ACED
Mar 18, 04:15 PM
Like, where's my credit for providing Macrumors with the link/story, about 8 hours ago???
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the irony
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the irony
more...
dudemac
Mar 20, 05:41 AM
It's not "law," it's law. You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not. If you don't agree with the laws, renounce your citizenship and start your own community. It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law. Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people. The same reasoning you use for your position can be used against your position--the common logical fallacy of ignorance.
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem. There are many issues that fall under this and for what seems a rather well reasoned argument it fails because of this. So ignoring your first statement, you are correct in stating that laws are used to keep order in society and they should serve the interest and rights of the people. As soon as the laws no longer server this purpose there will be tyranny. Freedom of the people should be the most important thing. If you look at your life today and ask the question am I really free, the answer might scare you. Just look how much control is exerted over you life before you even get to make one decision. And when this control is coming from corporate interests it makes you wonder why and how people let this happen. Corporate wellness should never super seed the well being of the the people or trample the freedom of the people. As soon as you take away the ability to protest and to sometimes break the laws to effect change you have crippled society. And this kind of thinking starts "real" wars.
As for does this break laws, yes, but to better understand it is more like speeding than say a conspiracy to pirate music. It has been said many times that you still have to pay for the music, you just get something that is free of control. Now if you where running a p2p out of you house or directly selling it this might be a problem(but it would be no different than doing this with ripped CD's). However most of us just want to be able to play this on non apple players. Or in my case at work where I can not log into my account.
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem. There are many issues that fall under this and for what seems a rather well reasoned argument it fails because of this. So ignoring your first statement, you are correct in stating that laws are used to keep order in society and they should serve the interest and rights of the people. As soon as the laws no longer server this purpose there will be tyranny. Freedom of the people should be the most important thing. If you look at your life today and ask the question am I really free, the answer might scare you. Just look how much control is exerted over you life before you even get to make one decision. And when this control is coming from corporate interests it makes you wonder why and how people let this happen. Corporate wellness should never super seed the well being of the the people or trample the freedom of the people. As soon as you take away the ability to protest and to sometimes break the laws to effect change you have crippled society. And this kind of thinking starts "real" wars.
As for does this break laws, yes, but to better understand it is more like speeding than say a conspiracy to pirate music. It has been said many times that you still have to pay for the music, you just get something that is free of control. Now if you where running a p2p out of you house or directly selling it this might be a problem(but it would be no different than doing this with ripped CD's). However most of us just want to be able to play this on non apple players. Or in my case at work where I can not log into my account.
more...
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:31 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
j763
Oct 10, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by TheT
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the fastest... well, wake up!
couldn't agree more. you use macs for software not for the absolute $#!+ apple has under-the-hood. i was at this MUG meeting the other day and the question was raised as to whether a mac was the fastest thing out there for graphics. i laughed at the suggestion and said "No way". this guy next to me, who was obviously a mac bigot (not necessarily a bad thing) said "You're wrong. They are the fastest thing out there. The Velocity Engine makes the powermac g4 the fastest machine out there for graphics. Blah blah blah blah blah......". I just turned to him and said "SGI Workstations". that was the end of the conversation (he didn't know what an sgi workstation was).
all that said, i've got a dual 1.25 and it's an excellent machine... but you just have to realise that no, it's not the fastest thing out there.
[ANTI-WINDOWS]
BUT... i'd like to raise this important point. wtf are the win32 users using their CPU power for? Typing up word documents really fast? browsing the web with Internet Exporer v6.000.21312.185726351;SP1? or perhaps having to wait only 10 seconds for windows media player to launch? win32 is simply a craptacular operating system to the extent where it shouldn't be recognized (and i certainly don't recognize it) as a real operating system. mac and *nix (excl. linux-on-the-desktop) is where it's at. get over it.
