Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SkinWalker

  1. Yes. Clearly flawed and full of bad advice. Paraphrase: "don't beat your slaves so bad they die immediately." Good advice or bad?
  2. LOL... I'm sure you'll find someone here that wants to debate it with you. I just don't like politics enough to both with it. Good luck with it. Sounds like a shadow-boxing match to me, though.
  3. No one ever did get around to the "good reasons" for believing in the Christian god. Are there none?
  4. I'd have to care a bit more about politics to be willing to debate it. The justice system did it's job. That's good enough for me.
  5. Deniable, perhaps. Debatable? Not really. The answer is clear: it came from Cheney's office -whether it was Libby or not is irrelevant. And it seems pretty clear he was the guy. Beyond a reasonable doubt clear.
  6. Saints are fictive designations created by the superstitious. I used no such moniker nor do I believe your current President is without fault. Your comment, however, represents the usual ideological rhetoric and hyperbole used by political junkies who limit their ability to think critically vis-à-vis their preconceived conclusions. An irrational mode of thought. Again, more preconceived conclusions to which you only seek that data which are supportive. I can easily to examples of the null hypothesis by simply tailoring my observation and arrive at the same irrational outcome as you. I've already demonstrated this. One begins to see Nyborg's conclusions manifest clearer and clearer. yawn. More irrational, simple, and baseless ideological rhetoric. The "it must be so because I believe it to be" fallacy. yawn... again. Who gives a ****? Really. Moreover, an honest rebuttal would include the full data, i.e. who it was that actually did commit this form of treason. I notice you avoid this data. Almost as if it doesn't exist. Almost as if it doesn't fit the conclusions you already have and thus.... wish it away. Again, preconceived conclusions to which you only seek that data... Also, you're creating a strawman since it's easier for you to defeat an argument that has a flaw (i.e. the one you create in your head and appear to share some irrational belief that this is an argument held by someone here). The alleged flaw is that it takes a highly intelligent person to be evil. The obvious problem with your strawman is that this isn't scientifically sound. But, please, cite the data which are supportive of this hypothesis. I've very curious to see it. The not-so-obvious problem with your strawman is that very few people actually argue that Bush is both deficit in intelligence and an "evil master-mind." Indeed, I can't recall anyone here making that argument. What I do recall, when the "dumb ass a box of rocks" Bush was starting a war with a sovereign nation in 2003, it was argued in this very forum that he was not intelligent and that he was surrounded with greedy, bad, no-good, immoral and shady advisors and cabinet. I don't recall anyone referring to him as an "ultimate evil." Please. Try to make some rational arguments that are cogent and sound.
  7. None that I can think of. Perhaps if you're using ancient hardware... like an old 386sx system or something.
  8. Naah... the terminal window is dying the same slow death that the dos command window did with MS Win machines.
  9. The problem with graphics cards and Linux is that being proprietary, graphics cards manufacturers are slow/reluctant to write drivers for their hardware. That said, there are drivers available for Ubuntu for nVidia (I'm using them), but you have to enable the "proprietary drivers for devices" in your "Software Sources" app, which you'll find under System --> Administration --> Software Sources. Also, Go to System --> Administration --> Hardware Drivers and check the box to enable the restricted drivers for your NVIDIA card if the option is provided. You might need to run update and reboot a couple of times if you don't see the check box because you Linux headers are out of date.
  10. I just skimmed this thread and noticed that there weren't any Linux Apps listed! Well... some of the apps listed swing both ways. VLC is one. I use it in Linux almost exclusively for my video files (or any other media file). You can even use it to stream across a network if you want. When I'm not using VLC, I like Miro and lately I've been downloading all my podcasts via Miro. But it handles video subscriptions (get your weekly Diggnation, Geek Brief TV, etc.). Miro supports a variety of operating systems (but its best in Linux!). Gimp - because not everyone can afford Photoshop. Gimp is open source and multi-platform. There's a Windoz version. There's also an off-shoot that has tried to imitate the functionality of Photoshop. Gimp does just about everything PS does, but it isn't laid out the nearly same. Being Open Source, other developers are free to play with the code. Open Office - I use it nearly everyday! Multi-platform -works on Linux, MS, etc. Xournal - this is one of my favorites. It only works on Linux, however. Its a PDF annotation tool that lets you mark-up, comment, and highlight (among other things) PDF files and even export them as new PDF documents that can be opened marked/highlighted in Adobe reader and printed. I have a version on my Nokia N800 which I use to mark up journal articles that I'm reading for grad school, then I plug into a printer at school and print the highlighted & marked pages to a color printer. I've even used marked up PDFs in a presentation in a lecture I gave. A cool tool! The best killer app I've come across in a while: Ubuntu - a totally free and well done operating system that I've been using for several years. And each release just gets better. I installed the current distribution on a machine that previously only had Win XP and had Firefox up and surfing the net in about 20 minutes from Power up to signing in to iGoogle.
