Atheism is the negation of theism. The denial of the existence of God.
That would be antitheism.
You would not say that "amoral" is the opposite of "moral" (hint: "immoral" is), would you?
Unfortunately, the word "atheism" has been co-opted by so many that nowadays it basically means what you want it to mean. It's worse than the hacker/cracker mess and the debate whether a republic is a democracy (there is such a thing as "indirect democracy"). Seriously, start with the Wikipedia article and follow the citations. If you still want to argue that point *after* you've read it, do explain why exactly you reject the other definitions. Otherwise, you're just being dogmatic (I dare say "religious") about it. Cherry picking two sources that support your definition out of a myriad of differing ones and ignoring the rest is disingenuous.
That aside, If you want to avoid misunderstanding, you can use "non-religious" instead, although even that can be problematic.
Personally, I don't generally advertise my lack of belief, but if the subject comes up, I try to avoid labels.
If somebody asks me if I'm an atheist, I ask them to first define "atheist". Then, I would say something like "according to your definition of the term, yes/no".
If they ask me if I believe in god, I usually ask "which one?" Then, if they pick the usual Judo-Christian one, I ask "which version". If they say "any god", I ask them to define "god". Then, if the conversation reaches this point, I ask them to define the belief part in the "believe in god" context. Finally, I would say that, according to the definitions they provided, I do not.
However, at that point, the dialog is no longer an argument but rather a philosophical discussion that often gets quite interesting. For example, there was one person who felt quite pleased with himself for "winning the argument" by getting me to admit (readily) that I do not reject the possibility that the universe was created and set in motion by a non-personal supernatural entity (although I do not accept it either). That is, until I asked him the same question...
You can turn off third party cookies and, even better, apply some NoScript action to stop the tracking sites from monitoring your browsing habits.
A long time ago (before the FF days), when I was using IE6, it had an option to disable third-party cookies as well. However, when it blocked cookies, it would display an icon on the statusbar which, when clicked, showed what cookies were blocked and allowed whitelisting them on a case-by-case basis.
I really miss that functionality. Is there something like that in FF?
Lawyers are proxies - they themselves don't do anything at all.
But they do. They perpetuate a system where you *have* to use an *expensive* lawyer in order to get justice or to protect yourself from legal attacks (which are usually more harmful than physical ones).
They are like paid soldiers on the legal battlefield.
No. Lawyers are akin to mafiosi operating a protection racket.
Lawyers don't have standing to sue anyone themselves, nor can they bring suits without a client. The client is the one who is suing, and the client is the one who has a claim.
Many countries have socialized medicine. Most countries have a socialized education system. As long as you must pay, often a sum that will bankrupt the average person, to defend yourself in court, justice is only for the rich. (Preemptive note: the "public defender" option is a fig leaf, it does not work, on purpose).
Lawyers can be paid hourly, or flat fee, or contingency percentage.
Guido can break your kneecaps, burn your house or rape your sister. I guess it's OK, as long as you have a choice.
The real question is: why are you so indignant that lawyers get paid to represent clients?
As a Canadian, I know that my basic health-care does not depend on the thickness of my wallet, and yet, doctors here still get paid. Plus, I do have an option to use a private clinic if I want to. I trust you're intelligent enough to compare and contrast.
Do you hate the adversarial court system? Then legislate to change it.
Legislators are lawyers. Good luck making them legislate against their own interests. Campaign contributors and lobbyists are big businesses, who want to have an unfair legal advantage against those less wealthy. Good luck making legislators legislate against those who pay them.
Do you hate lawsuits? Them legislate change to how lawsuits are brought.
See above. Similarly: Do you hate the mob? Then change how it operates.
The idea that lawyers get PAID (heaven forbid) to represent someone's interests should not be a shock to you. We pay for all kinds of services from waiters(1) to janitors(2) to tax accountants(3) to represent our interests
1) I face no adverse consequences for choosing not to go to a restaurant. Everybody can cook a passable meal. 2) I am not forced to use the services of a janitor. The janitor union does not try to make maintenance as difficult and incomprehensible as possible to lay people. 3) I pay $20/year for a piece of software to do my taxes for me. I could use a free one which is no less good, but I find the paid version more convenient.
I have family members in the legal profession
So you are biased.
and they are good people
In your opinion. I am sure that many family members of the RIAA/MPAA/BSA feel the same (organizations chosen to avoid Godwining this thread).
