How to tell if you have a hacker in the family (VERY funny)

[Champion of the Force]

Found this on another forum. I don't think I've ever laughed so hard. :lol

Just so you all know, I doubt it's meant to be serious (read on and you'll see). Either that, or it's a conspiracy involving Microsoft, Intel and AOL. :)


How to tell if your child is a hacker

As an enlightened, modern parent, I try to be as involved as possible in the lives of my six children. I encourage them to join team sports. I attend their teen parties with them to ensure no drinking or alcohol is on the premises. I keep a fatherly eye on the CDs they listen to and the shows they watch, the company they keep and the books they read. You could say I'm a model parent. My children have never failed to make me proud, and I can say without the slightest embellishment that I have the finest family in the USA.

Two years ago, my wife Carol and I decided that our children's education would not be complete without some grounding in modern computers. To this end, we bought our children a brand new Compaq to learn with. The kids had a lot of fun using the handful of application programs we'd bought, such as Adobe's Photoshop and Microsoft's Word, and my wife and I were pleased that our gift was received so well. Our son Peter was most entranced by the device, and became quite a pro at surfing the net. When Peter began to spend whole days on the machine, I became concerned, but Carol advised me to calm down, and that it was only a passing phase. I was content to bow to her experience as a mother, until our youngest daughter, Cindy, charged into the living room one night to blurt out: "Peter is a computer hacker!"

As you can imagine, I was amazed. A computer hacker in my own house! I began to monitor my son's habits, to make certain that Cindy wasn't just telling stories, as she is prone to doing at times.

After a few days of investigation, and some research into computer hacking, I confronted Peter with the evidence. I'm afraid to say, this was the only time I have ever been truly disappointed in one of my children. We raised them to be honest and to have integrity, and Peter betrayed the principles we tried to encourage in him, when he refused point blank to admit to his activities. His denials continued for hours, and in the end, I was left with no choice but to ban him from using the computer until he is old enough to be responsible for his actions.

After going through this ordeal with my own family, I was left pondering how I could best help others in similar situations. I'd gained a lot of knowledge over those few days regarding hackers. It's only right that I provide that information to other parents, in the hope that they will be able to tell if their children are being drawn into the world of hacking. Perhaps other parents will be able to steer their sons back onto the straight and narrow before read this list carefully and if their son matches the profile, they should take action. A smart parent will first try to reason with their son, before resorting to groundings, or even spanking. I pride myself that I have never had to spank a child, and I hope this guide will help other parents to put a halt to their son's misbehaviour before a spanking becomes necessary.

1. Has your son asked you to change ISPs?

Most American families use trusted and responsible Internet Service Providers, such as AOL. These providers have a strict "No Hacking" policy, and take careful measures to ensure that your internet experience is enjoyable, educational and above all legal. If your child is becoming a hacker, one of his first steps will be to request a change to a more hacker friendly provider.

I would advise all parents to refuse this request. One of the reasons your son is interested in switching providers is to get away from AOL's child safety filter. This filter is vital to any parent who wants his son to enjoy the internet without the endangering him through exposure to "adult" content. It is best to stick with the protection AOL provides, rather than using a home-based solution. If your son is becoming a hacker, he will be able to circumvent any home-based measures with surprising ease, using information gleaned from various hacker sites .

2. Are you finding programs on your computer that you don't remember installing?

Your son will probably try to install some hacker software and may attempt to conceal the presence of the software in some way, but you can usually find any new programs by reading through the programs listed under "Install/Remove Programs" in your control panel. Popular hacker software includes "Comet Cursor", "Bonzi Buddy" and "Flash".

The best option is to confront your son with the evidence, and force him to remove the offending programs. He will probably try to install the software again, but you will be able to tell that this is happening, if your machine offers to "download" one of the hacker applications. If this happens, it is time to give your son a stern talking to, and possibly consider punishing him with a grounding.

3. Has your child asked for new hardware?

Computer hackers are often limited by conventional computer hardware. They may request "faster" video cards, and larger hard drives, or even more memory. If your son starts requesting these devices, it is possible that he has a legitimate need. You can best ensure that you are buying legal, trustworthy hardware by only buying replacement parts from your computer's manufacturer.

If your son has requested a new "processor" from a company called "AMD", this is genuine cause for alarm. AMD is a third-world based company who make inferior, "knock-off" copies of American processor chips. They use child labor extensively in their third world sweatshops, and they deliberately disable the security features that American processor makers, such as Intel, use to prevent hacking. AMD chips are never sold in stores, and you will most likely be told that you have to order them from internet sites. Do not buy this chip! This is one request that you must refuse your son, if you are to have any hope of raising him well.

4. Does your child read hacking manuals?

If you pay close attention to your son's reading habits, as I do, you will be able to determine a great deal about his opinions and hobbies. Children are at their most impressionable in the teenage years. Any father who has had a seventeen year old daughter attempt to sneak out on a date wearing make up and perfume is well aware of the effect that improper influences can have on inexperienced minds.

There are, unfortunately, many hacking manuals available in bookshops today. A few titles to be on the lookout for are: "Snow Crash" and "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson; "Neuromancer" by William Gibson; "Programming with Perl" by Timothy O'Reilly; "Geeks" by Jon Katz; "The Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling; "Microserfs" by Douglas Coupland; "Hackers" by Steven Levy; and "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond.

If you find any of these hacking manuals in your child's possession, confiscate them immediately. You should also petition local booksellers to remove these titles from their shelves. You may meet with some resistance at first, but even booksellers have to bow to community pressure.

5. How much time does your child spend using the computer each day?

If your son spends more than thirty minutes each day on the computer, he may be using it to DOS other peoples sites. DOSing involves gaining access to the "command prompt" on other people's machines, and using it to tie up vital internet services. This can take up to eight hours. If your son is doing this, he is breaking the law, and you should stop him immediately. The safest policy is to limit your children's access to the computer to a maximum of forty-five minutes each day.

6. Does your son use Quake?

Quake is an online virtual reality used by hackers. It is a popular meeting place and training ground, where they discuss hacking and train in the use of various firearms. Many hackers develop anti-social tendencies due to the use of this virtual world, and it may cause erratic behaviour at home and at school.

If your son is using Quake, you should make him understand that this is not acceptable to you. You sould ensure all the firearms in your house are carefully locked away, and have trigger locks installed. You should also bring your concerns to the attention of his school.

7. Is your son becoming argumentative and surly in his social behaviour?

As a child enters the electronic world of hacking, he may become disaffected with the real world. He may lose the ability to control his actions, or judge the rightness or wrongness of a course of behaviour. This will manifest itself soonest in the way he treats others. Those whom he disagrees with will be met with scorn, bitterness, and even foul language. He may utter threats of violence of a real or electronic nature.

Even when confronted, your son will probably find it difficult to talk about this problem to you. He will probably claim that there is no problem, and that you are imagining things. He may tell you that it is you who has the problem, and you should "back off" and "stop smothering him." Do not allow yourself to be deceived. You are the only chance your son has, even if he doesn't understand the situation he is in. Keep trying to get through to him, no matter how much he retreats into himself.

8. Is your son obsessed with "Linux"?

BSD, Linux, Debian and Mandrake are all versions of an illegal hacker operation system, invented by a Soviet computer hacker named Linyos Torovoltos, before the Russians lost the Cold War. It is based on a program called "Xenix", which was written by Microsoft for the US government. These programs are used by hackers to break into other people's computer systems to steal credit card numbers. They may also be used to break into people's stereos to steal their music, using the "mp3" program. Torovoltos is a notorious hacker, responsible for writing many hacker programs, such as "telnet", which is used by hackers to connect to machines on the internet without using a telephone.

Your son may try to install "Linux" on your hard drive. If he is careful, you may not notice its presence, however, Linux is a capricious beast, and if handled incorrectly, your son may damage your computer, and even break it completely by deleting Windows, at which point you will have to have your computer repaired by a professional.

