I think the judge is a fool, especially considering the size of the "compensation" (realistically, an OEM install of windows only costs the consumer something like $50). But before you mod me flamebait, hear me out!
I've already heard the argument that "PC's without Windows installed aren't common" so the consumer has no choice but to buy one with windows. Let's pretend that "build your own" isn't an option. My question is, why is Windows special in this regard? Have you ever tried to buy a computer without a CD drive? How about one without a power supply? If Dell refuses to sell me a computer without those two items, should I have the right to sue them for a partial refund? Where do you draw the line?
Actually, if you want to be really up to date with modern Ignorant Joe American theory of history and international politics it's more like: - The French not only became surrender monkeys but also turned into terrorists by blowing up stuff and attacking the occupying forces
Don't be a retard. I know it's popular to make fun of the yanks by making them out to be ignorant hicks, but these sort of statements only serve to make you look stupid.
The French resistance didn't generally go out of their way to kill even German women and children, let alone their own. They didn't blow up human-bombs in crowded marketplaces, and they certainly didn't ram vehicle-borne IED's into crowds of children. There's a massive difference between legitimate resistance and terrorist acts, and it's not the fault of the USA that you can't - or won't - see the difference.
For the second war, what did you expect them ? To die like a single man ?
Actually, there's good evidence to believe that if the French had only opposed the German invasion of the Rhineland (which they could have done easily) the Second World War may never have happened. Hitler was widely unpopular amongst the politicians and generals at the time, and the generals particularly were looking for a reason to assassinate him.
Conversely - when he succeeded in taking over the Rhineland with nary a peep from the French, this gave him a hell of a lot of credibility amongst the senior military brass.
The lesson? Don't pander to tyrants. While the "surrender monkey" moniker may be unfair to the French, they certainly don't seem to have learned anything from their experience in WW2.
You are aware that "die in honor" is an outdated previous century concept, and all modern commander would accept surrendering ?
That's just mid-blowingly stupid stuff right there. I mean, I know that those Brit soldiers that got caught by Ahmadenijad didn't exactly set a good example, but no, that's not the kind of conduct we strive for. Dying with honour might be a foreign concept to you, and might induce sneers of ridicule amongst the "educated" (indoctrinated?) tenants of the Ivory Towers, but it still holds some meaning in other quarters.
I'm able to remote view, I don't make public claims other than this one, I don't work for anyone, I don't feel the need to prove it. For some of us with the gift, money, fame, and all of that mean nothing.
Ah, yes, the typical response of the fraud: "I really DO have powers, but I don't need one million dollars!".
What a load of crap that is.
Tell ya what, how 'bout you go win the challenge, claim the prize, and then donate it to charity? Maybe you don't need the money, but there's plenty of sick kids and homeless people who could use a hand. Are you so heartless that you won't even give a couple hours of your time in order to help the less fortunate?
Perhaps I've been in the computer industry for far too long, but how could it possibly cost 1.4bn to essentially add access control and a bigger amplifier to existing tech ?
The same way it coses $400 million to drive a remote-controlled car across a red desert?
Day 1, 0915: All GPS satellites blasted out of the sky
Day 1, 0930: US surrenders due to lack of any ability to locate their troops and organise them
That's just plain retarded. You sound like some old-timer complaining about dem fancy-dancy-gee-whiz-electronical-thingamajiggers.
GPS is just a tool. If you think that the US military would be massively distrusted by an inability to use it, you're sorely mistaken. At worst they'd be slightly inconvenienced, and would cause more collateral damage due to the fact that GPS-guided munitions would become useless (ie. no more blowing up single houses without even damaging the neighbours windows - now, you drop a 2,000lb bomb and hope it doesn't wipe out too much of the neighbourhood).
As to "telepathic spies," the Army's remote viewing program (a.k.a. STARGATE) shouldn't be regarded as a failure. It's an interesting topic, difficult to research due to an abundance of pseudo-science, but there are valid academic [ucdavis.edu] studies [nytimes.com] which conclude that the phenomenon is real.
