Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Crack Silk's Secret
AEton writes "Researchers at Tufts University have reportedly discovered the mechanism by which spidersilk is produced. Besides the obvious use as a Kevlar substitute in bulletproof vests, silk has applications in microprocessor production, nanoscale optical fiber, a and any other application requiring strength and flexbility. Scientists have long grappled with the issue of creating silk; artificial silk is inferior to the real stuff, and the spiders can't be farmed (when you put them too close together, they eat each other). The method these Tufts researchers have found makes "strong silk" production feasible; if they can make it economical, the impact on safety equipment alone makes this material a worthwhile investment."
Scientists develop $5 artificial diamonds and scientists develop economically produced artificial silk; I'd say its been a pretty good time for those who had kept their hopes up for alchemy after the 18th century turned out unfruitful... How long until workers in industries "ruined" by scientific development (though only ever valued for the rareness of their product) develop a cult-like anti-scientific religion and take over the world?
however, i'm sure spiderman gave 'em a tip on the secret behind the silk.
You are confusing me with someone who cares.
the spiders can't be farmed (when you put them too close together, they eat each other)
:-(
Why can't everybody be nice to each other ??
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Well, I've read the article. I've read Scientific American's version. I've read a few other ones google referenced. And I still haven't a fucking clue why silk is so strong.
Am I getting dumber, or are these science article getting more opaque?
"becuase of proteins with various properties" me arse.
So does this mean we're going to start arming the cops with spidersilk so they can assist Spiderman in his pursuit of justice? Cool!
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
Let's just hope the spiders don't use the DMCA against the scientists.
fuck! not again dude, its totally time to dump those shares in First Mandarin Silk Co.
... but isn't it that the larvae of a kind of moth that produces silk for fabric industry use? The larvae spinds the silk to form a cocoon, and people uses the cocoon to make silk thread.
Do you honestly think anyone EVER seriously considered farming spiders for their silk? The idea of unimaginable numbers of spiders all together is chilling even to the bravest of us. And of course they'd discover that black widows or brown recluses or giant bird spiders produced the strongest silk, and then they would escape....
*shudder*
...
Yeah, before a website on the server of one of the best research universities on the East Coast gets /.ed... More like better karma whore bofore someone beats me to it...
4 - Rob them of all possessions
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
This brings up an interesting question. Does anyone know what the difference is in properties between the silkworm's silk and the spider's silk?
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
Are the proteins in question synthetically produced or are they extracted from goat milk?= 01/02/0 8/2215253&mode=thread&tid=99
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid
Next up, Seth Industries & Automobiles! Silksteel cars with diamond windshields and pistons and of course a dimensional warp generator!
Hate me!
However, you can't have too many silk researchers working on the project - when you put them too close together, they eat each other.
Way to misinterpret... well, let's see... EVERYTHING!
"Scientists Crack Silk's Secret"
Well it's nice to know we have this problem all sown up.
There were stories about the "discovery" of how spider silk self-assembled a while back.
Of course, I've not read the article linked above.
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/2000/06/19/56.asp
I can't find it now, but they talked last year about how they'd figured out how the spiders assembled the strands and that they'd applied that to a industrial method to pull the unassmbled silk through a small hole and it would self-assemble.
Yes, finally! We can start producing super-strong silk boxers to protect all us sexy geeks from the swarms of girls outside our rooms. Personally, I'm all for reducing user latency in the kernel and reading the latest rant by RMS, but *indestructable silk boxers* get me really excited. I'm blowing through several pairs a week when I leave the dark, secluded safety of my room to get more gin and tonic at the store. I certainly can't make the swarm go away, but this takes care of a symptom!
Gee, Tufts University? Now THAT is a truly appropriate place for them to have made such a breakthrough discovery in the science of spider silk. ;)
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
I don't suppose it occured to any of these rocket scientists to put the spiders in seperate cages.
...or better yet, genetically modify the spiders to be nice! Perfect plot for a B-grade movie with LL Cool J; the spiders are only PRETENDING to be nice! Mwuahahahaha...
Please help metamoderate.
As advanced as we think we are, it takes the discovery of how to do what seems like the mundane of how to make diamonds and silk to realize that we have such a long way to go.
We still can't store electricity efficiently.
This is my sig.
Now the spider silk suspension bridge across the Gibralter Strait can be made a reality! The diameter of the bundled steel cables would have been to heavy to be supported.
I imagine a bizarre cult of disgruntled former Kevlar workers sacrificing one of the spider-silk goats.
What ever happened with the spider-silk goat and cow experiments anyway? Or is that how they got enough material for the current breakthrough?
Hey! HEY! Stop that! No goatse links!
You don't suppose this stuff could be strong enough to make a space elevator, could it?
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
I don't have any mod points but I thought it was funny. sorry man.
The mere fact that you point this out does not exempt you from being a bigot or a fanatic. Objectivity is the antithesis of bigotry, and you my friend are certainly not objective in your opinion of Islam. Your outcome is possibly a feel-good success story for media conglomerates around the world by making this inference as well. How does it feel to have your mind molded into Fox's "fair and balanced" status quo, instead of being able to think for yourself? Bye.
"the spiders can't be farmed (when you put them too close together, they eat each other)."
:)
hey, not so fast.
check out this cbc article and click through to the photo gallery to get really creeped out.
that's one whole lotta silk. i'd still like to know who/what they ate to do that. and i'd really, really like to know what biochem outfit owns land nearby.
The problem was that the silk produced that way was not as strong as the natural one. Now they figured out that part.
./ is becoming a warez news site? I haven't played "Silk's Secret" yet, but its publisher is surely very unhappy with this and may sue the "Sc1ent1sts".
SiLK which is used for microprocessor applications is not connected in any way to spider silk. The former is an acronymn for a resin
(aromatic hydrocarbon) made by Dow Chemicals and used by IBM and other chip companies as an insulator between the multiple layers of wires on a chip. Silicon Low-K = SiLK
"It's obvious that they couldn't have discovered the secret to making silk that quickly without access to SCO's intellectual property," said Darl McBride, SCO's president. He continued, "In 1999, they were making some silk, but it was low quality. Then, suddenly, over the course of a year or so, their silk became enterprise quality. Stuff that took other people 30 years took them months."
In a move considered to be brilliant in the business world, SCO bought the patents on silk production from God in 2000 for an undisclosed sum. "We've been looking to leverage those patents ever since" said McBride.
Right now, SCO isn't planning on suing individual spiders, although they won't rule out the possibility. "We've considering going after some of the nuisance species, such as brown recluses and black widows, first," said Chris Sontag. "We've been warned by our attorneys that doing such would expose us to the possibilities of bites and nasty wounds, so it's really something we don't want to do right now."
Eric Raymond, president of the Open Silk Initiative, says that God lost protection on His silk production techniques by creating so many different species that use the intellectual property and not entering into any official licensing agreement with them. "It's a little late to be worrying about that now", said Raymond. A 1993 lawsuit regarding silk production methods also cast doubt on the validity of the patents.
Meanwhile, some spiders have openly questioned Raymonds repeated assertions that he represents them or their opinions in these matters.