If you see the word "LILO" during your windows startup (just after you turn the machine on), your son has installed Linux. In order to get rid of it, you will have to send your computer back to the manufacturer, and have them fit a new hard drive Linux is extremely dangerous software, and cannot be removed without destroying part of your hard disk surface.

9. Has your son radically changed his appearance?

If your son has undergone a sudden change in his style of dress, you may have a hacker on your hands. Hackers tend to dress in bright, day-glo colors. They may wear baggy pants, bright colored shirts and spiky hair dyed in bright colors to match their clothes. They may take to carrying "glow-sticks" and some wear pacifiers around their necks. There are many such hackers in schools today, and your son may have started to associate with them. If you notice that your son's group of friends includes people dressed like this, it is time to think about a severe curfew, to protect him from dangerous influences.

10. Is your son struggling academically?

If your son is failing courses in school, or performing poorly on sports teams, he may be involved in a hacking group, such as the infamous "Otaku" hacker association. Excessive time spent on the computer, communicating with his fellow hackers may cause temporary damage to the eyes and brain, from the electromagnetic radiation. This will cause his marks to slip dramatically, particularly in difficult subjects such as Math, and Chemistry. In extreme cases, over-exposure to computer radiation can cause schizophrenia, meningitis and other psychological diseases. Also, the reduction in exercise may cause him to lose muscle mass, and even to start gaining weight. For the sake of your child's mental and physical health, you must put a stop to his hacking, and limit his computer time drastically.

I encourage all parents to read through this guide carefully. Your child's future may depend upon it. Hacking is an illegal and dangerous activity, that may land your child in prison, and tear your family apart. It must be taken.

:lol

So I guess by owning an AMD processor. not using AOL as my ISP and having Flash 5 installed - I am officially a hacker. :)

[Ash Longbaugh]

4. Does your child read hacking manuals?

Why else would he read them? :)

[Admiral Lebron]

I have an AMD, Flash, don't use AOL, and oh no! My pants are baggy! AHH!

[Champion of the Force]

I love the part about how hackers use mp3 programs to break into people's stereos. :lol

[JonathanLB]

That is pretty funny.

I am using an AMD-based hosting computer with 512 megs of RAM from RackShack.net for my Websites starting in January. 300 gig transfer per month.

I prefer Intel, but the Intel model is $100 more to setup and the only apparent advantage is much more hard disk space, which is totally unnecessary. Almost no Website requires more than 100 megs of storage, yet they have two 40 gig hard drives. Insane!

AOL sucks, too. All of the stupidest people online practically are AOL users and that is absolutely not a joke. As a Webmaster, I deal with these idiots daily. Not only do AOL users ask the stupidest questions, they just act moronic in general, like telling me to unsubscribe them from my newsletter when it clearly says you have to send a blank e-mail to a specific address. I never respond to their requests obviously. Idiots.

"The safest policy is to limit your children's access to the computer to a maximum of forty-five minutes each day. "

Haha, thank god my parents aren't that stupid. Without a computer, I would be totally lost. I don't know what I'd do, but I would have no direction whatsoever. I wouldn't be interested in writing because I hate typewriters, I wouldn't be interested in film because you have to have digital post-production to make it any fun at all, and I wouldn't have an online business making thousands of dollars per month either. That would be very bad. No parent should ever limit their kids' use of a valuable and profitable tool like a computer. A TV, perhaps... but not a computer.

Anyway, I would be in dire shape without a computer. Because I have no real friends in college yet, I rely on AIM to talk with all of my good friends back home. I am totally isolated and alone without that program. Sad? Yes, perhaps, but thank god for AIM. Also, I'd have nothing whatsoever to do except drink. Instead of being productive and making money online and writing, I would instead be left to drinking every night because there wouldn't be anything more useful to do whatsoever.

Computers are such a positive influence it isn't even worth debating with someone who says otherwise. They cannot be taken seriously. In fact, I would discredit every other opinion someone had if they started bad-mouthing computers. It's nearly as bad as someone saying they don't "believe" in evolution as if evolution were a religion, haha. Whatever.

[darth_mcbain]

Hey, I've read the O'Reilly Perl books... I don't know if I'd classify them as hacker manuals, just good programming references... ;)

[Doc Milo]

Hmmm. Jon, you really have a way of making such insane, idiotic generalizations about people, it's difficult to take anything you say seriously.

All AOL users are idiots, huh? That's just stupid. The people you have dealt with that have AOL may be idiots, but that doesn't make all AOL users idiots. I have AOL. While AOL is not my primary ISP (I have a cable modem and as such my IP address is assigned through the optonline network) I still enjoy using some of AOL's content. (And apparently you enjoy some of AOL's product, since you rely in AIM -- or, otherwise known as AOL's Instant Messenger.) But I guess I'm just an idiot because I have and use AOL.

And "it's just as bad as someone saying they don't believe in evolution as if evolution was a religion." You see, this is the attitude I expect from smart-ass atheists. You guys seem to think you're smarter than everyone else because you don't believe in God. To me, that just makes you dumber than everyone else (not speaking to agnostics here.)

Jon, I don't believe that the theory of evolution explains anything accurately. I believe the theory of evolution has more holes in it that swiss cheese. There is no solid evidence to prove the theory of evolution is accurate. Do I not believe in evolution? I won't go that far, because I do believe that things evolve, people evolve, animals evolve. I do believe in some of the concepts of evolution, like survival of the fittest and species adaptation. But I don't believe that evolution can explain where we came from; I don't believe in interspecies evolution, that one species on earth evolved from another. I don't believe that man was once monkey. You may think I'm dumb, and I can live with that. I think you're an arrogant fool, so it doesn't bother me much. Go out and make your money as if that's what the most important thing in the world is. You worship your money, I'll worship God. We'll see in the end who's lived a better life.

To everyone else, sorry for this little rampage. I just can't stand how he constantly puts down entire populations of people because either they don't believe what he believes, or they use a certain ISP, or whatever other idiotic reasoning he has in his brain.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
Without a computer, I would be totally lost.

Anyway, I would be in dire shape without a computer.

Computers are such a positive influence it isn't even worth debating with someone who says otherwise.

Are you serious or just kidding? If the first, you got a problem. Computers and Internet are a bad influence.

[Lord Gue]

LoL, thats some good stuff!

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
But I don't believe that evolution can explain where we came from;

Exactly. It's not about the evolution theory, but about the origin of life. That's where religious people and non religious people have their big disagreement. I personally belong to the latter group and believe that life started a few billion years ago with some extreme primitive life forms (like several molecule shaped) and then very, very slowly over millions and millions of years developed into more complicated life forms, humans being the most complex result.

But I guess that's off-topic. :)

[Leeloo Mina]

O_O;; OH NO!! DON'T LET MY PARENTS READ THIS!! hehe.


I have an AMD, Flash, don't use AOL, and oh no! My pants are baggy! AHH!


Ah, crap. I must be a hacker too, then. =/

[JonathanLB]

You are entitled to your opinion, but it's VERY hard to take anyone seriously who doesn't even accept evolution as the way humans came to be.

Humans were never apes, ok, you don't get evolution if you say that. It's not like one day an ape just magically turned into a human and, viola! No, it's not at all like that.

I don't worship money, btw, I plan to become a philosophy major next year and that simply wouldn't do, lol. I enjoy the success that brings money, but the pursuit of money alone is not an all-important one or anything. There are many more important things in the world, but God is not one of them because he doesn't exist. Believe what you will, though. I'll live reality, you can live a fairy tale, we'll see who lives the better life :)

As for AOL users, I will admit not ALL AOL users are total idiots, just most of them. Maybe 95%. I was an AOL user too when I first started and I was definitely an idiot when it came to online matters, i.e. a newbie. Most AOL users are newbies, otherwise they would switch to a REAL Internet Service Provider! lol.

"Are you serious or just kidding? If the first, you got a problem. Computers and Internet are a bad influence."

