Slashdot Mirror
Astrologer Sues NASA Over Comet Probe
0110011001110101 writes "NASA's mission that sent a space probe smashing into a comet raised more than cosmic dust -- it also brought a lawsuit from a Russian astrologer. 'Bai is seeking damages totaling $300 million -- the approximate equivalent of the mission's cost -- for her "moral sufferings," Izvestia said, citing her lawyer Alexander Molokhov. She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope." ' "
Is this why she's suing? Because, thanks to NASA, she doesn't have any morals, and therefore is absolutely fine with the idea of frivolous lawsuits?
Is this what happened to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey too?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The woman is suing the government for depriving her of her ability to make an income in her current profession. Her allegation is that the government (through NASA) has fundamentally shifted the course of celestial bodies with the impact and that she is entitled to monetary recompense.
This is so similar to how the record companies are fighting tooth and nail to stop people from changing the RIAA's business model.
Is someone entitled to make a living? Should the government be in the business of putting people out of work?
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
The whole Zodiac system was made up 2000 years ago, on the idea that your 'sign' was the one that the sun rose into on your birthday. At the present time, the Earth has precessed something like 15 degrees, so the sun actually rises 1 sign away from where it originally did. (thanks Bill Nye!)
Fuck these goddamn superstitious idiots anyway, we left the caves a long time ago.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Yeah, the next thing you know a bunch of fundamentalist christians will be trying to force through laws to push their form of creationism into public classrooms.
I say that if she, while blindfolded and away from any source of news, could have told the authorities the exact instant the impact occurred, and supposedly changed all the "energy fields" and "balance of the universe", by all means, let her lawsuit be heard!
Among the list of "crankpots" should we include mainstream religion and their various objections to things like cloning? I fail to see how mainstream religion differs significantly from the rest of the crackpots... I mean if you overlook the organization, political power and all that.
Nope, not a chance. The publicity would just legitimize astrology. When the suit was finally decided in NASA's favor, believers would just spin it that NASA had better lawyers.
People who believe in astrology don't do so because of logic. They cling to the hope that the universe is not just a giant machine, that they are somehow made unique among humans by their keen intelligence, inside knowledge, and special placement in it.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I think US judges should be given encouragement to laugh in the faces of morons who bring court cases like this, and to charge them costs big time to put them off pulling such pathetic stunts.
.... wait for it..... Lawyers.
you miss the important irony in this...
all US judges were
if you think that any judge would go against the money machine that got them where they are then you are very silly.
Judges are no more "honarable" than a lawyer, becaus ethey were lawyers. and THIS is one of the biggest problems in the American justice system
You're not the first one it seems, check http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24340/ /. and groklaw, here:d f/
and the details of the complaint against
http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/utah.p
People who believe in astrology don't do so because of logic. They cling to the hope that the universe is not just a giant machine, that they are somehow made unique among humans by their keen intelligence, inside knowledge, and special placement in it.
The very nature of astrology implies that the universe is a giant machine and that it determines your attributes. The placements of planets A, B, and C indicate that I have attribute X. While the belief is illogical, the motivation for it appears to be a fear of uncertainty (or freedom) and a desire to know one's "place" in the universe as opposed to the desire to be empowered individuals.
Among the list of "crankpots" should we include mainstream religion and their various objections to things like cloning? I fail to see how mainstream religion differs significantly from the rest of the crackpots
I couldn't agree more. As for the difference between crackpots and mainstream religions, it's easy: mainstream religions are entrenched. They've taken hold centuries and millenia ago, when people didn't know better, and they've permeated the way people live, think and the societies they now live in for a very long time. Therefore, they're much harder to displace than contemporary crackpots, who now run into the wall of science and reason, and so they don't have the time to take roots.
I think the only reasonably successful "new" religion that has arisen in recent times is the Latter Day Saints, and even that was over 150 years ago and it's only a variation of Christianity. And frankly, if you read who were Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and what they did, you can't help thinking they were brigands (no offense to you LDS folks, I really like most of you a lot, but really...). But I digress...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
My understanding of the KS debate was whether to explicitly deny that no form of creation other than evolution was possible or not. From what I have heard the media distorted and fanatisized it. While I believe everything currently points to evolution, I'm not so closed minded to think that I could still be wrong.