Do you have ESP?
I want run-proof stockings and sexy lingerie out of this stuff.
I'm too lazy to read the articles, but I hope they didn't do that in USA...my gosh, the DMCA agents will nail them !
spiders can't be farmed (when you put them too close together, they eat each other). :)
Scientists have a lot to learn from the spiders in my appartment, which probably will host a president election before I reach home to start the vacum cleaner
If you're a retard, that is.
I understand from the article that they've figured out how strong silk is actually produced, which should give them a heads-up on making a mechanical/chemical process to do all this artificially. It should be pointed out, though, that there are already means for production of non-artificial spider silk currently, which the article seems to have missed.
~ Leilah
Objectivity isn't the antithesis of bigotry, it's the antithesis of philosophy. By claiming to be objective, you automatically recuse yourself from taking part in a discussion on anything. (I.E., nobody gives a shit what you think, because you don't have any stakes in _any_ discussion.)
Okay, you've got my attention. How on earth did you manage to get caught in a cattle stampede? It must be a good story.
c-hack.com |
People have known this about Islam over 800 years ago, certainly predating Fox Network.
I await your next attempt at demagoguery.
The islam has proven to be very scientific hundreds of years ago, nobody knows how fast science might have advanced had christian crusaders not burned all those islamic bibliaries.
The islamic world also was able to govern itself without sinking into anarchy, before it was raped by the christian world.
While the islam and it's followers tend to be a little more hot-tempered than christians, the islam is quite peaceful by nature.
The problem with the islam is that recently, too many islamic people have become religious fanatics.
Violent fanatics, this includes religios fanatics of all religions as well as any others like drug bosses seeking wealth and power, are a threat to peace.
That radical islamists have pulled a few big stunts lately and are right now maybe the biggest threat to world peace should not give you ideas about what the islam is like.
If you'd want to make your mind about catholic people, would you only look at what the IRA did and conclude that this was the nature of catholic religion?
Most muslims who have not been turned extreme by extreme circumstances (like having to endure terror and torture by having to live in the Iraq as a shiite under Saddam), will agree that radical islamists have indeed left the path of islam a long time ago.
Btw: The roman catholic church needed 500 years to acknoledge that the earth circles around the sun. This was little more then ten years ago. Let the islam beat that.
There isn't currently a spider-silk industry. There's a silk industry, but from what I understand the whole point of spider silk as opposed to silkworm silk (which is at least relatively easily harvested), is that spiders have stronger silk with many more applications. So realistically, what we have here is not one industry "ruining" another, it's an entirely new industry that's being added. It's not like the spiders are going to get upset about us taking over their industry.
On the topic of displaced workers though - there's always going to be a demand for "the real thing". While artificially produced diamonds may be exactly the same as naturally formed ones, for many people they are two entirely different things. It's all a question of perception. As long as people view the two things differently, there will always be a market for the rarer and consequently more expensive natural diamonds.
~ Leilah
Artificial diamonds, artificial silk...is it possible to create artificial gold?
I have this piece of wood in the back yard covered with spiders. Guess they should have called me...
This is my sig.
Poor spiders. When in close confines, do you diagnose then with Arachnapobia or Autophobia (fear of yourself)?
You know what?
How on earth would you use silk as a substitute for kevlar? How much of the stuff would actually be needed to block a single round? It does not seem feasible to me, but it would be great! Strong yet lightweight. It is amazing that something so natural is superior to so call 'technology'
These poor defenseless spiders are being abused by the evil corporate silk manufactures, they are being held against their will to produce more of a substance than nature dictates they should...
Wait a second, I have arachnaphobia, STICK IT TO EM!
Learn something new.
"The islam has proven...", "While the islam and it's followers...", "with the islam is that recently...", "the islam is quite peaceful..."
its just "islam", idiot. not "the islam". you don't say "the christianity" do you? fucking asshat.
Instead, we need to try to change that which is being abused: the DMCA.
Perhaps we should write to your congressperson or favorite supreme justice about how you think the DMCA is bad or unconstitutional (respectively).
You can't blame Google for following a crooked law.
The space unintentionally left unblank.
Given GWB's attitude towards science (stem-cell research, genetics, etc.), the fact that 83% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and only 28% percent believe that evolution is valid, and that 58% of the population thinks that in order to be a moral person you have to be a christian, where do you think America is heading right now?
BOO! TERRO
As a Christian, I would have hoped that the Crusades would be forgiveable over time, similar to radical Islam's attempt at changing political structure through terrorism. Although terrorism is their only weapon against an intractable enemy, it still crosses the line between the unavoidable innocent killed in war and the intentional killing of civilians. Point is, your opinion stands alone along with the reactionaries. Even conservatives (like myself) don't believe this way. Anyone denouncing a particular religion and lumping a small minority of wicked individuals into an entire for of belief deserves every browbeating from the majority. So not only are people who think this way often brainwashed, they are also the minority whose minds are too weak to resist being molded in this fashion.
Some silk reflects light in the UV range which is thought to attract flies. dense read.
Another possible use is to confuse potential predators Silky doodles may confuse spiders' enemies
I think the main benefit of thinness maybe that less resources are used in its manufacture. Just my 2 cents worth.
Let me re-phrase my response to better illustrate. Some objectivity, with subtle well-informed opinions is typically far superior than knee-jerk responses brought on by radical/reactionary philosophy. Always has been, always will be.
I was just going to point that out..
I can't remember what the name of the Heinlein novel but the novel or short story talked extensively about construction on an asteroid and how some of the work wouldn't be possible without synthetic spider webbing. Looks like Heinlein was ahead of his times again.
This guy is way out there
...aren't the scientists the product of those millions of years of evolution?
Assuming your statistics aren't just made up, I think that most of the 72% who don't "believe" evolution is valid don't understand evolution. I'm not sure that I "believe" quantum mechanics is "valid".
The foundation of religion is belief. The foundation of science is disbelief. It seems more than reasonable more people would believe a religious story than a scientific theory.
Erik
They are not my statistics. Check out the CNN link.
BOO! TERRO
I was under the impression that silk was made by worms and not spiders.
The method of science works whether one is a theist or an atheist. After all, natural laws don't care what you believe.
What you are actually saying is that your prefered philosophy is naturalism and you are using the method of science to try to prove the belief that God does not exist.
Has anyone else noticed that Scientific American seems to be going downhill? It's getting less and less scientific. What was that recent cover article, "Are You a Hologram?". Please.
On the other hand, Science News is going pretty strong. Let's hear it for good science!
Only rats and weasels would resort to those tactics...
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
Here are links to more information on the subject:
Goatse
Poop
Bzzt. Another tragedy of slashdot idiots and bad moderators. Parent is trying to be humorous, reference to alchemy was metaphorical. Next?
The younger nerds and geeks should love the spider-silk boxers, the added flexibity will make wedgies a lot less painful.
I wish religions could be as honest about themselves.
Atheists commit no more crimes than the rest of the population. The moral center of religions is, after all, a human invention and is fundamentally as void of objective morality (or how do you feel about the atrocities that have been/are being/can be/will be carried out based on the "religion of love" aka christianity) as any belief system.
which ends up either in anarchy or totalitarianism.
