mooeypoo

Why are you using a huge array of letters? Beyond the fact that this increases the size and operation of your code, it's also insufficient. I mean, if you go at it with this type of thinking, then you're missing the *entire* range of Unicode, too. I could set up a delimiter that's written in Russian letters, or Hebrew letters, or Arabic letters. This is a good way of falling into an endless pit of language-despair I think that if you actually need recognizable letters, you should go with unicode *ranges* in regexp, which would include all of the actual characters that are valid. But again -- why do you even need those at all?

Actually, I would say the opposite of this conclusion. You could be a successful programmer without having a degree, but not without having industry skills. It really depends what you want to do, and how far you want to go. I wouldn't say being a doctor is easy, and I wouldn't say that being a programmer is hard or easy -- it is mostly what you make of it, and where you want to work, and how far "up" the ladder you feel you want to go. Whatever it is, though, you should have the basic skills that the industry is looking for, and in that aspect, school is a good chance to get them. There are people who are extremely good programmers without having the degrees, and they are very successful programmers, but they were accepted to their jobs because of *provable* skillsets they've shown they had. For the most part, these type of software engineers had to really show their skills. Computer science also includes a pretty large set of jobs, and while you get a lot of "industry skills" in school, you don't get them all. You get the basics, and those basics are very helpful. More than that, though, having the degree is an indicator to potential employers about what kind of knowledge and basic skills you are supposedly coming with, which is something they don't know if you have no degree. They will test you anyways, but there are certain things that they'll definitely expect. There's a big difference between working as a Software Engineer for a company like Google or Facebook, and working as one in financial company like Bloomberg, or working in a non-profit open-source environment like Wikimedia. Like most professions, if you *like* what you do, you'll do it well, both in school and at work, and you'll find your niche and be successful.

You can go with process of elimination. n^2 + anything is bigger than n^2, so S1 is bigger than S4 for sure S4 is also bigger, than S3 (n^2 > n) So, it's between S3 and S2. The simplest way is to plug in bigger and bigger numbers; 1000 and 10000 just to see which is bigger. A more educational approach would be to look at how the graphs of n^2, logn and nlogn look like. You can see here for a chart (and a generally good Big-O "cheat sheet" site) http://bigocheatsheet.com/#chart

I think you're conflating "religion" with "philosophy". The arguments for ethics and morality, while existing in the time of religion, didn't come *from* religion. On the contrary, many of these arguments were seen to be against religion because they challenged the dogma of having a perfectly rigid set of rules given by God. Of course in earlier times philosophers were religious because everyone was religious (though, honestly, if you read a lot of Hobbes, I am not sure at all that he really was, and neither are some others, but that's besides the point) That doesn't mean that morals came from religion, and it doesn't mean that religion was required to have morals. You seem to claim that since the discussion came from religion, religion was required for morality. But that's not the case at all; the discussion came from philosophical discussions (and publications of those discussions) *DESPITE* religious dogma. You don't need religion to have morals, we as human beings are perfectly capable of making rational, logical explanations for what should and shouldn't be considered valid in a society. Whether some come from our nature as human beings ("genetic") or from our existence in groups ("social") is besides the point. These are just angles that allow us to analyze our situation and discuss morality. Most moral discussions, from Descartes to Hobbes to Plato and Socrates were done *despite* of religion's insistence of dogmatic rules, not because of it.

Because knowledge is power, and power may only be God's. And in a more practical sense, because the parable warns you, the lowly human, of the dangers of asking too many questions and being overly curious. God gave you a good thing here, dude. He knows best, and when he doesn't, your pastor does. This is all about power. That said, I disagree that the tree of knowledge is *all* of knowledge. Adam and Eve ate from it and they don't know everything; they got the sense of curiosity and the sense of doubt. It's a tree that has the *essense* of knowldge (which is the danger to god) rather than pure 1+1=2 knowldge.

I always love hearing this excuse; yes, everything in the old testament is tossed out when Jesus came. Except for that bit about homosexuals. That stayed. Oh, and those 10 commandments. We want those too. You know, maybe we should keep those laws about adultery, just in case. Maybe some other things from Leviticus... 'cause, you know, those ancient Israelites did a good job phrasing... But Jesus' words invalidated the laws of the old testament! ... Except for the ones they didn't.

You were already shown to be wrong with B12 (which even the vegan research admits) -- but in any case that's besides the point. You make extravagant claims you simply cannot support. There's a difference between "veganism is healthier" and "eating meat is equal to smoking".

