Not really. The word means comics from Japan, & they use another word for comics that aren't from Japan. Like residents of Champagne would presumably use another word for sparkling wines from elsewhere.
I don't mean to say it's actually a brand name in a legal sense, just that it indicates a specific place of origin, like champagne does. I probably chose a bad way to phrase it.
Just as if you make sparkling wine the same as they do in Champagne it's not real champagne, something the same as manga from outside Japan is not real manga. It's manga-like, but it's not the real thing.
Champagne is a brand name, sparkling wine is the product type. Similarly, manga is a brand name & comics are the product type. If you take an Australian sparkling wine & make it more like real Champagne, it doesn't actually become real Champagne, no matter how widely the incorrect term is used. Same with manga.
Also, manga is a loanword used to differentiate Japanese comics, because that's what they call them. Unlike anime, however, they apply it to Japanese comics alone - US comics are AmeCom or something like that.
Of course, similar to Champagne or Hoover, the brand name has become rather genericised. That still doesn't mean it's right though.
Plus, saying that a rejection of religion is a religious statement seems a little pointless to me. I don't know if you are one of them, but I have seen religious people state the atheism is a religion. To me this is simply a rejection by religious people that anyone could possibly have no belief in a god of any kind, which is obviously wrong.
I understand what you mean, & in most cases you're probably right. But not always.
A religion is a set of rules or guides to how to behave & what to believe. A faith, on the other hand, is the actual belief in a god. A good explanatory example:
Christianity is a faith; it is belief in Jesus & God & all. Catholicism is a religion; it's a set of rules for how to behave & what to believe. Not all Christians are Catholic, & not all Catholics are Christian (you're born into Catholicism, though you can also join - nonetheless it doesn't make you believe in God), but some people are both.
In atheism, there's no faith; how can there be when you don't believe in any god? But there can be religion. Weak atheists or agnostics profess simply that they don't believe - thus no rules of belief. Strong atheists on the other hand profess a direct belief that there is no god. It's the difference between 'I don't believe' & 'I believe not.' The latter is a system of belief, thus it is a religion, while the former is neither.
This is a controversial way of looking at it, I suppose, but whether you agree with it or not, it explains how some people see the situation. A strong atheist doesn't believe in a god, but unlike an agnostic, they do believe.
P.S. This is a crappy explanation, I know. Sorry about that.
Perhaps they've changed in the past few years... their beliefs tend to do that whenever it becomes painfully obvious that they're wrong.;-)
Not trying to flame, but it's one of those incidents which causes me to have no respect for them:
When they started out, they accepted the doctrine of only 144,000 getting into heaven as literal. They were quite specific on it. But now that they have over 6,000,000 adherents, that seems to have mysteriously disappeared from their (official) doctrine.
That was an interesting read... I've never thought of it that way (nor is my knowledge of them highly in-depth, I'll admit). I'm still not sure if I'd classify them as Christian, because I really believe you have to follow Jesus to be that, but I'm no longer certain I'd classify them as being non-Christian.
That's a lot more care than the typical fundamentalist "I read some verse in the Bible, and I understand it in the same way my preacher told me to understand it, and there's no other way to understand it."
Oh, I agree. No claims to the contrary.
That doesn't make Catholic doctrine any more correct, but at least you can read a long, careful description of what is being stated and why.
Now this is what I didn't realise. I knew it to some extent, of course, but didn't know how far it went.
All right then, thanks. That seems rather mad to me, but believe what you want to. I just can't agree that anyone else came even close to Jesus, which this would seem to imply Mary did. That's my personal belief, I'm not bashing anyone.
If we taught people HOW to think, instead of WHAT to think, we'd likely be better off.
Not what to think, nor how to think, but rather how to learn to think. If they can adjust their own thinking, you get two possibilities:
Doublethink
Robustly adaptive thinkers who could change their way of thought to suit a situation
Personally I think the risk of the first is worth the second (actually I'd love it if I could do the first - in comparison, the second is a piece of cake).
