Comment women easier to ID (Score 1) 96
From TA
It's easier to identify women, but the research couldn't explain why, de Montjoye said.
Could it be that men tend to shop a lot less than women!?
It's easier to identify women, but the research couldn't explain why, de Montjoye said.
Could it be that men tend to shop a lot less than women!?
Queue up people claiming that he was just f**** in the head, not Christian
First cab off the rank. Anders Breivik did not identify himself as a Christian in the sense that he was a follower of Christ but merely a 'cultural Christian'. His motivation was to protect 'Christian Europe', not to protect Christianity or Jesus. In fact he was quite scathing of religion in general saying "Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength". [1]
It's still too early to say for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the guys who carried out the recent attacks in France are doing so because they believed it is the 'will of Allah', the prophet 'commands it' etc etc.
A second important distinction is that Anders Breivik, even if he wanted to, could not justify his actions based on what Jesus or his disciples taught. Islamic extremists can and do quote directly from the words of Mohammad to justified their violent actions.
That contrasts with Christian killers who most certainly killed in the name of their religion
The military and political leaders conveniently used the defacto religion of their time to further their own selfish ambitions. Their underlings simply did what they were told. Nowhere does Jesus command his followers to kill or even use violence in his name. That contrasts starkly with what the prophet Mohammad taught, and that is where the real issue lies.
The famous killers who have been athiests have not killed people in the name of atheism
The difference being that a religion like Islam commands it, so the followers go out of their way to proclaim it. Somone acting from an athiestic worldview is doing so because that is the natural, logical conclusion they have come to: there is no God (noone to answer to) and life is essentially about survival of the fittest (My actions are only limited by how much power I have and what oppourtunities come my way).
The way I see it, Islam (or some members/sections of it) today is where the Christian/Catholic religion was many centuries ago
The problem is that the fundamentals of both religions are so polar opposite-in terms of their agenda. Fundamentalist Christianity is what the disciples of Christ practised: love, peace, putting others needs first. Yes, there's a major emphasis on evangelism, but not at the point of a sword!! Nowhere did Jesus encourage violence, in fact he actively spoke against it. The Catholic church of centuries ago departed radically from that.
On the other hand, the fundamentals of Islam is to subdue and opress by violent means if necessary - it's clearly laid out in the Quaran. Moderate Muslims who don't subscribe to that are actually moving further away from the fundamentals of their religion. The 'radical' teachers are not teaching some strange new philosophy, they are simply taking the Quaran at face value.
The resulting legacy of Islam is that for 1600 years, it has destroyed civilizations it has infiltrated.
Oh hey, look, 30 seconds of Googling and I've found a history of forced conversion to Christianity that stretches back for 1600 years. [wikipedia.org]
Red herring. Forced conversions by so-called Christians is not an argument against the OPs point about Islam destroying civilzations. Can you provide examples of where the introduction of Christianity into a civilzation has made it go 'backwards' in terms of science, technology, arts etc ?
Judaism proper didn't yet exist in the days of David or Solomon
To think that is to misunderstand what Judaism is all about. Have a read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
he is clearly described as a warlord
You're trolling now, right? Abraham was provoked into intervening in someone else's war, in order to rescue his cousin...and that makes him a warlord?
Moses orders the murder of every man, woman, and child in a city...So, yeah, warlord.
Yes, Moses can be described as a warlord, but as he was not the founder of Judaism (or any other religion) I fail to see your point!
So, Christianity (or at least Catholicism) as we know it today was very much the work of Constantine.
There's a big clue in the name Christianity that points to the true origin of the religion. Constantine, the Catholic church et. al all came later. It's worth noting that Christianity was seeing explosive growth prior to Constantine (this despite enourmous persecution). It was only a matter of time before the "powers that be" co-opted it in some shape or form.
Islam(muhammad), Judaism(moses), or Christianity(constantine)?
No, in fact the founders of those religions were: Muhammad, Abraham and Jesus respectively.
Judaism existed prior to Moses. Christianity as an organised religion existed prior to Constantine (albeit under other names). Islam did *not* exist prior to Muhammad. Abraham and Jesus can not accurately be describe as warlords. Please get your facts right.
Its a lone gunman.
True enough, however it is also yet another incident in a string of similar 'lone wolf' incidents across the globe, done outright in the name of Islam.
The media have totally beaten this thing up in a shameful way. I'm glad the police gave the media zero information throughout the day, as it would only have added fuel to the fire of wild speculation that was already occurring.
the position of the plane and all other air traffic was known, the type of missile and launcher used and their origins are known
The intelligence was comprehensive. Which makes it all the more astonishing that passenger airliners were permitted to fly over that region. Why weren't civil aviation authorities told of the high level of risk...or were they told and chose not to heed the advice?
However, the creationists are not interested in being proved wrong
Where each sides refuses to budge isn't in the realm of science at all! Creationists, in my experience, would be happy to be corrected on actual, observable, testable science however when the discussion is about matters of faith - deeply held convictions of a philosophical and metaphysical nature - there is no compromise for either a Bible believing Christian scientist or an atheistic scientist.
...as far as they are concerned the Bible says it so it must be true.
...and an atheist believes there is no God, so any option that leads to a God conclusion must be false; the Christian having faith in God and the atheist having faith in his interpretation of reality.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
