It is only with recent times people have stopped doing this very natural thing, and now relying on antibiotics to reduce parasite infestations, something which destroys the natural bacteria flora and has many other side-effects.
If it were a natural part of human life everyone would be doing it anyway. Also i have never done it and can count the times I've been prescribed antibiotics on one hand.
The importance of digestions seems to have been forgotten by modern science due to the shortcut of antibiotics it seems, which is a shame.
So you're saying meat eaters who don't do this bowel cleansing thing had serious problems before the advent of antibiotics? bollocks
Besides, with Retrode sold out, how is one supposed to dump his own game cartridges to ROM files for use on a PC?
Make the dumper yourself? all it takes is a microcontroller some other minor parts like resistors etc (I have a sizable snes collection, and made one moreso for the programming eeprom side of things than dumping so I could write software for my snes).
While this is true, it would be very difficult for the prosecutor to charge with anything more than that because of the statements/actions that the ladies have been found to have done.
Who lets someone stay in your house for a week and throws a party for you after they rape them?
Also, 200,000 pounds bail when there isn't even a charge laid? if that doesn't send off your bullshit meter nothing will.
I have served in the military and would do so again in a heartbeat were my country were being invaded. While I believe people will never know what they do in that situation (die fighting or be taken prisoner) until it occurs I think people should at least have the opportunity by fighting for their country.
You may want to look up the difference between embargo and blockade.
Yes it was an embargo, the point is they stopped 80% of japans oil imports, do you seriously think the US would not go to war if one country cut off 80% of it's oil supply?
You think he only faces a $700 fine? What are you basing on this?
He is basing it on swedish law and on the charges the swedish prosecutor placing against assange, it is not rape but a far far lesser allegation with a maximum $700 fine.
Because it wasn't barbaric to basically tell their people that surrender wasn't an option and that they should all fight to the death?
Better to die free than live a slave.
Dropping the bomb which almost immediately lead to the Japanese surrendering and the end to their brutal empire expansion
Could be argued the US and other countries are still engaged in empire expansion although mainly in influence instead of annexation. Who needs to take a country over militarily if you can get the existing government to be your lap dog.
They are only looking after themselves and their own agenda (the US and china, both now and back then) and that is all you can expect them to do. The US did after all blockade oil going to japan, can you imagine the united states' response if someone blockaded oil to america?
Something I wrote earlier for someone else that you may like (or dislike).
This comes down to a lack of understanding of how science fundamentally works. Models are created where testing can be done whose results can support or detract the model. If results indicate the model is flawed in some aspect a new model is created that tries to take into account why those specific results differed from the old model.
Science never claims to know every aspect of any given thing, it is objective and presents our current knowledge based from what we have observed as evidence so far. As we learn more our models change, this is learning and progress. Unlike faith science takes interesting observations to yield more understanding of the way things function. If something is wrong it can be proven wrong.
Saying that god exists is like saying we're all really in the matrix right now. There is no supporting evidence, just like any other out there untestable idiotic idea. To give it any credence at all is to invite delusion.
What you really want, is for people to be open to new evidence that goes contradictory to what people already believe (that there is a god) but we have already established that no supporting evidence is even possible for god because of the nature of the assertion.
To say that you are open to evidence there is a god does not mean you give it any probablility at all (0) until such time as evidence is provided.
Saying 'well there COULD be a god' without evidence is a cop out. Even the slightest belief without evidence is a farce to science in general.
That tiny bit of scepticism implies that you recognize that you're not in full possession of the facts, and that you could be wrong.
Those who follow reason and evidence _are_ skeptical of everything, that is how we got into this 'there is no reason to believe in god' business initially anyway. Part of being skeptical is not entertaining ideas seriously that have no evidence. Absolutely anything COULD be wrong even against all evidence for it for things that do have evidence, doesn't mean we will entertain the idea it is false until such evidence appears.
If my belief makes me feel better, how can it have no substance?
Are you trying to say your personal feelings are objective evidence?
You could try and make claims as to the source of this benefit. Perhaps it is self-fulfilling. Perhaps it is cosmic Karma. Perhaps something else entirely. But you're not doing that. You're flat out claiming that it does not exist. That's not science, that's religion..