Heh. Right. And there are "academic studies" which supposedly disprove evolution. The thing is, as soon as you start to examine these studies you generally find that either the researchers involved in the study have a personal stake in reaching a certain result, or you find that they've simply been mislead. I suggest you check out James Randi's Project Alpha Hoax for a good example. There you'll find an example of respected scientists performing a study for a major university who are made to look like utter fools by slight-of-hand tricks performed by two magicians. The problem is simple - these scientists WANTED a positive result, and they didn't use proper scientific procedures to perform their tests. Scientists are people too - they make mistakes just like the rest of us.
Anyway, as of this date there is absolutely zero credible evidence to suggest that "psychic viewing" - or any other powers which "mentalists" claim to possess - are anything more than tricks played by frauds and charlatans. If you think you can prove otherwise, I suggest you go and apply for James Randi's "Million Dollar Challenge". Over the last few decades thousands of people have taken the challenge, yet somehow Mr. Randi continues to hold on to his money.
There are lots of incidents with much larger numbers, and many innocent children, and which weren't a result of the exercise of free will -- which God allows, for reasons that wouldn't interest you.
Your suggestion - that the victims of 9/11 went willingly to their deaths - is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard. Next you'll be telling me that the Jews gladly threw themselves into the gas chambers.
"Sydneyfong" did a good job of addressing the rest of your ludicrous comments. I'm done with you.
I think he just wants to point out that if there is a good argument against the usefulness of prayer, then it won't be basic logic. It might exist of course, but it will not be explainable in such a small/. post.
*shrug* Actually the arguments against prayer can be summed up in 2 sentences:
1. In several scientific double-blind studies, all the evidence pointed toward the conclusion that praying for someone does not increase their chances of healing from an illness.
2. Statistically speaking, if prayer had any effect, the Brittish monarch's should live to be 200, yet they on average have a lower life-span than other members of the aristocracy.
How's that? The illogic of praying to a being who supposedly has a supreme plan is only the icing on the cake, really.
everybody dies. EVERYBODY. no exceptions. i will die, and so will you. what practical difference does it make if you, me, and a few thousand other people all die within a few years of each other?
*shrug* If it makes no difference, then go jump off a bridge.
are you so naive that you really believe that any god that exists should have a reason to let people die that justifies their deaths to you?
As I told another commenter - I'm just trying to see what kind of mental gymnastics are required to maintain such contradictory beliefs. I was curious to see what kind of reply I'd get. So far, I haven't been dissapointed.
haha, then i go on to forget to actually mark that little checkbox. how fitting that it should come back to bite me in the ass anyway.
I'm sure this will raise some questions for you, such as, "so how do you call yourself a Catholic?" or "so why do you even pray?". The answer to both those questions is IT IS NOT ANY OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS your rude prick!
Well thanks for clearing that up. It's good to know that we can always depend on the Catholics to answer the important questions in life:)
Lying? You want to argue that an all powerful being has a perfect plan for the universe, but a single human saying "Pretty Please?" can change his mind..... and you accuse me of lying when I state that there's no internal logic to such an argument?
....
Ok, maybe we need to go back to basics. Do you know what l-o-g-i-c actually IS?
The only part of your argument that made the least bit of sense is the idea that "god" takes our requests into consideration in formulating his plan. However, if this is the case, he certainly isn't omniscient, since he has no way of knowing how it will all play out. Or, if he DOES know how it will all play out, then everything is preordained, and we really don't have any free will. Once again, your beliefs are contradictory - it's the holly trinity of nonsensical statements. I'm not lying about anything, I'm simply repeating what the religious repeatedly state. If you have a problem with the way they sound when coming from a heretic like me, then maybe you need to re-think your belief system.
Oh, and by the way? I've never asked for a promotion in my life. My boss either recognizes my skill, knowledge, and efficiency, or he doesn't. If he does, then he realizes that promoting me will serve his aims just as much as it does mine. If he doesn't, then I go to a place where my skills will be better appreciated. In either case, a good boss know how to treat his people right without them having to beg for it.
Same basic thing on a much smaller scale as asking your boss for a promotion, which you may or may not get, based on his knowledge of the company's needs and your present and future value to the company. This should not be difficult to understand.
Except that:
1. Your boss isn't omniscient.
and
2. If he were omniscient, he'd know exactly what actions were in everyone's best interest, so he'd hardly need you to ask. If he had any sort of plan laid out, your request (or lack thereof) would make no difference whatsoever.
