prev <-> next
[2005-10-03 11:47:30] - amy: ok. - lordriaaroian
[2005-10-03 11:47:06] - Paul: unsurprising, as the movie is largely based on having watched the TV series beforehand (from what I hear) -amy
[2005-10-03 11:39:24] - lordriaaroian: please check your email. thank you. -amy
[2005-10-03 11:28:45] - Paul: <sob> -dave
[2005-10-03 11:17:42] - a: Possibly. -Paul
[2005-10-03 11:15:24] - dave/paul: isn't that like the third time you two have done that in the past month? ~a
[2005-10-03 11:12:50] - http://www2.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=4581 Seems like Serenity didn't do too well. -Paul
[2005-10-03 11:09:28] - *** Paul pumps fist
[2005-10-03 11:08:20] - Paul: <shaking fist> -dave
[2005-10-03 11:08:10] - http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2005-09-21-serenity_x.htm 500k copies of the dvd sold apparently -dave
[2005-10-03 11:07:16] - Dave: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2005-09-21-serenity_x.htm 500,000? There might be spoilers on that page for anybody who cares. -Paul
[2005-10-03 11:05:12] - Dave: Ok, because I saw more advertising for this movie than I expected, which I suppose doesn't bode well because it probably means higher expectations for the movie. -Paul
[2005-10-03 11:05:10] - anyone know how many copies of the tv series were sold on dvd? -dave
[2005-10-03 11:04:32] - Paul: and I agree with you that I think for it to be a "hit" it would probably need to reach the "mainstream" audience -dave
[2005-10-03 11:04:01] - Paul: no idea, it just said estimated budget. My guess would be no -dave
[2005-10-03 10:59:39] - Dave: Does that count advertising too? -Paul
[2005-10-03 10:59:10] - imdb lists Serenity has having a 40 mil estimated budget, if that helps any in the deliberations on how well it has to do -dave
[2005-10-03 10:54:12] - i.e. longlong multiplication gets generated by the compiler in assembly . . . longlong division just gets generated as a call to a c function. ~a
[2005-10-03 10:49:40] - pierce: have you seen how longlong division happens? it's like 200-300 lines of impossible to read c code. yuck. ~a
[2005-10-03 10:47:03] - Pierce: I agree, it's best chance of making lots of money and encouraging a sequel (or resurrection of the TV show) is if the movie sells well on DVD. -Paul
[2005-10-03 10:38:08] - so when serenity gets released on dvd, I suspect it will have a much higher ratio of people who buy it to people who liked it than more "mainstream" movies do, which will somewhat compensate for its marginal audience. - pierce
[2005-10-03 10:38:02] - Pierce: Maybe. I just think that even if everybody who bought the series on DVD sees the movie, it won't be enough to make the movie a hit (or even necessarily profitable). -Paul
[2005-10-03 10:36:38] - paul: I'm not saying it has to appeal to the mainstream. let's say 50% of the potential firefly devotees have seen the series. serenity being good will encourage them to spread the word to the other 50%. and as the series dvds showed, there's a very committed market among devotees. - pierce
[2005-10-03 10:33:10] - Pierce: I'm not sure there are enough people on the fence to make this a hit movie, though. I think you need to be able to appeal to the mainstream (the type who is likely totally uninterested in the TV series) in order to get a hit science fiction movie. -Paul
[2005-10-03 10:30:54] - paul: no, subtle encouraging of people who might be on the fence works too. basically, anyone who hasn't seen it yet, regardless of whether they plan to actively avoid it or not. - pierce
[2005-10-03 10:29:08] - Pierce: I saw it because I wanted to see it. I think I might've bought the series before you even ordered me to watch it. I'm talking about people who have no intention of seeing the series at all (which I assume are the people you are trying to reach). -Paul
[2005-10-03 10:28:25] - a: Ah, I don't know how I missed that. I was almost positive I had read through all the links he had posted. -Paul
[2005-10-03 10:27:36] - harriet miers has no experience as a judge.