Again, you are putting words in my mouth as you have done prior and I still don't appreciate it and dislike having to refute things I never actually said.
I never said that having beliefs without evidence (faith) could not wind up helping people psychologically (people lie to themselves all the time to their benefit), only that it is irrational.
You've taken to insulting me subtly rather than to address even a single point I've raised.
This is because I don't bother to reply to points you bring up that I have not raised, how i supposedly somewhere said that it can be proven god doesn't exist (when I said that it can't be) and other such things.
It is difficult to talk with someone when they completely don't understand what you are talking about and put words in your mouth that have very different meanings to what you are actually saying.
Look at what I have said again, and you will see most of what you are talking about is making assumptions that I am saying things I am not.
But turning science into a religion by representing that it can prove that God does not exist is the ultimate hubris.
Of course you can't prove god does not exist (never said you could), just as you can't prove god does exist, because the claims itself are that illogical and vague.
Oh, no, it can. You could map the corresponding brain waves today, I'm certain.
Again, how does having your brain waves be different prove god? Hell people hear voices in their heads all the time and as a general rule we consider it mental illness.
Remember god by most definitions is supernatural and infinite, you cannot provide evidence of something that is infinite or supernatural, the claim itself of god is illogical.
To stand atop a pinnacle and proclaim that we know all there is to know is folly. Any true scientist should never, ever allow that to come to pass.
I never did that, where did I do that pray tell?
I am saying you cannot provide evidence of claims that are illogical and/or vague, How can you provide evidence for/against anything when you don't even _know_ what that thing is in clear non-vague terms.
Essentially god is an intellectual cop-out, instead of figuring out how things work it is far easier to just go 'that is the way god intended' or god did x/y/z when in fact other things did it
You're dismissing my testimony out of hand. Therefore, I'm not at all certain why you're continuing to talk to me about my experiences.
I am saying that your feelings do not amount to objective evidence. If it were it could be easily repeated by anyone.
If you'd like to measure God's impact on my brain, I'd encourage you to do so. You'll find it, if you're brave enough to conduct the study.
Placebos make people feel better too, yet do not do what is described of them. Your belief changes the way you think, congratulations, doesn't provide evidence your belief has any substance.
Isn't it odd that the religious become the Illuminati? The scientists dictate what one is allowed to feel, what one is permitted to believe, and persecute those who dissent?
Bullshit, people are entitled to feel what they want and think what they want, but when they claim what they believe is rational when they are being irrational it helps to point out their logical flaws.
Also, you mistake this as persecution. If a child said 2+2=5, would I be persecuting them for correcting them? You say belief in god can be rational, I am merely pointing out the flaws with that logic.
You seem to have many fundamental flaws in your understanding of science and reason, and seem to have taken what I have said personally. If anything it's better if you have these things pointed out and accept them and still have faith in your religion regardless. Nobody can argue with you when you know there is no objective evidence to support god and still believe anyway.
Basically, claims without supporting evidence (god) piss people off, especially those of the very picky logical type that tend to take up science.
Just because you lack the skill to measure it doesn't make it invalid.
Because of the vague nature of the claims it could _never_ be measured.
Science is a work in progress, or at least it was until we decided to make it into a new religion.
It is a work in progress, it is not a religion, it relies on reason and evidence. Until you can provide supporting evidence (in substance or in thought) that there is a god, it is assumed false, just like every other thing we don't have evidence to support. There is no reason to believe in god without evidence just as there is no reason to believe in the tooth fairy without evidence.
Faith (belief without evidence) is the enemy of reason. Funnily enough we use reason in science.
Were you to put my hand into flame would it be irrational for me to withdraw it in pain?
No, you are stopping yourself from harm.. this has what to do with believing things without evidence? You have evidence that hands in fire directly correlates to pain and hurt. There is still no evidence of this god person/thing.
Because I'd find it equally irrational to deny myself belief in this thing that I can emphatically feel within my life just because you insist that I do so.
Oh I never said stop believing, I simply said that the belief is irrational, people are allowed to be irrational if they want, it's their choice.
Your evidence is subject to the logical fallacy "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" otherwise known as correlation does not imply causation a link between these event and god is implied but not shown.