What the hell are you talking about?! LOL. You could not be more wrong. Of course I am serious. I made $1,600 last month online in pure profit from my business. I buy everything online too, it's much more convenient, I keep in touch with my friends online, I talk to people who I might not have talked to otherwise (or most likely wouldn't have), and with computers everything is possible. I'm glad you're not an American, or I'd say you are Un-American, but that'd just be stupid given the situation :)

Dutchy, computers are a very positive influence, as is the Internet. Please don't be absurd. Without them both, I wouldn't have achieved the degree of success I have enjoyed today.

[Doc Milo]

Originally posted by Dutchy


Exactly. It's not about the evolution theory, but about the origin of life. That's where religious people and non religious people have their big disagreement. I personally belong to the latter group and believe that life started a few billion years ago with some extreme primitive life forms (like several molecule shaped) and then very, very slowly over millions and millions of years developed into more complicated life forms, humans being the most complex result.

But I guess that's off-topic. :)

I look at it this way, using an analogy: You find a watch sitting on a rock in the middle of a park. What's easier to believe -- that the components of the watch, the metals that make up the gears, the plastic and glass that make up the hands and face, the leather for the band, all came together randomly in that place, and formed into a working watch that is now sitting on a rock in the park, or that a watchmaker made the watch, and left it there?

I have no problem in believing that species evolve over time. I do have a problem believing that all species evolved from one primative life-forms. One of the problems I find is that there is no evidence of the "missing links" between one form of life and another. There are great surges of change between lifeforms. And the missing links that would have had to have come between those sets of lifeforms, many are maladaptive. They could not have survived -- and if they did not survive, then the lifeforms they supposedly became could never have been.

But, yes, this is off topic.... Back to the hacker article, everyone. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along...

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
What the hell are you talking about?! LOL. You could not be more wrong. Of course I am serious. I made $1,600 last month online in pure profit from my business. I buy everything online too, it's much more convenient, I keep in touch with my friends online, I talk to people who I might not have talked to otherwise (or most likely wouldn't have), and with computers everything is possible. I'm glad you're not an American, or I'd say you are Un-American, but that'd just be stupid given the situation :)

Yes, so you're totally depending on your computer. IMO it's a bad thing to make yourself dependent on just one thing, a computer in this case. So in that way it is a bad influence. You're very volunarable with your way of life right now.

[Doc Milo]

Jon, God doesn't exist, huh? Fine. Believe that. You, of course, know this because you are a human being, and we all know that human beings know everything there is to know about everything, that humans are not limited in their knowledge or their observations. We know this, because we are human beings and are the centers of the universe.

Let's put it this way Jon. I believe in God. If I'm wrong, and there is no God, then no harm done. I live my life trying to be good to others and living by the precepts of my religion, and I live a happy, fulfilling life because of it. In the end it's just the end, because I'm wrong. No harm. No foul.

But let's just say you're wrong. What then. What becomes of you, who denies that God exists? Seems to me that's too much of a risk, Jon. I'm wrong. No harm. You're wrong, your immortal soul lives eternity in torment. Your reality is just not worth the risk.

And now, Jon. I find I can't stand your blatherings anymore. So I will use the ignore feature. Bye Bye.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
I look at it this way, using an analogy: You find a watch sitting on a rock in the middle of a park. What's easier to believe -- that the components of the watch, the metals that make up the gears, the plastic and glass that make up the hands and face, the leather for the band, all came together randomly in that place, and formed into a working watch that is now sitting on a rock in the park, or that a watchmaker made the watch, and left it there?

Definitely the latter. But, you're using the wrong analogy. According to my theory there was no watch. A watch is way too complex. Even the gears, plastic and glass are too complex. In the beginning there were only some chemical structures forming some kind of extremely simple lifeform, which also took millions of years. The chance of life starting on some planet is very small, but the chance of it not happening is probably even smaller. We're just very lucky that we're here.


And the missing links that would have had to have come between those sets of lifeforms, many are maladaptive. They could not have survived -- and if they did not survive, then the lifeforms they supposedly became could never have been.

Or one half didn't survive and the other half envolved into a more adapted lifeform, of moreorless the same species. This process is going VERY slowly.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't necessarly think that believing in Evolution means that there is no God. I believe that there is a God or a Supreme Being but I think God just didn't create life like Genesis says (to me that is just a story to teach a moral lesson), now I guess God may have used Evolution as his way or he could have used something else that we haven't even thought of yet. Realize Evolution is just a theory and most scientist will say that, it is not written in stone yet, it is not a law like Gravity. One day somebody might come up with a better way to explain it and then it will change that is the way science is.

Also about the computer thing, I too would be lost without the computer, heck our whole society would be lost with computers. If computers were suddenly taken from our society would fall apart (that was what was feared back in the whole Y2k stuff) its because everything: electricity, banks, food supplies, etc are tied up into them and now we have become a civilization dependent on computers. If thats a bad thing you decide.

[Doc Milo]

Originally posted by Dutchy


Or one half didn't survive and the other half envolved into a more adapted lifeform, of moreorless the same species. This process is going VERY slowly.

The problem there is that there is no record of their existance. There would be a fossil record of the ones that didn't survive.

My analogy, though, works in the sense that even to make those really primitive lifeforms you speak of, all the right conditions for them to come into being would have had to come together randomly.

I just think that the theory of evolution works much better when God is factored in. Even if the theory as you hold it works out, there is always the question of how they came to be. How did those primitive lifeforms come into being in the first place? What made them alive as opposed to all the other non-living molecules on the planet? Evolution doesn't answer that. But wasn't Darwin seeking to answer that question, thus the title of his book?

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
If thats a bad thing you decide.

It is, but I meant it especially as for one's social life. If your entire LIFE depends on a computer, that is a bad thing.

[darth_mcbain]

An interesting debate. I happen to believe in both. I think that the two actually fit together a lot easier than some people let on. I believe God created life, but not all in a nice little package like Genesis would have us believe. I believe that God created the laws of physics and put factors in motion which would eventually lead to life - not all at once, but very gradually. The problem with strict creationism is that it doesn't allow for any change - the way God created it is the way it is now and can never change. As is plainly obvious, we don't live in such a static system - our world is a dynamically changing place.

BTW, Doc - I believe the philosophy you've adopted is known as Pascal's Wager.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
My analogy, though, works in the sense that even to make those really primitive lifeforms you speak of, all the right conditions for them to come into being would have had to come together randomly.

Yes, there is a very small chance to that, but the chance is not 0. Especially not looking at how infinite many stars and thus planets there are in the universe.


How did those primitive lifeforms come into being in the first place?

That is probably the question where I'd most want to get an answer to. :) That, along with the question if there's intelligent extra terrestrial life. What is your view on that, by the way?


What made them alive as opposed to all the other non-living molecules on the planet?

Yeah, that's the mystery of life. I don't know either, but I sure think of that as a much more reasonable explanation than God.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Exactly Doc, I think God should be factored in when considering Evolution and that is why I said why is it that a lot of people assume that you are athiest if you believe in Evolution (some are I admit include one this board I am guessing) I don't think they have to go hand and hand, also I am not sure if Evolution is the right theory I still think there is something else that we have not seen yet that makes more sense probably with including God in the equation.

Also Dutchy I admit people who are depended on the computer socially probably have problems, I was speaking I would be lost in other ways, fiancially for example I have a lot of things on my computer that is neccessary if I lost them I would be in lot of trouble but I guess that is problematic for our society and why Y2K scared so many people.

[darth_mcbain]

So... About those hackers.... :lol Didn't this kinda get off subject?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah Mcbain it did Jon said one little thing that caught Doc's interest and it kind of went from there, still it is an interesting debate.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Exactly Doc, I think God should be factored in when considering Evolution and that is why I said why is it that a lot of people assume that you are athiest if you believe in Evolution (some are I admit include one this board I am guessing)

Well, in that case they don't literally mean the Evolution theory, but just the theory as the opposite to believing in God, being the theory I talked about a few posts back (life starting from extreme simple lifeforms and taking a few billions of years).