I get very tired of hearing about how evil lawyers are.
So you have decided that YOUR opinion overrides that of consumer safety organizations on every continent on the entire planet?
Interesting reading comprehension there.
The only opinion that I have stated in the post you replied to was that having a single person (you, for that matter) decide for everybody what constitutes "value" is incompatible with a free society. Go ahead, check, I'll wait.
Are you saying that "consumer safety organizations on every continent on the entire planet" are opposed to that and actively back your bid to be such an arbiter? I must have missed the memo.
Because that is how universal the ban on these magnets now is.
I don't remember expressing any opinion either for or against the ban. The statement that I commented on, and quoted in my reply so there will be no mistake, was: "These magnets are toys with no functional value. Nothing of value is lost by banning them." So, you see, your reply was quite nonsensical in this context.
What a colossal megalomaniac you are.
I sincerely thank you filling my daily dose of entertainment. What would you come up with next? Diagnose me as a diabetic based on the number of commas in my posts? Please don't keep we waiting.
The law is the "alternative solution", SOE for human societies are warlords and demigods. And no "we" were not just fine without the law, wander outside your village and the king's men will kill you, stay inside the village and you will be counted as his property.
Don't forget that even at that time there were laws -- written by the ruling class for their own benefit, complete with express and implied immunities and highly selective enforcement.
Same as now, except that the royal court and the nobility have different names.
Feudalism never went away, it just changed some of its trappings.
These magnets are toys with no functional value. Nothing of value is lost by banning them.
And, of course, you are the sole judge of what constitutes value.
This is the exact attitude that we should be fighting against, as it is fundamentally incompatible with having a free society. Thank you for reminding me that the fight is not over.
Arabs and many other people belong to Semitic people too. Anti-Semitic term is widely misused and it should stop.
There are many countries on the American continent, yet the English word "Americans" applies only to people from the US. The term "antisemitism" (a single word is a common spelling) was created to mean hatred of Jews. The fact that it is not etymologically perfect is beside the point.
The correct term would be Anti-Sionistic when its against Jews and Israel (state).
Applicable, perhaps, to the state of Israel but not to the Jewish people. Zionism is an ideology, there are non-Zionist Jews and even anti-Zionist ones.
Enough people use the term "beg the question" this way that I've just gotten used to it by now. It doesn't bother me anymore. It's over, man. The war is lost. It's in common use now.
The problem with that approach is that you lose an important idiom that doesn't have a good substitute.
So, no, some things in the language are worth preserving (at least until a suitable alternative is found).
Rewire the part of your brain that gets annoyed by it. You will be happier in the long run.
You can educate people about the beauty of the language without being annoyed.
You know what, English is my 3rd language. I only moved into an English-speaking country when I was in my 30s, and if I can appreciate its richness, I'm pretty sure that a native speaker can do so as well.
the most probable translation is sorcerer (or witch, less likely poisoner).
The original word "Mekhashefa" translates as "witch" or "sorceress" (feminine, but see below). Definitely not "poisoner", which derives from a different root -- Resh-Ain-Lamed.
It must be noted that it is not an order to kill witches, but an order to not use their services and so to not let them live (to not sustain their life).
It definitely was an order to execute witches. The RASHI commentary says: You shall not allow a sorceress to live: But she shall be executed by the court. [This law applies equally to] both males and females, but the text speaks of the usual, and those who practice sorcery are usually women. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 67a]
Also see Leviticus 20:27 And a man or a woman who has [the sorcery of] Ov or Yid'oni, shall surely be put to death; they shall pelt them with stones; their blood is upon themselves.
And the RASHI commentary thereof: [And a man or a woman] who has [the sorcery of] Ov or Yid’oni: Here, regarding those [who practice the sorcery of Ov or Yid’oni,] Scripture states death, while above (verse 6), Scripture states excision. [With] witnesses and warning [not to commit the sin], they incur [death by] stoning, but if [the perpetrators transgress] willfully but without warning, they incur excision; and if they transgress unintentionally, [they must bring] a sin-offering. And this [general principle regarding death, excision or sin-offering,] applies to all who are subject to the death penalty, about whom excision is also stated.
The p series have unbeatable screens T61p is 1920x1280 - great for embroidery design and pcb layout amongst other things, and a metal roll-cage (withstands people sitting on a laptop left on a chair).