No matter what 'evidence' you come up with, you will have a very hard time proving it has a link to god.
However, in both cases, why do you even care?
I care when people present ideas as rational when they are not, you are welcome to believe whatever you wish so long as it is accepted that there is no rational basis for the faith. When people imply that there is reason and evidence behind it is when I pipe up because it is an insult to people who do apply reason and demand evidence from things to be able to believe them.
This comes down to a lack of understanding of how science fundamentally works. Models are created where testing can be done whose results can support or detract the model. If results indicate the model is flawed in some aspect a new model is created that tries to take into account why those specific results differed from the old model.
Science never claims to know every aspect of any given thing, it is objective and presents our current knowledge based from what we have observed as evidence so far. As we learn more our models change, this is learning and progress. Unlike faith science takes interesting observations to yield more understanding of the way things function. If something is wrong it can be proven wrong.
Saying that god exists is like saying we're all really in the matrix right now. There is no supporting evidence, just like any other out there untestable idiotic idea. To give it any credence at all is to invite delusion.
What you really want, is for people to be open to new evidence that goes contradictory to what people already believe (that there is a god) but we have already established that no supporting evidence is even possible for god because of the nature of the assertion.
To say that you are open to evidence there is a god does not mean you give it any probablility at all (0) until such time as evidence is provided.
Saying 'well there COULD be a god' without evidence is a cop out. Even the slightest belief without evidence is a farce to science in general.
That tiny bit of scepticism implies that you recognize that you're not in full possession of the facts, and that you could be wrong.
Those who follow reason and evidence _are_ skeptical of everything, that is how we got into this 'there is no reason to believe in god' business initially anyway. Part of being skeptical is not entertaining ideas seriously that have no evidence. Absolutely anything COULD be wrong even against all evidence for it for things that do have evidence, doesn't mean we will entertain the idea it is false until such evidence appears.
You could be trapped on a Romulan Holodeck at this very moment, interfacing with a simulation in the hopes that you will reveal the Federation's defense codes. And you'll NEVER, EVER be able to prove otherwise. Enjoy your status of 'unprovable' existence.
And are you willing to give that thought as much credit as you do to the existence of god? I thought not.
You are welcome to believe what you wish, but belief in god _is_ irrational. I said this to someone else before so I may aswell reiterate.
The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages.
People who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. It is therefore up to them to provide supporting evidence for this assertion.
Believing in something without supporting evidence is to embrace madness.
Such as believing you are in a romulan holodeck would be, as is believing in god.
You know, I could probably be considered a militant atheist. In that I really hate people being irrational and illogical while claiming otherwise. I point this out to people and yes it pisses them off, but they usually wind up better for it.
That I am a militant atheist still does not mean I would make an assertion that there is no god (whatever god is anyway) only that there is no evidence to support it(and there can never be because of the nature of the claims).
It makes no sense to me to throw out the ideas of reason and evidence for one topic such as religion. Belief without supporting evidence is faith. Faith is the enemy of reason.
People can still have their religions, but it is when they claim that such a belief is rational or that they have supporting evidence is when I point out to them that they are wrong.
But very few people would willingly let themselves be subject to religion knowing that though.
If you think that having a theistic outlook on the world is irrational, prove it. Show me, point by point, exactly why there can't possibly be gods in the universe.
See my other post to you. It is irrational to believe in god without evidence supporting it's existence.
You cannot provide evidence of something that has no clear non-vague description, let alone something which is claimed to be infinite as many do of their gods.
Show me, point by point, exactly why there can't possibly be gods in the universe.
I don't have to, all I have to do is show you it is irrational to believe in something without evidence, the burdon of evidence is on the one making the assertion, which the one claiming there is a god is doing.
try to do it without resorting to dogmatic declarations or arguments based on "you can't prove it either", because you'd just be proving my point, which is that you can't prove that there isn't a god. You can't prove that there is one, either.
The belief of anything without supporting evidence is to embrace madness.
I could not prove that the entirety of this existence is not just merely in my head and I am in fact the only mind that exists. Does that mean I should treat the idea seriously? hell no.
Said reverse engineering violated the original license too.
Who says you need a copy of the game to capture and analyze traffic going over your network? the ones doing the reverse engineering ideally would never even install the game.