It's the old "if God is all powerful, could he microwave a burrito so hot that he himself couldn't eat it?" question. The proposition itself is so absurd that there's no logical answer. You cannot state that god is all knowing, all powerful, and has a perfect plan for the universe... but if you ask real nice, he might change things around for you. There's absolutely no logic to such a belief system - and I'm talking internal logic - totally ignoring all the other discrepancies, assumptions, and all-round silliness within any given religion. You may as well argue that 2 + 2 always equals 4, but if you wish really really hard, it might on some special occasions become 5. It's pure nonsense.
200+ MPH? That's a quick bike.. Even my GSXR struggles to do this! What is is exactly?
He had a hayabusa... but it turns out I had a brainfart and spit up some bad math. I was thinking "roughly 260 km/h", and did the conversion to miles all wrong. The corrected figure would be 160+ mph. I believe his bike was capable of doing 200mph (he said he got it up to 315 km/h), but he deffinitely wasn't maxed out when he hit the birds.
Which reminds me, you yanks really need to go metric:)
You misunderstand. God doesn't value life for its own sake, he values it for what it accomplishes -- testing and teaching souls.
Ah, I see. Can you tell me what the 3,000 people who died on September 11th learned from their experience? Having their bodies ground to dust must have been especially illuminating!
If you think about it logically you'll realize that attempting to use trivial logic to "prove" that religion makes no sense is a supreme arrogance on your part. It presumes that all of the billions of believers that have lived, died and thought on these matters are stupid or otherwise completely unable to see such simple contradictions.
You got it. Millions of people before me also believed that the earth was flat, yet I know it to be round. Moreover, even though your church threatened to kill a great man for saying so, we also know that the world revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. Clearly "millions of people say it is so" is not a very good way of determining the truth.
While we're at it, where do you get the arrogance to NOT believe in Zeus and Athena? Millions of people before you believed in them! REPENT SINNER!
Seriously, it's not my arrogance that blinds me - it's my skepticism which gives me the tools I need to see. Believing is easy: all you have to do is listen attentively to what others tell you, memorize it, and then repeat it to yourself and others. It takes a lot more effort to question what you've been thought, and a lot more thought to come up with a logical alternative.
If you see so clearly something that billions "miss", including millions who have studied the topic much more deeply than you have, you're either an earth-shattering genius... or wrong. Which is more likely?
Well, Western Scientists are, without doubt, of a much higher overall intelligence than the rest of the population. And this elite group of intellects happens to be overwhelmingly atheist or agnostic - even in the US. So I'll let you figure out the answer to your own question.
In any event, as I said earlier, truth is not determined by voting. I don't give a damn if you can get 5.99999 billion people to all agree that fire isn't really hot - I'm still not going to throw myself onto that pyre. Why? Because no matter how many fools try to lie to me, I have the tools to analyze the world on my own. Why would I rely on the word of fanatics, frauds, tricksters, and charlatans, when I can use my mind instead?
1. You're wrong about me assigning guilt - period, full stop. I'm not going to argue with you on that point - if you're reading something into my statements which I did not put there that's your problem, not mine.
2. You try to pretend that religious people don't expect their prayers to produce real world events, and you do it by an attempt at ridicule. In fact, people DO expect their prayers to have some effect, otherwise they wouldn't bother praying for someone to recover from an illness. This belief directly contradicts both the idea that god doesn't intervene in human affairs (because of "free will") and the idea that god is omniscient (if he's all knowing, then he already knows what he's going to do, and certainly doesn't need your prayers to guide him). If you have trouble figuring out the logic there.... well, you're certainly not the only one, but rest assured that anyone who isn't blinded by the veil of wilful ignorance can easily see that those beliefs are mutually-exclusive. You can believe that god never interferes, OR you can believe that god answers prayers, OR you can believe that god is omniscient, but you cannot believe all three.
3. Your last sentence was a perfect example of the mental gymnastics of which I was referring to. Thank you. I'm still trying to figure out whether you were actually making a point, or just free-associating.
The thing is though that possibilities that don't involve God tend to just involve us going back to a distinct lack of consciousness when we die - at least believing in God can give you a warm fuzzy feeling, even if it's based on false hope:/
I can see how such beliefs would be comforting.... I just find that I personally have no need of them. Actually, I like Mark Twain's take on the matter:
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Really, why would I want to go to some magical place in the sky, where I could live forever? I think after a few million years it might get rather boring:)
At the speed they are talking about, a bird hitting this guy in the head, even with a helmet, stands a good chance of knocking him out. Then you're going to have a dead bird as well as a dead wing-rider.