~a[2005-10-03 10:27:25] - paul: scroll down, dave just posted it. ~a
[2005-10-03 10:26:01] - paul: well, you ended up seeing it, didn't you? and I recommended it to you before you bought it. I don't know how much credit you give me, though. - pierce
[2005-10-03 10:24:58] - Pierce: What makes you think people are going to be able to get their friends to watch the series? Have you managed to convince anybody? -Paul
[2005-10-03 10:20:50] - paul: I'm hoping there will be somewhat of a latent effect, where people were reserving judgement on the movie before recommending the series to their friends. then, once their friends see the series, they'll get pressured to see the movie. - pierce
[2005-10-03 10:19:23] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100300252.html I assume everybody knows that Bush announced his next Supreme Court replacement? -Paul
[2005-10-03 10:19:15] - xpovos: inasmuch as anyone can claim anything, sure. I could claim I'm simultaneously atheist, catholic, and flyingspaghettimonsterist but that doesn't mean it makes sense to say that people can be all of those things. but (again, AFAIK) there are no notable or significant catholic denominations that don't consider themselves christian. - pierce
[2005-10-03 10:18:44] - Pierce: True enough, I don't know how much Serenity needs to make in order to be considered a success, but I'm guessing it's not going to be a big hit movie like some were hoping. -Paul
[2005-10-03 10:18:08] - Dave: Too bad I already own the first six of them.
-Paul[2005-10-03 10:11:57] - Pierce: the point I was trying to make was that one does not have be Chrstian to claim catholocism. Scientologists (very un-christian) may well claim catholocism. -- Xpovos
[2005-10-03 10:10:37] - I strongly disliked Firefly, but thought Serenity was a pretty good movie. -- Xpovos
[2005-10-03 10:09:53] - heh... the brothers chaps calling in sick for the strong bad email was funnier than most of the recent strong bad emails. - pierce
[2005-10-03 09:56:37] - http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,105073,00.html Hackers fail to break into VIAs Strongbox (for a 5k prize) -dave
[2005-10-03 09:53:19] - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051002-5376.html Paramount to support both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (previously just HD-DVD) -dave
[2005-10-03 09:47:37] - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050930-5372.html eDonkey shuts down -dave
[2005-10-03 09:45:41] - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050930-5370.html Internet sales tax project underway -dave
[2005-10-03 08:56:22] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100300252.html Bush names Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee -dave
[2005-10-03 08:17:53] - Cities targeting iPod-friendly subway maps: Authorities tell man who made maps available for download to stop http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9536185/ -sam
[2005-10-03 08:11:42] - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000A6T262/ref%3Dnosim/bensbargaicenter/104-1567613-7720707 All 10 star trek movies for $113 -dave
[2005-10-03 08:07:37] - RIAA Sues Another 750 For File Sharing http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=171202305 -sam
[2005-10-03 08:02:22] - Google proposes free Wi-Fi for San Francisco http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2005-10-01T061249Z_01_N01496257_RTRIDST_0_TECH-GOOGLE-WIFI.XML -sam
[2005-10-03 01:28:51] - Paul: not by too much though, and Flightplan's opening weekend average was almost 2/3 better. - pierce
[2005-10-03 00:43:55] - Pierce: http://movies.go.com/boxoffice It looks like Serenity had a better theater average, though. -Paul
[2005-10-03 00:36:42] - or, more clearly, you don't have to see it until after you watch the series. but you do have to see it. and the series. for every week that passes before you start watching the series, I shall kill you. - pierce
[2005-10-03 00:35:37] - I'm sad to see it looks like Serenity is going to come in 2nd in the box office, after Flightplan (which had mediocre reviews and is in its second week). By the way, adrian, I've gotten a consensus from other forums I read about the appreciation of a non-fan for Serenity, so you don't have to see it after all. - pierce
[2005-10-03 00:10:19] - Pierce: I don't think it was me, I knew they made a movie version of Alone in the Dark. -Paul
[2005-10-02 14:33:28] - new "diplomacy" pc game http://www.diplomacy-pcgame.com/ -sam
[2005-10-01 16:28:27] - aaron: hmmm. i knew somebody who was at unc 2003&2004, i wonder if he heard about it. ~a
[2005-10-01 16:14:55] - paul: (or to whomever hadn't realized they'd released a film version of Alone in the Dark... I think it was Paul) here's the imdb link. It was even worse than I expected, Tara Reid doesn't play a scientist, she's a museum curator! - pierce
[2005-10-01 09:43:31] - http://www.improveverywhere.com/mission_view.php?mission_id=20 set up a booth selling free mixed drinks on campus... but it's really just water. A lot of people apparently can't tell the difference. "I filled my cup up at least half way with liquor, and I can barely taste any of it. What a rip." - aaron
[2005-10-01 08:54:34] - http://www.improveverywhere.com/mission_view.php?mission_id=50 ha ha ha! the 1997 photo booth is pretty funny. I didn't think it would be funny until i saw the pictures. They have all these 90s looking people with hanson shirts and big phones and huge game boys - aaron
[2005-10-01 08:52:53] - aaron: yeah, it would have been funny to see. ~a
[2005-10-01 08:45:41] - ok, finnish, not german. ~a
[2005-10-01 08:43:39] - paul: it's like in german or something, right? i saw the previews. it's a parody i think. i had this as my desktop for a while. ~a
[2005-09-30 18:10:33] - http://www.improveverywhere.com/mission_view.php?mission_id=30 An improv group goes on a 5-minute loop in a starbucks.... seemed pretty funny to me - aaron
[2005-09-30 16:37:49] - xpovos: unless I'm mistaken, all catholics are self-described christian. roman catholic distinguishes itself by loyalty to the papacy. - pierce
[2005-09-30 16:37:39] - Xpovos: Tempted, not sure yet.