An EULA is not on shaky ground if offered for perusal prior to purchase actually, and there has not yet been an instance of a court deeming an EULA "shaky ground" even if it weren't - quit making stuff up.
The problems with them tend to be the 'and you will give me your first born child' type clauses that are bullshit and unenforcable if they tried to legally. There are things you cannot claim in contracts and there also has to be a 'meeting of the minds' etc.
Also, since when has the eula been on the outside of the WoW box, how does one read it before purchasing?
Pretty sure if I return the box opened and say 'I did not like the eula' the staff would laugh at me when I want a refund.
They're not saying that. They're saying "you can not run whatever the hell you want on connection with our services".
What I run on my machine is my machine, no matter what it connects to. Their service is their service and they are free to ban me etc etc, but what I run on my machine is what I run.
If you had your way everyone would still be using ma bell phones because nothing but their gear could attach to their network. Do you think people should have the right to choose their own end equipment? (or in this case software)
But still, this all does not matter as most eulas are seen after purchase and have not been tested in court yet, and as this ruling has shown trying to use eulas in court can prove useless.
Buying boxed software then after the purchase seeing 'by the way, this is a license, but you can't get replacement media and you have to buy another license if you lose the disc' is a sham.
Atheism is equally indefensible to Theism. The idea of a creator God is a question that, by definition, can neither be proven nor disproven.
Bullshit.
The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages.
Many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist (at least not a smart atheist). The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these must take place before any substantial discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – without any beliefs about God, they have no reason to do so. It must be presumed that this onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.
In other words, if you want to be rational about it, then the only defensible position is agnosticism, not atheism.
A person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all.
The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”
I don't give a shit what you believe. I'm not hurting you, I'm not foisting my beliefs on you, so what business do you have trying to foist yours on me?
Believe whatever you want to, but don't claim that it is a rational belief unless you can back it up.
And to create the software, they have to violate the contract themselves to test it.
You do know the server protocol has been reverse engineered and people have made their own, sure it might not be bug for bug perfect but it would be more than enough to test with. Safest option to test the software too.
The person writing the software is writing software for the sole purpose of allowing people to violate a contract- there's a law against that (I see "Tortuous Interference" bandied around a lot).
First you need to establish there actually is a contract (eula's are shaky ground). Second, turtuous interference would require the developers themselves to individually tell people 'hey, use this on the official wow servers' after it has been established there is a contract.
The mere existence of a tool which can cause harm does not make people do it.
The DMCA may not be the law to use, but they are acting well within legal and moral boundaries to pursue the program author.
"You can't write software I don't like because you are using a service I provide" is a slippery slope.
What if google suddenly told people (not that they would) that everyone who browses google must use chrome and anyone found bypassing this will have their ip range permanently banned. Would you still be in support of it?
As a better analogy, the pidgin IM client can connect to various chat networks, most of which have a clause somewhere to only use the official client. Since it is their service by you they have the rights to which things can connect and so no IM clients should exist except official ones and we should all have one client for each network.
I hope how you see this can get ridiculous.
Hating people who bot is not a justification to say 'you can not run whatever the hell you want on your own computer'
I dispute your right to fiddle with software that connects to a giant worldwide network owned by a private entity who grants you access to that network on a specific set of terms including "you will not fiddle with the software that connects to this network".
So ban/delete people who connect to the networks accounts, the authors of the program are not doing any wrong by writing it.
The problem is they have the wrong target, it's much easier to target the program authors than it is for those who abuse their network.
They're trying to trump someone developing software to interact with Blizzard's private property
Samba interacts with microsoft's software, by your logic it should not exist.
Taking away peoples ability to write software that interacts with other software just because the writers of the other software don't like it _is_ ridiculous.
probably because it doesn't have any effect on you directly that you care about
This is important for people who refract HF radio waves off the ionosphere back to earth because the amount of UV radiation determines the thickness of the layers of the ionosphere which determines what frequencies refract back and which don't.
Slashdot Mirror
It is only with recent times people have stopped doing this very natural thing, and now relying on antibiotics to reduce parasite infestations, something which destroys the natural bacteria flora and has many other side-effects.