Today's T series have pathetic screen resolution, and plastic roll cages:-( Its like Lenovo have hired Elop!
I would love to buy a laptop with the T61p features but with more modern hardware, and the smaller size and longer battery life of the X220. I'd even compromise for a 16:10 screen instead of 4:3 (as long as it's IPS with decent resolution).
I don't care if it says "Thinkpad" on the cover or not. Unfortunately, no company seems to make good work portables anymore.
Equal treatment under the law? But yes, absolutely! No matter who you are, what you believe, or where you're from, an equal amount of justice for every dollar you have. How's that not fair?
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France
This wouldn't be nearly as dangerous if we didn't live in a society where a significant portion of our law-enforcement feel like above-the-law gung-ho cowboys
Why shouldn't they? After all, they are above-the-law gung-ho cowboys.
If we allow lawyers to cause other people pain without compensation, that just increases the demand for the services of the legal profession (to protect people from this sort of thing)
[...Continued due to some kind of limitation in/.]
Combined back due to my preference to keep related things together.
The universe is expanding, but that doesn't mean it would contract all the way back to a singularity if we could see it in reverse.
Not in itself, but to make the observed expansion consistent with the math of the general relativity, a singularity is required. Add to that the cosmic background microwave radiation, the relative distribution of various elements, and the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies and you get a pretty strong case for the big bang.
You do realize, I hope, that the big bang was at one time just one of many competing hypotheses and grew to dominance due to its merits.
I do believe in god, but I still question by beliefs, the same as I question everything. Frankly I feel this to be a good thing.
Let me ask you this: is there any (hypothetical) event, observation, etc. that will make you reverse your belief? In other words, can there be (hypothetical) evidence that will convince you that god, as you currently define it, does not exist? If your answer is "no", then you do not really question your beliefs.
Many atheists so blindly want to deny the existence of a god, that I personally find them to be more closed minded than me.
Most atheists feel that there is not enough evidence to warrant a god (or gods) and the currently prevalent theories do fine without the supernatural, thank you very much, and model the universe better than any theory that includes it -- and therefore choose to apply Occam's Razor and not believe in god(s).
Specific religions or portrayals of god(s), on the other hand, are something that an average atheist can feel he has evidence against (not only a lack of evidence in favour). Thus, an atheist may be opposed to, say, Christianity, but so can a Hindu or a pagan.
I automatically get accused of believing the earth is 6K year old and want to kill people for some "sky god" or some other BS.
Then maybe you need to articulate your beliefs better.
Fine. then the existence of god is beyond the scope of my religious model.
What exactly is your "religious model" then? I really would like to know because I am not familiar with many religious models that consider the question of god's existence immaterial.
And you said yourself, as long as I claim it to be beyond the scope of the model I choose, I no longer have to worry about it.
A model is a tool, useful for a particular purpose. A hammer is a very useful tool for hammering nails but is useless for screwing screws. A tool-box is good for many things (as it contains a hammer, a screwdriver and other tools) but is useless for legal advice. You could say that jurisprudence is beyond the scope of the tool-box.
The big bang theory does not attempt to explain how the universe behaved before said bang, therefore it is outside the scope of that theory. It may well be case that the cause for the big bang was a divine entity saying "let there be light", it would not change the math one bit.
You felt the need to call me clueless just one sentence prior.
And you chose to ignore the the context. I did not call you clueless because of your beliefs. I did so because you claimed that accepting a scientific theory is similar to faith-based beliefs, when the two are nothing alike. Just out of curiosity, how well are you versed in the philosophy of science or, for that matter, of theology?
Did I call you a godless heathen destined to become Satan's bitch? No. That would be rude and counter productive.
Calling me godless would be a statement of fact that I would have to agree with. The heathen part is more prob
But believing in the Big Bang is logical? 13+ billion years ago everything sprang forth from a singularity of infinite density (lots of rational sense to be found there).
Nope. We have lots of evidence that the universe behaves as if 13+ billion years ago everything sprang forth from a singularity of infinite density. We cannot claim with certainty that this is exactly what happened but, as long as the theory fits our observations and makes accurate predictions, it really does not matter. It is a useful model, not an absolute truth.
Where did it come from? What caused it to explode?
That is beyond the scope of the model. It is about math, not metaphysics.