-Paul[2005-09-30 16:33:31] - Paul: You buyin? I'd be willing to watch it. -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 16:31:14] - http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/34709834/m/658001955731 Star Trek meets Babylon 5? -Paul
[2005-09-30 16:31:05] - Pierce: Any Roman Catholic would, yes. -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 16:25:53] - a: My point is that the faith isn't just involved with you trusting other scientists. It's also involved with scientists trusting what their experiments tell them. -Paul
[2005-09-30 16:24:58] - - pierce
[2005-09-30 16:24:54] - Xpovos: that's not true from the catholics' perspective, they consider themselves christian
[2005-09-30 16:18:26] - paul: no scientist understands everything, what's your point? ~a
[2005-09-30 16:09:47] - So in answer the question: a person may easily call himself catholic, or even Catholic, without necessarily being a Christian, whereas a person calling himself a Christian is inherently so. Calling yourself a Protestant merely means that you are protesting. Or reforming/revolting. -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 16:08:41] - Whoops, that was supposed to be a regular smiley... -Paul
[2005-09-30 16:08:31] - Byzantine Rite or Russian Orthodox are also 'catholic' churches, but they are not in communion with Rome (as a result of the Great Schism) and are therefore not Roman Catholic (aka Catholic) -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 16:08:26] - Dave: I dunno, I just had never met anybody who didn't think Catholics were Christian until I met you.
-Paul[2005-09-30 16:07:39] - a: I think it even goes beyond that, though. Even the smartest scientist in the world who somehow completely understands all the algorithms and everything behind all science that we know is still operating on faith. -Paul
[2005-09-30 16:07:34] - The Catholic church is the Roman Catholic church which claims unto itself the four qualites of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church of Jesus Christ. -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 16:05:50] - The strict definition of 'catholic' is 'universal'. -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 16:05:38] - But arguably Catholic is a lot more like Jew, in that it implies a lot more than a religion. You can be a Jew without being a practicing Judist. -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 16:04:39] - *** Xpovos is staying the hell out of that debate
[2005-09-30 16:03:23] - cya's all this evening -dave
[2005-09-30 16:02:13] - but after which time, i will base my own (hypothetical) discoveries on the knowledge of this new quark (or egg thing) only if i have reviewed the technical papers and analyseses for myself. ~a
[2005-09-30 16:01:24] - Paul: interestingly, regardless of which is more likely, maybe it's because of sentiments like mine that protestants are more wary of whether catholics are christians or not -dave
[2005-09-30 16:01:01] - ... i must stare in disbelief until other scientists have had a chance to disprove it. ~a
[2005-09-30 16:00:48] - paul: if i understand you correctly, then i agree. i must have faith that science will do (and has done) as it is designed to do: weed out "untruths" by giving huge profit to disprovers and only giving profit to "truths" that can be disproved and observed. if a scientist says "we found a new quark" or "eggs are bad for you" then ~a
[2005-09-30 16:00:32] - xpovos: what do you think, self-proclaimed catholic more likely to be practicing, or self-proclaimed protestant? -dave
[2005-09-30 16:00:01] - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050930-5368.html File-Sharing eroding the moral fibre of canadian youth -dave
[2005-09-30 15:58:43] - a: S'ok, I wasn't posting when you implemented the emotes, so it makes sense. And that was a fast fix. -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 15:57:37] - Paul: I actually think we talked about this once, not on the msg board though. I believe we both had the same sentiments (you catholics, me protestants) then as well -dave
[2005-09-30 15:53:02] - paul: i was just looking at that last week. i thought it was funny too.
~a[2005-09-30 15:52:47] - Dave: I'm jumping into the middle of a conversation here, but I would've thought the reverse is true (catholics have a better chance of being practicing than protestants). -Paul
[2005-09-30 15:52:11] - xpovos: oops. you found a bug! you get a cookie. (and it's fixed) ~a
[2005-09-30 15:51:40] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ghostbusters#Twinkies_and_Spengler.27s_estimate Some people have too much time on their hands.
