Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:That's entirely beside the point (Score 1) 683

(nor your memories mere illusions in a universe created 5 minutes ago to look older than that)

5minuteism is obviously false, my holy book clearly says that last tuesdayism is the true faith.

Still, when taken to the logical extreme we can't really be sure of anything. We might as well be biological batteries in the Matrix, or artefacts of a very detailed universe simulation running on a supercomputer in Betelgeuse 5. So even a naturalistic world view requires a small amount of faith, specifically that we live in a causal reality and that our senses do not (deliberately) lie to us.

That is a topic that belongs to philosophy and not something one should lay awake at night thin.. oh dang.

Comment Re:That's entirely beside the point (Score 1) 683

...Indeed, it should be disregarded precisely because the creation account found in the Bible is demonstrably false...

Do you say this because you or anyone else was there and saw it happen? Exactly where and when has anyone demonstrated that this account is false?

Where and when has anyone demonstrated that this account is true?

The circumstantial evidence that it (6 days 6000 years ago) is false is staggering. Everything from geology to DNA to fossil record to astronomy points at an old universe and an old earth.

We observe that the universe is here and arrogantly assume that from things present we can determine how it began. Such incredible human arrogance I cannot understand it.

You know, you could perhaps read up a bit on the history of Islam. Especially the Islamic Golden Age and the reasons for its decline. What you write below sounds eerily like the doctrines of Ash'ari, which in short said that human reason should be secondary to what was written in the scriptures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash'ari
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism

While it certainly was not the sole reason why Islam went from a centre of science, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, engineering, and many other fields to what we can see in the middle east today, it was certainly a contributing factor.

Is it really your goal to attempt to do the same to western civilisation? Can you perhaps understand why some of us are so opposed to your ideas? It is not because we want to avoid being judged at death, it is because your path leads to decline and unreason.

That is why, unlike any other book, the Bible, which claims to be God's communication to man, has been and still is more widely distributed and translated that any other human writing.

Argument from popularity again. You accused us of doing the same once, but you do it repeatedly. Pot, kettle, black.

Comment Re:That's entirely beside the point (Score 1) 683

....Encoding a binary message in the cosmic background radiation would do the trick for me....

That assumes that you have the intelligence and the equipment to receive such a message in the first place. If the message is encrypted, and you don't have the key

*snip meanderings*

So, he had this objective truth recorded in a book. Written by humans. Translated several times. A book that this omni-everything being must have known would be internally inconsistent and a source of wildly different interpretations.

Why not *also* send modern man (who he gave intelligence, sufficient intelligence to see that this book would be unclear and open to interpretation) a clear message from the source itself? In a way that would not have the weaknesses of this book?

But no, here you come along with some story about how it would obviously be encrypted. Why on earth would he do that?!

Comment Re:God (Score 1) 683

The main problem I see with that explanation is that no other animal "evolved" any kind of behavior that could reasonably be termed "religious". No animal has ever been observed in what could be described as prayer or worship.

To get organised religion, one would need language/communication. Animals might have some sort of spirituality or religion, but absent the level of language needed to make organised religion it would have to be on the level of personal belief. So how would one detect if an animal has some sort of personal belief or not? Keep in mind that prayer and worship are human expressions of religious belief. If an animal has some sort of religious feeling or belief in a larger power outside itself, how would it show this and how would we recognize it? I think you are asking for something that would be very hard to detect. Even if we detect it, it would be inconclusive and open to interpretation.

I am reminded that elephants show behaviour that looks suspiciously like mourning their dead. If this can be taken as a display of religious belief or not is obviously a question of interpretation.

Everything than humans do, animals have also been observed doing, of course on a vastly lower level. If you can name any other activity that man does, that is not at all found to some degree in some animals, please do so.

Humans have an abundance of language, culture, dance, creative expression in many forms, the capability of abstract thought, high self-awareness. While you also can find some of this to a small degree in animals, I believe there is a threshold one has to get above before one sees behaviour that we humans would recognize as some sort of organised religious belief.

Nobody has ever explained to me how the "wasting" of resources and energy on religious activity, collectively or individually, makes humans more "fit" to survive. If anything, NOT spending time and effort building cathedrals, churches, synagogues and mosques, as well as engaging in other religious trappings, such as embarking on long weary, dangerous pilgrimages to distant places, should be an evolutionary advantage to those groups and individuals who avoid all that.