A false dichotomy. You've completely missed the benefits of collaboration.
BOO! TERRO
You're wrong about that I'm afraid. It has been known for quite some time how to produce gold from other elements. (calling it artificial gold dosen't make any sense because it's real gold, indistinguishable, of course, from any other atom of gold). It is done by bombarding Mercury with Deuterons: Hg200 + H2 ---> Au198 + He4. Unfortunately Gold 198 is radioactive and decays back to Mercury in a few days. Glen Seaborg did a simillar experiment in the late '70's. The catch is that you would expend much more money to make the energy(probably thousands of times more) to accelerate the Deuterons in order to create the gold than you could ever recover by selling what you produced.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Obviously the spiders are from omicron-persei 8. "Why doesn't Ross, the largest of the Friends, simply eat the others?"
In all this time we still haven't figured out how to turn lead into gold, either.
Why do we bother with such poinless things like this. The thing that needs to be invented is an outdoor couch. This could be made out of the same material as stain proof pants. I think that this advances in this material will amke this possible.
I claim there is no objective moral reference (first principles, as you call it). I think that's the only intellectually honest answer to the human condition.
I don't agree with your first principles, either philosophically, personally, or historically.
Atheists commit no more crimes than the rest of the population
The modern atheistic regimes have killed more people than all of the "religious" wars in history. And they do it in concordence with their atheism; as opposed to the theists who do it in spite of their theism.
A false dichotomy. You've completely missed the benefits of collaboration.
Why should I collaborate with you if I can get what I want without it?
That's OK. You're still wrong on all accounts.
The modern atheistic regimes have killed more people than all of the "religious" wars in history.
Show me the statistics.
You'll probably include the blatantly atheistic Pol Pot, Hitler and the Stalin inspired eastern-bloc of the 20th century. Feel free to add your non-religious favourites to this crowd. Once you are done with the atheistic nations, I'll make my case by invoking all the nationalistic/tribal wars - down to the ancients wars of biblical times and before that. I think you can hardly surpass this number of atrocities.
Why should I collaborate with you if I can get what I want without it?
Because being collaborative benefits you in the long run. Why do you think modern societies built on collaboration are mostly peaceful and so successful? No. It's not because of laws imposed and enforced from above either by a secular or a divine authority. Societies are collaborative and peaceful because the most people benefit from it.
It's because collaboration (which should not be confused with charity) pays off. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. The danger of getting ripped off is outweighed by the obvious benefits.
BOO! TERRO
El mejor aislante capacitivo entre pistas conductoras del microchip: un compuesto de Azufre. Ventaja: reduccion de capacidad, reduccion de intensidad, reduccion de consumo electrico, reduccion de calor (debido a la reduccion de intensidad) y aumento de frecuencia de trabajo.
El mejor conductor termico solido no metalico (aislante) cubriendo las pistas conductoras sin afectar a sus capacidades: un misterio por investigar.
No hablo del tema de los mejores conductores metalicos porque el mejor tiene el precio de plata o de oro.
open4free
The other holy grail of biomimetics is to replicate photosynthesis - turning sunlight directly into fuel.
nobody knows how fast science might have advanced had christian crusaders not burned all those islamic bibliaries.
I'm sure nobody knows how fast science might be advancing now if muslims didn't keep their women from getting an education, either.
We just gotta understand fleas and jump out of this rock!
Besides the obvious use as a Kevlar substitute in bulletproof vests, silk has applications in microprocessor production, nanoscale optical fiber, a and any other application requiring strength and flexbility.
Wow now you can really say you were surfing the "web".
Show me the statistics
I'll start w/ 20 million in the Soviet Union, 65 million under Mao and 2 million in Cambodia. I'll gather some follow-up statistics as time permits.
Just as importantly, please provide a reason why, given atheism as a starting point, this was wrong.
Because being collaborative benefits you in the long run.
So the basis of morality should be selfish pragmatism?
>The modern atheistic regimes have killed more
>people than all of the "religious" wars in
>history.
Since there were far more people on the earth during "modern" history than there were in the past, this is hardly a relevant point. As a percentage of population killed, they've certainly done no better (or worse) than their religious predecessors. And of course, many of the victims of religion were killed not in wars, but by the zealots in their own nations. From the Spanish Inquisition to the Salem witch trials, religion has been effective at persecuting or slaughtering the innocent within a society, quite apart from any wars between religions or sects.
One could also argue that Soviet-style Communism is as much a religion as Christianity, which sort of negates the argument that these "atheistic" regimes are free from "religion." Replacing one fucked-up, reality-denying philosophy (say, Christianity as it's been practiced traditionally) with another (say, Communism) isn't likely to lead to an improvement in anybody's quality of life.
What is the moral basis in atheism that says persecution is wrong? It's still going on in China; what suasion are you going to use to stop them?
One could also argue that Soviet-style Communism is as much a religion as Christianity, which sort of negates the argument that these "atheistic" regimes are free from "religion." Replacing one fucked-up, reality-denying philosophy (say, Christianity as it's been practiced traditionally) with another (say, Communism) isn't likely to lead to an improvement in anybody's quality of life.
Your only choices are theism or atheism. One of them can't be "reality denying". So which one is it?
>>>
The islam has proven to be very scientific hundreds of years ago, nobody knows how fast science might have advanced had christian crusaders not burned all those islamic bibliaries.
>>>
Actually, they were burned well before Islam ever existed. Look up Hypatia and the Library of Alexandria.
qts (who's forgotten his password)
What really strikes me as odd (or maybe as typical) in your mode of discussion is the total lack of space for any hint of morality in those that choose not to believe in God. Your consistent grouping of morality on the side of theism, and the subsequent imposibility of a morality outside the context of a God is simplistic, to say the least.
I do not believe in a God that leads my day to day life, or even cares about it. I do not believe in a God that loves us as individuals. I do not believe in a God that sat down one day and created heaven and earth for our benefit.
And when I stop looking at spirituality, I look around me and see organised religion outdoing organised crime in profit margins, ruthlessnes and control. I look at organised religion and see nothing but nepotism, and little evidence of this assumed morality. I see massive coverup of child abuse. I see lives destroyed in the name of the pope. I see people going hungry, without help from the churches, that can seriously afford it. I see a pope, buying a million dollar Bentley, so he can drive around in safety, while his followers slaughter each other for ridiculous reasons. I see an organised fostering of hate, a repressive regime, that actively discourages discovery of the world around us, an inward-looking philosophy, that frowns on exploration. I see a cult. A cult more concerned with control then with anything else.
Irrespective of my lack of beliefs in a traditional sense, I live my life, and teach my son to live his, along a moral code that requires no deity to enforce: Be nice to others. At the end of the day, that is what it is all about.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
m
testing out my trending skills
>I'll start w/ 20 million in the Soviet Union,
>65 million under Mao and 2 million in Cambodia.