-Paul[2005-09-30 15:51:06] - pierce: I'm not positive if it's actually true or not, but I think that may be part of the reason -dave
[2005-09-30 15:49:00] - pierce: so to rephrase, a person who says they are protestant etc has more of a chance of being practicing than a person who says they are catholic, if that makes sense -dave
[2005-09-30 15:44:47] - pierce: I think a lot of it also comes from the fact that more people will just say they're catholic without actually being a practicing one, vs a more people who say they are protestants are practicing -dave
[2005-09-30 15:43:59] - pierce: well, that last was my personal opinion, but it's a prevailing sentiment among protestants that a catholic is not necessarily a christian -dave
[2005-09-30 15:43:00] - Aw... my trademark double hypen! -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 15:42:36] - *** Xpovos tests the emote function which requires funky signing
[2005-09-30 15:42:11] - Amy: I guessed some of the connotation, which isn't too bad given only the literal translation I was able to do. German idioms are always interesting. -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 15:37:37] - pepping up windows ~a
[2005-09-30 14:51:55] - Xpovos: "/me emotes like this -Paul" -Paul
[2005-09-30 14:47:40] - Xpovos: [9-30-2005 10:03:27a] - handschuhschneeballwerfer -- it's all one word and its literal meaning is "one who wears gloves to throw snowballs" -- it is used to mean "coward" in German. It is my new favorite word .D -amy -amy
[2005-09-30 14:47:09] - Xpovos: Yes. You do. -amy
[2005-09-30 14:46:41] - *** Xpovos wishes he know how Paul emotes.
[2005-09-30 14:45:16] - I throw snow balls with gloved hands, eh? -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 14:25:40] - Xpovos: (that was not meant as a personal attack, I was just really excited that I saw an opportunity to use my new word!) -amy
[2005-09-30 14:12:53] - Xpovos: handschuhschneeballwerfer!! -amy
[2005-09-30 14:07:37] - *** Paul wishes he had the wisdom of Xpovos
[2005-09-30 14:00:05] - /Xpovos stays way the hell out of this debate
[2005-09-30 13:59:21] - There have been numerous interesting studies that indicate that a significant percentage of users will trade their password for a candy bar.
[2005-09-30 13:34:58] - because I gotta say, if you're not personally committing to a conclusion about it one way or another, I'm not sure how it was relevant to the discussion. - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:31:11] - Sam: Will do. -Paul
[2005-09-30 13:30:59] - dave: then out of curiosity, what was the purpose of mentioning that some churches don't necessarily think catholics are christians? - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:29:21] - pierce: I hesitate to say whether anyone is or isn't a christian. In the end, I dont' think one person can say that (of another) -dave
[2005-09-30 13:28:29] - paul: i don't think i'll go to the movie, but can you calle me after the movie and let me know if you guys are going to do something? -sam
[2005-09-30 13:28:25] - pierce: I agree, rational, critical thought is not a pillar of christianity like it is to science -dave
[2005-09-30 13:27:20] - dave: should I take that to mean that you're not going to answer whether you think catholics are christian or not? - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:26:54] - dave: again, I'm not saying there are no christians with that mentality. I'm saying that the rules of christianity, as presented as a whole to society, are not beacons of rational, critical thought. - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:25:47] - it's just as illogical as the argument that men can't make valid opinions about abortion because we can't bear children. - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:25:30] - pierce: well, it doesn't appear as I can change your mind on the matter, and that's ok. I just think it's sad because I believe I have (and other christians) have the same aversion to that mentality as you do -dave
[2005-09-30 13:25:17] - Sam: As far as I know, there are no plans after the movie but people are welcome to come back to my place afterwards and we can play a game or something. -Paul
[2005-09-30 13:24:50] - a: I wasn't talking about whether or not science was disproveable or not. I was just saying that at it's most basic levels, you have to believe in science on faith, just like religion. -Paul
[2005-09-30 13:24:47] - dave: I didn't say I knew more about christians, what I'm saying is that my viewpoint is not less valid simply because I'm not "within the fold". - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:23:56] - dave: and since this debate seems to just be between you and me, let me ask you... do you believe Catholicism is non-christian? - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:23:38] - pierce: well, you can definitely use that argument, but then I could say I know more about evolution and atheists and democrats than you guys do because you guys are too close to them -dave
[2005-09-30 13:23:10] - dave: yes, but we've had this debate before. unless you're using the strictest definitions of your own church to define "christian" versus "non-christian", then catholicism is christianity. and if you are using the strictest definitions, then protestant sects other than your own are just as unchristian. - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:22:25] - pierce: no, I can understand how people (or you) would get that impression. I'm just trying to disspell that conception, because I strongly dislike christians who are that way -dave