Building expensive places of worship and going on hazardous pilgrimages is a very recent thing, on an evolutionary scale. You are talking about fairly recent displays of worship; and displays of surplus at that. More common human displays of worship and spirituality on an evolutionary relevant scale would be things like cave paintings and covering a dead tribal elder with flowers and putting a walking stick in his grave to aid him on the journey in the afterlife.

When it comes to what advantages religion would have for early man, there is lots.

Remember that most religions in those days (from what we can gather from what artefacts they left behind, and of what can be learned from isolated tribes today) were animist. As such, they attribute a "soul" or some sort of intelligence or purpose to plants, animals and natural phenomena. In short, nature becomes a person/force/deity that the human mind can attribute cause and will to. Apply some lore and an oral tradition, and you have a framework where tribes of early man can gather and remember information that is important for survival. ("When the god in the sky turn the heavens grey and the daughters of Ibis take to their wings and fly to their father Mountain, then we must travel down to the river. Ibis is alone from watching eyes, so this is when Antelope will bring his children to visit her. We will wait for them at the ford")

In short, religion fill the needs for group cohesion, enforcement of mores and collection of information useful for survival. We see lots of evidence for this even in "modern" religion; the Bible and other religious texts from the same era has a fairly small volume of text spent on genesis or creation but has pages upon pages of social mores, rules, laws and histories.

Man alone has been given a unique ability and yearning to communicate with his Creator. That is why there never has been and never will be a culture or tribe that is not religious. Even those who deny the existence of God, eagerly spend billions in programs such as SETI

Man has a yearning to understand the world. If we had no desire to understand the world, we would likely have gone extinct. The early explanations we made for how the world works were attributed to gods or the supernatural.

Comment Re:Theoritical grounds for the DC multiverse (Score 1) 683

Or worse yet! It'll be an amalgam crossover, and I'll be a mix of Bucky and Scud, under the name of Bucky the Disposable Sidekick. Oh no, wait... that would be redundant, he was already disposable.

You know, I first parsed that as Bucky from the comic Get Fuzzy. Which made the above an oxymoron, Bucky Katt is not that easy to get rid of.

Comment Re:Why would you want to be locked in again? (Score 1) 771

Lord knows our modern operating systems are stoneage and an abomination. MacOSX is just an extremely polished old turd. Go beneeth the surface and the smell reeks.

That is true for pretty much any operating system (the based on old stuff bit).

Still, old does not necessarily mean bad. To give an example, the mainframes of old did a lot of interesting things with hypervisors / virtualisation; VMs on PCs is being touted as the new and shiny thing, but in many ways it is just a reimplementation of many of the concepts that were commonplace on mainframes of old.

Comment Re:That's entirely beside the point (Score 1) 683

Did God reveal objective truth to us or not?

So, riddle me this: If this God of yours intended to reveal objective truth through the Bible, why did he do such a shoddy job of it? The thing is so open to interpretation and riddled with contradictory statements that it can be used to justify pretty much anything as "God's will".

If he is so omnipotent/omniscient, why did he not encode his truth in the background radiation of the universe or at the very least use some other means of bringing this truth to us instead of using those books that he must have *known* would suffer from translation and interpretation problems? If this truth of his is so important, he should have spent some more godpower on packaging and stamps to make sure it got delivered to us in a usable state.

Comment Re:That's entirely beside the point (Score 1) 683

I see it as even worse than that. If this judeo-christian god created us, then he also made us smart enough to reason about the world around us. Why then, would he scatter all this circumstantial evidence around for an ancient universe, an old earth, evolution and so on? If he created us, then he would also expect us to use our brains. Then why does the old testament contradict what we learn about the world?

I'd rather believe that there is no god than believing in a deceitful trickster god.

Comment Re:God (Score 2, Interesting) 683

Since when has truth ever depended on popularity?

Do you really not see the logic disconnect here? Just above you used popularity and volume of texts as the reason for choosing to believe that the Christian god is the true creator.

The deepest and most important questions can only be answered by faith. The fact that the humanity is incurably religious, abundantly proves of this.

