. By corollary, the government is a reflection of the people, nothing more, and nothing less.
Actually, this isn't quite true. Understand, I love this country, cess-pool that I may think it is at times; but America -- the government -- was founded not on the principle that people were smart enough to rule themselves, but that white, property-owning males were smart enough to rule everyone else. (I am a white, property-owning male, by the way.) Women weren't allowed a vote. Natives weren't allowed a vote. Blacks weren't even considered human, and certainly weren't allowed a vote.
I realize I sound like a typical Slashdot pinko commie by making this distinction, but it's the truth of history. I do, however, stand behind your main point which is that we are responsible for making changes rather than just whining about problems to other underachieving internet addicts.
Ge 1:30 - "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground -- everything that has the breath of life in it -- I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
Just a little stab at those who claim (foolishly) that dinosaurs only ate each other.
Will try to make a few cohesive points here before turning in for the night.
If a piece of evidence contradicts an existing theory, the entire theory is wrong.
That certainly sounds grand, but it isn't actually practiced. Consider, for example, Newtonian gravity. Evidence points to its failure in reality, for some natural phenomena, that is. Yet it is what we teach our children. Why? Because it is a workable model... somewhat. Einstein gravity works for a bit more (okay, quite a bit). But there are even areas where it doesn't work. Yet we still use it. Why? It's a workable model... somewhat. It's great to think that we always throw away things that don't work, but it's just not true. And often we have held on to models/theories just because of some affinity for a particular worldview rather than what the evidence suggests (geocentric solar system, anyone?).
One of those is that the natural laws of our universe have not changed over time and don't change from place to place.
Unless I misunderstand, according to Big Bang cosmology this (changed laws) is required to have happened for the universe to exist in its present state. First of all, the quantum fluctuation in the void. Sometime in there was the inflation. The clumping of matter after cool down certainly required something different over regions. Ah, and not to mention the handedness problem (CP violation). And, lest we forget, matter/anitmatter asymmetry. The laws had to "break" for the universe to be the way it is. Note, of course, that this is required from the Big Bangers, not creationists.
Either life is shaped by natural forces or by supernatural forces; both cannot be true simultaneously.
Minor point here, but I'm sure you recognize that this does not naturally follow your line of argument. I also think it foolhardy to presume how a supernatural force (to use the generic term) would interact in a natural process. We leave the realm of the issue with that, though.
Rather I'm saying that those who are promoting ID believe the same thing you do--they just hide it. They do not have the courage of their convictions to speak up honestly, and wrap their belief in the blanket of science to try to pass it off among the unwary.
This I agree with. Partly, at least. We can't, of course, make such a sweeping generalization, but I do believe there are some who are trying to advance my cause - a literal creation week, young earth/universe - by hiding it beneath this (dare I call it) "progressive" shroud. I've no patience for these compromisers. And obviously your side doesn't either. But they're not courting us extremists. They're wooing the mainstream, the people who will jump on any new fad that comes around. And it must be admitted that there is something of a religious fervor in the nation these days, and it's a prime environment for something like this to flourish.
Still, let's face it: they, the mainstream, don't want your side because *gasp* "what if there is a god (note small G), then he'd be mad at me!" And they don't want my side because *gasp* "if there is a God and I can't be a lout, but must be a servant. Hey look... let's take this thing where we can say there's a god, just for fire insurance, and we can still not look dumb like those creationists." This is, I think, the greatest shame of the movement. Then again, I'm considered a zealot, so what do I know?
(BTW, I suppose there are still some that could be classified as believers of the ID movement, but I find it to be a weak and untenable position.)
I don't think that we will see a return to earth-centric or flat-earth theories (the sort believed when the Bible was written).
Ah! I thought this was an end-of-thread message until that line!;) It's a common misconception (to use the generous term) that the ancients, as in the various authors of the Bible, believed the earth was flat. This view is typically forced upon them by taking stylized language and reading it out of context.
I'm not saying that we know all the answers now, just that we know more than we did thousands of years ago.
And all we fundamental Christians are trying to say is that we don't know all the answers now, but we know someone who does.:) (By the way, note that, for my purpose here, I conveniently ignore militant, hate-monger, pseudo-Christians... the type your typical slashdotter likes to incorrectly call fundamentalist.)