Again, meaningless statistics. You can no more blame every death on "atheism" than you can blame the deaths of those 15 million or so killed in the Pacific theater during WWII on Buddhism. Modern butchers have had a lot more raw material to work with than those in the past did, as this graph from the US Census Bureau demonstrates. Global population didn't hit 1 billion until around 1800. By the time of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and WWII, it was at over 2 billion. That, along with technological advances, made it possible for a truly stunning number of people to be slaughtered.
Your numbers for Mao and Pol Pot look a bit high according to this site, which provides pretty extensive analysis of 20th century bodycounts for various wars and atrocities.
Mao didn't set out to slaughter 65 million, by the way. 30 million were killed accidentally, during the ironically-named "Great Leap Forward," due to the famine caused by the idiotic economic "reforms" initiated by the Maoists. Although when dealing with human suffering on that scale, I don't think it matters much whether it's 30 million dead or 65 million dead. Either number is inconceivable.
Mao. Stalin. Pol Pot. Seems to me this is more an indictment of dictatorships than it is an indictment of any religious system (or lack thereof).
As for the proportion of population killed (which seems to me to be a more relevant measure, if you're attempting to compare religious, political or economic systems), check out the section on Proportionality from the same site mentioned above.
Please go back and re-read what I wrote. I said, "For example, atheists can be moral people, but they are usually this way in spite of the first principle that God does not exist. Atheism unchecked must lead to either anarchy or despotism"
Your moral code is "be nice to others". How is that derived from atheism? Another athiest seems to advocate "selfish pragmatism." Whose code is right? Suppose you come across a person whose moral code is "survival of the fittest". On what basis will you say that he is wrong? Furthermore, how would you live in a society based upon this?
As for your assessment of religion, I see something quite different. I see liberal giving, of time, self, and money to help the poor and needy. I see people loving those who hate them. I see kindness and compassion and a striving for freedom of the individual. As just one example, I had the privilege of working with a man in whose son, having converted to Christianity, was killed by the local Muslims. Instead of reacting with hatred, he forgave them and is working among them to relieve their oppressive poverty (with help from Christians in the West). And when I see the abuses that do happen, I agree with you that they are wrong. They are contrary to Christianity, not in accordance with it.
But the predator who lives by "survival of the fittest", or "might makes right", or "pragmatic selfishness" is quite in accordance with atheistic morality.
Of course its an indictment of dictatorships. Didn't I say earlier that atheism unchecked leads inevitable to anarchy or totalitarianism? There's a reason for this.
>As for your assessment of religion, I see something quite different.
>I see liberal giving, of time, self, and money to help the poor and
>needy. I see people loving those who hate them. I see kindness and
>compassion and a striving for freedom of the individual.
Well, you see what you want to see. I see that, in some religious people. I also see kiddie fucking priests and the massive coverup of their ongoing abuses, organized by the church's leadership and financed by donations from folks far less well-to-do than the church itself. I see that fine religious figure Osama bin Laden hijacking first Afghanistan, plunging it into utter chaos and then saddling it with one of the most truly barbaric regimes of modern times, the Taliban. Then I see him hijacking 4 jet planes and slamming two of them into the largest office buildings in the world, extinguishing the lives of over 2000 secular martyrs.
I certainly don't see any evidence - not one shred - to support the contention that religious people are any more moral than those who aren't religious.
>And when I see the abuses that do happen, I agree with you that they
>are wrong. They are contrary to Christianity, not in accordance with it.
That's a hoot. How many Christian sects are there, thousands? Even "Christians" can't agree on what is and isn't "contrary" to Christianity. And you want people to base their morality on that? Fine. Get the 1000+ Christian sects to agree, and then get back to us on exactly what it is we should believe the sky god wants us to do.
>But the predator who lives by "survival of the fittest", or "might
>makes right", or "pragmatic selfishness" is quite in accordance
>with atheistic morality.
That's a nice strawman you're blowdrying there.
Ever notice how the media only tells you another soldier died today, etc, etc?
They don't say there's routine chaos in the streets. They don't say there's no water, no power. They don't say the free market isn't working already over there. They don't tell you that every single Iraqi hates all the American imperialists.
But they would if they could, because many in the american media (fox notwithstanding) want to see Bush and America fail.
Instead, all they have is a few soldiers dying, so they latch onto it with desperation. Incidentally, while I mourn the loss of men and women of honor, a couple hundred dead soldiers is nothing compared to say.... the 10,000 french who died because the french couldn't be bothered to come back from vacation to look after the elderly and sick.
Moreover, we want the Islamofascists attacking our soldiers in Iraq, because our soldiers are well-prepared for it, and kill the imported 'freedom fighters' in great numbers. The bombing of the mosque and the UN recently only shows that the islamofascists are so desperate they're pissing in their own food. They had no greater friend against America than the UN, and now they don't even have that anymore. The more desperate they are, the closer they are to defeat.
Every goat fucking jihaadist who dies fighting our soldiers is one less that will cause their trouble on our shores. So bring em on.
Remember, most of the press hates Bush just like you do. Combined with the old adage 'no news is good news,' then I hope you can imagine why the news you get is trying desperately to make it look like America is failing. The lack of categories they can claim America's failure in should give you an indication that things are going well, for a country only a few months out of a war, with people who would continue it pouring over the border every day.
The Iraqi police have already caught a few of the mosque bombers, and made them sing like canaries. Their intent is to try to keep things chaotic so that more unwelcomed (by the Iraqi people) 'freedom fighters' can pour over the borders.
By the way, did you hear about that Iraqi couple who named their kid George Bush? Or that the imported islamofascists are having increasing trouble attack American Soldiers directly, to the point where they've had to quintiple the 'kill a yankee' bounty? And that these same fucks are having trouble melting into Iraqi crowds, because the Iraqi crowds split around them, to leave them open to American retaliation?
I hate responding to AC's, but then I remembered that Eurotrolls probably eat up any news that can vaugely be taken as anti-american.
A few hundred soldiers over several months is cheap for what we're trying to do there. The $16-40 billion dollars yearly is chump change for the United States.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Given atheism as a starting point morality must be relative; as such, it ends up being based solely upon personal preference. So my statement follows. If you don't like the result, show the flaw in the logic.
As for your other challenge, you can start with:
"Love one another as I (Jesus) have loved you."
"Love your enemies..."
"Forgive as your Heavenly Father has forgiven you."
Some, sadly and shamefully, may not achieve that ideal, but it's an absolute to either be lived up to, or rationalized away.
Redfield Gunsight used to have a whole area in their factory of black-widown spiders. They farmed them and valued them very much. If a spider was missing, they would issue an alert to locate the spider and return it to its home.
The web from the black-widow spider was used to make the cross-hairs in their scopes. During the prime of their business, Redfield scopes were some of the very best ever made. All thanks to the silk from the black-widow spider farm.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
>Didn't I say earlier that atheism unchecked
>leads inevitable to anarchy or totalitarianism?
Yes, you did say this. It just doesn't make any sense. You cite three fairly unique examples, and then try to extrapolate that out to a wider whole. Only you can't. Russia and China both had good reasons for going Communist - the feudal systems they were both locked in were certainly no paradise - and atheism held widespread appeal largely as a reaction to the barbaric excesses of the religious regimes they replaced.