Also Dutchy I admit people who are depended on the computer socially probably have problems

Okay, so you agree with me then. :)

[Doc Milo]

I'm not saying I totally believe in Creationism as told in the Book of Genesis. I am saying that I lean more toward that as toward Evolution as a stand alone theory. If I had to choose which theory I felt works better stand-alone, I'd say it would be Creationism, because we don't know the mystery of God, or how He works his Will. He can speak things into being, and they are as they are. I totally believe that. So, if I had to choose one over the other as a stand-alone theory, Creationism is what I'd choose.

Now, I tend to agree with Darth McBain and JMC, that it is a combination of both Creationism, and Evolution. For example, I believe that species evolve and adapt, that we are not static, that we evolve with our environments. But I believe that God created the human race in His own image; I do not believe that all of life started out as a primitive lifeform and evolved into more complex creatures. If that is true, why is it so? What causes such a change? Yes, over billions of years, I understand, but why grow more complex as opposed to simpler and more efficient, for example?

A lot of people who dismiss Creationism do so based upon how old the Earth is, and how old we estimate man has been on the Earth. I believe there are two things not factored in that equation, though. I believe man has been here on Earth longer than we have estimated, a lot longer; and I believe that the Earth, although measures to human observation at a certain age, is actually younger than we estimate (and appears older to our understanding.)

To illustrate this, I ask the question: According to the Bible, how old was Adam 1 day after his creation?

The answer is simple, of course. Adam was 1 day old, 1 day after his creation.

Now consider this question: How old did Adam look 1 day after his creation?

The answer is: He looked like an adult.

God can create things that look older than they are, that measure, to human understanding, older than they are.

Now, is it possible that God took these simple lifeforms and created everything from them? Certainly. And that is where I believe McBain and Carr are when they write (McBain more than Carr, who seems to believe there is something we are missing in both theories...) -- That God Created the Universe, and Evolution is the process by which he created it.

I'm not quite there. I believe Evolution is a process he put into being while creating the Universe, so that the things of His creation would adapt and survive to the growing of the universe that he was and is creating, but not necessarily the process by which He created the universe.

Where do I stand on intelligent life on other planets. I believe there is life on other planets. And I don't believe that that belief precludes the existence of God, either. Why would He create those other worlds, if not to create life on them? Our Bible is a book that tells of Man's relationship with God. And as such, it is limited in its scope. I wonder if life on other planets would have followed the same mold. Did other created beings fall to Original Sin? Are angels, for instance, inhabitants of other planets who enjoy the Grace of God because they haven't fallen? There are many ways life on other planets fit in with a religious belief system.

And for the record, I wasn't saying anyone who believes in Evolution is necessarily an atheist. I just knew that Jon was one, and that his little evolution comment was aimed at making fun of those who believe in creation.

[Jedieb]

God
I actually have more of a problem with organized religion than I do God. Which god or church am I suppose to believe in? Budda, Mohammad, Christ, Zeus? Why are religions with multiple Gods so out of vogue? Hercules and Zeus are easy to laugh at but what about Gods and Spirits worshiped by the Iroqoius or Souix? What about the beliefs of African cultures? Some of their beliefs must outdate Christian ones by thousands of years. Why'd the big guy wait so long to send his son down to us? Why he send him to Jeruselum? Why not China or Egypt? If I need to accept Christ while I'm here on Earth does that mean that Heaven doesn't accept Jews? Do they need to convert before they're allowed in? If a spend my entire life treating others well, providing for my wife and children and all around leading a decent life, does my soul burn because I didn't accept the right maker? The death row inmate who found God the last ten years he was on death row goes to heaven while I rot away? I didn't kill anybody. Why's the big guy picking on me? And why is he a guy? Why doesn't god look like Oprah? I mean we originated in Africa didn't we? Wouldn't that make God black? Craetion is akin to birth isn't it? Wouldn't that make God a chick?

I don't pose those questions because I want answers to them. I post them to point out some of the issues I have with organized religion. To me the issue of God's existance is the question of the very nature and existance of the Universe. Over the years I've developed a certain set of beliefs and I try to stick to them as much as possible. My belief structure is built on a simple observation: God doesn't care who wins the Superbowl. Really, he doesn't. If he did then the Ravens would have lost last year and the millionaire material witness to a homicide wouldn't have become the Superbowl MVP. I don't believe that Man is as important as he thinks he is. We're just not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. God is a pretty much hands off kind of gal. She may have started things in motion and set down some basic laws, but she's been leaving the Universe to its own devices for quite some time. I believe that if a meteorite struck the Earth tomorrow and wiped out civilization that God wouldn't think it anymore of a big deal than when the Dinosaurs got wiped out. We would dissappear, but the Earth and life would continue. Roaches and bees would keep marching on. In a few hundred million years another species might arise to dominate the planet and start contemplating its existance and the nature of the universe. But the show isn't over just because we leave the stage. It's just time for another act. (oooh, that's a catchy theater metaphor isn't it? Actually it's not really a metaphor because I didn't use like or as. Or is that a simile? What the heck is that smell? Am I babbling?)

I have an tenet in my belief structure that I hold above almost all others. That is... I'm probably full of crap. I'm well aware that what I live my life by are MY BELIEFS. I haven't seen any burning bushes lately to think that I've stumbled upon the true nature of God and the Universe. I'm old enough and experienced enough to know that NO ONE has all the answers to these kinds of questions. Doc may be correct, so might the Rabbi down the street, or the Buddist in Tienaman Square. With all the issues I have with organized religion, I recognize that it can be a positive influence on individuals, communities, and institutions. It's just not a club that I wan't to join. Since I've admitted that experience has taught me I could be wrong I've no cause to belittle those who do believe differently than me. I certainly don't consider myself superior to them. Unless they worship Star Trek and William Shatner. Then I'm pretty sure I've got them beat. Live long and prosper my as......

I love my wife and kids, I'm faithful, I pay my taxes, my career is dedicated to teaching 10-11 year olds, and I take good care of my cats. I'll stick to those practices and see where they take me.

Computers
Well this is a far more weighty and complicated issue than the true nature of God and the Universe. It's why I saved it for last. Obviously computers are a useful tool. They make our lives easier and more comfortable. We're all using them to communicate right now aren't we? Unfortunately, like anything, they can be abused. If the focus of my social life was centered around a computer when I was 18 do you know where I'd be right now? I'd be right here typing this post actually. What's different is who'd be making noise in the background distracting the hell out of me. There'd be NO wife, NO kids, and NO cats. Because I have the benefit of hindsight I can say this with the utmost certainty. If my social life revolved around a computer then how would I have joined a fraternity? How would I have met my wife at the 90' Halloween Bash? No one would have talked me into taking in an evil kitten named Toonces. I wouldn't of gotten married. I wouldn't have fathered 2 kids. I'd be sitting here typing this in an empty house. Or worse, I'd be typing this while living in my parent's basement. There's no more social a setting than college. If you're computer screen is the love of your life during those 4 years, then what makes you think you'll be Don Juan after you graduate? If I were single and devoted to nothing more than SW and my online life I'd have a lot more money and a lot fewer responsibilities. I'd also be a sad and pathetic individual with nothing but a bigger bank account and a wall of vintage carded figures.

I think I'll stick with the background noise and the cheaper loose figures.
MTFBWY

[JonathanLB]

Ok Doc has ignored me, which I find unfair, but that is his right.

I will only say one thing on that topic because I am in the minority anyway, so I don't in this case feel like debating it. I DO believe it is harmful to live a lie, so if you believe in God and you worship him (nobody and nothing should be worshipped, IMO), then you are throwing away valuable hours of your life and furthermore you are living a lie, IMO. I couldn't live a lie. Now, that is not to say I KNOW for a fact there is no God. There very well could be, but because I don't feel that is the case I am not going to live a lie just out of fear. It sounds to me as though you, Doc, are clearly religious because of fear, not faith.