Really? How do you reconcile the fact that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give two different accounts for the order of creation?
That's an excellent question, and it's asked quite often. Pardon me while I humor myself and respond as if you're actually interested in learning something.
They don't. Simple enough answer? Chapter 1 gives the account of the entire creation week. Chapter 2 revisits a portion to focus on the reason for Creation: Man. Note in the "different account", as you call it, of Chapter 2, that the plants are specifically denoted as "of the field", possibly meaning those later cultivated, not the whole of the plant world. If your point of contention is rather with the trees mentioned slightly later, you'll note that those are introduced in the garden context, again not the whole of the created trees.
I must say, though, that I wasn't there to observe these things, no matter what my wife may think.
Pardon my interjection here, but I think you're misrepresenting Augustine...
Augustine: 'Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race.... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.' Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past, De Civitate Dei (The City of God), 12(10).
Emphasis mine. By the way, Augustine (and others) did argue against a 6 day creation. They thought that was limiting the Almighty Creator, so they proposed that God created all in an instant!
Fundamentalists are, at their core, cowards who are afraid of the world. Instead of examining the working of their environment, and altering their world view based on the new information, they close themselves off to knowledge, in the futile hope that their ignorance will somehow lead them to salvation.
Upon what do you base this claim? I would be interested in which portion of Scripture you pervert to come up with this.
Fundamentalist is now synonymous with intrusive, ignorant, and intolerant.
Let's examine this statement in light of the above, shall we? Intrusive? Consider, if you will, whether your statement above is intrusive. Ignorant? Who is wallowing in ignorance making vacuous claims? Intolerant? Need we point to the above comment yet again?
I'm sure you've suffered greatly due to some Amish or Mennonite, but let me comfort you by saying that I'm not that type of fundamentalist. Let me also enlighten you with a few counter-examples to the above ridiculous generalization. Consider Galileo and Kepler. Perhaps you've heard of Newton and Leibnitz. Maybe these will help: Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Carver. Rather than making "intrusive, ignorant, and intolerant" claims, perhaps you should study exactly what it is that you're attacking.
Forgive me if I have a difficult time taking Genesis literally when it so obviously contradicts our understanding of the universe around us (and this is just the first page!).
And I'm sure you'll forgive me while I have a chuckle at arrogance due to current "understanding of the universe". On the one hand, you criticize a "myth" you say is based upon the understanding of a primitive people in the past (not your exact words, but your intention). On the other, you exalt an understanding of the universe by a primitive people in the present. You only need to consider how often theories are over-turned/improved/modified to see the weakness of a temporo-centric argument. (Don't know if that's a word, but you'll understand.)
No, what ID says is that species we see today were designed into their current shape by an intelligent force.
One of us is confused, and I'm not too arrogrant to admit that it could be me. But my understanding of ID is as stated above, that they embrace evolution by design (ignoring all the other absurdities for the moment). One other poster below this thread has noted the same distinction. I believe you are confusing "them" with "us", which was the reason for my initial post. Have a look at what they say again... at what the ID official stance is. I will happily admit if I'm wrong, but I think you'll find that's what they say.
True fundamentalism demands avoidance of modern medicine and treatments;
This is a ridiculous, even laughable perversion of the entire Bible. Obviously you've never read it or else you wouldn't reduce yourself to such error. You needn't step beyond the Pentateuch, if you don't want; it contains several counter-examples.
Actually, I don't think I claimed that fundamentalists don't support it. But I think I did claim that the views are incompatible. I agree with your comment on mixing and the reason cited for fundamentalist support of ID. Still, I would (and do) chastise fellow fundamentalists for the same co-mingling of terms and for their support of ID.
Yes, I do mean 6 literal days, just as the text says. By the way, you may want to research a bit on the voluminous manuscript evidence before arguing translation errors.
Why do you people continually confuse two separate movements?
The fundamentalist belief (to which I hold) is not compatible with ID. These are two entirely separate paradigms.
For reference, ID embraces pretty much the same things as the so-called independent thinking scientists, except for having a cause. Fundamentalists (again, that's me) hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis.
If you want to lambaste one of the causes, please choose the appropriate one. Or at least make a distinction. Thanks.