Learning how to learn to think sounds like a useless complication, but if you're stuck in the scientific method as your way of thought, it's a pretty big restriction. It's the best method, in my view, but to be able to think in different ways could offer insights. It could even deal with the fabled problems between men & women:P
The extreme atheists (those who believe that anyone who has faith is an idiot) cast ID-proponents as blathering morons who are out to corrupt our youth into believing a lie. And the extreme ID-proponents cast atheists as people trying to corrupt our youth into being godless heathens.
Thing is, they're kind of right.
The extremem ID-proponents are trying to have kids taught their view as fact, which from the extreme atheists' point of view is corrupting the youth into believing a lie. The extreme atheists want everyone to cease believing in any god, which from the point of view of the ID-ers is corrupting the youth into godless heathens (by definition).
Unfortunately both extremes lump everyone on the other side in together, rather than only considering the opposite extreme, which is where their fears actually hold some validity.
So please, don't cast us atheists into the mold of the few outspoken idiots who haven't carefully considered their position, just as I refrain from casting conservative Christians into the mold of the "Christian Right Warrior" who would ignore the rights of everyone else to further their version of the truth. The respect must run both ways.
Have you ever tried to explain that point of view to a rabidly anti-Christian atheist 16 year old? Just explain, not convice. I was arguing with one guy, & he couldn't get over Deuteronomy or Genesis... science was a religion to him.
You'd think it would only be a problem when talking to the literalist believers, but it's just as bad talking to literalist unbelievers. Being a moron who sees the world in black & white is all too common, unfortunately.
None of this is aimed at you, I'm just venting mildly because what you said is exactly what I've said in the past, to no avail. It's frustrating.
P.S. The word translated as 'day' is used in other parts of the Bible to mean a literal day, & in yet others to mean an aeon, i.e. a really long yet indefinite period of time. I choose the latter for Genesis, myself.
Doesn't the immaculate conception refer to the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin? Jesus had (non-divine) siblings so obviously you're right in that it's not the permanent virginity of Mary.
I know a fellow who thinks the NIV is not to be trusted - only the original KJV is good enough. It's absolute, & divinely inspired to be perfect. If you went up to him with something from the real originals, he'd take the KJV over it. He's the sort of person raider_red was talking about in your grandparent post, the ones who need to believe it literally to continue believing. His mind doesn't have a robust, flexible architecture, I guess you might say.
But he still has no beard.
It's a pity this sort are the ones who get noticed, but it's understandable.
The Jehovah's Witnesses don't really count as Christian though. They call Jesus "a god," not "God," & claim he's like a super-angel. This while claiming "there is only one god, Jehova" - so how can Jesus be "a minor god?" They witness for Jehovah, i.e. the father alone. Not the other two bits. They don't actually follow Christ, which sets them apart from the rest of the denominations, & disqualifies them from the name, if you get what I mean.
Their religion is quite similar to the Catholic religion, the Greek orthodox religion, the Southern Baptist religion, the Lutheran religion, etc., but their faith is totally different - those I just listed hold the same faith.
The difference between a faith & a religion is subtle, but it's important. I notice you didn't actually say the JWs were Christian, so sorry if you didn't mean that, but it seemed implied.
P.S. Other than the JW thing, your post is great. Well done.
To me, the most irritating part of ID is people want to use it a "proof" that god exists, when the whole deal with god -- at least as I was taught -- is that there is no proof, and no need for proof.
It's frustrating isn't it? It boggles the mind that they could be so mind-numbingly ignorant of the core doctrine of the faith, yet so adamant about the peripheral crap which doesn't matter.
The "Galileo Affair" was about submission to an authoritarian regime. It was a trial about the Papal power. It was not about physics, astronomy or the accuracy of Galileo's description of the heavens.
Precisely. & that just so happens to be what your parent was saying.
It wasn't about science, it was about control; Galileo was defying the Vatican. Whether they had a problem with the science is another matter, but what he said implied that truth wasn't the sole domain of the Vatican, which in turn implied that heretics & dissidents could be right, which obviously didn't do much good for the Vatican's control of Christendom. Thus Galileo had to be quashed.
[T]hat is merely natural selection due to mutation of genes accidentally providing a benefit. We've seen that before.
You realise you've just supported the very thing you're decrying? That's what evolution is. What you're actually arguing is that evolution happens, but only on a really small scale.