Also, if I live a good life and am honest in my dealings with other people, helpful whenever I can be, and a good person in general, then I think if there was a heaven I would be there. I refuse to believe that any God would send someone to hell for something as stupid as "not believing in him." If so, he is an egotist, and I would rather burn in the fires of hell than be in heaven with an ego-maniac. Good people go to heaven, if there is one, and bad people go to hell, if there is one, but being religious doesn't mean you go to heaven or hell. That is a very flawed concept of religion. It would mean all Buddhists are going to burn in hell for not accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior (even though he was just a man who deserves admiration, for sure, but not idolization!).

Onto the next subject, because I would like to get to the bottom of how people, specifically Dutchy, feel about this and I want a real explanation. As in, I will be civil and reasonable in my responses, please explain to me your viewpoint and why it is right.

"It is, but I meant it especially as for one's social life. If your entire LIFE depends on a computer, that is a bad thing." -Dutchy.

I agree with this. If your entire life is lived on a computer, I mean, you are not really living at all. I have a friend like this. He is home-schooled, hasn't gone to college yet, and all he does is talk online all day, has no friends in real life besides me and I never see the guy either. He is pathetic. I mean, he is a nice guy, but he is pathetic in that he has no life and admits it.

I will also admit I have no life at LMU. The majority of my social interaction occurs on the computer, which is very unhealthy in my opinion. This is why I want to join my friends at OSU. I have tons of friends, but with none around here, it's just no fun. I cannot go through college like this. I am sure if I gave it time, like another two years, I would establish meaningful relationships here, but why would I do that? I like my friends at home and they mean a lot to me, so I would like to spend my time with them. Bryan is really into filmmaking, I mean, he does more of it there than I do here! I want to work with him, hang out with him, and I want to succeed together. I think we can get into the film industry without going to a film college (although I'd like to go to a film school for a year after college), so I want to stick with him and see where that takes me.

Plus, if money were more important to me than anything else, don't you think I'd stay at LMU instead of go to OSU to major in philosophy?!? That is a useless major for most professions, but it interests me and I am not in college for the money.

Ok back to my online debate, because that is what I want to hear from Dutchy on more.

I don't think this is truly what you mean, so please clarify. Are you telling me that computers and the Internet are negatively influencing me? I am running Websites that I enjoy updating and even make a lot of money on and plan to use as part of my income after college. I made $1,550 in profit last month from my business. I have to pay all of that to my loan for now, but when that is paid off within a year, I will be making between $2,000 and $3,000 monthly most likely from my online business and that's just from updating a Website 30 minutes per day and spending a little time checking my program stats to make sure I should keep them, etc. So overall I am guessing I will be spending 30 to 40 hours per month and making $2,000 or so, maybe more but I'll be conservative.

Thing is, I meet tons of other humor Webmasters and we talk about the business and about other issues so I think it is really quite fun. I mean, this is something I actually enjoy aside from just making money. Given the pay, it's like, wow, how can I be paid to do this?! :)

Because of the viability of the net to make money, I think I will be able to spend only a few hours per day at the most, say 2 hours per day even on a tough day, and make a modest living. That means I have all of that extra time to write books, which can make more money but it's something I love doing, and then also spend with my friends and with people I care about. Otherwise, I'd be stuck in a 40-hour per week job and I am telling you now that I don't think I will ever have to work 40 hour weeks to support myself. I think I can work 20 hours per week and make $50,000 per year at least. I will probably be inclined to spend more like 50 hours per week working, though, because I enjoy writing and don't much consider it grueling labor. It's just fun to me, learning about what I am writing about, then putting it down to text and the whole process.

So I also use computers to research and write. I couldn't do my research without a computer. Well, I kind of could, but it would take about ten times as long in all honesty. I'd have to go to the Los Angeles library that has the film archives and all of the Variety papers and whatnot. It would be exceedingly difficult for a new author such as myself. I might never have broken into the industry without a computer. In fact, no I wouldn't have. I met Craig Faris online, who knew Richard Curtis, who became my literary agent. I have met SO MANY interesting people online, from great Star Wars fans who have become friends to just other people who I enjoy conversing with, to business partners, to my agent!

I am failing to understand how the Internet and computers are a bad influence on me.

It is sad that right now I only talk to my friends online, but if I didn't have online access I would rarely talk to them on the phone. I have too many friends to call them all up every week, even, and weekly is not good enough. I miss my friends and I enjoy talking to them frequently.

I got to know Ellie online because of a list that Joe K. made at the end of the year that had everyone's AIM names. I was too nervous to say anything in real life, but I had talked to her a few times I guess. The first time I spoke with her online, our conversation lasted 4 hours and filled about 20+ pages in Word. She has a boyfriend, but has since become a great friend of mine. She is my best friend who is a girl. Then I got to know Caitlin online too, long story, but we became friends and even exchanged x-mas presents last year and we've had a real life relationship outside of computers too, I mean as friends of course... lol.

Then Bryan sent Liz a message when she was online once and I was at his house, Liz responded, after a few minutes Bryan asked if she wanted to come over and watch Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon with us. She came over, and we got together six more times throughout the summer and we became great friends. I talk to her online every day now pretty much and her previous boyfriend goes to my college.

All in all, I became good friends with two girls just last summer because of the Internet and I have become casual friends with many more people. I got to know Joe better, who made the list, and although we talked in real life a fair amount and he was in my French class, we have since become better friends and even got together a few times last summer.

Actually, another Liz came over once in the summer too and I talk to her online from time to time and I have gotten to know her better too.

With as many relationships that I have made online with real people who I know in real life, aside from just people on the net who I have never met, I fail to see how the computer and the Internet have ruined life or negatively influenced society. Quite the contrary, someone like me might not have been successful in a different society.

I'm not a muscle man, so that would eliminate most hard labor jobs, which without computers is pretty much most everything. Then I am pretty shy in real life, not that much, but I never approach girls and I am slow to make friends (because when I do make a friend, I consider them a friend for life), so without the Internet I think I would be much worse off.

I am also interested in filmmaking and that would be nearly impossible without digital camcorders, which are made possible by computers obviously, and the same goes for digital editing software. I could not do any of that without a computer.

I don't think being dependent on a computer is bad or wrong any more than being dependent on food is bad or wrong. A computer is a literal necessity in today's society. It is not a want, it is a need. (And yes we have discussed this in philosophy). A want would be *thinking* you need the newest, best computer when really all you want it for is the Internet and Word. A need would be to say that if you are going to college, you basically need a computer or you will be at a severe disadvantage.

If you are going to commute to work every day, 20 minutes, you need a car. Yes, you could take the bus, but it is fair to say you *need* a car. You don't need a Mercedez, though. You don't need a BMW Z3. You need a simple car that will get you from one place to another. When people start thinking they need a $100,000 car, then they have problems. To say that I need a computer is definitely true. For my life, I need a computer. It is a necessity as much as clothing or housing, neither of which I would be able to have without a computer (as this is my source of income that will support me when I'm not mooching off mom and dad).

An executive who works in a company with a conservative dress code NEEDS a suit. He doesn't want one, he needs one. The classification is simple. His job provides his income, and his income provides food and shelter and heat and clothing. Without his job, he cannot attain these needs, so because his job requires a suit and a tie, they are not wants, they are needs. If he thinks he should have the very best suits and ties, and not only that he thinks he should have 20 outfits, then he is into the want category. He clearly doesn't need that many outfits. He may need three or four, but not more.

Although, there are healthy wants and unhealthy wants. Healthy being that you may not need a mousepad, obviously, but you can certainly use one. It is a healthy want to desire a mousepad. It is an unhealthy want if you think that you will not be a good person unless you have a great car. That is obviously not healthy...

[Doc Milo]

Jon, I decided to give you one more shot, thinking that I might have been a bit unfair in ignoring your posts. So I thought I'd respond to this one.