A very fact-filled response there. At least apparently. Allow me to attempt a rebuttal... and a continuation of the off-topic, though interesting, thread here.
But firstly, I'd like to thank you for a stellar example of the hostility which most of/. has for anything with even a hint of support for a Christian world-view. However, while most simply offer a slobbering rant, at least you've built a (somewhat) coherent argument. You have my respect for that, anyway.
I won't comment on the Deist/Christian/Star-Goat-Worhiper/insert-religion -here issue except to say that we could likely get into a never-ending semantic battle trying to specifically classify each of the founders as a certain religion, or sub-class, or denomination. I will accept the "lowest common denominator" in this case that most of them believed in a God.
Regarding Jefferson's "Bible", I generally don't visit wikipedia for information, but there was a link there that I quickly perused and found most useful. Perhaps you missed these passages there. Jefferson's purpose "at first was to compile a book which would be valuable for the use of the Indians." Though his plan later changed, he still placed great value on Jesus' teachings because in them (his words) "will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." And finally, these words of Jefferson speak volumes, I'd say: "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." Perhaps Jefferson was less of a Deist than the rest, then.
I wish I had time right now to briefly research the others, but work-time is coming up. Let me offer a few rapid comments, though.
As seen above, Jefferson's purpose in "rewriting the Bible" (a misnomer, by the way) could be misconstrued if not taken in context. I don't know the details of Washington's walking out of Communion, but I'd expect in context we'd see some form of Popist Communion or something equally repugnant to a Protestant. (Remember, I'm speaking off the cuff here, trying to get out the door.) Your comments on Madison are likewise out of context. Selective highlighting (bold text) appears to reinforce your position, but a correct reading actually weakens it. I also expect the proper context to clear up the remaining points.
If you've no objection, I may take some time later to consider the remaining points and return my opinion by private message, or whatever it's called here. Certainly I'd rather attempt to bolster my side in public, but we're far off-topic now.
Good point and well-presented, but I still disagree. Let me explain.
I'd say that the Founding Fathers took the Judeo-Christian Decalogue (aka Ten Commandments) as Divine law (not to mention the rest of the various "laws" from the Christian Bible). They didn't need to establish a statute stating that murder was wrong since it was already there in the old Jewish law.
The nation was built by Christian men & women (and pagans) who already knew from Biblical teaching that murder was unlawful. They also had spelled out for them the various punishments for other crimes ending in death, too.
I know most of/. has no desire at all to hear anything of Christianity or the Bible, but the truth is that the nation was founded by people who took the Bible (and the laws therein) as truth not needing to further define law that was already Divinely written, hence the "missing" statutes.
What does this have to do with activism? This is what judges are supposed to do.
I don't think so. Judges are supposed to make rulings based upon the written law, not based upon their opinion of the written law. It's called judicial activism because rather than judging, they are legislating, and thus abusing their power by setting up their own law apart from that approved by those elected by the people specifically as representative lawmakers.
(This is from a US perspective. The French system may be different.)
You've hit the nail on the head with the issue in general, but it seems everyone's missing the biggest point with this story: activist judges. I don't know how the French system works, but I'd guess it's similar to the US in that it is the judge's job to interpret the law, not to act in defiance of it and change it (in other words, legislate).
The real reason the something-for-nothing people should be excited about this is that the US has the motherlode of activist judges, and in some cases even (unconstitutionally) look to precedents from other countries so that they don't look so "draconian" by simply relying on the law of the land.
Legislating from the bench is abuse of power, but it also seems to be the newest best hope for the file-sharers.
Piracy made it possible for 'word-of-mouth' to spread about Battlestar Galactica.
I call BS. Didja ever think that the name itself was enough to get people to tune in? This was actually a show many years ago, you know. I'll bet there are a significant number of viewers who tuned in just to see how it was like the original, and have stayed tuned because of a good story. Does the pro-piracy movement really need to use such weak propaganda?
It's flames, friend. Not just for Intelligent Design advocates, but for any idea that has a hint of conservatism. Slashdot, the harbor for open-minded geeks, is remarkably intolerant of such people and ideas.
The sentence here is way out of proportion to the crime. If I took a gun went to a movie theatre and stole the movie reel (hell let's grab the projector while I'm at it). I'd get a similar sentence to dropping a poor quality "Episode III" in my share directory.