When you get B12 from other sources than meat,we can talk about having B12 from sources other than meat. Anyways, you posted an article that explained how there are benefits in veganism and how excessive consumption of meat is bad and took that to say that meat is as poisonous as cigarettes. .... Do you really still not see what's wrong with this?

Are you seriously suggesting meat and cheese consumption is equal in damage to cigarette consumption!? There's absolutely no evidence for this. Everything excessive is unhealthy. There's a difference between making that statement and announcing meat and cheese as poisonous. And aaaaaaaall of that is ignoring the fact that the vegan lifestyle *ITSELF* has problems.

If we go by the story of creation alone, free will can't be a sin, it was given by god. The question was whether the first sin was disobedience (in which case the tree of knowledge doesn't matter, because the sin was ignoring God's command) or Curiosity (in which case the tree of knowledge was meaningful.) Of course that ignores the contradictions and the fact God pretty much set everybody up, including the poor snake.

Ah, the arguments about "Yom." It's funner when you actually speak the language "yom" is used in. But I digress.

As far as I always understood, the problem wasn't the tree of life, but rather a MIX. So, once man ate from the tree of knowledge, he knew "right and wrong" -- similar to god, could make decisions of morals. So, to make sure that man doesn't become god, he was prevented from eating the tree of knowledge. The text is vague, and you may be right, but that was always my understanding. I'll look up if there are other interpretations.

There are many contradictions in the creation story (the least of which is the fact there are three versions of it...) but I don't remember anything about the Tree of Life being prohibited later. The tree of knowledge, as far as I remember, was the intended dogmatic message, and Adam and Eve lost access to the Tree of Life when they were expelled from the Garden of Eden, which is why we don't live forever. QED, etc. etc.

I can give those examples as well, if you want. I skipped over those because I thought the focus was on genocide.

What's the worst thing people in the religion could do? Doubt. The majority of the old testament is created as a set of dogmatic rulebook and cautionary tales for people in the tribal culture of the Israelites to follow. It emphasizes control over the masses, limits the way of communication with other societies to prevent intermarriage and "degradation" of the culture (and power) and states clear rules about what can and can't be done in the family unit. In this context, the story of creation is cautionary. God gives you everything, even the pretense of free will -- just don't you dare doubt. Don't dare being curious about the world around you with questions your religious leaders can't answer. It's a culture-control book. And it worked.

Christianity the most persecuted religion?? Wow. A little case of history forgetfulness here. But this is off topic, so maybe we could open a new thread about this, if one insists. Well. Deutronomy 17: Kill anyone who's worshipping other gods 2: If there be found in the midst of thee, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing His covenant, 3: and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, or the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have commanded not; 4: and it be told thee, and thou hear it, then shalt thou inquire diligently, and, behold, if it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 5: then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, who have done this evil thing, unto thy gates, even the man or the woman; and thou shalt stone them with stones, that they die. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt05.htm 1 Samuel 15: God commands genocide (you should read the whole chapter, but here are the highlights) 3: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.' {S} But Samuel feels sorry for some of the sinners, so he spares their lives and some of the goats lives. God isn't amused: 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, even the young of the second birth, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but every thing that was of no account and feeble, that they destroyed utterly. {P} 10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying: 11 It repenteth Me that I have set up Saul to be king; for he is turned back from following Me, and hath not performed My commandments.' And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night. ... ... 17 And Samuel said: 'Though thou be little in thine own sight, art thou not head of the tribes of Israel? And the LORD anointed thee king over Israel; 18 and the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said: Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed. 19 Wherefore then didst thou not hearken to the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst that which was evil in the sight of the LORD?' ... 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, He hath also rejected thee from being king.' 24 And Saul said unto Samuel: 'I have sinned; for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words; because I feared the people, and hearkened to their voice. ... 32 Then said Samuel: 'Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.' And Agag came unto him in chains. And Agag said: 'Surely the bitterness of death is at hand.' {S} 33 And Samuel said: As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal. {S} Exodus 17 God promises he will wipe out all traces of amalek. 14 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Write this for a memorial in the book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.' Leviticus is full of "whoever doesn't obey, kill them" rules. Chapter 20 especially. Also, take a look at this list: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/int_list.html So, there's no doubt the biblical god is a god of war and quite a lot of intolerance. I didn't even get into violent acts done against "his own people" for disobeying rules. That said, I am not entirely sure how this affects any logical proof for the existence of god, or lack thereof ..?

Because it's a parable about the dangers of asking questions that lead to doubt? That "sin" is worse than all others in religions that seek to control the beliefs of their followers, much more so than the desire to live longer.