The reality is that the overthrow of many of the church-supported monarchies in Europe lead to the formation of dictatorships that were formally or informally opposed to religion (it happened to one degree or another in France and England, for example). No surprise there - in times of chaos, dictators frequently seize control (Hitler being a prime example), and in cases where the church was propping up a corrupt monarchy, it's no surprise the dictators who replaced it would do everything in their power to break the church.
Organized religion has been on the decline in Europe now for decades. I certainly don't see them slipping into anarchy or totalitarianism. Unlike the far more religious United States, they still respect international law and elect their leaders . . .
guys,
i could not find this crack on astalavista.box.sk
Plz point me 2 where I can d/l this crack
>If you don't like the result, show the flaw in
>the logic.
What logic? All you've offered so far are baseless assertions. Christians can't even agree on what Christian morality means. Their morality is as relative as any atheist's. Just look at the kiddie fucking - and the massive coverup of it - that took place in the Catholic Church. The jails in comparatively-religious America are packed full with religious inmates, many if not most of them brought up in the church. So much for Christian morality.
And of course, many of the victims of religion were killed not in wars, but by the zealots in their own nations. From the Spanish Inquisition to the Salem witch trials, religion has been effective at persecuting or slaughtering the innocent within a society, quite apart from any wars between religions or sects.
And of course this is just as true (if not more so) with the modern atheistic regimes. I would wager that Stalin's terror famine and various purges and show trials killed far more people (both in terms of percentage of population and in absolute numbers) than the inquisition and certainly far, far more than the Salem witch trials. For comparison the Salem witch trials claimed about two dozen victims and was almost immediately considered an outrage and the court dissolved by the Colonial Governor. Stalin's great terror on the other hand saw 4.5 - 5.5 million arrested and 800,000 - 900,000 sentenced to death on top of about 11 million dead as a result of the "dekulakization", collectivization and the associated "terror famine" and continues today to have it's ardent defenders as an unpleasant but necessary policy on the road to the worker's paradise.
1. Why do you think this is different than the world we currently live in?
2. Why do you think this is a bad thing?
As to point #1, how many Catholics define their morality exclusively through the doctrines passed down from the Pope? How many in the Episcopalian church accepted the morality that was handed down to them? It seems to me that virtually everyone I talk to does what they think is correct based on their own, personal beliefs, not because there's been some moral code that they've been told to accept. Which brings me to...
Point #2 -- In my opinion, those that are thoughful and introspective about what they see as right or wrong are much better prepared to deal with the intricacies of morality and ethics than are those that blindly accept the moarily of their church.
So, though I don't disagree that the morality of athesists is typically relative, I don't see how it follows that "Atheism unchecked must lead to either anarchy or despotism". The laws in the United States are relative, as evidenced by the constant debate and reconsideration that takes place in our courts, and (for all its faults) our legal system hasn't lead to anarchy or despotism.
"Relative morality" to me means "debated, well considered morality". Which I think is a good thing.
Dearest fellow human "wrf3",
.... etc (Exodus 12:29)
I will quote you some things out of the Bible:
1) If a man marries a woman and discovers she is not a virgin, she is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13)
2) Do not wear clothing of two kinds of material (Lev. 19:19 and Deut. 22:11)
3) Do not eat ham, bacon, pork chops or ribs (Lev. 11:7)
4) At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon,
I'd say that if the Bible is followed to the letter, you'd very likely end up in prison on racism, sexism and murder charges. According to point (4), God murders defenseless INNOCENT children on the basis of decisions of their UNELECTED leader. That's like killing the first-born kids in Iraq to teach Saddam a lesson while he was killing off the rest of their families.
It's nice that people choose to be nice out of fear of "some big guy in the sky", but in my view, those people who are nice WITHOUT fear of divine punishment are the ones truly deserving eternal reward.
I think the point our friend 'sunspot' was trying to make that no institution or group of people has a patent (at least not at the USPTO) on morality and what is "good". Certainly an institution that believes child molestation should not be reported to police is not the prime candidate for teaching us morality?
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
shush, women need to be kept in their place. They should be too busy making knee cushions and using said cushions to worry about education.
I know this is slashdot, but if anyone bothered to read the article (not holding my breath) it says the reason is simple, the spiders eat eachother.
The SiLK they use in semiconductor manufacture is not the same as the Silk in this article. SiLK stands for "Spin on Low K" dielectric. Nothing to do with Silk Worm Silk other than the fact they are both Spun. Paul
Sure the silk wouldn't break and the bullet wouldn't pierce it and enter into the body. But wouldn't the flexibility actually be a bad thing? The bullet would travel further before rebounding and still pierce into the flesh. Not saying much for silk body armor the bullet doesn't get in but you still have a hole 2 inches deep in the flesh.
At best I could see this reducing the damage from bullet wounds, not actually stopping damage altogether.
-cp-
Spider silk is strong, but it's not the strongest fibre we have. Ballistic polyethylene (ultra-high-density and molecular weight shopping bag material) is stronger and is already being used in bullet-proof vests. IIRC either is stronger than ballistic nylon (aka kevlar). Diamond prices are artificially inflated by a diamond equivalent of OPEC. So neither development is probably all that revolutionary.
Keep in mind folks that proteins are typically produced from bacterial growths in milligrams/liter concentrations. Some proteins can be extracted from natural products such as egg whites or whey or even cow blood; that's how large amounts of dietary protein can be collected. The proteins in silk would have to be extracted from the insects themselves or synthetically prepared or prepared from a (bacterial or insect) cellular growth. None of these methods produce the amounts of proteins needed to mass produce anything, much less in a cost-effective manner. DON'T buy that silk industry stock just yet!
Nope, you had it right the first time. Some strands of a spider's web are sticky, some are not. It's not for "extra support for the web" as it is "it's nice to be able to walk around without sticking to my own house." The spiders know which strands are which. And if they have to step on a sticky strand, they just pull themselves loose.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Actually it's "al Islam", which translates roughly to "the Islam". But now that I think about it you're right: that only proves that people who don't have the grace to speak American English as their first (and preferably only!) language are asshats. And even if they're too dumb or foreign or whatever to do that, they should structure their own ungodly languages so that expressions are rendered as similarly to (American) English as possible. I mean where's the gratitude, right?
I'm not sure why you think they both can't be "reality denying". Hint: formal logic is useful, but not itself real.
If I recall, a Tufts scientist imported gypsy moth caterpillars from England in hopes of doing this very thing. He shrouded a tree and let them go into it. A storm came along, destroyed the shroud and the rest is history! Gypsy moths, with no known predator, became a major infestation in the east, defoliating everything in their path, causing people to slip all over the place, car crashes from skidding and in one case stopping a freight train from climbing a grade (ugh!). I hope they've done better this time....
It is the very relativism of morality that enforces reasonable, moderate behaviour. I can't declaim anyone else's belief as right or wrong - but I can say that they also can't do that to another.