[2005-09-30 13:21:30] - (by the way, "I have much more experience with them than you do" isn't necessarily a strong argument... not only do I have a lot of experience with a particular christian sect, but I could reasonably argue that your closeness to them biases your understanding of the "big picture" of christian behavior.) - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:21:12] - pierce: btw, protestants don't believe catholics are necessarily christians -dave
[2005-09-30 13:20:43] - pierce: ok, well most of what I said I meant to be about Christianity -dave
[2005-09-30 13:20:06] - and you may be right, my experience with christianity is overwhelmingly weighted towards catholicism, which is very doctrinal. it's possible that the protestant churches you've been around take a different tack. just that what I've seen of them doesn't show them as being much more progressive than what I've seen in Roman Catholicism. - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:18:32] - and any updating goes on behind the scenes. this isn't the fault of "the masses", it's the fault of religious authorities who use a lack of critical thinking to their advantage, even though they may know better. - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:17:12] - But the way I've seen religion represented to "the masses" is, "here are the rules. we know all these rules are true. anything you observe that breaks the rules is just God enforcing the rules on a higher level than you can see." - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:17:01] - dave: let me be clear, I'm talking about overall trends rather than individuals. Yes, there are certain exceptions to the "don't analyze or modify the rules", like the Jesuits... - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:12:31] - pierce: and I'm not saying that some aren't the way you describe, just that not all are -dave
[2005-09-30 13:12:06] - pierce: I can understand if you'd be hesitant to believe christians are what I'm saying they are - but look at it this way - I probably have much more experience with them than you do -dave
[2005-09-30 13:10:09] - gah, I can't spell -dave
[2005-09-30 13:09:59] - encountery an anomaly -dave
[2005-09-30 13:09:43] - pierce: I see it this way - scientist, when they encounter an anology, try to see if it fits current rules, if it doesn't, well maybe the rules are wrong. In my experience christianity is the same way -dave
[2005-09-30 13:08:33] - pierce: to not just dismiss things as aberrant - to try to understand whether it really fits with your current rules, or whether your rules are wrong. -dave
[2005-09-30 13:07:49] - pierce: but that's not it - so many times I see christians change their perceptions of their religion and what they think the rules are - in fact, it's preached religiously in most churches (har har) that you need to constantly grow and understand thigns better -dave
[2005-09-30 13:07:40] - it's like when a scientist redefines statistically significant data as "margin of error" because it's the only way to make it fit the theory. But the exception is that science sees that as a bad thing. - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:06:24] - dave: that's exactly the kind of revisionist thinking I'm troubled by... they don't update the rules, they just conveniently define that wildcard "mysterious ways" to fit the data. - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:06:00] - pierce: well, I think we just have different perceptions of the community then. THere are a lot who don't want to really understand reasons for things and just want to follow some set rules, but they're not all like that. Just like there are some scientists who don't want to shake the boat and question their own rules -dave
[2005-09-30 13:04:39] - pierce: well, it'd be a datapoint. People would have to wonder, why did hitler win the lottery. They would exame it to see if it ended up having any sort of "good" effect in the longer term and stuff like that to "justify" it -dave
[2005-09-30 13:03:57] - dave: no, I think it's different between science and religion. In science, they chalk it up to unknown when they can't figure it out. In religion, they chalk it up to unknown when they won't figure it out. - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:02:36] - dave: so let me ask you this. let's say hitler won the lottery. most people would say that's contrary to religious "rules" about god's will. do the rules change to say "god rewards the wicked"? What if it happens statistically often enough? Pol Pot, Saddam, all win the lottery. Do the rules change? - pierce
[2005-09-30 13:00:33] - pierce: well, I agree that religious people can be pigheaded at times, and not want to explore things, or admit that they really don't know - but scientists do it too. So many revolutionary discoveries were laughed and derided at the time they were discovered -dave
[2005-09-30 12:59:06] - pierce: I will agree that sometimes you chalk stuff in religion / christianity up to the unknown when you can't figure it out, but you do the same in science -dave