Because we live in what appears to be an expanding universe, we take a leap of faith and assume that it all spring forth from a single point. I'm fine with this as we really don't have a better explanation, and it seems to be a workable theory to for now. But it takes some faith to believe it, even if many people don't like to admit it.
You said it yourself: "we really don't have a better explanation, and it seems to be a workable theory to for now". As long as the math works out, belief has nothing to do with it.
Personally, I believe in god.
That is an interesting theory. What falsifiable predictions does it make? Is the math elegant? In what ways does it model reality better than alternative hypotheses?
I know, that's a sure way to get modded as a troll on/.
Stating your beliefs? Not so much. Conflating a belief in the supernatural with an acceptance of a validity of a scientific theory (a "model", if you will)? There's no "clueless" mod AFAIK.
most religions tend to worship a god that tells us to be good to each other
Do you really need a god to tell you that? Can't you arrive to that conclusion on your own?
I really don't see how it's so hard to find a way to reconcile ones religious beliefs with their scientific ones.
As I said above, those things are completely orthogonal.
Anyhow, my point is, is that there is nothing wrong with what anyone believes, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else. If you want to believe that the universe just popped into existence for no apparent reason, I'm not here to argue with you. But I would also appreciate the same respect for my impossible to prove beliefs too.
You have beliefs, we have models; you have dogma, we have evidence-based refinement. See the difference?
Slashdot Mirror
Atheism is the negation of theism. The denial of the existence of God.
That would be antitheism.
You would not say that "amoral" is the opposite of "moral" (hint: "immoral" is), would you?
Unfortunately, the word "atheism" has been co-opted by so many that nowadays it basically means what you want it to mean. It's worse than the hacker/cracker mess and the debate whether a republic is a democracy (there is such a thing as "indirect democracy").
Seriously, start with the Wikipedia article and follow the citations. If you still want to argue that point *after* you've read it, do explain why exactly you reject the other definitions. Otherwise, you're just being dogmatic (I dare say "religious") about it.
Cherry picking two sources that support your definition out of a myriad of differing ones and ignoring the rest is disingenuous.
That aside, If you want to avoid misunderstanding, you can use "non-religious" instead, although even that can be problematic.
Personally, I don't generally advertise my lack of belief, but if the subject comes up, I try to avoid labels.
If somebody asks me if I'm an atheist, I ask them to first define "atheist". Then, I would say something like "according to your definition of the term, yes/no".
If they ask me if I believe in god, I usually ask "which one?" Then, if they pick the usual Judo-Christian one, I ask "which version".
If they say "any god", I ask them to define "god".
Then, if the conversation reaches this point, I ask them to define the belief part in the "believe in god" context.
Finally, I would say that, according to the definitions they provided, I do not.
However, at that point, the dialog is no longer an argument but rather a philosophical discussion that often gets quite interesting.
For example, there was one person who felt quite pleased with himself for "winning the argument" by getting me to admit (readily) that I do not reject the possibility that the universe was created and set in motion by a non-personal supernatural entity (although I do not accept it either). That is, until I asked him the same question...
Where I have seen 3D silicon before?
On Pamela Anderson?
You can turn off third party cookies and, even better, apply some NoScript action to stop the tracking sites from monitoring your browsing habits.
A long time ago (before the FF days), when I was using IE6, it had an option to disable third-party cookies as well.
However, when it blocked cookies, it would display an icon on the statusbar which, when clicked, showed what cookies were blocked and allowed whitelisting them on a case-by-case basis.
I really miss that functionality. Is there something like that in FF?
According to TFA:
the jury [...] convicted Anaya on all counts
The insane drug war is just another excuse to violate citizen's rights
Yup, that's one of the benefits.
plus it provides obscene amounts of money to all the wrong sorts of people.
To important people.
reportedly, Mexico has lost 70,000 of its citizens since 2007 to drug war violence.
Those where overwhelmingly unimportant people, so no real loss there.
Is the USA keeping drugs illegal really worth 70,000 human lives?
Lives of unimportant people? Sure!
I don't think so.
That's because you're one of the unimportant people.
Once you start thinking like important people, you'll quickly realize your mistake.
To both.
The White House was burned by British troops.
Lawyers are proxies - they themselves don't do anything at all.