Relativism is at its heart an acknowledgement that there are other people and other beliefs on the earth. The only place a rational mind can go from there is tolerance and the prevention of persecution. Perhaps I can't say directly that you don't have a right to beat up your neighbour, but I can say that she has a right not to be beaten up by you. It is possible to be a relativist and believe relativism is absolute - in fact it's pretty much a requirement.
If I'm correct in assuming that you really do wonder where a relativist or secular humanist draws their morality, hopefully this will help. It's really just the "golden rule", one thing that christianity got right and managed to preserve. Will it create contradictory beliefs and paradoxes? Sure, but so will any set of beliefs. Codifying them into a system can't change that. You can respond by either being more flexible, or less so. I choose the former (and respect your right to choose the latter - *for yourself*.
So it's like a sorority...
Bullshit. Islam was pro-science only to the extent that the science did not contradict, or stray too much outside, established religious dogma.
The islam has proven to be very scientific hundreds of years ago, nobody knows how fast science might have advanced had christian crusaders not burned all those islamic bibliaries.
The islamic world also was able to govern itself without sinking into anarchy, before it was raped by the christian world.
But being first doesn't mean all that much. Did Islamic society have the internal factors that would lead to change or - because of it's very success - would it just "solidify"?
I think this is a very pertinent question because, well, take the Chinese. They discovered (among other thingS) gunpowder first, BUT then sat on it for god-knows-how-long, using it mostly for entertainment (quarrying rocks etc. was still done by peasants!!).
You can't argue that the Chinese also did not make discoveries in astronomy, mathematics etc. - I don't mean this to be a comparative "who were better, Arabs or Chinese?" thing. What I want to point out is that the Chinese eventually seem to have "stratified" (or, look at the Japanese!) until outsiders came in and forced them to change.
It's alright (I guess) for "solidification" to occur if what is being solidified is "good", but there were a heck of a lot of problems in traditional Chinese society - cruel treatment of women (this is commonly the case in almost all pre-modern societies I believe?), e.g. witness the crippling foot-binding for "aesthetic" purposes.
Likewise, historical Arabic/Islamic society had/has its problems. "Able to govern itself" - there weren't any intra-Arabic wars? Or was there peace in the Ottoman Empire because someone had already won and killed all other comers? (At least until the next cycle of internal-imperial-unrest, e.g. again the Chinese?)
Let me try to answer your second question first. I'm treating philosophy like geometry in that, given an axiom (atheism is true), using reason to see where it leads. You somewhat agree that if atheism is true that morality is relative. I don't see how you can say "typically", since it cannot be otherwise. If you can point to a moral statement to which all atheists must agree then a lot of people will be grateful to you. Anyway, being an engineer, we then test this against boundary conditions. The simple boundary condition is where two people who have opposing moralities come into conflict. There is no "meta-morality" to decide between them. So, in the extreme, either people do what they want to do without restraint (anarchy), or force of some type is used to decide between the opposing viewpoints. But few of us I think would argue that "might makes right". But this is what atheism leads to. And that's a bad thing.
As to your comment on point #1, I would ask how many of the people you have polled lead what some have termed "the examined life". That is, they don't always know how their starting point(s) integrate with their daily lives.
As to "point #2", I'm not sure what this buys you, except perhaps a blunting of disagreement over what is right and wrong. Maybe you could elaborate a bit here.
Our legal system hasn't degenerated to anarchy or despotism, yet, because the U.S. government is based upon the notion of absolute rights, granted by God, to be protected by governement: "... all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...". But this is beginning to change; a former president recently advanced the notion that it is government which grants rights. If this switch happens, then we're in trouble, even it it might take 500 hundred years. Some of us won't go quietly...
What does "debated, well considered morality" mean? That the majority is right? You know that isn't true. Something else?
Finally, as to your first question; we all end up choosing which path we take. But they have different results and different consequences.
It is the very relativism of morality that enforces reasonable, moderate behaviour. I can't declaim anyone else's belief as right or wrong - but I can say that they also can't do that to another.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that morality is relative and then inject the absolute "they can't do that to another."
Since morality is relative, you cannot say that persecution is wrong; all you can say is that you don't like it. But since everything is relative, why should any weight be given to your position over anyone else's?
>And of course this is just as true (if not more so) with
>the modern atheistic regimes. I would wager that Stalin's
>terror famine and various purges and show trials killed
>far more people (both in terms of percentage of population
>and in absolute numbers) than the inquisition and certainly
>far, far more than the Salem witch trials.
There's no evidence that these horrible "atheist" regimes of modern times are proportionally worse than their theistic counterparts, as this page demonstrates.
As for nitpicking the totals killed by the Inquisition (at least 32,000 - some place the number as high as 350,000) and the Salem witch trials, that rather seems to be missing the point. Those are only two out of thousands of examples of instances where the pious slaughtered those of another religion - or even members of their own religion - for some loonie religious cause. And that doesn't even take into consideration the Christian and Moslem slave trade out of Africa, which slaughtered at least 40 million over the centuries in which the trade operated, perhaps as many as 120 million. That latter figure would give the religious a healthy lead on the atheists in absolute numbers, not even taking into account the massive increase in global population that had taken place by the 20th century.
Of course, the Mongols make everybody look like amateurs. They slaughtered 40 million in the 13th century, putting them on par with Mao and WWII. That's pretty impressive, given that the global population at the time was under 500 million. China's population dropped from 115 million to 85 million between 1200 and 1300 as a result of their "efforts."
As the author of the site referenced above concludes:
"In a way, it's rather disheartening to realize that we can't smugly blame the brutality of the [20th] century on the Communists, or the imperialists, or the Moslem fundamentalists, or the godless. Every major category of human has done it's share to boost the body count, so replacing, say, Moslem rulers with Christian rulers, or white rulers with black rulers, is not going to change it at all."
This is why I hate it when people say, "we'll never cure AIDS, Cancer, etc." Everything Nature does is a biochemical process that can be cracked, understood and ultimately replicated.
Whereas unanimity of preference will only ever end in totalitarianism. Preference doesn't stand still either - it evolves, and as it does it will become more and more totalitarian simply to remain unanimous.
However, even if we accept your thesis, I'm curious why you believe that clashing preferences must result in anarchy or totalitarianism. Most analagous processes in nature end in dynamic equilibrium. Why do you believe this impossible in a faithless world?
By storing electricity, I mean, providing a facility that efficiently captures power produced by base load generation during offpeak hours for use during the next days peak hours.
This is my sig.
Wow, just like Christianity!
True... but what would be nice is the next best thing to gold, ie a cheaply produceable substance that possesses the characteristics of gold that make gold desirable: high electrical conductivity at room temperature, doesn't rust, is ductile enough to be stretched into sheets or wires only a handful of atoms thick, and of course, pretty to look at and easy to mix with other metals to create attractive alloys for jewelry.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You mean it comes out of where?
The article does say that, but there are lots of farmed animals that are kept separate from each other for various reasons. Rabbits, for example, will frequently need to be kept separate except for breeding due to some rather vicious expressions of territoriality. There's nothing that says that you can't keep the spiders in separate cages, is there? Besides, it's been done before, something the article doesn't mention.