[2005-09-30 12:58:50] - dave: no! that is exactly my point, religion does not have things that are verifiable. not really. it has things it claims are verified but which are really the established authorities saying "we're not planning on looking into this any further, because we've already drawn our conclusion." - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:57:42] - pierce: right, they try to figure out why it was different, right? I'm saying that many religious people do the same. If you've gotten that quoted to you when you raised an exception though, it's just like someone raising an exception to some scientific law and the scientist saying "well, I don't know, maybe it's this" -dave
[2005-09-30 12:57:37] - uh oh, it's worse than we thought. - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:56:18] - pierce: I'm not saying religion is exactly like science either, just that both have things that are verifiable / observable, and both have things taken on faith -dave
[2005-09-30 12:56:08] - dave: you're missing my point. When they discover one particular thing that is an exception to the blanket category, science doesn't say "well, nature works in mysterious ways". - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:54:55] - pierce: I will agree with you that there are people who just try to tailor their religion to their expectations and what they want though. I'm just saying they're not all like that -dave
[2005-09-30 12:54:22] - he's also, if I'm not mistaken, the author of The Book of Virtues. - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:54:20] - pierce: like I went to a dermatologist once, and he said I had dermatitis. When I asked what that was, he just said, well, it's basically what we call something we don't think is important but don't really know exactly what it is. My sister who went through med school has also mentioned other categorizations like that too -dave
[2005-09-30 12:53:14] - pierce: also, there are plenty of blanket categorizations in science. Like in medicine, they usually have a generic grouping / diagnosis that they throw all the general stuff they dont' understand in -dave
[2005-09-30 12:52:42] - pierce: well I disagree. There are plenty of religious people who truly do true to figure out what the "rules" are, and get them wrong, but then adjust. -dave
[2005-09-30 12:45:07] - xpovos: former Education Secretary for two of the last four presidents (guess which two!). ~a
[2005-09-30 12:41:58] - xpovos: here ~a
[2005-09-30 12:37:04] - Did anyone else hear/read a story about a politician saying "you could abort all the black babies and the crime rate would go down"? I heard it on the radio and it went by so fast, I want some printed versions to fall back on. -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 12:36:45] - sam: i heard about that a while ago. it runs linux! ~a
[2005-09-30 12:36:03] - the $100 laptops will be run on Linux. good news for the linux world, as more people will be familiar with Linux... -sam
[2005-09-30 12:35:13] - hmmm, how about a $100 laptop for the world's normal, too?
- pierce[2005-09-30 12:35:04] - pierce/xpovos: never mind then. ~a
[2005-09-30 12:34:34] - a: I took a "religion" course every year for four years in high school. It definitely wasn't seperation, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it either, since it is information, and education so be the passing on of all information. -- Xpovos
[2005-09-30 12:34:23] - a: as in, comparative religion? I thought we already had that. - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:34:11] - MIT invent $100 laptop for world's poor http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=1742 -sam
[2005-09-30 12:33:56] - a: no, I suspect God's decided that a little competition for "best sentient species" would be healthy all around. See also. - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:33:21] - question for everybody: what would you guys think about having a "religion" elective class in public middle and/or high schools. it would really still fit into a seperation of church and state if it was done correctly (which i'll admit would be very difficult to do). ~a
[2005-09-30 12:32:00] - That's why scientific rulesets are superior for explaining the tangible universe. They try to answer questions without a dangling wildcard operator to catch any exceptions. - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:31:04] - dave: let me put it this way. Religions can make all the rules they want to describe God's nature, and even if God's actual behavior was the exact opposite of what would be expected, they would not have to change any of the rules because of "mysterious ways". - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:29:34] - sam: they're evolving (j/k) ~a
[2005-09-30 12:28:09] - Wild gorillas spotted using tools for first time http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9535875/ -sam
[2005-09-30 12:25:43] - sam: I don't. - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:25:34] - dave: you said, about religious rules, "oftentimes they are wrong and their rules aren't exactly right, so they adjust the rules". I disagree. I'd say "oftentimes they don't like that God's plan seems to be different from what they expect, so they change their expectations". Which is not a ruleset for understanding God, it's a method for revising history. - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:22:22] - ...-sam
[2005-09-30 12:22:17] - pierce: do you know what people will be doing after the movie tonight?