  11. A better question for discussion would be why is it when the republicans, right-wingnuts, and theocons are up to shady dealings, criminal behavior, and negligence, their supporters turn blind eye. But when the good-guys take office (and Obama *is* the good-guy), suddenly all faults are noticed and bitched about? For instance: How Tax Cheats Are Using Your Money to Fund Republicans Former Executive Director of Asbury Park Housing Authority Pleads Guilty in Corruption Two plead guilty in $11M mortgage fraud At least these guys went to jail, right? (well, each except Wylie). Then consider: Feds: Renzi made $700,000-plus in deal that led to indictment Harris didn't tell all about donations Wade paid a hefty fine. Harris? Nada. What I did, admittedly, was begin with a conclusion that republicans/conservatives are dicks and tailored a google search just for that. I started with a pre-conceived conclusion and only sought that data which are supportive, which I displayed here. The truth is, politicians -in general- are dicks. They'll take advantage of their constituents whenever and wherever they can. There's no more or less reporting or interest in their behavior by the so-called "liberal media" (whatever that means -I suppose "that media which isn't Faux News"). So the real question is, why do democrats and republicans / liberals and conservatives only notice the wrong-doings of their counter-parts? Why are voters and would-be pundits so willing to overlook the indecency, immorality, and irrationality of the the party they're more likely to vote for? This is an illogical and irrational way to manage the government that is under the power of the people, but the answer, in my opinion, is that many (if not most) people lack critical thinking skills.
  12. I have a sword under my bed. If I have a home break-in, the intruder will wish I had a gun! Still, I prefer to have the option to purchase a firearm and not have that limited by gun-control. I have no problem with controlling assault rifles -even the semi-auto kind; or requiring that gun-owners be licensed and pass proficiency/safety tests in the same manner as a driver's license. Also, I'm changing the title of the thread to be more relevant. This is clearly a thread about "gun control."
  13. I have to agree that there's little point of debate and that the OP reads more like a blog post than a discussion thread. I'm closing the thread to get ahead of the inane responses. If anyone wants to make a case to keep it open, PM me.
  14. Wow. You beat me to it. I was planning on linking to that tonight. I just listened to this on Miro and the first thing I thought of was this thread. I second the recommendation for this 5 minute podcast and recommend the rest of the series as well as their primary podcast which you can find by inserting "skeptic's guide" into Google search bar and clicking "I feel lucky."
  15. Dark matter and energy can both be seen mathematically, which is why they are argued to exist. Indeed, they are referred to as "dark" because they only show up in the maths. So far.
  16. Definitely not, but there's a lot of utility in defining something as a fake-science (i.e. pseudoscience) when it comes to educating the public. With a term like pseudoscience, you can both declare a concept as not-science and also explain that it is an attempt at deception. This for the price of a single term. That, and if we do away with "pseudoscience," that means I'll have to go back and edit a lot of posts on my blog!
  17. I've always considered pseudoscience to be that which pretends to be science. Good examples are 'intelligent design,' cold fusion (for the most part), perpetual energy, ufology, homeopathy, and so on. Each of these make liberal use of scientific sounding jargon and give the pretense of doing "science," but their methodologies ultimately fail. Often because of the conclusions the begin with and the subsequent cherry picking of data (and, often, just making data up) that fits the conclusions -completely ignoring data that doesn't.
  18. I'm not an expert in either, so perhaps you can cite the peer reviewed literature that explains how these theories are no longer viable? Indeed, even if both theories were completely discarded, this in no way provides evidence for "intelligent" design. What evidence can you cite for "intelligent" design?