~ Leilah
one's morality and one's actions are not the same thing.
from this you can see how relative moralities exist in a feedback loop w/ one's actions and the actions of others. lops intersect all the time, too.
if you cannot see this, but insist that actions must "logically follow" from morality, that's fine, too. logic is a useful tool w/ computers, in debate, and for understanding certain systems, so it is no surprise to see its attempted use to describe how the actions of human beings reflect their morality. but when the surf breaks, does the whitecap mean the sun is dancing mad?
The simple boundary condition is where two people who have opposing moralities come into conflict. There is no "meta-morality" to decide between them. So, in the extreme, either people do what they want to do without restraint (anarchy), or force of some type is used to decide between the opposing viewpoints.
Or, they can reach some compromise, a middle ground that both are satisfied with (or willing to accept). Or, both viewpoints are tried experimentally and the winner is judged by others, who choose which (if either) path to follow.
Two points:
1) Isn't the scenario you describe above exactly what happens when people of conflicting religious belief come into conflict? Only, in order to comprimise, they must shift to a secular plane and find common ground in their applied beliefs. Athiests can get right down to the moral debate, skipping any "because the Bible tells me so" arguments.
2) Given atheism as a starting point, morality must be relative; as such, it ends up being based solely upon personal preference.
Let's turn this statement around. People must choose to accept God, I assume a forced choice is invalid. Therefore, isn't the acceptance of God personal preference? Then we must modify this statement from "atheism" to "choice" or "free will":
Given free will as a starting point, morality must be relative; as such, it ends up being based solely upon personal preference.
Since free will and the excersize thereof is required for acceptance of God, and the associated morality of religion, then one who chooses to believe in religion is on no firmer ground than any athiest, only they have a book that tells them they are.
Then again, you can't believe everything you read, can you?
Read the post you replied to again. If it's not more clear, it's probably that your position is simply too cemented for you to grasp a moral position beyond your own. In that kind of vacuum I can see why you'd need an externally codified system - and indeed I'm glad you have it. But don't assume other people share your limitation.
I'm beginning to suspect you're actually a very, very bored troll. If not, your selective quoting and general provocation is increasingly making you look like a parody of yourself IMO - and if you're sincere, that's a shame. But if the substance of your argument is essentially "I'm right about this because my belief system says I must be", I can't see the point in replying.
What they really wanted to say was... Scientists (Go To Porn Site To Search Inside Butt) Crack (And Find) Silk's (Of Victoria) Secret
> Since there were far more people on the earthd uring "modern" history than there were in the past, this is hardly a relevant point. As a percentage of population killed, they've certainly done no better (or worse) than their religious predecessors. The taking of a human life should NEVER be measured in percentages; by doing so you erroneously minimize the value of a single life. Those who kill less people because they had less opportunity are still less loathsome than those who kill more. While it's possible they would've done more harm had they been able, it's impossible to measure -- accurately and objectively -- what might have been "if".
Cultured Diamonds Are Real!
Cultured diamonds are real diamonds. These are not cut glass or cubic zirconium. This is not like remaming USB v1.1 USB v2.0. This is not even calling a movie full screen instead if mutilated by truncation. Cultured diamonds are just as real as natural diamonds; indeed, since some culturing processes generate diamonds with fewer imperfections and impurities than natural diamonds, some cultured diamonds are superior to natural diamonds. Only someone from DeBeers would try to argue that cultured diamonds are fake.
Impeach Bush
OK, time to kit up with fully functional web blasters - I'll be swinging from the buildings in tights before you know it.
I would like to think that isn't true, but in AMERICA, the majority does rule. If a large enough majority exists it can change the constitution to say that everyone must stand on their heads and sacrifce thier favorite pet to the god of thunder-farts.
The reason this would never happen is because there is no majority large enough that agrees with this constitutional change. And no minority powerful/clever enough to circumvent the constitution for their own personal pet sacrificing agendas.
The purpose of our Constitution was to limit all-out democracy and to protect from tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority. Ultimately the purpose was to create a system where power is seperated as far down as possible (Federal-Local-Individual) (in most cases to the individual).
Freedom for all. The point was for people to live free (read: do whatever the hell you want) as long as they didn't infringe on the rights of others to live free). You can say that this concept comes from Christianity but I would consider that foolish. Christianty is not about doing whatever the hell you want as long as you don't get in the way of anyone else doing whatever the hell they want.
So this "freedom for all" is the bottom line American moral truth, the debate over how to determine "infringing on the rights of others" is what I concider to be American "debated, well considered morality"
So if the Constituion is upheld (read: BIG if! This means that a minority does NOT circumvent it with unconstituional laws) The problem occurs only when a majority of people decide to amend the constitution so that there are limits to our freedoms even within the context of NOT infringing on other's freedoms. (ie. everyone shall be free so far as not to infringe on others freedoms or Our Holy Thunder-Fart's concepts of head-standing morality).
-Evil Lord Drewcifer
Beautiful secularism!
You'd need lots of these super cords arranged in some sort of screen to STOP the jumbo jet, and even then, what happens to the Silk-Screen when it is coated with burning jet fuel.
There is still work to be done, but I don't think man-made silk will be stopping any jumbo jets in the near future.
-Evil Lord Drewcifer
"That's like killing the first-born kids in Iraq to teach Saddam a lesson while he was killing off the rest of their families."
So thats it...GWB thinks he's god?
The ability to manufacture, rather than harvest, silk would be a boon in many ways. Currently, silk is recovered from worm cocoons in labor intensive operations. (I toured a silk factory in China once. Yes, they use machines, but there is a lot of labor too.)
I suspect even the ability to make silkworm-quality-silk at a reasonable cost would be a big improvement.
Also, this is not the be-all for things. There are nanotube technologies that exceed spider silk for strength. However, cost is still an issue in both fields, so silkworms and the associated factories still have work to do.
SPIDERMAN!
Human-spider hybrids could produce your silk and not eat each other.
You somewhat agree that if atheism is true that morality is relative. I don't see how you can say "typically", since it cannot be otherwise.
Talk to someone who follows Ayn Rand's philosophy. A lot of them are absolutists and atheists.
There is no "meta-morality" to decide between them. So, in the extreme, either people do what they want to do without restraint (anarchy), or force of some type is used to decide between the opposing viewpoints. But few of us I think would argue that "might makes right". But this is what atheism leads to. And that's a bad thing.
So, you think this "meta-morality" causes religious people not to fight each other? Do you have any idea of the number of religious wars? Even in the SAME religion--Protestants and Catholics seem to have had some problems...
The world IS might makes right. And, religions have a lot of the might. This doesn't always mean war, murder, or other bad things. It also means negotiating.
Our legal system hasn't degenerated to anarchy or despotism, yet, because the U.S. government is based upon the notion of absolute rights, granted by God, to be protected by governement: "... all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...". But this is beginning to change; a former president recently advanced the notion that it is government which grants rights. If this switch happens, then we're in trouble, even it it might take 500 hundred years. Some of us won't go quietly...
What does "debated, well considered morality" mean? That the majority is right? You know that isn't true. Something else?