[2005-09-30 12:21:43] - dave: the difference between the "rules" of science and the "rules" of religion is that there is a very discrete methodology for defining, updating, and dismissing scientific rules, which is based on observations and logic. Religious rules are only defineable within the context of the beliefs of the people who create them. - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:19:47] - pierce: amen, brotha' ~a
[2005-09-30 12:19:18] - And it's a "softer" but still useful science at the higher levels where it becomes more like sociology. - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:19:10] - sorry, hasn't psychology (and psychiatry) ceated drugs to treat mental disorders? OCD, depression, (ironically) drug addiction, etc. What level of psychology are you referring to? It's a very "hard" science at the level that it describes the biological interactions in the brain... - pierce
[2005-09-30 12:09:39] - dave: despite the fact that my mom is a phd psychologist, i don't really know very much about psychology. i really can't argue many points relvolving around the science of psychology. ~a
[2005-09-30 12:08:11] - a: what does psychology create? religion can probably create those same sort of things -dave
[2005-09-30 12:07:39] - lunchtime, see ya guys ^_^ -dave
[2005-09-30 12:07:16] - a: I will agree to disagree with you on that, since I think we already argued over it. I agree everyone wasn't christian back then -dave
[2005-09-30 12:06:57] - with science we can create (computers, cars, canoes). what does religion create? ~a
[2005-09-30 12:06:37] - sam: like a billion dollars seems like a blessing right? well what if someone got it, and then all his friends/family started betraying him etc trying to take his money? -dave
[2005-09-30 12:06:26] - dave: the us wasn't primarily christian when it was founded. ~a
[2005-09-30 12:05:53] - sam: and what one person thinks is a blessing, isn't always a blessing to that person either -dave
[2005-09-30 12:05:37] - sam: it's not so simple. Like many people think the US has been blessed because it was primarily christian when it was founded. Were all the people christian? No. Did the non-christians benefit? Yes -dave
[2005-09-30 12:05:04] - a: good reason -dave
[2005-09-30 12:04:59] - a: and there could be a good risen, like an eclipse - before people knew teh reasons behidn it, they were really frightened and had no clue why -dave
[2005-09-30 12:04:12] - a: well, he's not an isolated example by any means, there are a plethora of examples of it. And your statement could also apply to science. Like just because the sun has always risen, doesn't mean it will rise tomorrow -dave
[2005-09-30 12:03:42] - dave: unless you want to measure hurricanes. ~a
[2005-09-30 12:03:42] - dave: if you believe that god will bless those who serve him, why would he bless those who don't serve him? afterall, christian believe that god has the total control. -sam
[2005-09-30 12:03:30] - dave: but you can't find out what god believes and how he feels today. you have no way of measuring things. ~a
[2005-09-30 12:03:28] - a: and just like quantum physics etc is complicated, so are the "rules" that God lays down. And oftentimes, things that you normally would expect to happen, don't -dave
[2005-09-30 12:02:43] - dave: very well. i'll grant you mueller. but just because something amazing happened to a christian who prayed doesn't mean that amazing things don't happen to non-christians or that amazing things will ever again happen to christians. ~a
[2005-09-30 12:02:37] - a: let me put it this way - science describes nature, christians also come up with things that they think describe the "nature" of God and what he will do. Both camps come up with "rules" that they think describe it. Oftentimes they are wrong and their rules aren't exactly right, so they adjust the rules -dave
[2005-09-30 12:01:41] - dave: or that miraculous things have to happen to christians. ~a
[2005-09-30 12:01:18] - a: his name was mueller I believe. He wrote an auto-biography that is quite widely published. -dave
[2005-09-30 12:00:49] - sam: true, which makes it somewhat less impactful, but nowhere does it say that miraculous things won't happen to non-christians -dave
[2005-09-30 12:00:47] - and could you even track this famous christian down (if you wanted to)? ~a
[2005-09-30 11:59:54] - dave: has that ever happened to somebody who didn't pray? has that ever NOT happened to somebody who DID pray? ~a
[2005-09-30 11:59:18] - sam: exactly. ~a
[2005-09-30 11:59:13] - a: for example, a famous christian who started an orphanage had no food for the kids one day, so they prayed etc, and like 10 mins later the milkman knocked on the door, said that his wagon or whatever had broken down and if they wanted all the milk and stuff, since it would just go bad otherwise -dave
[2005-09-30 11:59:10] - dave: but miraculous things also happen to non-christians too. -sam
[2005-09-30 11:58:56] - paul: ah. yes then i strongly disagree. science is very disprovable, the fact that god exists or that god is christian is very undisprovable. ~a
[2005-09-30 11:58:49] - btw, I'm going to be gone for a bit so don't expect any posts from me for the next hour or two. -Paul
[2005-09-30 11:58:04] - dave: has any christian tried to study the people who followed god and were NOT taken care of by him? ~a
[2005-09-30 11:58:03] - a: That science is based in faith just like religion is. -Paul
[2005-09-30 11:57:17] - a: or how about things like, if you follow God, then he'll always take care of you. Also somewhat nebulous, but there are also quite a few observable examples where seemingly miraculous things happen to people who truly believe in it -dave
[2005-09-30 11:56:26] - i don't see how the bible has anything to do with god. ~a
[2005-09-30 11:55:57] - how is god's behavior observable. hurricane katrina? hurricane rita? ~a
[2005-09-30 11:55:39] - a: well how about this. The Bible says stuff like if you're prideful, then you're likely to fall. That's rather observable, if a bit nebulous -dave
[2005-09-30 11:54:52] - you can observe psychology (although i'll admit it's less hard than other sciences). you can disprove psychology teachings. try to disprove anything about god. ~a
[2005-09-30 11:53:46] - a: well, two things, I actually think God's behavior is somewhat observable. My other point is, is Psychology science? -dave
[2005-09-30 11:53:08] - paul: what point? ~a
[2005-09-30 11:52:35] - dave: god cannot tell you that he's christian. you cannot observe his teachings. ~a
[2005-09-30 11:52:32] - Paul: yeah, I've tried before. I think Pierce actually agrees too. To my knowledge, adrian is the only one who doesn't at least understand the point (or at least from my point of view not understand it) -dave
[2005-09-30 11:52:10] - dave: disclaimer: i didn't bring science into this. you did. anyways, science is about things you can observe. quarks are not visible to the human eye, but you can still observe their behavior. you can't observe god's behavior, because "god works in mysterious ways". god's behavior is something you have to feel. god's behavior you cannot observe. ~a
[2005-09-30 11:51:38] - Dave: I remember when Vinnie and I tried to make this point to Adrian, we'll see if you have the same result. -Paul
[2005-09-30 11:51:13] - Dave: Uh oh, now you went and insulting science. You're screwed now.