Tell me how that is right?
Perhaps the idea behind it is the comparison of the financial impact of the latter with the physical (but limited financial) impact of the former.
Also, if you have widespread lawbreaking, the quickest way to reduce the rate is to impose a harsh sentence. That will turn many from the crime (theft, in this case) for fear of the punishment.
Yet, in the situation addressed, the legal/moral argument is perfectly understandable. What they said is that while it is technically legal to steal the music up there, they seek to educate that it is morally wrong.
Of course, we know that won't work due to the moral amibuity of western society, and the relevant peer groups' opinion of music thievery as perfectly acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
This makes me want to put gold stars all over your post... but that would really screw up my LCD.
This is the most truthful and realistic statement I have ever read on Slashdot. Unfortunately, it is also perhaps the most ignored that I have ever encountered in my employment history. I've been passed over for jobs because I didn't have the trivia memorized (not in IT/CS field, though... I'm back in school for that now). It makes no difference to the ignorant horde of managers that you know where to find the information, or even that you can find the information, but you must have a mind full of the useless at the expense of creativity and the ability to actually solve a problem.
Some good points, though I had difficulty connecting them with the main idea. This one, however, screamed out at me.
and we are increasingly becoming a nanny state (deviating from founding American ideas)
This history is incorrect... for the most part, anyway. Consider Puritan New England. The government involved itself in each family directly. There was no "privacy". There was community. And where members of the community "did their own thing", be it lax discipline of children or troubled marriages, the community, the government stepped in and either turned the people back to the path or sent them packing. Other colonies did similar things, too. Those were founding American ideals.
Where you did find different foundational principles was in the company-established colonies, the for-profit colonies like Virginia. You had individualism and privacy there, all right. And it was miserable. No one cared what anyone else did, as long as they stayed away from MY tobacco plantation. And since there was no regulation, no centralization, no government, really, they mistreated their indentured servants (and I'm not talking about just some whipping either), they took advantage of the poor and weak, they were open to attacks, and they made utterly dumb decisions (e.g. the African slave trade). These are the only foundational American ideas that I know of that diverge from the proverbial "nanny state", and it's not something that looks appealing to me.
I don't think that's what I said, but I do subscribe to that notion. Those of us who do, though, admittedly must realize that the legality of our actions is ultimately determined by this government, so things may change legal status from one day to the next. (Example, one day in 1973, infanticide was illegal; the next, it was legal.) With this in mind, we do need to be observant of the tide of change and where our rights (real or imagined) stand. But yes, in short, why should I worry about encroachments on illegal, unethical, and immoral actions and conduct when I'm not participating in them?
I appreciate your input. Let me offer this as a counter-point.
A nanny state doesn't believe that you can think and reason well enough to live on your own
Isn't this true? After all, if we're talking about the US (continuing off-topic, that is), then we are too stupid. That's not a flame or troll. Explanation follows.
The kicker is that this theory destroys the foundation of democracy.
That's not how the United States' government was established. We're not a direct democracy, but a republic. Yes, there is a difference. We Americans choose to be too stupid to live without government management. I will refrain from my own value judgement and present it this way for discussion: Since we have chosen this form of government, isn't the management something that is in our best interest?
What's this sudden rash of the "nanny state" term? Seems like it's popped up whenever there's a "threat" to your right *cough* to view porn, download illegally, etc. This only amounts to some sort of nanny control if you're underage. What's wrong with making it difficult for kids to access such material? I say bah to such cries of control as they likely come from a 15-year-old who's PO'ed that his parents have installed CyberSitter.
Yes, I recognize this is off-topic. To bring it somewhat back to topic, what's this data collection have to do with the so-called nanny state, anyway?
America is founded on one principle: That people are smart enough to rule themselves. By corollary, the government is a reflection of the people, nothing more, and nothing less.
Actually, this isn't quite true. Understand, I love this country, cess-pool that I may think it is at times; but America -- the government -- was founded not on the principle that people were smart enough to rule themselves, but that white, property-owning males were smart enough to rule everyone else. (I am a white, property-owning male, by the way.) Women weren't allowed a vote. Natives weren't allowed a vote. Blacks weren't even considered human, and certainly weren't allowed a vote.