I don't know what he meant, but if I said it, I would mean a morality that is thought out. Debate is a good way of seeing things from multiple angles, and seeing flaws in it. This includes a moral system.
Religions do this, too. It's just that in most religions, only a select few have any power--priests. The priests (usually the high priests, like Cardinals and Popes) determine what is right and wrong, and can simply ignore any cries of illogic or harmful from the peasantfolk. Also, questioning the religous text is generally not held in high regard(even though it might be the reason for the illogical or harmful theological stance).
For most atheists, things that get you power are what you've done. This power is usually in the form of respect. I'm just referring to power of atheists, regarding atheism--obviously plenty of atheists get respect for other things.
"Atheism is true" is not a logical statement. atheism is not a philosophy, but a LACK of a philosophy. Only a small percentage of atheists believe in "no god(s)"(this is usually known as "strong atheism"). Most simply do not have the belief that there IS a god(s)--basically, there might be god(s), but they don't know.
By the way, you defend religions by saying those who do "bad things" don't understand the religion. But, you then assume that those atheists who DO follow some atheistic philosophy are "bad". You are not being consistent in your judgements(a no-no for Christians, by the way) here.
except for the part where it gives you radiation poisoning and then melts back into mercury and makes you go crazy.
I remember the same thing. The problem is that the environmentalists don't like the massive work needed to build these systems on an effective scale.
Storm King Mountain overlooks the Hudson River near West Point. NY planned to build a massive resovoir at the top of the mountain. During the low demand night hours excess electricity would be used to pump water to the resovoir. During peak demand hours, the water would flow back down driving hydorelectric turbines. The net result would be fewer power plants and less polution.
After a 30 year legal battle, the environmentalists won. The outcome of the conflict established the right of citizen groups to sue a government agency to protect natural resources and scenic beauty.
Storm King Mountain eventually became a State Park with lots of hiking trails. In 1999 a forest fire at the mountain began detontating unexploded ordinance. Apparently the mountain was used by the US Army for target practice as early as the 1840s. The park is now closed to hikers.
So, we have no power station and no hiking trails. Great!
Consider Rover.
Dogs were the first animals to be domesticated. We don't know how exactly. But some genius may have thrown a proto-dog a bone. The domestication may have taken dozens or hundreds of generations. Does dog DNA contain genes not found in Wolf DNA? IIRC, some, but less than you might think...
Anyhow, if we were to ask the ancestors who took the first steps in domesticating the wolf whether they would accept some magical help that would change the nature of the wolf to convert it from a danger and a competitor into a friendly and useful companion in just one generation, do you think they would tell us it was unethical?
Maybe. I don't know.
Let me ask you a different question. Do you feel there would more of an ethical problem with fiddling with the genome of a wild animal? Domesticated animals already have had lots of manipulation, in addition to living in our artificial world...
Consider ourselves. We have domesticated ourselves. Our features are more neotonous than those of our ancestors, just as the process of domestication has made dogs and other of our creatures more neotonous...
Now-a-days you don't need a majority to make a law you just need a judge who is willing to legislate from the bench. The question about majority rule is, "just because the majority says it is right does that make it right?"
"Most muslims who have not been turned extreme by extreme circumstances (like having to endure terror and torture by having to live in the Iraq as a shiite under Saddam), will agree that radical islamists have indeed left the path of islam a long time ago."
You may need to do a little more studying.
O YOU WHO BELIEVE! DO NOT TAKE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS FOR FRIENDS; THEY ARE FRIENDS OF EACH OTHER; AND WHOEVER AMONGST YOU TAKES THEM FOR A FRIEND, THEN SURELY HE IS ONE OF THEM; SURELY ALLAH DOES NOT GUIDE THE UNJUST PEOPLE. (5:49-51)
THEY DESIRE THAT YOU SHOULD DISBELIEVE AS THEY HAVE DISBELIEVED, SO THAT YOU MIGHT BE ALL ALIKE; THEREFORE TAKE NOT FROM AMONG THEM FRIENDS UNTIL THEY FLY THEIR HOMES IN ALLAH'S WAY; BUT IF THEY TURN BACK, THEN SEIZE THEM AND KILL THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE NOT FROM AMONG THEM A FRIEND OR A HELPER. (4:89)
When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them (9:5)
FIGHT THEM: ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS AND BRING THEM TO DISGRACE, AND ASSIST YOU AGAINST THEM. (9:14)
FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29)
And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (8:39)
"the islam is quite peaceful by nature."
Ummm, I don't think so. Islam has a VERY violent past. It continues to be violent and will continue because the Quran encourages violence.
Americanized Islam can be peaceful but that is more a result of our culture, in my opinion, than the religion. Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that all of Islam is violent. I am saying that the religion gravitates to violence because that is what is taught. Many people ignore that aspect of Islam and live in peace with other people however, those that do are not living up to Islam as it is and was intended. To those people I can simply say "Thank You".
Peace be with you.
I am a Christian and agree with some of what you have said.
:)
"Since there were far more people on the earth during "modern" history than there were in the past, this is hardly a relevant point."
You are correct. This is not a relevant point. Comparing numbers as to who has done the most bad or killed the most people doesn't do any good. All groups have done their fair share of terrible actions and we should all recognize this.
The thing I can say though, about those "Christians" or "professed Christians" that have done those terrible things is; they were not living up to God's standards as revealed to us in the scriptures. Even though their modivation may have been to spread God's kingdom or to live up to God's standards they were not doing these things God's way. Atheists, on the other hand, cannot make such a claim because they have no objective standard. They cannot say that those groups were not living up to best-embodied standard of atheism because atheism has no moral standards. Atheism is a "might makes right" standard of living. You may not agree with me but any other moral standard that an atheist tries to employ into his or her life will be foundationless because of the subjectivity of the religion. It will have meaning for the individual but cannot hold any lasting or universal meaning.
"Replacing one f****d-up, reality-denying philosophy (say, Christianity as it's been practiced traditionally) with another (say, Communism) isn't likely to lead to an improvement in anybody's quality of life."
I do not consider Christianity a "reality-denying philosophy". "How is Christianity a "reality-denying philosophy"? Who's reality does it deny? Yours? If you are an Atheist you believe that evolution is fact and the earth is billions of years old. If you are saying that Christianity denies that reality you would be correct.
I believe that God created the earth in 6 days. This is reality based on my philosophical worldview and based on this your Atheism denies reality but to say this simply shows my bias. It does nothing to further a dialog or prove a point. I am not saying that reality is different for each person but everyone's sense or view of reality may be different. Ones personal views can alter thier view of reality. The true question is, does Christianity deny your personal sense of reality (Personal Beliefs) or reality itself? If it denies reality what examples can be given?
Lastly I would like to ask how Atheism can "lead to an improvement in" someone's "quality of life"? I didn't ask how science could lead to an improvement. I asked how Atheism as a philosophical worldview could.
I could continue to write on this subject but I just do not have any more time for it
I hope this post was not viewed as an attack on Atheism or you as a person. I hold the view that Atheism is wrong in its views yet I hold no animosity toward those that hold that view and I apologize if this post came as such.
Peace be with you