Originally posted by JonathanLB

I DO believe it is harmful to live a lie, so if you believe in God and you worship him (nobody and nothing should be worshipped, IMO), then you are throwing away valuable hours of your life and furthermore you are living a lie, IMO. I couldn't live a lie. Now, that is not to say I KNOW for a fact there is no God. There very well could be, but because I don't feel that is the case I am not going to live a lie just out of fear. It sounds to me as though you, Doc, are clearly religious because of fear, not faith.

Fine, Jon, but you have a habit of belittling people as idiots and morons who don't believe as you believe. You don't believe in God. Fine. Don't believe. But why must you always come off like you are God and know everything, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a moron?

And you don't know me. I presented you with Pascal's Wager only to show you that your belief system may be folly. That is not why I believe in God. I am religious because I truly believe that God created the universe, and Man in his own image. That in our arrogance, Man turned away from God through disobedience -- Original Sin -- and that Christ came to give us God's greatest gift to mankind, our redemption from sin; that through Christ, God made flesh, our sins are forgiven, if only we seek to accept the gift of Grace. It is not out of fear, Jon.



Also, if I live a good life and am honest in my dealings with other people, helpful whenever I can be, and a good person in general, then I think if there was a heaven I would be there. I refuse to believe that any God would send someone to hell for something as stupid as "not believing in him." If so, he is an egotist, and I would rather burn in the fires of hell than be in heaven with an ego-maniac. Good people go to heaven, if there is one, and bad people go to hell, if there is one, but being religious doesn't mean you go to heaven or hell. That is a very flawed concept of religion. It would mean all Buddhists are going to burn in hell for not accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior (even though he was just a man who deserves admiration, for sure, but not idolization!).

If you want to believe that, fine. I don't. Yes, we are called to do good works, but in the end, Man has fallen from Grace. We turned our backs on God, even though God has never turned His back on us. The only way we can find our way back to God, it to accept his gift of Grace. And the only way to accept that gift, is to accept Christ as Messiah.

After all, Christ Himself said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father except through me."

And: "I am the resurrection and the Life. Any who believe in me, even though they die, shall live. And he who lives and believes in me shall never die."

And then there is my personal favorite. A rich man once asked Jesus, "How can I get into heaven?" And Christ said to him, "Follow the commandments and the law of God, and keep holy the sabbath." And the rich man said, "I have done all these things my entire life." And Christ replied, "Then one thing remains. Sell all you have and give it to the poor. Then come and follow me." The rich man walked away sad, because he was unwilling to give up all he owned. And Christ said, "Verily I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

Think about those messages, Jon, before you think that you can deny the existence of God until your judgement, but do good works, just in case, and still expect God to take you home when you realize, after you die, the folly of your ways. Egotistical that God should expect the beings he created to believe in Him? Egotistical that God should look upon your life and see all the chances he gave you to see the way that you turned your back on? He will give you a chance right up until the end Jon, right up until the final seconds of your life, to accept his gift of Grace, and then welcome you into the fold. Is that egotistical that He should give you every opportunity, and yet it would be you who turned your back on him, not only through the fall of Man, but in your own arrogance to not accept the truth of Him? Egotistical that he not accept you? It's egotistical, IMO, for you to expect salvation when you don't even accept the gift of that salvation, when you mock those who do, and when you outwardly deny the very existence for the reason that you are alive. How is it egotistical when all your life, in one way or another God will come and knock on your door (perhaps, through me, he's doing that right now?) and you turn and say, "I don't know you" and when the time comes for you to knock on His door, after denying Him entry to your life, can you really blame Him if he says, "I don't know you"?

All I can do is what I've done here, I guess. You believe what you want to believe. But do me a favor, try not to belittle those who believe otherwise.

Let me tell you how you come off, Jon: You come off as someone who thinks they have never, nor will ever, be wrong. You come off as an arrogant bastard, always calling this person, or that group of people, morons or idiots simply because they disagree with you on something. Like your take on people who are on AOL. You insult an incredibly large amount of people simply because of the ISP they choose to use. That is what I take offense at. And that is why I find it difficult to continue reading your posts. You have this arrogant air to you, Jon. And it is not becoming. This critic doesn't like something you liked: The critic is a moron. You call someone a moron at least five times a week on these boards, Jon, and then you belittle them with your arrogance and your "lol"s. Personally, I find it very tedious to read.

[JonathanLB]

Ok, first of all, what you believe is up to you and I am not trying to demean your believes. I stand by my AOL comment, though, as any Webmaster or anyone who has spent significant time online would agree that AOL users, by and large, are morons. There are the obvious exceptions and it is unfair to generalize an entire group so large, but you won't find a Webmaster out there who actually likes AOL users as a whole group. I will use my LOL here, because it IS funny.

I have even seen sites that say, "AOL users are unwelcome and this site will not work for you. Get a REAL ISP, then come back," Hahaha, now that is hilarious. It's because most people who use AOL are just so darn stupid! There are exceptions but man, I guess if you got the e-mails I do every day about my Websites, you would understand what I mean. Otherwise, perhaps you are on the outside looking in.

I am not whatsoever arrogant nor do I believe that I am always right and always will be right. I have been wrong once or twice in my life, I am sure, although I cannot recall specific incidents. Joking!!! lol, jeez. I am human, I make mistakes and I am often wrong. I was wrong to come to this college, for instance, and I was wrong to think that going here was my best choice. I had my suspicions, but I was wrong to give in to what society and my parents wanted me to do. I should have taken a year off to pursue my professional interests instead.

Anyway, moving on, I find your attitude about religion quite demeaning and insulting, actually, so that feeling is mutual. I don't mind the casual religious person, but the ones like you who try to convert people and spout what I think is utter nonsense do tend to piss me off to an alarming degree, yes. I think religion is a weakness created only to give man hope that his condition is curable or somehow not as bad as it looks. In that regard, I agree with Nietzsche (spelling?).

I think one reason I come across as arrogant to some people is that I absolutely refuse to give into American relativism, or if you want to call it a trend towards relativism worldwide, that is ok too. I will not say, "Oh, well that is what you believe, that's ok, whatever you want to believe is ok." No, that's wrong. I will firmly say that I believe religion is a crutch, nothing more, and it is a sign of weakness. I don't think that being religious is wrong or evil and I don't look down on religious people whatsoever in so far as them as a person, because many of my more casual friends are religious. My best friend and my other two best friends are not religious at all, thankfully. I would have trouble tolerating a religious person on a day-to-day basis I think. Perhaps if they were not that adamant about it, I'd be ok with it. It's just that people who are actively trying to recruit me to their sick little cults really bother me.

"Verily I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

That is only one of a series of quotes that makes me sickened by Christianity and religion in general. I don't find the idea that there is a supreme being that hard to believe, really, although I don't personally believe it, the idea that there could be either some supreme Force (more likely) or being (less likely) is not totally unreasonable, but all of the world's religions ARE totally unreasonable -- I don't eat or drink the body and blood of someone and I don't chant like a sheep as the Christians do. I don't say, "I am not worthy to receive," because I am worthy of anything. Humans are the rulers of this planet and the supreme beings of this universe as far as our limited knowledge is concerned. Until I meet an alien that is evidently smarter than a human, I am not conceding anything. I am a human, as such, my kind rules this planet and has every right to exploit it.

Back to the quote. That is such nonsense it is unbelievable. As if being rich has anything to do with being able to enter heaven. That's just stupid.

Religion is designed just to provide comfort to those too weak, too powerless, and too stupid to succeed in the real world (not to say that most religious people are like this, not at all, but just that religion arose through this desire). For those with drive, power, ambition, and strength, there is no need for power outside of ourselves. The greatest strength comes from within. I need nothing but my own energy and power to excel at what I do, I don't need to believe in a myth or a fairy tale to feel good about myself.

It is the Christians, not the atheists, who are arrogant. They think their religion is perfect, or if not perfect, it is the only true religion, and if they don't think that, they still think there is something wrong with not being a Christian or not being religious at all.