I realize I sound like a typical Slashdot pinko commie by making this distinction, but it's the truth of history. I do, however, stand behind your main point which is that we are responsible for making changes rather than just whining about problems to other underachieving internet addicts.
Ge 1:30 - "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground -- everything that has the breath of life in it -- I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
Just a little stab at those who claim (foolishly) that dinosaurs only ate each other.
Will try to make a few cohesive points here before turning in for the night.
If a piece of evidence contradicts an existing theory, the entire theory is wrong.
That certainly sounds grand, but it isn't actually practiced. Consider, for example, Newtonian gravity. Evidence points to its failure in reality, for some natural phenomena, that is. Yet it is what we teach our children. Why? Because it is a workable model... somewhat. Einstein gravity works for a bit more (okay, quite a bit). But there are even areas where it doesn't work. Yet we still use it. Why? It's a workable model... somewhat. It's great to think that we always throw away things that don't work, but it's just not true. And often we have held on to models/theories just because of some affinity for a particular worldview rather than what the evidence suggests (geocentric solar system, anyone?).
One of those is that the natural laws of our universe have not changed over time and don't change from place to place.
Unless I misunderstand, according to Big Bang cosmology this (changed laws) is required to have happened for the universe to exist in its present state. First of all, the quantum fluctuation in the void. Sometime in there was the inflation. The clumping of matter after cool down certainly required something different over regions. Ah, and not to mention the handedness problem (CP violation). And, lest we forget, matter/anitmatter asymmetry. The laws had to "break" for the universe to be the way it is. Note, of course, that this is required from the Big Bangers, not creationists.
Either life is shaped by natural forces or by supernatural forces; both cannot be true simultaneously.
Minor point here, but I'm sure you recognize that this does not naturally follow your line of argument. I also think it foolhardy to presume how a supernatural force (to use the generic term) would interact in a natural process. We leave the realm of the issue with that, though.
Rather I'm saying that those who are promoting ID believe the same thing you do--they just hide it. They do not have the courage of their convictions to speak up honestly, and wrap their belief in the blanket of science to try to pass it off among the unwary.
This I agree with. Partly, at least. We can't, of course, make such a sweeping generalization, but I do believe there are some who are trying to advance my cause - a literal creation week, young earth/universe - by hiding it beneath this (dare I call it) "progressive" shroud. I've no patience for these compromisers. And obviously your side doesn't either. But they're not courting us extremists. They're wooing the mainstream, the people who will jump on any new fad that comes around. And it must be admitted that there is something of a religious fervor in the nation these days, and it's a prime environment for something like this to flourish.
Still, let's face it: they, the mainstream, don't want your side because *gasp* "what if there is a god (note small G), then he'd be mad at me!" And they don't want my side because *gasp* "if there is a God and I can't be a lout, but must be a servant. Hey look... let's take this thing where we can say there's a god, just for fire insurance, and we can still not look dumb like those creationists." This is, I think, the greatest shame of the movement. Then again, I'm considered a zealot, so what do I know?
(BTW, I suppose there are still some that could be classified as believers of the ID movement, but I find it to be a weak and untenable position.)
I don't think that we will see a return to earth-centric or flat-earth theories (the sort believed when the Bible was written).
;) It's a common misconception (to use the generous term) that the ancients, as in the various authors of the Bible, believed the earth was flat. This view is typically forced upon them by taking stylized language and reading it out of context.
:) (By the way, note that, for my purpose here, I conveniently ignore militant, hate-monger, pseudo-Christians... the type your typical slashdotter likes to incorrectly call fundamentalist.)
Ah! I thought this was an end-of-thread message until that line!
I'm not saying that we know all the answers now, just that we know more than we did thousands of years ago.
And all we fundamental Christians are trying to say is that we don't know all the answers now, but we know someone who does.
Really? How do you reconcile the fact that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give two different accounts for the order of creation?
That's an excellent question, and it's asked quite often. Pardon me while I humor myself and respond as if you're actually interested in learning something.
They don't. Simple enough answer? Chapter 1 gives the account of the entire creation week. Chapter 2 revisits a portion to focus on the reason for Creation: Man. Note in the "different account", as you call it, of Chapter 2, that the plants are specifically denoted as "of the field", possibly meaning those later cultivated, not the whole of the plant world. If your point of contention is rather with the trees mentioned slightly later, you'll note that those are introduced in the garden context, again not the whole of the created trees.