[/ANTI-WINDOWS]
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the fastest... well, wake up!
couldn't agree more. you use macs for software not for the absolute $#!+ apple has under-the-hood. i was at this MUG meeting the other day and the question was raised as to whether a mac was the fastest thing out there for graphics. i laughed at the suggestion and said "No way". this guy next to me, who was obviously a mac bigot (not necessarily a bad thing) said "You're wrong. They are the fastest thing out there. The Velocity Engine makes the powermac g4 the fastest machine out there for graphics. Blah blah blah blah blah......". I just turned to him and said "SGI Workstations". that was the end of the conversation (he didn't know what an sgi workstation was).
all that said, i've got a dual 1.25 and it's an excellent machine... but you just have to realise that no, it's not the fastest thing out there.
[ANTI-WINDOWS]
BUT... i'd like to raise this important point. wtf are the win32 users using their CPU power for? Typing up word documents really fast? browsing the web with Internet Exporer v6.000.21312.185726351;SP1? or perhaps having to wait only 10 seconds for windows media player to launch? win32 is simply a craptacular operating system to the extent where it shouldn't be recognized (and i certainly don't recognize it) as a real operating system. mac and *nix (excl. linux-on-the-desktop) is where it's at. get over it.
[/ANTI-WINDOWS]
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:19 PM
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
more...
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 11:17 AM
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T; specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
I have seen this repeated several times throughout the thread. Can someone actually post the relevant contractual section? Thanks.
Fwiw, I think AT&T; is bluffing people who are suddenly using significantly more data.
I have seen this repeated several times throughout the thread. Can someone actually post the relevant contractual section? Thanks.
Fwiw, I think AT&T; is bluffing people who are suddenly using significantly more data.
more...
AtomBoy
Oct 7, 07:49 PM
This is my first post but I think I can comment on this thread because my wife and I use both a Mac and a PC in our business.
People get hung up on bench tests but, for me, the real 'speed' difference between a Mac and a PC is uptime.
When my wife's hogging the Mac and I'm stuck on the PC she will be sailing through her work while I'm having to to reboot every couple of hours or so. While the PC is stalling and crashing, the Mac just keeps on working. Benchmarks, more often than not, deal in seconds whereas crashes and reboots are wasting minutes at a time.
On the whole, I use resource-intensive programs, for image/video/audio editing. If I used mainly office programs or if I was a gamer, I'd probably stick to a PC for reasons of cost.
As it is, I'm simply waiting for G5 developements next year to do away with the last PC I'll ever own.
People get hung up on bench tests but, for me, the real 'speed' difference between a Mac and a PC is uptime.
When my wife's hogging the Mac and I'm stuck on the PC she will be sailing through her work while I'm having to to reboot every couple of hours or so. While the PC is stalling and crashing, the Mac just keeps on working. Benchmarks, more often than not, deal in seconds whereas crashes and reboots are wasting minutes at a time.
On the whole, I use resource-intensive programs, for image/video/audio editing. If I used mainly office programs or if I was a gamer, I'd probably stick to a PC for reasons of cost.
As it is, I'm simply waiting for G5 developements next year to do away with the last PC I'll ever own.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
more...
DakotaGuy
Oct 8, 11:15 PM
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now. My buddy has had crappy luck with his, but it is a low priced one. I am going to keep my iBook. I have a Windows computer running 98 at the school where I teach, I don't like it, but I have never done anything with XP and from what you say and what I have started to read, XP sounds like an excellent operating system, just as good as OSX, and with lower prices and much better hardware I am going to seriously look at a new PC this winter and test it out. What is the best PC right now? Dell? Gateway? I have always been hell-bent against PC's, but when all I read anymore on Mac message boards is how good they have become then I need to go and check it out. I would prefer an all-in-one like my iMac. Gateway has the new Profile...does any other PC maker make a one-in-all?