If it were a natural part of human life everyone would be doing it anyway. Also i have never done it and can count the times I've been prescribed antibiotics on one hand.
The importance of digestions seems to have been forgotten by modern science due to the shortcut of antibiotics it seems, which is a shame.
So you're saying meat eaters who don't do this bowel cleansing thing had serious problems before the advent of antibiotics? bollocks
Besides, with Retrode sold out, how is one supposed to dump his own game cartridges to ROM files for use on a PC?
Make the dumper yourself? all it takes is a microcontroller some other minor parts like resistors etc (I have a sizable snes collection, and made one moreso for the programming eeprom side of things than dumping so I could write software for my snes).
You've never played metroid prime 3 then have you.
While this is true, it would be very difficult for the prosecutor to charge with anything more than that because of the statements/actions that the ladies have been found to have done.
Who lets someone stay in your house for a week and throws a party for you after they rape them?
Also, 200,000 pounds bail when there isn't even a charge laid? if that doesn't send off your bullshit meter nothing will.
Oh and also, you may find this an interesting read.
Every player looks out for themself, if they are backed into a wall they attack.
Easy words for an internet tough guy.
I have served in the military and would do so again in a heartbeat were my country were being invaded. While I believe people will never know what they do in that situation (die fighting or be taken prisoner) until it occurs I think people should at least have the opportunity by fighting for their country.
You may want to look up the difference between embargo and blockade.
Yes it was an embargo, the point is they stopped 80% of japans oil imports, do you seriously think the US would not go to war if one country cut off 80% of it's oil supply?
You think he only faces a $700 fine? What are you basing on this?
He is basing it on swedish law and on the charges the swedish prosecutor placing against assange, it is not rape but a far far lesser allegation with a maximum $700 fine.
Because it wasn't barbaric to basically tell their people that surrender wasn't an option and that they should all fight to the death?
Better to die free than live a slave.
Dropping the bomb which almost immediately lead to the Japanese surrendering and the end to their brutal empire expansion
Could be argued the US and other countries are still engaged in empire expansion although mainly in influence instead of annexation. Who needs to take a country over militarily if you can get the existing government to be your lap dog.
They are only looking after themselves and their own agenda (the US and china, both now and back then) and that is all you can expect them to do. The US did after all blockade oil going to japan, can you imagine the united states' response if someone blockaded oil to america?
Something I wrote earlier for someone else that you may like (or dislike).
This comes down to a lack of understanding of how science fundamentally works. Models are created where testing can be done whose results can support or detract the model. If results indicate the model is flawed in some aspect a new model is created that tries to take into account why those specific results differed from the old model.
Science never claims to know every aspect of any given thing, it is objective and presents our current knowledge based from what we have observed as evidence so far. As we learn more our models change, this is learning and progress. Unlike faith science takes interesting observations to yield more understanding of the way things function. If something is wrong it can be proven wrong.
Saying that god exists is like saying we're all really in the matrix right now. There is no supporting evidence, just like any other out there untestable idiotic idea. To give it any credence at all is to invite delusion.
What you really want, is for people to be open to new evidence that goes contradictory to what people already believe (that there is a god) but we have already established that no supporting evidence is even possible for god because of the nature of the assertion.
To say that you are open to evidence there is a god does not mean you give it any probablility at all (0) until such time as evidence is provided.
Saying 'well there COULD be a god' without evidence is a cop out. Even the slightest belief without evidence is a farce to science in general.
That tiny bit of scepticism implies that you recognize that you're not in full possession of the facts, and that you could be wrong.
Those who follow reason and evidence _are_ skeptical of everything, that is how we got into this 'there is no reason to believe in god' business initially anyway. Part of being skeptical is not entertaining ideas seriously that have no evidence. Absolutely anything COULD be wrong even against all evidence for it for things that do have evidence, doesn't mean we will entertain the idea it is false until such evidence appears.
If my belief makes me feel better, how can it have no substance?
Are you trying to say your personal feelings are objective evidence?
You could try and make claims as to the source of this benefit. Perhaps it is self-fulfilling. Perhaps it is cosmic Karma. Perhaps something else entirely. But you're not doing that. You're flat out claiming that it does not exist. That's not science, that's religion..