Naw. You've got the same problem with motorcycles - a buddy of mine had TWO birds hit him almost simultaneously, while he was doing 200+ mph. One nailed him in the head, cracking the face-shield, while the other one turned itself into jello inside the bike's headlight. Not only did it not knock him out, but he even managed to retain control of the bike.
Most birds don't have much weight, and modern helmets are built with some heavy-impact in mind (no pun intended). You'd have to hit a friggin condor to get knocked out.
This must be why very low-level drops, as used by special forces, are considered bloody dangerous (the chute needs a non-zero time to open), why the rectilinear parachutes are considered more steerable but more prone to entanglement than classical parachutes (which, ergo, means that you can EITHER have predictable steering OR predictable opening, but not both),
I agree with the parent, you ARE talking out of your arse. How do you define low-level? Base-jumpers regularly jump from office buildings, and they do it for fun. And while rectilinear chutes certainly are more prone to tangling, they are still quite safe, and come with a backup chute - just in case.
The whole thing hinges on how you define "safe". You seem to be taking the extreme case, so I assume that you spend most of your days in a padded cell, with it's own recirculated water supply and a heavy-duty air filtration system. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I see no other way to account for your paranoia. You're a dozen times more likely to die in a car accident than you are from a chute malfunction.
I find this form of argument very strange, though very common--making statements which presume ongoing continuity of life, or consciousness, while denying it.
I presumed no such thing - I'm simply reacting to the Christian insinuation that god values life. Is it your contention that god doesn't really give a damn when or how we die?
If so, I assume you're fully supportive of abortions, including late-term?
Reality is such that by default people don't die, so God should be blamed if they do, or reality is such that people do die by default, and your complaint is about when exactly it happens... which is it?
I neither propose to blame god nor to hold him blameless, any more than I propose to blame the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or hold Him blameless.
People DO die by default, but I, as a human being, care when and how they die. I recognize that praying to an invisible man in the sky won't change that. I'm simply trying to figure out how religious individuals can believe that god doesn't interfere in such cases, while also believing that god might interfere if you pray. Not that I'm expecting a logical response - I'm simply curious about what sort of mental gymnastics are required in order to reconcile such mutually exclusive beliefs.
OTOH, I can imagine that the mere act of such a submission to a state of mind can have certain desirable effects (and, of course, also undesirable ones). I don't think it's an accident that many other religions propagate a certain way of "giving up".
Oh without a doubt. I don't want to go too far off topic, but if I had to speculate about the origins of prayer, I'd say it's actually a clever way of capitalizing on a couple of aspects of the human psyche, such as the fact that we acquire habit through repetition, and our herd-mentality when in large groups. Since a religious person is encouraged to pray as often as possible (for an extreme example, see Islam), the constant repetition reinforces the basic tenets and beliefs in the mind of the believer. The more they repeat it, the stronger the belief becomes. Add to that the fact that humans in large groups respond strongly to simple statements with which they can identify (eg. "No War for Oil", "Meat is Murder", "Zeig Heil", "Zhu Mao Zhuxi wanshou wujiang!" etc.), and you have a pretty good incentive to want to indoctrinate your followers with something like prayer, and encourage them to repeat it whenever they can.
I really hope they manage to figure out that maybe, just maybe, really poor families in urban areas shouldn't have 5 or 10 kids, that perhaps the industrial revolution may be here to stay, and having a large family isn't a moral imperative anymore.
I was with you right up until that point. You gotta see it from the Church's perspective: it's a numbers game. Yes, with the arrival of the industrial revolution more children survived to adulthood, but the following drop in birth rates was even greater. Compare this to, the growing population in, say, the Muslim world, and you could see why the church might be a bit worried.
"Be fruitful and multiply" wasn't so much about ensuring the survival of the human species as it was a commandment to keep the pews filled, and the collection plates overflowing.
Not religious myself, but if you'd have a clue about catholicism you'd know that they argue that god's children are free beings, living to choose and work out their destiny.