My experience with Christians has sickened me. They are almost all hypocrites, as is the very religion itself. They go to Church one day, while the next day they drink and smoke weed and do everything else that damages their bodies, which are supposed to be sacred, and they treat people without respect, without kindness, without any regard for their own alleged beliefs. In reality, 99% of Christians claim to be part of the Christian faith, but in practice very few of them actually are. I don't see how anyone can say they are a true Christian when they treat other people with disrespect, spend their money on luxuries instead of giving to the poor, and act in a manner that most atheists would absolutely abhor. In my experience, not only are atheists of higher intelligence (this could be statistically proven too), but they are also more accepting of other people's believes (as we have to live with all of the religious people), and furthermore they have higher moral standards. None of those seem to make sense, if Christianity was succeeding, but because it isn't it's not real difficult to understand.

People who are more knowledgeable about science are more intelligent than those who aren't and because most scientists are, not surprisingly, atheists, that also means most atheists are in fact more intelligent than most Christians, or most religious people in general. How do you explain that 95% of the world is religious but something like 75% of scientists are atheists or agnostics?! LOL. That is actually quite revealing if you ask me.

If God wants me to believe in him, assuming he exists, then he should show himself to me. I don't want to hear extremely lame and idiotic comments like, "He has! Look around you! That is God." Umm... no. That is reality. I want to see proof of God, not proof of reality. I know reality exists, that's not in question, lol. "Look at the beauty of the human form!" It's a collection of molecules assembled in a very complicated way, but done over billions of years, yes it is impressive but humans are just a set of chemicals arranged properly. Nothing less, nothing more. We do have the fortune of being the most intelligent creatures on Earth, which is nice. I'm glad I'm not a fish, for instance.

To be honest, I would love the comfort of believing that if I was a Christian and accepted Jesus, yadda yadda yadda, then I would be granted eternal life. So why don't I, then? Because I cannot live something that I WANT to be true even though I think it is a lie. Wanting to believe is not an excuse to believe.

If you raised someone in a non-religious family, they would almost never become religious, except under societal pressures possibly. The point is, nobody makes up this hooey for themselves. They just follow the traditions of their parents and their ancestors.

Religion will die out in time. The process has already begun as Church-going (i.e. wasting your time badly) is declining and the number of atheists is increasing in proportion with the scientific advancements of the past few hundred years. Eventually, most people will live free of the fairy tales that have been responsible for millions of deaths in history in what is probably the single worst influence in the history of mankind: religion.

There is no greater evil than religion, as a whole. Although it can be a positive influence, I think it is overall very negative. It has caused millions of deaths, as stated, it wastes precious hours of its followers because they spend them uselessly praying to something/someone that doesn't exist, and they live a lie, which cannot ever be good, even if the lie seems to be great like in The Matrix.

The Matrix is, at heart, quite an anti-religious movie that makes a strong statement about living a lie, which is to say that it may taste very good, like the steak on Cypher's table, but it is not real. Neo makes the right choice; he chooses to live reality, no matter how harsh that reality is, and he sets about to change reality. Cypher is your typical religious person saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!" He chooses to live a lie knowingly, something I think many Christians do too.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
Ok back to my online debate, because that is what I want to hear from Dutchy on more.

I don't think this is truly what you mean, so please clarify.

Are you telling me that computers and the Internet are negatively influencing me?

No, not literally. They're not, but they could, coz, like I said already, you're totally depending yourself on your computer. IMO it's a bad thing to make yourself dependent on just one thing, a computer in this case. What if, for some reason, you won't be able to use your computer anymore, or not as frequent as you do now? You'd have a huge problem then. So in that way it is a bad influence. You're very volunarable with your way of life right now.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
Anyway, moving on, I find your attitude about religion quite demeaning and insulting, actually, so that feeling is mutual.

I don't. Even though I disagree with him, I have to say I like the examples he gives.

I agree with you also, by the way, about the fear thing. That was a good point (regardless if it holds for Doc Milo).

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
Yes, over billions of years, I understand, but why grow more complex as opposed to simpler and more efficient, for example?

Because more efficient takes a more complex being?


God can create things that look older than they are, that measure, to human understanding, older than they are.

With that reasoning you can explain anything, but that's too simple.


Where do I stand on intelligent life on other planets. I believe there is life on other planets. And I don't believe that that belief precludes the existence of God, either. Why would He create those other worlds, if not to create life on them? Our Bible is a book that tells of Man's relationship with God. And as such, it is limited in its scope.

But didn't he create earth to be the 1 and ONLY place for life? Or humans, for that matter.

[darth_mcbain]

Originally posted by Dutchy


But didn't he create earth to be the 1 and ONLY place for life? Or humans, for that matter.

I guess it depends on your beliefs. Personally, I don't think that - scientists have done experiments by taking the materials which are thought to be on other planets or moons, and subjecting them to natural processes (for example, they create an environment with these materials and expose it to sunlight) and in some of these experiments, amino acids have been detected to have been created in the environment - the building blocks of life. Now don't expect me to get technical, I don't know the exact details of these experiments, but I know they've been performed.

Does that prove anything? No - but it shows that while we haven't detected extra-terrestrial life yet, it is possible for life to exist elsewhere.

[Jedieb]

In some of the experiments McBain is referring to electricity was used to start the chain reaction that produced those amino acids. The electricity of course simulating the effect lightning could have had on our oceans billions of years ago. Heat from a planet's core could also provide the energy to start primitive life. It will be interesting to see if any kind of life forms are found in our very own solar system. Some of Jupiter's moons, Io in particular, may very well hold some form of primitive life. I believe Io may have an ocean underneath its frigid surface. If we ever get there we may find some surprises.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Jon, I think you are being very unfair to Doc here. First I don't think he is trying to convert you, sure there are a few fundamentalst who get on my nerves and who have tried to convert me to there ways but they are the exception of Christians and not the rule. Doc is not doing that though, he is just sharing his beliefs which is fine, hey I shared my beliefs and I wasn't trying to convert you. Plus I think you are being too arogant here you think your way is the only on this issue and that to me is just wrong. It is not nice really to try to push your point of view down people's throats because somebody could take it the wrong way and really get mad. Sometimes I think you can be a nice guy but it seems with this issue you are being rude maybe its because its religion, and some people (I know a few) can't have a discussion about religion without picking a fight.

[darth_mcbain]

Yup EB, except I think you are referring to Europa, not Io. Io is the volcanic moon closest in to Jupiter, and I don't think it would be very hospitable for life. Europa is believed to have an ocean on it, and I think traces of water have been detected there - could be a possible place for life.

[Jedieb]

That's the one. In the novel 2010, a Chinese crew lands on Europa and their ship is destroyed by a large creature that lives underneath the surface ice. I can never keep all those moons straight. Thanks McBain. :)

[Doc Milo]

Originally posted by JonathanLB

"Verily I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

That is only one of a series of quotes that makes me sickened by Christianity and religion in general. I don't find the idea that there is a supreme being that hard to believe, really, although I don't personally believe it, the idea that there could be either some supreme Force (more likely) or being (less likely) is not totally unreasonable, but all of the world's religions ARE totally unreasonable -- I don't eat or drink the body and blood of someone and I don't chant like a sheep as the Christians do. I don't say, "I am not worthy to receive," because I am worthy of anything. Humans are the rulers of this planet and the supreme beings of this universe as far as our limited knowledge is concerned. Until I meet an alien that is evidently smarter than a human, I am not conceding anything. I am a human, as such, my kind rules this planet and has every right to exploit it.

Back to the quote. That is such nonsense it is unbelievable. As if being rich has anything to do with being able to enter heaven. That's just stupid.

Jon, for a supposedly intelligent person, how is it you totally missed the meaning of that quote?