I have always believed in buying the best product that offered more value, I have been a Mac guy, but when I hear Macs suck and PC's are better from people that actually like Macs and are not trolls, then I really have got to wonder, have I been wrong all along? and to think I just talked a buddy into a new iMac, I did not realize that PC's were this good now. He hated his old PC, but now they have became way faster then the Mac and more stable, I hope he will not be mad at me.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now. My buddy has had crappy luck with his, but it is a low priced one. I am going to keep my iBook. I have a Windows computer running 98 at the school where I teach, I don't like it, but I have never done anything with XP and from what you say and what I have started to read, XP sounds like an excellent operating system, just as good as OSX, and with lower prices and much better hardware I am going to seriously look at a new PC this winter and test it out. What is the best PC right now? Dell? Gateway? I have always been hell-bent against PC's, but when all I read anymore on Mac message boards is how good they have become then I need to go and check it out. I would prefer an all-in-one like my iMac. Gateway has the new Profile...does any other PC maker make a one-in-all?
I have always believed in buying the best product that offered more value, I have been a Mac guy, but when I hear Macs suck and PC's are better from people that actually like Macs and are not trolls, then I really have got to wonder, have I been wrong all along? and to think I just talked a buddy into a new iMac, I did not realize that PC's were this good now. He hated his old PC, but now they have became way faster then the Mac and more stable, I hope he will not be mad at me.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 03:04 PM
I'm afraid you are.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
But these arguments don't refer to God as being derived from El, the arguments can only work if "God" is shorthand for "the entity described in the Judaeo-Christian Biblical texts".
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?
This was my point, waaay back, about why I use the Judaeo-Christian God as opposed to god. Someone took umbrage at my use of Judaeo-Christian.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
But these arguments don't refer to God as being derived from El, the arguments can only work if "God" is shorthand for "the entity described in the Judaeo-Christian Biblical texts".
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?
This was my point, waaay back, about why I use the Judaeo-Christian God as opposed to god. Someone took umbrage at my use of Judaeo-Christian.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
ddtlm
Oct 7, 11:14 AM
I'd be more impressed with these "tests" if the pro-Mac cowards had used a top-of-the-line Athlon system (1.8ghz is available for duals, 2.13ghz is pretty much available for singles) or a top-of-the-line P4 (2.0ghz? haha!). The 2.0ghz P4 runs on the old 400mhz FSB whereas there is a 533mhz FSB P4 clocking at 2.8ghz available. They also make no mention of memory type used on any platform. For the P4, PC1066 RDRAM is tops, for the Athlon the new nForce2 with 2 channels of 333mhz DDR is tops (although I will admit that chipset still has a one-month ETA). OK, so maybe use the VIA KT400 for the Athlon, it's pretty good.
And what's his quote about a dual Xeon 2200 probably being top dog? Other than the fact you can get Xeons at 2.8ghz as well...
Anyway I think these tests are crap. But they will suffice so that "Macs are fastest!" freakos can keep them in mind and make vauge statements about how Macs and PCs are about the same speed in "tests". (Those people annoy me.)
And what's his quote about a dual Xeon 2200 probably being top dog? Other than the fact you can get Xeons at 2.8ghz as well...
Anyway I think these tests are crap. But they will suffice so that "Macs are fastest!" freakos can keep them in mind and make vauge statements about how Macs and PCs are about the same speed in "tests". (Those people annoy me.)
manman
Mar 18, 02:28 PM
You get what you deserve and for those of you who kept telling others about an Unlock and to suffer the consequences, KARMA.
wha?
wha?
rtdunham
Sep 22, 11:33 PM
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering"...It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer...there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
I can understand Job's being vague about whether it'll have 802.11g or n. But wouldn't it be nice if, ten days after the product was "revealed", we at least knew WHAT it was (HD or not? etc.) and HOW it will work (still many questions about that). Talk about an RDF!
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
I can understand Job's being vague about whether it'll have 802.11g or n. But wouldn't it be nice if, ten days after the product was "revealed", we at least knew WHAT it was (HD or not? etc.) and HOW it will work (still many questions about that). Talk about an RDF!