Again, you are putting words in my mouth as you have done prior and I still don't appreciate it and dislike having to refute things I never actually said.
I never said that having beliefs without evidence (faith) could not wind up helping people psychologically (people lie to themselves all the time to their benefit), only that it is irrational.
You've taken to insulting me subtly rather than to address even a single point I've raised.
This is because I don't bother to reply to points you bring up that I have not raised, how i supposedly somewhere said that it can be proven god doesn't exist (when I said that it can't be) and other such things.
It is difficult to talk with someone when they completely don't understand what you are talking about and put words in your mouth that have very different meanings to what you are actually saying.
Look at what I have said again, and you will see most of what you are talking about is making assumptions that I am saying things I am not.
oh I forgot something
But turning science into a religion by representing that it can prove that God does not exist is the ultimate hubris.
Of course you can't prove god does not exist (never said you could), just as you can't prove god does exist, because the claims itself are that illogical and vague.
Oh, no, it can. You could map the corresponding brain waves today, I'm certain.
Again, how does having your brain waves be different prove god? Hell people hear voices in their heads all the time and as a general rule we consider it mental illness.
Remember god by most definitions is supernatural and infinite, you cannot provide evidence of something that is infinite or supernatural, the claim itself of god is illogical.
To stand atop a pinnacle and proclaim that we know all there is to know is folly. Any true scientist should never, ever allow that to come to pass.
I never did that, where did I do that pray tell?
I am saying you cannot provide evidence of claims that are illogical and/or vague, How can you provide evidence for/against anything when you don't even _know_ what that thing is in clear non-vague terms.
Essentially god is an intellectual cop-out, instead of figuring out how things work it is far easier to just go 'that is the way god intended' or god did x/y/z when in fact other things did it
You're dismissing my testimony out of hand. Therefore, I'm not at all certain why you're continuing to talk to me about my experiences.
I am saying that your feelings do not amount to objective evidence. If it were it could be easily repeated by anyone.
If you'd like to measure God's impact on my brain, I'd encourage you to do so. You'll find it, if you're brave enough to conduct the study.
Placebos make people feel better too, yet do not do what is described of them. Your belief changes the way you think, congratulations, doesn't provide evidence your belief has any substance.
Isn't it odd that the religious become the Illuminati? The scientists dictate what one is allowed to feel, what one is permitted to believe, and persecute those who dissent?
Bullshit, people are entitled to feel what they want and think what they want, but when they claim what they believe is rational when they are being irrational it helps to point out their logical flaws.
Also, you mistake this as persecution. If a child said 2+2=5, would I be persecuting them for correcting them? You say belief in god can be rational, I am merely pointing out the flaws with that logic.
You seem to have many fundamental flaws in your understanding of science and reason, and seem to have taken what I have said personally. If anything it's better if you have these things pointed out and accept them and still have faith in your religion regardless. Nobody can argue with you when you know there is no objective evidence to support god and still believe anyway.
Basically, claims without supporting evidence (god) piss people off, especially those of the very picky logical type that tend to take up science.
Just because you lack the skill to measure it doesn't make it invalid.
Because of the vague nature of the claims it could _never_ be measured.
Science is a work in progress, or at least it was until we decided to make it into a new religion.
It is a work in progress, it is not a religion, it relies on reason and evidence. Until you can provide supporting evidence (in substance or in thought) that there is a god, it is assumed false, just like every other thing we don't have evidence to support. There is no reason to believe in god without evidence just as there is no reason to believe in the tooth fairy without evidence.
Faith (belief without evidence) is the enemy of reason. Funnily enough we use reason in science.
Were you to put my hand into flame would it be irrational for me to withdraw it in pain?
No, you are stopping yourself from harm.. this has what to do with believing things without evidence? You have evidence that hands in fire directly correlates to pain and hurt. There is still no evidence of this god person/thing.
Because I'd find it equally irrational to deny myself belief in this thing that I can emphatically feel within my life just because you insist that I do so.
Oh I never said stop believing, I simply said that the belief is irrational, people are allowed to be irrational if they want, it's their choice.
Your evidence is subject to the logical fallacy "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" otherwise known as correlation does not imply causation a link between these event and god is implied but not shown.
