--
Twitter/danielrm26
Security & Technology
- XSS Explained
- Security and Obscurity
- The Diffie-Hellman Protocol
- Not All SYN Packets Are Created Equal
- The Birthday Attack
- The Hyperlink Trailing Slash Debate
- Understanding Subnetting
- Why CISSPs *DO* Need to Be Technical
- A
tcpdumpPrimer - Understanding Network Ports
- Windows is IE: OS X is Firefox
- 10 Infosec Interview Questions
- Security is Not a Technology Problem
- Why You Should Encrypt *ALL* of Your Google Activities
- An
lsofPrimer - Using
findandxargs - A Guide to the
trCommand - How UNIX/Linux Permissions Work
- Proving the Monty Hall Puzzle in Python
- An Infosec Prediction: More Human-Based Attacks
- It's Time to Drop the "www"
- How to Pronounce "Linux"
- How to Pronounce "Ubuntu"
- How to Pronounce "OS X"
- The Pronunciation of "Rijndael"
Philosophy & Science
- Free Will: The Necessary Delusion
- Logical Conclusions to the Lack of Free Will
- Outrageous Beliefs Are NOT Equal to Claims They Are Preposterous
- How Would *YOU* Prove Evolution?
- An Atheist Debate Reference
- Was the Last Time Your Last Time?
- How I Became an Atheist
- A Letter to Religious Moderates
- What Does it Mean If We Have No Free Will?
Culture & Society
- The Nice Guy Paradox
- Socialism, Anarchy and Ideal Government
- What Every American Should Know About the Middle East
- The Bimbo and the Caveman
- Multiculturalism: Tested and Failed
- Is it Wrong to Have Children Today?
- A Logical Approach to CFR and NWO Conspiracies
- Lifecasting: What It Is and How It Will Change Society
- Why You Should Submit Your Own Content To Social Sites
- Measuring The Quality Of A Society
I fail to see how putting words in to people’s mouths and then debating the words you put in to their mouths leads to a logical conclusion. Who specifically stated that Buddha was/is a god to refute that argument? Who specifically said that since Buddha was a man, and it’s wrong to call a man God? I’m sure someone did, and I’m sure that someone doesn’t represent the whole, or even a part, of the Christian community. This comic is about as logical as Chick Track.
Comment by Maxo — 2/18/2008 @ 12:37 am
Your problem is not realizing that most religious people do believe what’s espoused in the first two frames. Once you get that you’ll get the comic.
Your approach to religion is not the same as most peoples’.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 2/18/2008 @ 4:23 am
I demand you remove this blasphemous image of the Prophet.
Comment by Steven G. Harms — 2/18/2008 @ 8:33 am
I don’t agree with your premise, Daniel. Most of the religious people I have known and respected do not believe that only members of their religion will get into heaven (whatever they believe heaven to be). They don’t pretend to know the mind of God. To be sure, there are plenty who do make such assertions, but I don’t believe that they are in the majority. For that matter, there isn’t even universal agreement as to what heaven is (or what hell is for that matter). In any case, I don’t believe “that most religious people do believe what’s espoused in the first two frames.”
Comment by Carl M — 2/20/2008 @ 12:55 pm
Carl, I think you have the liberal lens problem. You’re assuming that your sample of very advanced religious people is representative of the religious population as a whole.
Quite simply, the premise applies to the masses, but not your small sample.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 2/20/2008 @ 1:06 pm
Praise be to Óðinn
Comment by Steve — 2/22/2008 @ 8:41 pm