It was the rich man's unwillingness to part with his money and follow Christ, not the mere fact of him being rich, that denies him the Kingdom. A rich man can, indeed, go to heaven. As long as the person has his priorities in perspective. "You cannot worship God and Money." Jesus presented the man with a test. If the man did not worship money, if he was truely willing to do anything it took to get into heaven, he wouldn't have gone away sad. He would have been willing to make any sacrifice necessary. But he wasn't. He worshipped his money and his way of life, valued it more than getting into heaven. In Christ's world, most of the rich were the same way. In this world, most of the rich are the same way. It is not the fact of a person's wealth that is a deciding factor -- it is the importance that the person puts on that wealth.

And I'm not trying to convert you, Jon.

You say you're not arrogant, but you should go back and look at the posts you have written. Anytime anyone disagrees with you, whether it be a poster on the board, or an article you read somewhere, you respond with arrogance. You belittle whoever you disagree with, and you speak to them in a condecending manner. This is a fact. Go back and look.

You say you come off as arrogant because you don't believe in relativism. Guess what, Jon, I don't believe in relativism. I think relativism is a concept that is destroying the fabric of society. You don't come off as arrogant because you disagree with relativism. You come off as arrogant because you speak to others in a condecending manner, you call someone a moron at least five times a week, during a slow week. You come off as arrogant because you are an arrogant egoist. If you're not in real life, fine. I apologize for the generalization. But on these boards, that's exactly what you are.

You say that people who have an understanding of science are smarter than Christians or religious people. I say it's stupid to put all your faith, and form a universal theory, based on the limited observations and limited understanding of human beings.

You ask why most scientists are atheist. You think it shows that atheists are smarter than everyone else. I say that science attracts atheists because the human condition is to find something to believe in, something to place our faith in, and since the atheists deny spirituality, they turn to science, thinking it can provide the answers they seek. It doesn't, but they like to formulate theories and pretend that it does. How is that any different than what you claim religious people do?

Believe what you want to believe, Jon. But you can try to be friendly about it.

[JonathanLB]

I could have been a lot nicer and more fair to you in this discussion. I apologize. I thought that you jumped on one point I made and just went after me about it, but it wasn't the intended point of my post, then we got into this long debate. I am not that good about talking about religion online.

In real life, I am a diplomat with regard to religion. If I am near anyone religious, I am very diplomatic and politically correct. When I am near other atheists, though, I do express my opinion that religion is not a beneficial influence in general and blah blah, whatever else I said in my other post. The same goes with online. I have no reason not to express my opinions, really, so I do so anyway. I am sorry that offends you, and I will try to be more reasonable about what I say.

I don't think I come across as arrogant just because I disagree with people. I mean, you say that I attack articles that disagree with my viewpoint. No, I don't, I argue against them and why they must be wrong. I do assume that I am right if I am going to debate something. Not to say that there is no possibility I am wrong, but when I say TPM is a great movie, I am right. If anyone else believes otherwise, that is their right, but it's not what I think and therefore I will defend my own viewpoint.

As far as the rich man thing goes, there is a point to what you are saying but I still abhor the way that poor to middle class people envy wealthy people. It is a constant theme, but it bothers me. Even if I only make $30,000 a year out of college and throughout my life I am never rich, I still don't look negatively upon rich people. I admire them and they are the leaders in our society.

Thoreau said, "Absolutely speaking, more money, less virtue" (Walden).

He is wrong to say "absolute speaking," first of all, nobody would agree with that. Nobody reasonable, anyway. His point, though, is somewhat intact despite the damage he does to his own argument. The point he is trying to make is that because rich people have more to lose, they are unwilling to uphold justice if that means losing what they have, whereas someone who has nothing to lose can choose to be moral without fear of losing anything. "There is nobody more dangerous than the man who has nothing to lose." If I am wealthy and say, "Well, I could stand up for the rights of (this group), but if I did so my investors might look down on it and I would lose money, so I better keep my mouth shut," then that is why money can lead you to the wrong decisions. You need to say, "If it is a choice between losing my money and losing my morality, there is really no choice at all; I must defend what is just regardless of the consequences." Perhaps few people who are wealthy will do that, but I think there are still many of them, even if the percentage is small.

I just don't like the discrimination against wealthy people.

Anyhow, I respect your religion and I have many Christian friends, but no matter how long I live or how much philosophy I take I cannot ever accept or respect your view that people who don't accept Jesus Christ as their savior will go to hell. First, you don't know that and you are not God, how can you even PRESUME to know what he would do? You can't, and to do so would truly be arrogant in every sense of the word. Second, if someone grows up with another religion in another culture, I think that is just their way of worshipping the divine and you cannot say they are going to hell simply because they were never even introduced to YOUR religion.

Finally, just because I am not religious doesn't mean I have no spirituality, same goes with scientists. There is a difference between a sense of spirituality and being religious.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Thanks Jon, I am glad you apologized. You just need to be carefull how you right stuff and sometimes think a minute before you right that is how I learned. I used to be the way you are when I first started college I was brash and a little arrogant and acted wrong sometimes but I learn as we all learn and as we get older that we were wrong. I think its probably the youth energy and how most teenagers think they are right:p As I said before I generally have no problem with what you have said except maybe in a few cases but hey everybody disagrees from time to time. I also think you contribute some useful infromation on this forum and some interesting discussions but just be carefull how you say, just express your point a view and leave it that is the best way.

[JonathanLB]

But I don't always think about each little thing I write or whether it might offend someone. I mean, I kind of asked for it here by bringing up evolution. That was my fault.

Oh well, Doc Milo is a great Star Wars fan and even if I disagree with his religious beliefs, I still respect him. My feelings about him are no different after this thread. I will continue to read what he writes and enjoy his contributions to the forum.

[Champion of the Force]

What the hell did you guys do to my thread?!?!?!?! :verymad :( :p

[imported_Firebird1]

If your son has requested a new "processor" from a company called "AMD", this is genuine cause for alarm. AMD is a third-world based company who make inferior, "knock-off" copies of American processor chips. They use child labor extensively in their third world sweatshops, and they deliberately disable the security features that American processor makers, such as Intel, use to prevent hacking. AMD chips are never sold in stores, and you will most likely be told that you have to order them from internet sites. Do not buy this chip! This is one request that you must refuse your son, if you are to have any hope of raising him well.

LOL... Well AMD processors suck, but they are alot cheaper and at times faster then Intel's chips! And I like the fact he forgot to explain that Intel does the exact same thing.

On evolution, I like in Kansas....that should be all I need to say on this...

[Champion of the Force]

Well AMD processors suck
Well I've had an AMD processor in one form or another in my computer for over 3 years now, and I've had no problems. :)

[imported_Firebird1]

The last computer I had with an AMD went though a melt down that trashed a motherboard, 2 harddrives, and a video card.

:|

They are ok, but they weren't designed for massive game playing, hacking, or graphics tasks. They are good for research and development, scientific studies and other stuff though.

[JonathanLB]

I hope AMD chips are ok because my entire business is going to be resting on an AMD-based server next month when I switch to Rack Shack. They have Intel models but the setup fee is higher and the chip is not faster (both 1ghz) so I don't see why I would need it. It has 80 gigs total on those models while the AMD one has 20, but no Website takes more than a few hundred megs usually, let alone a gig.

[Doc Milo]

What the hell did you guys do to my thread?!?!?!?!

Sorry, Davwj.

[Nupraptor]

Originally posted by Firebird1
LOL... Well AMD processors suck, but they are alot cheaper and at times faster then Intel's chips!So let me get this straight: You just said that they suck, but they're better than the competition? :huh
They are ok, but they weren't designed for massive game playing, hacking, or graphics tasksActually, that's exactly what they're best suited for. I have an AMD 1.13ghz T-Bird in my box. Photoshop is probably the single most often used program on my machine, and I'm quite an avid game player.

Oh... and I own a copy of Nueromancer, too. ;)

[Champion of the Force]

Sorry, Davwj.
Tis cool. :)


I hope AMD chips are ok ...
You should be fine Jon. AMD chips were a bit on the funnyside in previous years, however they're now pretty stable and can hold it with Intel.