No matter what 'evidence' you come up with, you will have a very hard time proving it has a link to god.
However, in both cases, why do you even care?
I care when people present ideas as rational when they are not, you are welcome to believe whatever you wish so long as it is accepted that there is no rational basis for the faith. When people imply that there is reason and evidence behind it is when I pipe up because it is an insult to people who do apply reason and demand evidence from things to be able to believe them.
This comes down to a lack of understanding of how science fundamentally works. Models are created where testing can be done whose results can support or detract the model. If results indicate the model is flawed in some aspect a new model is created that tries to take into account why those specific results differed from the old model.
Science never claims to know every aspect of any given thing, it is objective and presents our current knowledge based from what we have observed as evidence so far. As we learn more our models change, this is learning and progress. Unlike faith science takes interesting observations to yield more understanding of the way things function. If something is wrong it can be proven wrong.
Saying that god exists is like saying we're all really in the matrix right now. There is no supporting evidence, just like any other out there untestable idiotic idea. To give it any credence at all is to invite delusion.
What you really want, is for people to be open to new evidence that goes contradictory to what people already believe (that there is a god) but we have already established that no supporting evidence is even possible for god because of the nature of the assertion.
To say that you are open to evidence there is a god does not mean you give it any probablility at all (0) until such time as evidence is provided.
Saying 'well there COULD be a god' without evidence is a cop out. Even the slightest belief without evidence is a farce to science in general.
That tiny bit of scepticism implies that you recognize that you're not in full possession of the facts, and that you could be wrong.
Those who follow reason and evidence _are_ skeptical of everything, that is how we got into this 'there is no reason to believe in god' business initially anyway. Part of being skeptical is not entertaining ideas seriously that have no evidence. Absolutely anything COULD be wrong even against all evidence for it for things that do have evidence, doesn't mean we will entertain the idea it is false until such evidence appears.
You could be trapped on a Romulan Holodeck at this very moment, interfacing with a simulation in the hopes that you will reveal the Federation's defense codes. And you'll NEVER, EVER be able to prove otherwise. Enjoy your status of 'unprovable' existence.
And are you willing to give that thought as much credit as you do to the existence of god? I thought not.
You are welcome to believe what you wish, but belief in god _is_ irrational. I said this to someone else before so I may aswell reiterate.
The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages.
People who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. It is therefore up to them to provide supporting evidence for this assertion.
Believing in something without supporting evidence is to embrace madness.
Such as believing you are in a romulan holodeck would be, as is believing in god.
You know, I could probably be considered a militant atheist. In that I really hate people being irrational and illogical while claiming otherwise. I point this out to people and yes it pisses them off, but they usually wind up better for it.
That I am a militant atheist still does not mean I would make an assertion that there is no god (whatever god is anyway) only that there is no evidence to support it(and there can never be because of the nature of the claims).
It makes no sense to me to throw out the ideas of reason and evidence for one topic such as religion. Belief without supporting evidence is faith. Faith is the enemy of reason.
People can still have their religions, but it is when they claim that such a belief is rational or that they have supporting evidence is when I point out to them that they are wrong.
But very few people would willingly let themselves be subject to religion knowing that though.
If you think that having a theistic outlook on the world is irrational, prove it. Show me, point by point, exactly why there can't possibly be gods in the universe.
See my other post to you. It is irrational to believe in god without evidence supporting it's existence.
You cannot provide evidence of something that has no clear non-vague description, let alone something which is claimed to be infinite as many do of their gods.
Show me, point by point, exactly why there can't possibly be gods in the universe.
I don't have to, all I have to do is show you it is irrational to believe in something without evidence, the burdon of evidence is on the one making the assertion, which the one claiming there is a god is doing.
try to do it without resorting to dogmatic declarations or arguments based on "you can't prove it either", because you'd just be proving my point, which is that you can't prove that there isn't a god. You can't prove that there is one, either.
The belief of anything without supporting evidence is to embrace madness.
I could not prove that the entirety of this existence is not just merely in my head and I am in fact the only mind that exists. Does that mean I should treat the idea seriously? hell no.
Said reverse engineering violated the original license too.
Who says you need a copy of the game to capture and analyze traffic going over your network? the ones doing the reverse engineering ideally would never even install the game.