They also argue that if you pray for something really really hard, the invisible man in the sky might make it happen. So which is it? Is prayer useless because god never interferes? Or is god an egomaniacal prick, who'll let thousands of people die for no particular reason, but will intervene in human affairs when you ask him real nice like?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the judge is a fool, especially considering the size of the "compensation" (realistically, an OEM install of windows only costs the consumer something like $50). But before you mod me flamebait, hear me out!
I've already heard the argument that "PC's without Windows installed aren't common" so the consumer has no choice but to buy one with windows. Let's pretend that "build your own" isn't an option. My question is, why is Windows special in this regard? Have you ever tried to buy a computer without a CD drive? How about one without a power supply? If Dell refuses to sell me a computer without those two items, should I have the right to sue them for a partial refund? Where do you draw the line?
Don't be a retard. I know it's popular to make fun of the yanks by making them out to be ignorant hicks, but these sort of statements only serve to make you look stupid.
The French resistance didn't generally go out of their way to kill even German women and children, let alone their own. They didn't blow up human-bombs in crowded marketplaces, and they certainly didn't ram vehicle-borne IED's into crowds of children. There's a massive difference between legitimate resistance and terrorist acts, and it's not the fault of the USA that you can't - or won't - see the difference.
Actually, there's good evidence to believe that if the French had only opposed the German invasion of the Rhineland (which they could have done easily) the Second World War may never have happened. Hitler was widely unpopular amongst the politicians and generals at the time, and the generals particularly were looking for a reason to assassinate him.
Conversely - when he succeeded in taking over the Rhineland with nary a peep from the French, this gave him a hell of a lot of credibility amongst the senior military brass.
The lesson? Don't pander to tyrants. While the "surrender monkey" moniker may be unfair to the French, they certainly don't seem to have learned anything from their experience in WW2.
That's just mid-blowingly stupid stuff right there. I mean, I know that those Brit soldiers that got caught by Ahmadenijad didn't exactly set a good example, but no, that's not the kind of conduct we strive for. Dying with honour might be a foreign concept to you, and might induce sneers of ridicule amongst the "educated" (indoctrinated?) tenants of the Ivory Towers, but it still holds some meaning in other quarters.
Ah, yes, the typical response of the fraud: "I really DO have powers, but I don't need one million dollars!".
What a load of crap that is.
Tell ya what, how 'bout you go win the challenge, claim the prize, and then donate it to charity? Maybe you don't need the money, but there's plenty of sick kids and homeless people who could use a hand. Are you so heartless that you won't even give a couple hours of your time in order to help the less fortunate?
The same way it coses $400 million to drive a remote-controlled car across a red desert?
That's just plain retarded. You sound like some old-timer complaining about dem fancy-dancy-gee-whiz-electronical-thingamajiggers.
GPS is just a tool. If you think that the US military would be massively distrusted by an inability to use it, you're sorely mistaken. At worst they'd be slightly inconvenienced, and would cause more collateral damage due to the fact that GPS-guided munitions would become useless (ie. no more blowing up single houses without even damaging the neighbours windows - now, you drop a 2,000lb bomb and hope it doesn't wipe out too much of the neighbourhood).
Heh. Right. And there are "academic studies" which supposedly disprove evolution. The thing is, as soon as you start to examine these studies you generally find that either the researchers involved in the study have a personal stake in reaching a certain result, or you find that they've simply been mislead. I suggest you check out James Randi's Project Alpha Hoax for a good example. There you'll find an example of respected scientists performing a study for a major university who are made to look like utter fools by slight-of-hand tricks performed by two magicians. The problem is simple - these scientists WANTED a positive result, and they didn't use proper scientific procedures to perform their tests. Scientists are people too - they make mistakes just like the rest of us.
Anyway, as of this date there is absolutely zero credible evidence to suggest that "psychic viewing" - or any other powers which "mentalists" claim to possess - are anything more than tricks played by frauds and charlatans. If you think you can prove otherwise, I suggest you go and apply for James Randi's "Million Dollar Challenge". Over the last few decades thousands of people have taken the challenge, yet somehow Mr. Randi continues to hold on to his money.
Your suggestion - that the victims of 9/11 went willingly to their deaths - is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard. Next you'll be telling me that the Jews gladly threw themselves into the gas chambers.