-Paul[2005-09-30 11:50:29] - a: yes and no, there are rules and promises that the Bible lays out, you can certainly test them -dave
[2005-09-30 11:50:07] - a: well, in a sense that's true, but also in a sense, science is faith based. No one really knows why most fundamental scientific things work, they just make guesses and try them out. Same goes for Christianity really, although it's probably less physical than most would like - but so are quarks if you really think about it -dave
[2005-09-30 11:49:13] - dave: these aren't things you can prove or see or disprove or not see. they're spiratual things that you feel in your heart. ~a
[2005-09-30 11:48:27] - dave: nope. no christian really even knows that god exists. that's what faith is for. that's why it's faith based. ~a
[2005-09-30 11:47:31] - a: no christian really knows that god is christian? -dave
[2005-09-30 11:46:59] - sam: there's no real cut-and-dry answer to that. You read the Bible, pray, talk to other people, and then make the best decision you know how and see how it goes -dave
[2005-09-30 11:46:26] - sam: seriously though, it's a difference between faith and fact. no christian really knows that god is christian. they have faith that he's christian. just as they have faith that god wants them to become a missionary. ~a
[2005-09-30 11:45:24] - sam: nope. they're just being dumb. ~a
[2005-09-30 11:44:52] - dave: do they hear voices in their head? -sam
[2005-09-30 11:44:38] - a: Ah, ok. I think I understand then. -Paul
[2005-09-30 11:43:59] - dave: i've been wondering about this for awhile. how you know when what god wants you to do? some people say god has called them for missionary, what does that mean? -sam
[2005-09-30 11:42:07] - sam: ahhh, yes well, you're probably right about that case. It was more a reflection of what I'd probably do vs. perhaps what I should do. -dave
[2005-09-30 11:41:46] - paul: some of the time you can't. the "hunting down terrorists" "everybody" would agree to do in certain situations. ~a
[2005-09-30 11:36:16] - dave: [9-29-2005 3:51:18p] - amy: well, that's somewhere you and I probably differ then. If someone hurt one of my good friends, or one of my family members, I might do something nasty -dave
[2005-09-30 11:35:34] - a: So how can you answer 'yes' to that? -Paul
[2005-09-30 11:34:22] - paul: nope. ~a
[2005-09-30 11:31:30] - sam: yeah, but the hard part is figuring out what he wants you to do -dave
[2005-09-30 11:30:57] - sam: how am I paying back evil for evil? Are you referring to watching Kill Bill? -dave
[2005-09-30 11:30:52] - dave: christian should love god/jesus the most. and do whatever he wants you to do. if you don't that would be a sin, wouldn't it? -sam
[2005-09-30 11:29:46] - the NASV translation (generally accepted to be a more literal translation) says this: Never pay back evil for evil to anyone Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. -dave
[2005-09-30 11:27:54] - dave: but the bible says not to take revenge... are you going to ignore that? -sam
[2005-09-30 11:27:17] - a: Or hunting down the terrorists. Does everybody think that's good? -Paul
[2005-09-30 11:26:56] - a: one thing that a lot of people do incorrectly is try to take one specific thing and then follow that, without regard for the context and what is also said elsewhere -dave
[2005-09-30 11:26:40] - a: I was more thinking of the first quote. -Paul
prev <-> next