Gelfin
Mar 27, 10:43 PM
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
more...
tirexstorm
Mar 18, 12:58 PM
Will this affect people using tetherme or just mywi?
awmazz
Mar 11, 02:36 AM
Watching NHK at the moment and the static camera showing live feed of the burning gas pipeline just kept shaking for two minutes and the newsreader said it was an aftershock.
NB. I guess the most critical things that can get damaged in Japan are the nuke power stations, the reports so far say none are leaking.
NB. I guess the most critical things that can get damaged in Japan are the nuke power stations, the reports so far say none are leaking.
more...
CalBoy
Mar 27, 07:14 PM
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
There is a big difference between felling conflicted about one's sexual attractions (because it is taboo for example) and desiring to change it. There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
We can surgically change gender, but everyone I've ever spoken to who has had such a procedure done has told me that they never felt "at home" in their prior gender. The medical procedures we have help to align how a person feels their body should be, not the other way around.
There is a big difference between felling conflicted about one's sexual attractions (because it is taboo for example) and desiring to change it. There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
We can surgically change gender, but everyone I've ever spoken to who has had such a procedure done has told me that they never felt "at home" in their prior gender. The medical procedures we have help to align how a person feels their body should be, not the other way around.
more...
DakotaGuy
Oct 8, 11:15 PM
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now. My buddy has had crappy luck with his, but it is a low priced one. I am going to keep my iBook. I have a Windows computer running 98 at the school where I teach, I don't like it, but I have never done anything with XP and from what you say and what I have started to read, XP sounds like an excellent operating system, just as good as OSX, and with lower prices and much better hardware I am going to seriously look at a new PC this winter and test it out. What is the best PC right now? Dell? Gateway? I have always been hell-bent against PC's, but when all I read anymore on Mac message boards is how good they have become then I need to go and check it out. I would prefer an all-in-one like my iMac. Gateway has the new Profile...does any other PC maker make a one-in-all?
I have always believed in buying the best product that offered more value, I have been a Mac guy, but when I hear Macs suck and PC's are better from people that actually like Macs and are not trolls, then I really have got to wonder, have I been wrong all along? and to think I just talked a buddy into a new iMac, I did not realize that PC's were this good now. He hated his old PC, but now they have became way faster then the Mac and more stable, I hope he will not be mad at me.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now. My buddy has had crappy luck with his, but it is a low priced one. I am going to keep my iBook. I have a Windows computer running 98 at the school where I teach, I don't like it, but I have never done anything with XP and from what you say and what I have started to read, XP sounds like an excellent operating system, just as good as OSX, and with lower prices and much better hardware I am going to seriously look at a new PC this winter and test it out. What is the best PC right now? Dell? Gateway? I have always been hell-bent against PC's, but when all I read anymore on Mac message boards is how good they have become then I need to go and check it out. I would prefer an all-in-one like my iMac. Gateway has the new Profile...does any other PC maker make a one-in-all?
I have always believed in buying the best product that offered more value, I have been a Mac guy, but when I hear Macs suck and PC's are better from people that actually like Macs and are not trolls, then I really have got to wonder, have I been wrong all along? and to think I just talked a buddy into a new iMac, I did not realize that PC's were this good now. He hated his old PC, but now they have became way faster then the Mac and more stable, I hope he will not be mad at me.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 08:46 AM
These people that are trying to claim they're a hardcore gamer, aren't. A true gamer plays games, regardless of where they are played or how they are played. A gamer plays games. There's nothing more too it than that.
more...
more...
![]()
CaoCao
Mar 25, 03:20 PM
Damn right. What are we supposed to say- "Oh, you don't like us and want to deny us rights? Ok, that's just your opinion! Cool!" **** that. Sorry, not gonna happen.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
more...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 08:46 AM
I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
more...