But they do. They perpetuate a system where you *have* to use an *expensive* lawyer in order to get justice or to protect yourself from legal attacks (which are usually more harmful than physical ones).
They are like paid soldiers on the legal battlefield.
No. Lawyers are akin to mafiosi operating a protection racket.
Lawyers don't have standing to sue anyone themselves, nor can they bring suits without a client. The client is the one who is suing, and the client is the one who has a claim.
Many countries have socialized medicine. Most countries have a socialized education system. As long as you must pay, often a sum that will bankrupt the average person, to defend yourself in court, justice is only for the rich. (Preemptive note: the "public defender" option is a fig leaf, it does not work, on purpose).
Lawyers can be paid hourly, or flat fee, or contingency percentage.
Guido can break your kneecaps, burn your house or rape your sister. I guess it's OK, as long as you have a choice.
The real question is: why are you so indignant that lawyers get paid to represent clients?
As a Canadian, I know that my basic health-care does not depend on the thickness of my wallet, and yet, doctors here still get paid. Plus, I do have an option to use a private clinic if I want to. I trust you're intelligent enough to compare and contrast.
Do you hate the adversarial court system? Then legislate to change it.
Legislators are lawyers. Good luck making them legislate against their own interests.
Campaign contributors and lobbyists are big businesses, who want to have an unfair legal advantage against those less wealthy. Good luck making legislators legislate against those who pay them.
Do you hate lawsuits? Them legislate change to how lawsuits are brought.
See above. Similarly: Do you hate the mob? Then change how it operates.
The idea that lawyers get PAID (heaven forbid) to represent someone's interests should not be a shock to you. We pay for all kinds of services from waiters(1) to janitors(2) to tax accountants(3) to represent our interests
1) I face no adverse consequences for choosing not to go to a restaurant. Everybody can cook a passable meal.
2) I am not forced to use the services of a janitor. The janitor union does not try to make maintenance as difficult and incomprehensible as possible to lay people.
3) I pay $20/year for a piece of software to do my taxes for me. I could use a free one which is no less good, but I find the paid version more convenient.
I have family members in the legal profession
So you are biased.
and they are good people
In your opinion. I am sure that many family members of the RIAA/MPAA/BSA feel the same (organizations chosen to avoid Godwining this thread).
I get very tired of hearing about how evil lawyers are.
The truth hurts.
So you have decided that YOUR opinion overrides that of consumer safety organizations on every continent on the entire planet?
Interesting reading comprehension there.
The only opinion that I have stated in the post you replied to was that having a single person (you, for that matter) decide for everybody what constitutes "value" is incompatible with a free society. Go ahead, check, I'll wait.
Are you saying that "consumer safety organizations on every continent on the entire planet" are opposed to that and actively back your bid to be such an arbiter? I must have missed the memo.
Because that is how universal the ban on these magnets now is.
I don't remember expressing any opinion either for or against the ban. The statement that I commented on, and quoted in my reply so there will be no mistake, was: "These magnets are toys with no functional value. Nothing of value is lost by banning them."
So, you see, your reply was quite nonsensical in this context.
What a colossal megalomaniac you are.
I sincerely thank you filling my daily dose of entertainment. What would you come up with next? Diagnose me as a diabetic based on the number of commas in my posts? Please don't keep we waiting.
The law is the "alternative solution", SOE for human societies are warlords and demigods. And no "we" were not just fine without the law, wander outside your village and the king's men will kill you, stay inside the village and you will be counted as his property.
Don't forget that even at that time there were laws -- written by the ruling class for their own benefit, complete with express and implied immunities and highly selective enforcement.
Same as now, except that the royal court and the nobility have different names.
Feudalism never went away, it just changed some of its trappings.
These magnets are toys with no functional value. Nothing of value is lost by banning them.
And, of course, you are the sole judge of what constitutes value.
This is the exact attitude that we should be fighting against, as it is fundamentally incompatible with having a free society.
Thank you for reminding me that the fight is not over.
Arabs and many other people belong to Semitic people too. Anti-Semitic term is widely misused and it should stop.
There are many countries on the American continent, yet the English word "Americans" applies only to people from the US.
The term "antisemitism" (a single word is a common spelling) was created to mean hatred of Jews. The fact that it is not etymologically perfect is beside the point.
The correct term would be Anti-Sionistic when its against Jews and Israel (state).