An EULA is not on shaky ground if offered for perusal prior to purchase actually, and there has not yet been an instance of a court deeming an EULA "shaky ground" even if it weren't - quit making stuff up.
The problems with them tend to be the 'and you will give me your first born child' type clauses that are bullshit and unenforcable if they tried to legally. There are things you cannot claim in contracts and there also has to be a 'meeting of the minds' etc.
Also, since when has the eula been on the outside of the WoW box, how does one read it before purchasing?
Pretty sure if I return the box opened and say 'I did not like the eula' the staff would laugh at me when I want a refund.
They're not saying that. They're saying "you can not run whatever the hell you want on connection with our services".
What I run on my machine is my machine, no matter what it connects to. Their service is their service and they are free to ban me etc etc, but what I run on my machine is what I run.
If you had your way everyone would still be using ma bell phones because nothing but their gear could attach to their network. Do you think people should have the right to choose their own end equipment? (or in this case software)
But still, this all does not matter as most eulas are seen after purchase and have not been tested in court yet, and as this ruling has shown trying to use eulas in court can prove useless.
Buying boxed software then after the purchase seeing 'by the way, this is a license, but you can't get replacement media and you have to buy another license if you lose the disc' is a sham.
Atheism is equally indefensible to Theism. The idea of a creator God is a question that, by definition, can neither be proven nor disproven.
Bullshit.
The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages.
Many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist (at least not a smart atheist). The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these must take place before any substantial discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – without any beliefs about God, they have no reason to do so. It must be presumed that this onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.
In other words, if you want to be rational about it, then the only defensible position is agnosticism, not atheism.
A person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all.
The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”
I don't give a shit what you believe. I'm not hurting you, I'm not foisting my beliefs on you, so what business do you have trying to foist yours on me?
Believe whatever you want to, but don't claim that it is a rational belief unless you can back it up.
And to create the software, they have to violate the contract themselves to test it.
You do know the server protocol has been reverse engineered and people have made their own, sure it might not be bug for bug perfect but it would be more than enough to test with. Safest option to test the software too.
The person writing the software is writing software for the sole purpose of allowing people to violate a contract- there's a law against that (I see "Tortuous Interference" bandied around a lot).
First you need to establish there actually is a contract (eula's are shaky ground). Second, turtuous interference would require the developers themselves to individually tell people 'hey, use this on the official wow servers' after it has been established there is a contract.
The mere existence of a tool which can cause harm does not make people do it.
The DMCA may not be the law to use, but they are acting well within legal and moral boundaries to pursue the program author.
"You can't write software I don't like because you are using a service I provide" is a slippery slope.
What if google suddenly told people (not that they would) that everyone who browses google must use chrome and anyone found bypassing this will have their ip range permanently banned. Would you still be in support of it?
As a better analogy, the pidgin IM client can connect to various chat networks, most of which have a clause somewhere to only use the official client. Since it is their service by you they have the rights to which things can connect and so no IM clients should exist except official ones and we should all have one client for each network.
I hope how you see this can get ridiculous.
Hating people who bot is not a justification to say 'you can not run whatever the hell you want on your own computer'
I dispute your right to fiddle with software that connects to a giant worldwide network owned by a private entity who grants you access to that network on a specific set of terms including "you will not fiddle with the software that connects to this network".
So ban/delete people who connect to the networks accounts, the authors of the program are not doing any wrong by writing it.
The problem is they have the wrong target, it's much easier to target the program authors than it is for those who abuse their network.
assuming you yourself aren't the actual target and are just trying to avoid being collateral damage, who would know you are even on the mountain?
Being sufficiently underground with enough supplies with nobody knowing that said bunker even exists is handy.
They're trying to trump someone developing software to interact with Blizzard's private property
Samba interacts with microsoft's software, by your logic it should not exist.
Taking away peoples ability to write software that interacts with other software just because the writers of the other software don't like it _is_ ridiculous.
probably because it doesn't have any effect on you directly that you care about
This is important for people who refract HF radio waves off the ionosphere back to earth because the amount of UV radiation determines the thickness of the layers of the ionosphere which determines what frequencies refract back and which don't.