Huntn
Apr 26, 10:49 AM
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
If you take the big spiritual premise, an Earthly life (average 70 years) followed by a spiritual life (eternity +), then I'd ask, which is our real existence? Yes, if God exits as most human imagine it to be, I could swallow the Prime Directive. There is more than ample evidence that if there is a divine presence, it does little to intervene in daily affairs, especially keeping people safe, rewarding good, and punishing bad. There are too many examples of the contrary. This is not to imply that divine intervention is impossible. Nothing is impossible and it could be that intervention is so ingrained into the flow of life we really can't identify it. For example if you find yourself in an iffy life threatening situation and you survive, why did you? Your will/skills, luck/probability, or a nudge from heaven? We really can't say and it would be an assumption to pick any reason. It can also be that our life on Earth is the equivalent of living in The Matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix), and elaborate simulation followed by opening our eyes in the real spiritual world. I'm not proposing, just imagining. ;)
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
I think there are two or more "God" concepts. For me, the question is, Which one is correct if any "God" concept is correct. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and others disagree with one another about God's nature. That disagreement shows me that at least one person is mistaken about it. If there's no God, then each theist is mistaken about that nature because there's no such nature, no such essence.
For years, Protestants have astounded me with their "sola scriptura," doctrine, partly because many Protestants disagree about that doctrine. A Baptist friend of mine even agrees with me me when I say that today "sola scriptura," which means "scripture alone" is a mere slogan." However you define the phrase, most Protestants who believe in the sola scriptura doctrine tell you that here on earth, the Bible is the only infallible source of divinely revealed truth. Unfortunately, sola scriptura's defenders don't seem to see that their principle explains largely why there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations.
No, I'm not going to argue here for Catholicism because I've already told everyone that I needed to avoid discussions about it and discussions about homosexuality. I bring up sola scriptura because it convinces(?) many to ignore ancient extrabiblical documents that would help help explain what the Bible's human authors meant by what they wrote. Many people, even many Catholics, I'm sure, read the Bible as though it's a 21st-century book. They ignore ancient history, literary genres, anthropology, philosophical arguments for theism . . . Just you I need context when I interpret you tell me, I need much more context when I read the Bible, context I can't get from it. You and I can assume a lot about the context because we're contemporaries. But 2,000 years from now, when scholars read what 21st-century authors wrote, they probably will have much the same problem that many Bible-readers have now, i.e., too little context.
I think God does miracles to support what he tells us. If you want me to give some examples of extrabiblical ones, I'll do that. But again, I'm not here to "sell" Catholicism. I'm trying to talk about Bible-related problems that can arise when people try to interpret many ancient documents.
Would you agree that there is ample evidence of the imperfection of scripture, of the interference of church leadership to mold and shape the message of ancient scripture to suit their agenda, to manipulate and control the sheep? And that ancient scripture based solely on it's existence and the message of ancient man really adds no weight to the existence of God as described by these scriptures? The big question besides Does God exist? is Does it have the qualities, rules, and expectations, we imagine it to have? I've always asked was there this flurry of Godly attributed activity that ceased completely after the passing of Jesus? Fact, fiction, or superstition? We have no way on this Earth of verifying the validity of ancient messages.
I'd love to hear of every day miracles, but my guess is we may disagree when it comes to the interpretation of such happenings. To reinforce, I do sense something I would describe as "spiritual", but I don't have enough info to address those feelings or assign responsibility for their existence. What is important for perspective is that I am not distressed to wait for the answer. :)
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
If you take the big spiritual premise, an Earthly life (average 70 years) followed by a spiritual life (eternity +), then I'd ask, which is our real existence? Yes, if God exits as most human imagine it to be, I could swallow the Prime Directive. There is more than ample evidence that if there is a divine presence, it does little to intervene in daily affairs, especially keeping people safe, rewarding good, and punishing bad. There are too many examples of the contrary. This is not to imply that divine intervention is impossible. Nothing is impossible and it could be that intervention is so ingrained into the flow of life we really can't identify it. For example if you find yourself in an iffy life threatening situation and you survive, why did you? Your will/skills, luck/probability, or a nudge from heaven? We really can't say and it would be an assumption to pick any reason. It can also be that our life on Earth is the equivalent of living in The Matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix), and elaborate simulation followed by opening our eyes in the real spiritual world. I'm not proposing, just imagining. ;)
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
I think there are two or more "God" concepts. For me, the question is, Which one is correct if any "God" concept is correct. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and others disagree with one another about God's nature. That disagreement shows me that at least one person is mistaken about it. If there's no God, then each theist is mistaken about that nature because there's no such nature, no such essence.