I must say, though, that I wasn't there to observe these things, no matter what my wife may think.
Pardon my interjection here, but I think you're misrepresenting Augustine...
... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.' Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past, De Civitate Dei (The City of God), 12(10).
Augustine: 'Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race.
Emphasis mine. By the way, Augustine (and others) did argue against a 6 day creation. They thought that was limiting the Almighty Creator, so they proposed that God created all in an instant!
Fundamentalists are, at their core, cowards who are afraid of the world. Instead of examining the working of their environment, and altering their world view based on the new information, they close themselves off to knowledge, in the futile hope that their ignorance will somehow lead them to salvation.
Upon what do you base this claim? I would be interested in which portion of Scripture you pervert to come up with this.
Fundamentalist is now synonymous with intrusive, ignorant, and intolerant.
Let's examine this statement in light of the above, shall we? Intrusive? Consider, if you will, whether your statement above is intrusive. Ignorant? Who is wallowing in ignorance making vacuous claims? Intolerant? Need we point to the above comment yet again?
I'm sure you've suffered greatly due to some Amish or Mennonite, but let me comfort you by saying that I'm not that type of fundamentalist. Let me also enlighten you with a few counter-examples to the above ridiculous generalization. Consider Galileo and Kepler. Perhaps you've heard of Newton and Leibnitz. Maybe these will help: Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Carver. Rather than making "intrusive, ignorant, and intolerant" claims, perhaps you should study exactly what it is that you're attacking.
Forgive me if I have a difficult time taking Genesis literally when it so obviously contradicts our understanding of the universe around us (and this is just the first page!).
And I'm sure you'll forgive me while I have a chuckle at arrogance due to current "understanding of the universe". On the one hand, you criticize a "myth" you say is based upon the understanding of a primitive people in the past (not your exact words, but your intention). On the other, you exalt an understanding of the universe by a primitive people in the present. You only need to consider how often theories are over-turned/improved/modified to see the weakness of a temporo-centric argument. (Don't know if that's a word, but you'll understand.)
No, what ID says is that species we see today were designed into their current shape by an intelligent force.
One of us is confused, and I'm not too arrogrant to admit that it could be me. But my understanding of ID is as stated above, that they embrace evolution by design (ignoring all the other absurdities for the moment). One other poster below this thread has noted the same distinction. I believe you are confusing "them" with "us", which was the reason for my initial post. Have a look at what they say again... at what the ID official stance is. I will happily admit if I'm wrong, but I think you'll find that's what they say.
True fundamentalism demands avoidance of modern medicine and treatments;
This is a ridiculous, even laughable perversion of the entire Bible. Obviously you've never read it or else you wouldn't reduce yourself to such error. You needn't step beyond the Pentateuch, if you don't want; it contains several counter-examples.
Actually, I don't think I claimed that fundamentalists don't support it. But I think I did claim that the views are incompatible. I agree with your comment on mixing and the reason cited for fundamentalist support of ID. Still, I would (and do) chastise fellow fundamentalists for the same co-mingling of terms and for their support of ID.
Yes, I do mean 6 literal days, just as the text says. By the way, you may want to research a bit on the voluminous manuscript evidence before arguing translation errors.
Why do you people continually confuse two separate movements?
The fundamentalist belief (to which I hold) is not compatible with ID. These are two entirely separate paradigms.
For reference, ID embraces pretty much the same things as the so-called independent thinking scientists, except for having a cause. Fundamentalists (again, that's me) hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis.
If you want to lambaste one of the causes, please choose the appropriate one. Or at least make a distinction. Thanks.
A very fact-filled response there. At least apparently. Allow me to attempt a rebuttal... and a continuation of the off-topic, though interesting, thread here.
/. has for anything with even a hint of support for a Christian world-view. However, while most simply offer a slobbering rant, at least you've built a (somewhat) coherent argument. You have my respect for that, anyway.
n -here issue except to say that we could likely get into a never-ending semantic battle trying to specifically classify each of the founders as a certain religion, or sub-class, or denomination. I will accept the "lowest common denominator" in this case that most of them believed in a God.