"Sydneyfong" did a good job of addressing the rest of your ludicrous comments. I'm done with you.
*shrug* Actually the arguments against prayer can be summed up in 2 sentences:
1. In several scientific double-blind studies, all the evidence pointed toward the conclusion that praying for someone does not increase their chances of healing from an illness.
2. Statistically speaking, if prayer had any effect, the Brittish monarch's should live to be 200, yet they on average have a lower life-span than other members of the aristocracy.
How's that? The illogic of praying to a being who supposedly has a supreme plan is only the icing on the cake, really.
*shrug* If it makes no difference, then go jump off a bridge.
As I told another commenter - I'm just trying to see what kind of mental gymnastics are required to maintain such contradictory beliefs. I was curious to see what kind of reply I'd get. So far, I haven't been dissapointed.
It's 'cos God hates you
Well thanks for clearing that up. It's good to know that we can always depend on the Catholics to answer the important questions in life
Lying? You want to argue that an all powerful being has a perfect plan for the universe, but a single human saying "Pretty Please?" can change his mind ..... and you accuse me of lying when I state that there's no internal logic to such an argument?
....
Ok, maybe we need to go back to basics. Do you know what l-o-g-i-c actually IS?
The only part of your argument that made the least bit of sense is the idea that "god" takes our requests into consideration in formulating his plan. However, if this is the case, he certainly isn't omniscient, since he has no way of knowing how it will all play out. Or, if he DOES know how it will all play out, then everything is preordained, and we really don't have any free will. Once again, your beliefs are contradictory - it's the holly trinity of nonsensical statements. I'm not lying about anything, I'm simply repeating what the religious repeatedly state. If you have a problem with the way they sound when coming from a heretic like me, then maybe you need to re-think your belief system.
Oh, and by the way? I've never asked for a promotion in my life. My boss either recognizes my skill, knowledge, and efficiency, or he doesn't. If he does, then he realizes that promoting me will serve his aims just as much as it does mine. If he doesn't, then I go to a place where my skills will be better appreciated. In either case, a good boss know how to treat his people right without them having to beg for it.
Except that:
1. Your boss isn't omniscient.
and
2. If he were omniscient, he'd know exactly what actions were in everyone's best interest, so he'd hardly need you to ask. If he had any sort of plan laid out, your request (or lack thereof) would make no difference whatsoever.
It's the old "if God is all powerful, could he microwave a burrito so hot that he himself couldn't eat it?" question. The proposition itself is so absurd that there's no logical answer. You cannot state that god is all knowing, all powerful, and has a perfect plan for the universe
He had a hayabusa
Which reminds me, you yanks really need to go metric
Ah, I see. Can you tell me what the 3,000 people who died on September 11th learned from their experience? Having their bodies ground to dust must have been especially illuminating!
You got it. Millions of people before me also believed that the earth was flat, yet I know it to be round. Moreover, even though your church threatened to kill a great man for saying so, we also know that the world revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. Clearly "millions of people say it is so" is not a very good way of determining the truth.
While we're at it, where do you get the arrogance to NOT believe in Zeus and Athena? Millions of people before you believed in them! REPENT SINNER!
Seriously, it's not my arrogance that blinds me - it's my skepticism which gives me the tools I need to see. Believing is easy: all you have to do is listen attentively to what others tell you, memorize it, and then repeat it to yourself and others. It takes a lot more effort to question what you've been thought, and a lot more thought to come up with a logical alternative.
Well, Western Scientists are, without doubt, of a much higher overall intelligence than the rest of the population. And this elite group of intellects happens to be overwhelmingly atheist or agnostic - even in the US. So I'll let you figure out the answer to your own question.
In any event, as I said earlier, truth is not determined by voting. I don't give a damn if you can get 5.99999 billion people to all agree that fire isn't really hot - I'm still not going to throw myself onto that pyre. Why? Because no matter how many fools try to lie to me, I have the tools to analyze the world on my own. Why would I rely on the word of fanatics, frauds, tricksters, and charlatans, when I can use my mind instead?
1. You're wrong about me assigning guilt - period, full stop. I'm not going to argue with you on that point - if you're reading something into my statements which I did not put there that's your problem, not mine.
