-
Posts
2041 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by doG
-
When you created this thread to continue a discussion from another thread about religion that had been locked....
-
When it decreases the market value of the copyrighted work it is effectively theft...
-
Actually that's only partly true. Non-theistic religions like Buddhism do not rely on the supernatural and religions like Pantheism consider nature itself to be God... So somewhere here someone has previously discussed whether or not religion serves a greater good or not from as a social science perspective? Does law based in religion serve some cultures better? Is it merely a form of indoctrination that violates one's natural born rights? I can't say that I personally know anyone's stance on these but if they've been discussed before I'll try to look them up.
-
A Fascinating Video about the current ATHEIST MOVEMENT
doG replied to blue_cristal's topic in The Lounge
Ahh, YT must be a reference to YouTube.... -
A Fascinating Video about the current ATHEIST MOVEMENT
doG replied to blue_cristal's topic in The Lounge
And whom is the "YT" you refer to in that post? -
Actually the OP did that when they asked about it being a "belief system". Just in case it is the bait it looks to be I answered in kind. If not then I apologize.
-
A Fascinating Video about the current ATHEIST MOVEMENT
doG replied to blue_cristal's topic in The Lounge
In the context of your post it looks to me like you imply that YT posted this link somewhere. It doesn't look like a comment about YT's sig at all.... -
In a word science is knowledge. Knowledge carries with it a great number of beliefs but they are not really a belief system in the context that it represents either a religion or a world view. One could say that a belief in the scientific method is based on the faith in postulates or axioms but that still would not make science, a system of knowledge, a belief system or a religion.
-
This looks like one of those endlessly debatable topics that would be more at home in a Philosophy forum.
-
Why isn't he/she banned already and this thread deleted? OTOH you could ban them and share their email with the rest of us. Since they like spam so much I'm sure there's some volunteers here that would be willing to sign him/her up for some
-
So have a restricted membership by using a group membership. If the need arises you can configure the VB infraction system to control that membership. The nice thing about the infraction system is that you can have some infractions that cause a temporary restriction and some that cause a permanent expulsion from the group. Initially I would just try a group membership and expel the offenders. If you have the user note system set up you can keep track of who's been expelled and why. vBulletin already has some built in features that could be used. A system like Slashdot's would be a custom hack, i.e. extra work.
-
It's a topic that's only fit for some people but there are some people that can discuss it. By the time the infraction system weeds out those that can't you'll only have those that can discuss it left in the group.
-
Some can, some can't. I still think you could use a forum with a controlled group membership and the infraction system to limit the participants to those that can run a shitcheck on their mouths.
-
Perhaps you will consider one of these a better definition. I'll begin with the origin of the term:: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science> [*] knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE [*] a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art> [*] capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
-
A belief in something does not make it a religion. Would you call a belief in gravity a religion? A child's belief in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy? A skydiver's belief that their chute will open? I happen to affirmatively believe that there is not a chair in orbit around Neptune but I can't prove it. Would you call that a religion? Religion is a belief system, not just a belief in something.
-
I think the answer to that is yes and no. A world without religion would be free of the abuses of religious dogma. It would also be free of the moral foundation for much of the world. We would be without the positive and the negative effects of religious belief. I do believe that many of those that commit violence in the name of God would just find other reasons to justify their violence so freedom from religion wouldn't help us much there.
-
They also passed the Copyright Act of 1790. It was passed during the second session of Congress and Signed by George Washington. It was modeled after the 1710 Statute of Anne, the copyright law in effect when the founding fathers left England. Note also that this is dated before the Bill of Rights where the founding fathers stated in the 9th Amendment that there were rights other than those enumerated in the Constitution.
-
A lack of belief is not a belief....
-
That's quite an oxymoron there since, legally speaking, it is not a "right" or it would be protected by law.....
-
There's no dilemma. In an infinite number set there should be an infinite number of primes. Look at how a prime sieve works and it should be obvious that an infinite number set will always have numbers as you ascend that will not be a factor of any previous primes in the sieve.
-
No, there is no right to copy. Notice that all 4 factors must be included in a test by the court to determine Fair Use, not just some of the factors. Where a copyrighted work is copied in its entirety factor 3 fails and anywhere that the copied portion decreases the potential market value. No where can you point out that someone that does not own the copyright has a "right to copy". They may steal someone's work but its not because they have a "right" to do so.
-
Right to copy? There's no right to copy, er... steal someone's work. Why would someone's ownership of a work they created be an outdated idea?
-
Did you zoom in on the text?
-
I think they just post more. Squeaky doors get more attention than quiet ones...
-
You mean "it"? Why assign a gender to God?