  19. Bible-based resources are dismissed. Circular arguments. I see a lot of evidence for place-names, etc. in the link above which are described in NT texts, but I didn't see the evidence for Jesus the alleged christ. It was a bit wordy, so perhaps you could quote the most convincing of the "evidences" listed there. Exodus 10:15 "thou shalt not steal" vs. Exodus 3:22 "and ye shall spoil the Egyptians." Its okay to steal as long as it isn't from believers? Deuteronomy 6:3 "The lord our god is one lord." vs. Genesis 1:26 "and god said, let us make man in our image." Is there one or more than one. Archaeological evidence points to a pantheon of gods as the Canaanite culture evolved into a Hebrew culture -the wife of Yahweh was Asherah according to archaeological evidence. Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of god." vs. Job 1:1 "There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright." -Was Job a perfect sinner? Matthew 1:16 "and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." vs. Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." Was Jesus the alleged christ's paternal grandfather Jacob or Heli? I'm sure you'll have some creative hermeneutics that attempt to answer these contradictions, but there are dozens more of these and one wonders why there isn't a clear, consistent message in a text that is claimed to be the work of an omniscient, omnipotent deity. This is a weak analogy. Indeed, if no Jew wrote about the Holocaust that lived during the time (and if no other person wrote of the Holocaust), then we would be right to question whether it occurred and we would be right to excavate the sites claimed so many years later by people who didn't witness it to verify the claim. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. It isn't just the case that Christians and Jews didn't write about Jesus during the time he was alive -it is the case that no one apparently wrote about Jesus during the time of his life. Indeed, the earliest writings are at least a full generation later. There is no good reason to believe that Jesus, as depicted in biblical mythology, was a real person. This isn't meaningful information. No. It doesn't. There is no good reason to accept that biblical mythology is the word of a god. Particularly when it is so clearly flawed, full of bad advice, and indicative of an evil and degenerate deity (which, not coincidentally, appears to have all the characteristics of evil human degenerates who wipe out entire cultures and ethnic groups. There is no more good reason to believe that the Christian bible is divinely inspired or written than there is to believe the same about the Popul Vuh or any of the Vedic or Buddhist scriptures I cited above.
  20. Much of Christian mythology is actually "a collection of hymns" and poems. Much of the texts listed above are both prescriptive and descriptive -in many cases more so than Christian mythology. It would seem that you're still wrong.
  21. What good reason would there be to believe that the universe was created by a deity?
  22. LOL, I'm not defending Hitler or his actions. Nor am I arguing that he wasn't mentally disturbed. People are fallible and subject to mental defects. If a mother can sever the arms of her child because God whispered the instruction in her ear (which happened a few years ago near my city), then I've no doubt a monomaniacal dictator can work out in his warped mind that God wanted him to kill the Jews and that his "Aryan" race was the actual chosen people. His writings in Mein Kampf seem to indicate this belief.
  23. Begging the question -a circular and, thus, fallacious argument (See above). Therefore not a good reason to believe in your god. This is an argument from ignorance. Just because you have not read the Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, Atharvaveda, Brahmanas, Vedanta, the Bhagavad Gita, Purana, Agama, Darshana, Pancharatra, Tantra, Akilathirattu, Sūtra, Stotra, Dharmashastra, Divya Prabandha, Tevaram, Ramacharitamanas, Shikshapatri, Vachanamrut, Ananda Sutram, Sutras, or Suttas, doesn't mean they don't exist.
  24. Even if we assume that Jesus actually existed (another thread, to be sure), what evidence is there that the anonymous authors of Christian mythology were telling the truth? Indeed, there are enough contradictions in the gospels alone to question their claims. Further, none of the gospels or other NT books were written by authors during the time that Jesus was alleged to have lived. What we see in Christian mythology is what we see in the religious mythology of other religions ranging from Indian Vedas to the Popul Vu and many oral religious traditions: hero stories and embellishment designed to give the followers of religious cults purpose, history, and order through mythical connection. Finally, saying that the Christian god exists because it is written in biblical mythology is a circular argument. Since the Bible is alleged by true believers to be the inerrant word of God, this amounts to begging the question and saying God exists because God says he exists. Biblical mythology is not a good reason to believe in the Christian god.
  25. He was indoctrinated with Catholic beliefs and superstitions. I see no good reason to believe he didn't continue to harbor those beliefs. Indeed, I would not be surprised if he genuinely thought he was doing God's work. I can see, however, why Christians, particularly Catholics, would want to distance themselves from him. Still, his genocide was biblical when you look at mythical sources like the book of 1 Samuel. Those poor Amelekites. Psychologically, it would seem that he really did think he was doing God's work.
  • Create New...