.... well, you're certainly not the only one, but rest assured that anyone who isn't blinded by the veil of wilful ignorance can easily see that those beliefs are mutually-exclusive. You can believe that god never interferes, OR you can believe that god answers prayers, OR you can believe that god is omniscient, but you cannot believe all three.
2. You try to pretend that religious people don't expect their prayers to produce real world events, and you do it by an attempt at ridicule. In fact, people DO expect their prayers to have some effect, otherwise they wouldn't bother praying for someone to recover from an illness. This belief directly contradicts both the idea that god doesn't intervene in human affairs (because of "free will") and the idea that god is omniscient (if he's all knowing, then he already knows what he's going to do, and certainly doesn't need your prayers to guide him). If you have trouble figuring out the logic there
3. Your last sentence was a perfect example of the mental gymnastics of which I was referring to. Thank you. I'm still trying to figure out whether you were actually making a point, or just free-associating.
I can see how such beliefs would be comforting
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Really, why would I want to go to some magical place in the sky, where I could live forever? I think after a few million years it might get rather boring
Naw. You've got the same problem with motorcycles - a buddy of mine had TWO birds hit him almost simultaneously, while he was doing 200+ mph. One nailed him in the head, cracking the face-shield, while the other one turned itself into jello inside the bike's headlight. Not only did it not knock him out, but he even managed to retain control of the bike.
Most birds don't have much weight, and modern helmets are built with some heavy-impact in mind (no pun intended). You'd have to hit a friggin condor to get knocked out.
In one orifice?
Definitely famous last words....
I agree with the parent, you ARE talking out of your arse. How do you define low-level? Base-jumpers regularly jump from office buildings, and they do it for fun. And while rectilinear chutes certainly are more prone to tangling, they are still quite safe, and come with a backup chute - just in case.
The whole thing hinges on how you define "safe". You seem to be taking the extreme case, so I assume that you spend most of your days in a padded cell, with it's own recirculated water supply and a heavy-duty air filtration system. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I see no other way to account for your paranoia. You're a dozen times more likely to die in a car accident than you are from a chute malfunction.
I presumed no such thing - I'm simply reacting to the Christian insinuation that god values life. Is it your contention that god doesn't really give a damn when or how we die?
If so, I assume you're fully supportive of abortions, including late-term?
I neither propose to blame god nor to hold him blameless, any more than I propose to blame the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or hold Him blameless.
People DO die by default, but I, as a human being, care when and how they die. I recognize that praying to an invisible man in the sky won't change that. I'm simply trying to figure out how religious individuals can believe that god doesn't interfere in such cases, while also believing that god might interfere if you pray. Not that I'm expecting a logical response - I'm simply curious about what sort of mental gymnastics are required in order to reconcile such mutually exclusive beliefs.
Oh without a doubt. I don't want to go too far off topic, but if I had to speculate about the origins of prayer, I'd say it's actually a clever way of capitalizing on a couple of aspects of the human psyche, such as the fact that we acquire habit through repetition, and our herd-mentality when in large groups. Since a religious person is encouraged to pray as often as possible (for an extreme example, see Islam), the constant repetition reinforces the basic tenets and beliefs in the mind of the believer. The more they repeat it, the stronger the belief becomes. Add to that the fact that humans in large groups respond strongly to simple statements with which they can identify (eg. "No War for Oil", "Meat is Murder", "Zeig Heil", "Zhu Mao Zhuxi wanshou wujiang!" etc.), and you have a pretty good incentive to want to indoctrinate your followers with something like prayer, and encourage them to repeat it whenever they can.
I was with you right up until that point. You gotta see it from the Church's perspective: it's a numbers game. Yes, with the arrival of the industrial revolution more children survived to adulthood, but the following drop in birth rates was even greater. Compare this to, the growing population in, say, the Muslim world, and you could see why the church might be a bit worried.
"Be fruitful and multiply" wasn't so much about ensuring the survival of the human species as it was a commandment to keep the pews filled, and the collection plates overflowing.
They also argue that if you pray for something really really hard, the invisible man in the sky might make it happen. So which is it? Is prayer useless because god never interferes? Or is god an egomaniacal prick, who'll let thousands of people die for no particular reason, but will intervene in human affairs when you ask him real nice like?
Walking advances society? Goddamn! If you had told me this a couple months ago, I could have had one hell of a tax write-off!