But firstly, I'd like to thank you for a stellar example of the hostility which most of
I won't comment on the Deist/Christian/Star-Goat-Worhiper/insert-religio
Regarding Jefferson's "Bible", I generally don't visit wikipedia for information, but there was a link there that I quickly perused and found most useful. Perhaps you missed these passages there. Jefferson's purpose "at first was to compile a book which would be valuable for the use of the Indians." Though his plan later changed, he still placed great value on Jesus' teachings because in them (his words) "will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." And finally, these words of Jefferson speak volumes, I'd say: "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." Perhaps Jefferson was less of a Deist than the rest, then.
I wish I had time right now to briefly research the others, but work-time is coming up. Let me offer a few rapid comments, though.
As seen above, Jefferson's purpose in "rewriting the Bible" (a misnomer, by the way) could be misconstrued if not taken in context. I don't know the details of Washington's walking out of Communion, but I'd expect in context we'd see some form of Popist Communion or something equally repugnant to a Protestant. (Remember, I'm speaking off the cuff here, trying to get out the door.) Your comments on Madison are likewise out of context. Selective highlighting (bold text) appears to reinforce your position, but a correct reading actually weakens it. I also expect the proper context to clear up the remaining points.
If you've no objection, I may take some time later to consider the remaining points and return my opinion by private message, or whatever it's called here. Certainly I'd rather attempt to bolster my side in public, but we're far off-topic now.
Good point and well-presented, but I still disagree. Let me explain.
/. has no desire at all to hear anything of Christianity or the Bible, but the truth is that the nation was founded by people who took the Bible (and the laws therein) as truth not needing to further define law that was already Divinely written, hence the "missing" statutes.
I'd say that the Founding Fathers took the Judeo-Christian Decalogue (aka Ten Commandments) as Divine law (not to mention the rest of the various "laws" from the Christian Bible). They didn't need to establish a statute stating that murder was wrong since it was already there in the old Jewish law.
The nation was built by Christian men & women (and pagans) who already knew from Biblical teaching that murder was unlawful. They also had spelled out for them the various punishments for other crimes ending in death, too.
I know most of
What does this have to do with activism? This is what judges are supposed to do.
I don't think so. Judges are supposed to make rulings based upon the written law, not based upon their opinion of the written law. It's called judicial activism because rather than judging, they are legislating, and thus abusing their power by setting up their own law apart from that approved by those elected by the people specifically as representative lawmakers. (This is from a US perspective. The French system may be different.)
You've hit the nail on the head with the issue in general, but it seems everyone's missing the biggest point with this story: activist judges. I don't know how the French system works, but I'd guess it's similar to the US in that it is the judge's job to interpret the law, not to act in defiance of it and change it (in other words, legislate).
The real reason the something-for-nothing people should be excited about this is that the US has the motherlode of activist judges, and in some cases even (unconstitutionally) look to precedents from other countries so that they don't look so "draconian" by simply relying on the law of the land.
Legislating from the bench is abuse of power, but it also seems to be the newest best hope for the file-sharers.
Piracy made it possible for 'word-of-mouth' to spread about Battlestar Galactica.
I call BS. Didja ever think that the name itself was enough to get people to tune in? This was actually a show many years ago, you know. I'll bet there are a significant number of viewers who tuned in just to see how it was like the original, and have stayed tuned because of a good story. Does the pro-piracy movement really need to use such weak propaganda?
It's flames, friend. Not just for Intelligent Design advocates, but for any idea that has a hint of conservatism. Slashdot, the harbor for open-minded geeks, is remarkably intolerant of such people and ideas.
The sentence here is way out of proportion to the crime. If I took a gun went to a movie theatre and stole the movie reel (hell let's grab the projector while I'm at it). I'd get a similar sentence to dropping a poor quality "Episode III" in my share directory. Tell me how that is right?
Perhaps the idea behind it is the comparison of the financial impact of the latter with the physical (but limited financial) impact of the former.
Also, if you have widespread lawbreaking, the quickest way to reduce the rate is to impose a harsh sentence. That will turn many from the crime (theft, in this case) for fear of the punishment.
Of course, we know that won't work due to the moral amibuity of western society, and the relevant peer groups' opinion of music thievery as perfectly acceptable.