Applicable, perhaps, to the state of Israel but not to the Jewish people. Zionism is an ideology, there are non-Zionist Jews and even anti-Zionist ones.
What is the current situation with GCC vs. CLang?
Enough people use the term "beg the question" this way that I've just gotten used to it by now. It doesn't bother me anymore. It's over, man. The war is lost. It's in common use now.
The problem with that approach is that you lose an important idiom that doesn't have a good substitute.
So, no, some things in the language are worth preserving (at least until a suitable alternative is found).
Rewire the part of your brain that gets annoyed by it. You will be happier in the long run.
You can educate people about the beauty of the language without being annoyed.
You know what, English is my 3rd language. I only moved into an English-speaking country when I was in my 30s, and if I can appreciate its richness, I'm pretty sure that a native speaker can do so as well.
Those features were all deprecated in the last build. See the patch notes.
My OS is incompatible with all such programs.
Therefore my interest is purely academic -- from a historical and anthropological perspective.
Big Bang is only a theory.
So is gravity.
As far as I know it is the theory with the most number of followers so it is assumed to be truer than others.
Which only shows how much you know about science (hint: not a lot).
Hebrew speaker here.
the most probable translation is sorcerer (or witch, less likely poisoner).
The original word "Mekhashefa" translates as "witch" or "sorceress" (feminine, but see below). Definitely not "poisoner", which derives from a different root -- Resh-Ain-Lamed.
It must be noted that it is not an order to kill witches, but an order to not use their services and so to not let them live (to not sustain their life).
It definitely was an order to execute witches. The RASHI commentary says:
You shall not allow a sorceress to live: But she shall be executed by the court. [This law applies equally to] both males and females, but the text speaks of the usual, and those who practice sorcery are usually women. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 67a]
Also see Leviticus 20:27
And a man or a woman who has [the sorcery of] Ov or Yid'oni, shall surely be put to death; they shall pelt them with stones; their blood is upon themselves.
And the RASHI commentary thereof:
[And a man or a woman] who has [the sorcery of] Ov or Yid’oni: Here, regarding those [who practice the sorcery of Ov or Yid’oni,] Scripture states death, while above (verse 6), Scripture states excision. [With] witnesses and warning [not to commit the sin], they incur [death by] stoning, but if [the perpetrators transgress] willfully but without warning, they incur excision; and if they transgress unintentionally, [they must bring] a sin-offering. And this [general principle regarding death, excision or sin-offering,] applies to all who are subject to the death penalty, about whom excision is also stated.
Quotes from http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165
The p series have unbeatable screens T61p is 1920x1280 - great for embroidery design and pcb layout amongst other things, and a metal roll-cage (withstands people sitting on a laptop left on a chair).
Today's T series have pathetic screen resolution, and plastic roll cages :-( Its like Lenovo have hired Elop!
I would love to buy a laptop with the T61p features but with more modern hardware, and the smaller size and longer battery life of the X220. I'd even compromise for a 16:10 screen instead of 4:3 (as long as it's IPS with decent resolution).
I don't care if it says "Thinkpad" on the cover or not.
Unfortunately, no company seems to make good work portables anymore.
Any society that condones prison rape cannot be considered civilized.
Equal treatment under the law? But yes, absolutely! No matter who you are, what you believe, or where you're from, an equal amount of justice for every dollar you have. How's that not fair?
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
-- Anatole France
This wouldn't be nearly as dangerous if we didn't live in a society where a significant portion of our law-enforcement feel like above-the-law gung-ho cowboys
Why shouldn't they?
After all, they are above-the-law gung-ho cowboys.
If we allow lawyers to cause other people pain without compensation, that just increases the demand for the services of the legal profession (to protect people from this sort of thing)
Bingo!
I suspect that was the plan all along.
It is all too easy to slam lawyers, but a lawyer is your best friend when you need one.
It is all too easy to slam mafiosi, but a mafioso is your best friend when you need protection.
Did you ever wonder why do you have to "have a lawyer"?
[...Continued due to some kind of limitation in /.]
Combined back due to my preference to keep related things together.
The universe is expanding, but that doesn't mean it would contract all the way back to a singularity if we could see it in reverse.
Not in itself, but to make the observed expansion consistent with the math of the general relativity, a singularity is required.
Add to that the cosmic background microwave radiation, the relative distribution of various elements, and the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies and you get a pretty strong case for the big bang.