For years, Protestants have astounded me with their "sola scriptura," doctrine, partly because many Protestants disagree about that doctrine. A Baptist friend of mine even agrees with me me when I say that today "sola scriptura," which means "scripture alone" is a mere slogan." However you define the phrase, most Protestants who believe in the sola scriptura doctrine tell you that here on earth, the Bible is the only infallible source of divinely revealed truth. Unfortunately, sola scriptura's defenders don't seem to see that their principle explains largely why there are more than 30,000 Protestant denominations.
No, I'm not going to argue here for Catholicism because I've already told everyone that I needed to avoid discussions about it and discussions about homosexuality. I bring up sola scriptura because it convinces(?) many to ignore ancient extrabiblical documents that would help help explain what the Bible's human authors meant by what they wrote. Many people, even many Catholics, I'm sure, read the Bible as though it's a 21st-century book. They ignore ancient history, literary genres, anthropology, philosophical arguments for theism . . . Just you I need context when I interpret you tell me, I need much more context when I read the Bible, context I can't get from it. You and I can assume a lot about the context because we're contemporaries. But 2,000 years from now, when scholars read what 21st-century authors wrote, they probably will have much the same problem that many Bible-readers have now, i.e., too little context.
I think God does miracles to support what he tells us. If you want me to give some examples of extrabiblical ones, I'll do that. But again, I'm not here to "sell" Catholicism. I'm trying to talk about Bible-related problems that can arise when people try to interpret many ancient documents.
Would you agree that there is ample evidence of the imperfection of scripture, of the interference of church leadership to mold and shape the message of ancient scripture to suit their agenda, to manipulate and control the sheep? And that ancient scripture based solely on it's existence and the message of ancient man really adds no weight to the existence of God as described by these scriptures? The big question besides Does God exist? is Does it have the qualities, rules, and expectations, we imagine it to have? I've always asked was there this flurry of Godly attributed activity that ceased completely after the passing of Jesus? Fact, fiction, or superstition? We have no way on this Earth of verifying the validity of ancient messages.
I'd love to hear of every day miracles, but my guess is we may disagree when it comes to the interpretation of such happenings. To reinforce, I do sense something I would describe as "spiritual", but I don't have enough info to address those feelings or assign responsibility for their existence. What is important for perspective is that I am not distressed to wait for the answer. :)
MadeTheSwitch
Apr 26, 07:34 AM
Interesting question. One of my thoughts on why people follow a religion are that they were raised with it, so it becomes a tradition. You just do it because you always have done it without much thought to it. This one is an especially hard reason to overcome, because as a child, you want to believe that your parents and family have all the answers. It's hard to admit that they don't or that they led you down a wrong path. But you have to ask yourself, if you crash landed on an island as a small child (a la Blue Lagoon), would you be following Islam, Christianity or any of the established religions? No, you would not. You wouldn't even KNOW about them. So religion is largely handed down socially. It's even geographical in nature to a large extent.
Another reason would be that some people need to believe in something. That whole "if God didn't exist man would invent him" thing. A lot of people on this planet have a hard time explaining their purpose here without some divine reason. Religion fills that void. In the "Blue Lagoon" example from above, it's possible that the small children would grow up, think about their place in this world, and start their own religion, customs and rules.
Another reason would be that some people need to believe in something. That whole "if God didn't exist man would invent him" thing. A lot of people on this planet have a hard time explaining their purpose here without some divine reason. Religion fills that void. In the "Blue Lagoon" example from above, it's possible that the small children would grow up, think about their place in this world, and start their own religion, customs and rules.