If you add up lots of small scales, what do you get?
One really big scale.
The requirement for a lot of time to have all those small scales in.
Why can't it be ripped as an ISO image? Isn't an ISO technically just a raw binary dump of the CD contents, which just happens to usually include an ISO 9660 file system?
That sort of size would cut down on copying now, but by the same token nobody could watch it. By the time they can actually deliver it to customers by disc or pipe, copying will be just as easy as it is now (apart from cracking the DRM) because everyone will have that stuff available.
That's fairly interesting; thanks. It looks hard, but I guess it's one of those things where you just have to get started. I may look into that... I'll at least remember it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. The word means comics from Japan, & they use another word for comics that aren't from Japan. Like residents of Champagne would presumably use another word for sparkling wines from elsewhere.
I don't mean to say it's actually a brand name in a legal sense, just that it indicates a specific place of origin, like champagne does. I probably chose a bad way to phrase it.
Just as if you make sparkling wine the same as they do in Champagne it's not real champagne, something the same as manga from outside Japan is not real manga. It's manga-like, but it's not the real thing.
Champagne is a brand name, sparkling wine is the product type. Similarly, manga is a brand name & comics are the product type. If you take an Australian sparkling wine & make it more like real Champagne, it doesn't actually become real Champagne, no matter how widely the incorrect term is used. Same with manga.
Also, manga is a loanword used to differentiate Japanese comics, because that's what they call them. Unlike anime, however, they apply it to Japanese comics alone - US comics are AmeCom or something like that.
Of course, similar to Champagne or Hoover, the brand name has become rather genericised. That still doesn't mean it's right though.
I understand what you mean, & in most cases you're probably right. But not always.
A religion is a set of rules or guides to how to behave & what to believe. A faith, on the other hand, is the actual belief in a god. A good explanatory example:
Christianity is a faith; it is belief in Jesus & God & all. Catholicism is a religion; it's a set of rules for how to behave & what to believe. Not all Christians are Catholic, & not all Catholics are Christian (you're born into Catholicism, though you can also join - nonetheless it doesn't make you believe in God), but some people are both.
In atheism, there's no faith; how can there be when you don't believe in any god? But there can be religion. Weak atheists or agnostics profess simply that they don't believe - thus no rules of belief. Strong atheists on the other hand profess a direct belief that there is no god. It's the difference between 'I don't believe' & 'I believe not.' The latter is a system of belief, thus it is a religion, while the former is neither.
This is a controversial way of looking at it, I suppose, but whether you agree with it or not, it explains how some people see the situation. A strong atheist doesn't believe in a god, but unlike an agnostic, they do believe.
P.S. This is a crappy explanation, I know. Sorry about that.
Not trying to flame, but it's one of those incidents which causes me to have no respect for them:
When they started out, they accepted the doctrine of only 144,000 getting into heaven as literal. They were quite specific on it. But now that they have over 6,000,000 adherents, that seems to have mysteriously disappeared from their (official) doctrine.
That was an interesting read... I've never thought of it that way (nor is my knowledge of them highly in-depth, I'll admit). I'm still not sure if I'd classify them as Christian, because I really believe you have to follow Jesus to be that, but I'm no longer certain I'd classify them as being non-Christian.
'Twas an eye-opener, so thankee.
Oh, I agree. No claims to the contrary.
Now this is what I didn't realise. I knew it to some extent, of course, but didn't know how far it went.
Thanks.
All right then, thanks. That seems rather mad to me, but believe what you want to. I just can't agree that anyone else came even close to Jesus, which this would seem to imply Mary did. That's my personal belief, I'm not bashing anyone.
Not what to think, nor how to think, but rather how to learn to think. If they can adjust their own thinking, you get two possibilities:
Personally I think the risk of the first is worth the second (actually I'd love it if I could do the first - in comparison, the second is a piece of cake).
Learning how to learn to think sounds like a useless complication, but if you're stuck in the scientific method as your way of thought, it's a pretty big restriction. It's the best method, in my view, but to be able to think in different ways could offer insights. It could even deal with the fabled problems between men & women :P
Thing is, they're kind of right.