That is also truth by popularity. I would consider it abundantly clear that we humans seem hardwired to need to be a part of and believe in something than is bigger than the individual. You see that in everything from religion to political groups to even the supporters of a football club.

The correct question would be why we have this need. You seem to be of the opinion that the reason is that there really is a god and that we humans need to connect with him. An other explanation might simply be that humans evolved as group/pack animals, and that this pack instinct is what makes us look for something larger.

Comment Re:Pointless chrome (Score 1) 229

And my counterpoint is: the linux nerds who keep bugging me about "you should use our software its so much betterz"

At the danger of being downmodded, I'll just add that Linux fanbois are probably doing more damage than good when it comes to bringing new users to the platform.

Linux is great if it works, and if one has the interest/need/time to customize a system there is practically no limit to what one can do. However, the out-of-box experience tends to be worse and one will need to enter the command line a lot faster than on a Windows system due to GUI configuration tools not covering enough aspects of the system yet.

Then there is hardware support. Some hardware is unfortunately not supported, or Linux drivers are only able to use a limited subset of the functionality of some hardware. Most linux users will be quick to tell you that this is due to hardware makers not providing drivers (or the information required to write drivers), and that is for the most part true. Still, the reason why a piece of hardware doesn't work doesn't really matter to the average end user. Complaining about Vista because of driver problems tends to get +1 Insightful around these parts, but doing the same for Linux tends to get a -1 Troll and replies telling you that it is really ATI/nVidia/Creative/etc's fault.

hunt through ridiculous amounts of message-board posts and wiki hunting to find "instructions" for distributions 2-3 generations back that no longer even work for the latest distro.

That situation has been getting progressively worse over the years. It used to be that you could give google a sensible set of search terms and you would get back good and updated documentation, these days one often ends up finding half-baked howtos and forum postings that were valid a couple years ago but no longer today. Many of them also just list the steps needed to get a particular thing working with a particular version of some software on a particular distribution, they seldom explain why (i.e., the Linux equivalent of listing the steps of how to fish with a particular fishing rod using a particular line and lure in a particular river, while neglecting to also include some of the generics of fishing so that a user has a hope to use the instructions if he happens to use a slightly different lure).

Also, a Linux distribution is really a collection of a lot of software from a lot of different sources; which also means that documentation for the different pieces are spread all over the place instead of one or a few places. There are a few places that are decent (like tldp.org and some distribution documentation/wiki sites), but it is getting increasingly harder to find good up-to-date instructions by googling.

That said, I for the most part love Linux. But that should not make us blind to the fact that Linux is not perfect, and that for some uses and some users going with Windows or Mac is the better option.

Comment Re:Filed Under the NYT's "Fashion & Style?" (Score 1) 631

However, if a person who believes (hopes) in the "nothingness" theory lives for self, without love and regard to others

You are still a horrible person for believing that a lack of faith in god automatically means narcissism. You speak much of faith and hope, but you certainly show a horrible lack of faith in humans if you believe that we need some imagined judge in the sky in order to have compassion and love.

Who is a better person? Someone that finds in himself the reasons for love, compassion and regard for others, or someone who needs the threat of judgement day hanging over him?

Comment Re:People want cheap computers (Score 1) 314

but Microsoft takes all of the flak for it.

I agree that MS is not the only one to blame. However, MS was the one that ran the "Windows Vista Capable" program and MS was the one that had final say on what the minimum hardware requirements were for allowing OEMs to slap "Vista Capable" on their machines.

In the generic case I agree with you, MS does not control the hardware market and the dynamics of the hardware market is such that manufacturers will try to cut corners to eke out a tiny profit margin. So I agree with you that blaming MS for sub-standard hardware is barking up the wrong tree.

However, in this particular case MS had full control of which machines got to carry the "Vista Capable" certification and which didn't. MS fumbled bad here, they should have set the standard higher. Since they didn't, customers were misled and people ended up with "$2100 email machines".

Comment Re:People want cheap computers (Score 1) 314

The problem isn't that people are cheap, it's that OEM's lied to consumers by convincing people they could be cheap, and in return they'll get the Ultimate (or perhaps Home basic :P) Computer Experience on a friggin platter.

And this entire article is about how MS aided and abetted that. See "Vista Capable"(r)(tm).

Slashdot Top Deals

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Working...