You should read Hobbes I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I don't believe in a power that judges our actions, and yet, I am moral. Not only that, I care about discussing morality and ethics so we can continue to evolve them to fit our societies as they, too, evolve. I (and according to Cuthber's repeated statements, him as well) am the example of where this statement is wrong. I don't believe in a judge, and have moral == therefore you don't *have* to have a judge to have morals. Unless, of course, you don't believe I'm moral... No offense, bu that's a bit of a cop out, isn't it? If the judge is human judgment, then judging by the fact we each *clearly* have different judgments (hence the arguments and discussions) and we can't really pinpoint who's absolutely right and who's absolutely wrong, we can't have a way to figure an authority of judgment. Whether it is within us or not, it seems to be either social (out of cooperative attempt to construct a social contract and keep discussing it) or personal. So I am not sure I see how we require a judge. I'm a bit confused about what you mean here. Can you clarify? Well, I think saying "I have morality" or "I am a moral person" suggests (or, at least, I hope it does) that you care to (constantly) evaluate your moral beliefs to continue being moral within the confines of society you belong to. I don't find morals as something external to us, so "having morals" is not really something you have in the literal sense. I love reading Hitchens, but he's too radical for my taste. I think he has a point in that organized religions messed things up, but he also has a tendency to conflate it as well as expand it to include all people of faith, which I disagree with. In any case, I don't think religion is evil, I think there are problems with organized religion, it cannot be said to be totally moral, *And* I think that morals that are imposed on us by an external authority (any external authority) are not morals at all. This relates to my earlier comment about "having morality" being something you consider, debate, discuss, and consider. People who have morals imposed on them do the opposite, and I think that goes completely against being a moral person. *THAT* is my problem with Religions; but it isn't true to all religious people, so I try not to generalize the two. (Does this make sense?) Okay. But again, we seem to differ on whether we need a judge or not. You should really read Hobbes, if you haven't already. I also wrote a paper in my undergrad years, showing how even Hobbes the "coward" (he insisted people must have an absolute sovereign to make sure they remain moral to one another, otherwise they revert to their state of "nature" where they only live for their own reasons) -- but even he went *against* the statements that religions "knows best" about morality, and said the best morals come from rational thinking. Yes, my problem is that I don't see how this is ever external, except to say that we as a society must decide on a common social contract? Wouldn't that mean there are many judges? If so, who's right? Isn't the whole point of having "a judge" is that you have an authority? If you have endless judges, there's no real authority, and so what difference does it make? If we're talking historically, then you're mostly right (we can quibble over where the morals in religion came from themselves, since they're absolutely not detached from the reality they were written in) -- but that's it; historically. Considering the fact religion(s) rules the ancient world, we can say we got everything from religion. And yet, if we take a closer look, there's a whole list of things we got *despite* of religion. Religion isn't all bad and isn't all good. It *is*; it was, it's a fact of life that the world had it. I'm not sure it's that simple, however, to say that morality came from religion. If you want, we can start a new thread about analyzing the specific moral statements made in the old testament (since I studied them) and I can explain what I mean. Otherwise, I'll move on, since that's off topic to this thread. And in the case of me. I think I more or less understand what you mean in this case, at least. So, I act moral not because I am worried of some external judge who will punish me in hell, but because I am worried of my own judgment, which is also a judge (did I get this right?) If that's the case, then my earlier problems still stand -- in a social environment, morals have to somehow work together. We can't all be completely individualistic. So... what makes morals morals if judgment is completely individual?

Actually, its volume increases. Its density actually decreases. http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/info_water.html

I didn't assign them to god, I assigned them to religions. There's a difference, tar. It was also as a response to seriously weird claims of in the general sense of no religious person was ever violent, which is blatantly (and ridiculously) false, especially in light of the examples I've given. It seems the originator of those claims chose to ignore the responses, though. We're not really talking about the same topic here, though. I'm not saying all wars and all evils come from religion, I'm saying religion isn't exempt from being a cause of wars. In the argument of whether one can have morals without having religion, this is relevant, especially when there were some claims raised that religion is the most moral and non-religious is evil. The fact not all wars and not all reasons for wars are as simple as "religion" doesn't mean that religion wasn't directly the cause of *many* wars and many evils. When we discuss the morality of "religion" we should discuss those too. I don't understand what this has to do with whether morals come from religion. It's a red herring; what we could and should do politically is different than what and where morals come from, and whether morals *can* come outside of religion. There's a difference between morality, moral decisions, moral discussions, and what actual political actions a government chooses to take (that, as we all know, don't have anything to do with morality, at least more often than not) So, I am not seeing the connection to the actual discussion..? Exactly. Which means that morality can (and in my opinion *SHOULD*) exist outside of religion, and without religion. I don't think there's a judge at all, and I believe morality is not fixed; it evolves with time and changes with different societies, as we can see all over the world. That said, this fits the idea that morality can exist outside of religion, which is what this thread is about. We seem to be in agreement here, unless I'm missing something.