You do realize, I hope, that the big bang was at one time just one of many competing hypotheses and grew to dominance due to its merits.
I do believe in god, but I still question by beliefs, the same as I question everything. Frankly I feel this to be a good thing.
Let me ask you this: is there any (hypothetical) event, observation, etc. that will make you reverse your belief? In other words, can there be (hypothetical) evidence that will convince you that god, as you currently define it, does not exist?
If your answer is "no", then you do not really question your beliefs.
Many atheists so blindly want to deny the existence of a god, that I personally find them to be more closed minded than me.
Most atheists feel that there is not enough evidence to warrant a god (or gods) and the currently prevalent theories do fine without the supernatural, thank you very much, and model the universe better than any theory that includes it -- and therefore choose to apply Occam's Razor and not believe in god(s).
Specific religions or portrayals of god(s), on the other hand, are something that an average atheist can feel he has evidence against (not only a lack of evidence in favour). Thus, an atheist may be opposed to, say, Christianity, but so can a Hindu or a pagan.
I automatically get accused of believing the earth is 6K year old and want to kill people for some "sky god" or some other BS.
Then maybe you need to articulate your beliefs better.
Fine. then the existence of god is beyond the scope of my religious model.
What exactly is your "religious model" then?
I really would like to know because I am not familiar with many religious models that consider the question of god's existence immaterial.
And you said yourself, as long as I claim it to be beyond the scope of the model I choose, I no longer have to worry about it.
A model is a tool, useful for a particular purpose.
A hammer is a very useful tool for hammering nails but is useless for screwing screws. A tool-box is good for many things (as it contains a hammer, a screwdriver and other tools) but is useless for legal advice. You could say that jurisprudence is beyond the scope of the tool-box.
The big bang theory does not attempt to explain how the universe behaved before said bang, therefore it is outside the scope of that theory. It may well be case that the cause for the big bang was a divine entity saying "let there be light", it would not change the math one bit.
You felt the need to call me clueless just one sentence prior.
And you chose to ignore the the context. I did not call you clueless because of your beliefs. I did so because you claimed that accepting a scientific theory is similar to faith-based beliefs, when the two are nothing alike. Just out of curiosity, how well are you versed in the philosophy of science or, for that matter, of theology?
Did I call you a godless heathen destined to become Satan's bitch? No. That would be rude and counter productive.
Calling me godless would be a statement of fact that I would have to agree with.
The heathen part is more prob
But believing in the Big Bang is logical? 13+ billion years ago everything sprang forth from a singularity of infinite density (lots of rational sense to be found there).
Nope. We have lots of evidence that the universe behaves as if 13+ billion years ago everything sprang forth from a singularity of infinite density.
We cannot claim with certainty that this is exactly what happened but, as long as the theory fits our observations and makes accurate predictions, it really does not matter. It is a useful model, not an absolute truth.
Where did it come from? What caused it to explode?
That is beyond the scope of the model. It is about math, not metaphysics.
Because we live in what appears to be an expanding universe, we take a leap of faith and assume that it all spring forth from a single point. I'm fine with this as we really don't have a better explanation, and it seems to be a workable theory to for now. But it takes some faith to believe it, even if many people don't like to admit it.
You said it yourself: "we really don't have a better explanation, and it seems to be a workable theory to for now". As long as the math works out, belief has nothing to do with it.
Personally, I believe in god.
That is an interesting theory. What falsifiable predictions does it make? Is the math elegant? In what ways does it model reality better than alternative hypotheses?
I know, that's a sure way to get modded as a troll on /.
Stating your beliefs? Not so much. Conflating a belief in the supernatural with an acceptance of a validity of a scientific theory (a "model", if you will)? There's no "clueless" mod AFAIK.
most religions tend to worship a god that tells us to be good to each other
Do you really need a god to tell you that? Can't you arrive to that conclusion on your own?
I really don't see how it's so hard to find a way to reconcile ones religious beliefs with their scientific ones.
As I said above, those things are completely orthogonal.
Anyhow, my point is, is that there is nothing wrong with what anyone believes, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else. If you want to believe that the universe just popped into existence for no apparent reason, I'm not here to argue with you. But I would also appreciate the same respect for my impossible to prove beliefs too.
You have beliefs, we have models; you have dogma, we have evidence-based refinement.
See the difference?