The extremem ID-proponents are trying to have kids taught their view as fact, which from the extreme atheists' point of view is corrupting the youth into believing a lie. The extreme atheists want everyone to cease believing in any god, which from the point of view of the ID-ers is corrupting the youth into godless heathens (by definition).
Unfortunately both extremes lump everyone on the other side in together, rather than only considering the opposite extreme, which is where their fears actually hold some validity.
Thank you.
Have you ever tried to explain that point of view to a rabidly anti-Christian atheist 16 year old? Just explain, not convice. I was arguing with one guy, & he couldn't get over Deuteronomy or Genesis... science was a religion to him.
You'd think it would only be a problem when talking to the literalist believers, but it's just as bad talking to literalist unbelievers. Being a moron who sees the world in black & white is all too common, unfortunately.
None of this is aimed at you, I'm just venting mildly because what you said is exactly what I've said in the past, to no avail. It's frustrating.
P.S. The word translated as 'day' is used in other parts of the Bible to mean a literal day, & in yet others to mean an aeon, i.e. a really long yet indefinite period of time. I choose the latter for Genesis, myself.
Doesn't the immaculate conception refer to the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin? Jesus had (non-divine) siblings so obviously you're right in that it's not the permanent virginity of Mary.
This is why people despise the fundamentalists.
I know a fellow who thinks the NIV is not to be trusted - only the original KJV is good enough. It's absolute, & divinely inspired to be perfect. If you went up to him with something from the real originals, he'd take the KJV over it. He's the sort of person raider_red was talking about in your grandparent post, the ones who need to believe it literally to continue believing. His mind doesn't have a robust, flexible architecture, I guess you might say.
But he still has no beard.
It's a pity this sort are the ones who get noticed, but it's understandable.
The Jehovah's Witnesses don't really count as Christian though. They call Jesus "a god," not "God," & claim he's like a super-angel. This while claiming "there is only one god, Jehova" - so how can Jesus be "a minor god?" They witness for Jehovah, i.e. the father alone. Not the other two bits. They don't actually follow Christ, which sets them apart from the rest of the denominations, & disqualifies them from the name, if you get what I mean.
Their religion is quite similar to the Catholic religion, the Greek orthodox religion, the Southern Baptist religion, the Lutheran religion, etc., but their faith is totally different - those I just listed hold the same faith.
The difference between a faith & a religion is subtle, but it's important. I notice you didn't actually say the JWs were Christian, so sorry if you didn't mean that, but it seemed implied.
P.S. Other than the JW thing, your post is great. Well done.
It's frustrating isn't it? It boggles the mind that they could be so mind-numbingly ignorant of the core doctrine of the faith, yet so adamant about the peripheral crap which doesn't matter.
Precisely. & that just so happens to be what your parent was saying.
It wasn't about science, it was about control; Galileo was defying the Vatican. Whether they had a problem with the science is another matter, but what he said implied that truth wasn't the sole domain of the Vatican, which in turn implied that heretics & dissidents could be right, which obviously didn't do much good for the Vatican's control of Christendom. Thus Galileo had to be quashed.
You realise you've just supported the very thing you're decrying? That's what evolution is. What you're actually arguing is that evolution happens, but only on a really small scale.
If you add up lots of small scales, what do you get?
So where's the problem?
Now I want to go & find how all of the different image formats work. Don't think I'd manage it though - too many. Anyway thanks for clearing that up.
OK then; thanks.
So when I rip a .iso of an audio CD, I'm actually ripping a misnamed .bin? Righto... oh well, thanks.
Indeed I was... I thought they were the same thing under different names. Thanks.
Why can't it be ripped as an ISO image? Isn't an ISO technically just a raw binary dump of the CD contents, which just happens to usually include an ISO 9660 file system?
That sort of size would cut down on copying now, but by the same token nobody could watch it. By the time they can actually deliver it to customers by disc or pipe, copying will be just as easy as it is now (apart from cracking the DRM) because everyone will have that stuff available.
That's fairly interesting; thanks. It looks hard, but I guess it's one of those things where you just have to get started. I may look into that... I'll at least remember it.
SirPavlova
You should have kept going, that was great!
Just out of interest, what regime was that?