You should put a mirror on that post, forufes, especially given the fact you seem to ignore the responses we posted so you can repeat your own. Are you going to answer the last couple of posts I made, or are they too on-point?

So you actually claim that you don't hurt others not because you believe it's wrong, but because you're afraid of retribution -- and that makes you *more* moral than someone who believes it is wrong without having to be threatened?? The fact religion is a good way to *control* the masses doesn't mean it is the base of morals, or that it is more moral to act a certain way because you're scared rather than because you actually think it moral. Lack of religion caused more people to do evil things? Excuse me? Simply counting the inquisition, the crusades, fundamentalist terrorist attacks in the name of religion, the killing of women and children for being disobedient to the laws of religion tip this awkward scale waaaay way over to the side of "religious people did bad things". But of course, when it's easier to claim without evidence, it's possible to claim anything. So.. care to support this pretty outrageous claim, forufes? And yet, not by religion, which is also not surprising, considering: Source: http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/serial_killers.htm And that, of course, doesn't count the muslim fundamentalist terrorists who kill hundreds (and in the case of 9/11, thousands) of people in the name of religion. By the way, Dahmer was forgiven by at least one pastor, so it seems not only did he kill despite his religious upbringing -- according to Christian dogma, he will not be punished in hell. Is that your definition of "Moral"?

Of course it matters if the evidence they have is credible or not, that's what defines whether the premise is at all valid. Premise: The oceans are actually made of liquid jello. Forget about evidence, the premise is what matters! That doesn't work, mojo121. It's not science, it's not rational, it's not reality. The premise that show makes is bombastic and must have corroboration. Since they don't supply even an ounce of actual corroborating evidence, their premise is -- by definition -- bunk. There are separate ideas at work in your claims here. That life is out there in the universe That this life is intelligent The life out there came to visit us That life out there came to visit us, built a bunch of monuments to itself, and left without any other trace. The idea that 1 might be true doesn't make 2 and 3 true, and it definitely doesn't make 4 a valid premise; "debatable" is fine, until you realize that the debate produces absolutely no corroboration -- at this point the premise moves from being debatable to being bunk. Just like "The oceans are made of liquid Jello" is.

If morals were hardwired into the brain, we wouldn't have had to discuss "what is moral". We wouldn't have had to *change* what is considered moral as our societies evolve socially, either. In fact, if morals were hardwired to our brains, then we'd still consider it moral to: Stone to death children who disobey their parents We would still own slaves We would force women who were raped to marry their rapists We would kill anyone who disagrees with our flavor of religion We would not have democracy; only top-tier religious dogmatists would decide our states' fates by theocracies We would kill adulterers We would kill anyone who wears clothes with mixed fabric and much much more. In fact, considering the fact Christianity *changed* the Judaic "morals" by declaring the 613 rules of the Torah are no longer necessary because of Christ, then if morality was hardwired to our brains, Christianity would be invalid. That said, a person doesn't "feel" with his eyes, he sees, and if he "feels" braille, it isn't with his eyes. The brain isn't hardwired the way you seem to think it is. I didn't have time to read every post in this thread, so I don't know if this was properly addressed, but I think it gets even "better", John; morality based on "they told me it's bad", like it is in biblical moralities, is immoral. I am not religious. I believe we shouldn't kill other people from rational reasons, including definitions of social contract and orderly society, and including the idea that it's not my place to kill a sentient being. I also believe I should be nice to people because I expect the same treatment, so it's none of my business what consenting adults do in any hour of the day or night. On the flip side, religious people hold their morals not because they actually believe in them, but because it was said it's wrong in a book. Not only that, the idea of religion is that "if you do X, which is wrong, you will be punished". So, it's not about being a moral person -- it's about being afraid of punishment. Very Hobbsian. I claim that people who don't steal or don't murder because they're worried they'll be punished are much less moral than people who don't steal and murder because they believe those are morally wrong. Not only do we not *need* religion to have morals -- holding morals because of religion is a less moral thing to do than holding morals because you actually believe in them.

Yes. The way she looks and her nail polish just invalidate everything she explained in that video. In case it wasn't clear, that was </sarcasm>