I do security
Arguably, I have more proof that the events of Star Trek or Lord of the Rings happened than anything in the bible. But I'd be "crazy" to believe one of these things...
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
People who believe in astrology don't do so because of logic.
People who believe in anything that isn't objectively verifiable, do not believe because of logic. This includes religious belief, since it is, by definition, faith-based. Faith is not rational or logical- it is merely a manner in which we choose to structure our worldview.
Nope - but telling people in AIDS-stricken regions that using condoms is a sin... not so cool.
Education is the silver bullet.
Heres a hint. Making up numbers does not legitimize your point. In my experience, but then im from northern florida, the vast majority of the time its someone trying their best to convince me that I am going to hell because im an athiest. IF it were just a matter of "live and let live", that would be FINE. However, the religious zealots are most of the problem (again, from MY experience). I cant remember ever hearing of atheists assaulting religous people's person or property because they had a god sticker on it. However, I see and hear the reverse all the time. Happened to my wife (back when she was just my girlfriend). She had a pro Wicca bumper sticker and some god nut busted her windshield and wrote nasty stuff on her car with a magic marker, stuff along the lines that they should bring back witch burning. Kind and wonderful people, they are.
I'll appoligize (as a christian) on behalf of whoever ripped off your fish, as that was a very "un-christian" act.
"Nyquil - The stuffy, sneezy, why-the-hell-is-the-room-spinning medicine."
I've seen astrolgers that don't know me but have written up complete reports about who I am and what I feel, think, and believe -- without ever having met me.
James Randi did an experiment where he handed out horoscopes to a class of (college) students and had them rate how closely they matched reality. Most of the students said the horoscopes were accurate. He then had them swap horoscopes, and they found out that they all had the exact same horoscope. Now, how could ONE horoscope match everyone? Because it was filled with generalities and vague statements, that's how. The students themselves filled in the details where they were missing, and sub-consciously remembered the 'hits' more than the 'misses'.
Now, without knowing the exact circumstances behind your case, I can't tell you for sure that's what happened. Only you can, if you choose to look at what happened objectively.
I've seen people healed by faith healers,
Really? If you can prove that, you might win $1,000,000! Go to www.randi.org for details.
I've met psychics who can vividly describe situations and people that later become part of my life.
I sense a... man, or maybe a woman. He is tall, maybe short. BLond hair, maybe brown or black. You'll like this person, or maybe hate them.
How'd I do??
And before you start talking about "cold reading", I have a solid background in psychology, and did not give these people a chance to meet me or be exposed to me to cold read me.
You may "have a solid background in psychology", but you don't understand what 'cold reading' is. Cold reading does NOT depend on meeting the victim before hand, or even knowing anything about them before hand. That would be 'hot reading'.
From Wikipedia: "Generally, the cold reader will make a series of vague statements, will observe the subject's reactions, and then will refine the original statements according to those reactions"..."even without prior knowledge of a person, a psychic could still obtain a great deal of his subject's history by carefully analysing his or her look and other background information, such as gender, religion, race, education level and place of origin."
So, let's apply Occams Razor. Either there are people in this world who can 'speak to spirits', 'read minds', and have other paranormal powers (but choose to eke out a living reading palms instead of, say, getting the winnign lottery numbers). OR, there are people in this world who are frauds. Fakers. Con men.
WHich is more likely?
This is not true. While there are certainly crackpots out there selling ineffective and even harmful snake-oil cures under the guise of alternative medicine, most alternative medicine practices have a long history and are probably effective to some degree.
The problem is that there is no money to be made in proving that they are effective, so no Big Pharma corp is going to spend money on real western medicine style drug trials.
Suppose that dandelion tea was an effective cure for cancer. Would Pfizer spend millions to do a ten year trial with thousands of patients? If they proved it worked then everyone would use the dandelions in their yard, or start cultivating them, and Pfizer would never make a penny from it. Multiply this by every naturally occuring substance on the planet.
Big Pharma has no motivation to prove the medicinal value of anything they cannot patent.
So chances are there are many treatments out there that are low cost, natural, and effective, but they will never be studied, put into JAMA, and introduced in your local doctor's office.
While I generally favor smaller government, this is one area where only government (well, possibly very well funded non-profits, too) can be effective. Gov't funded research in these topics could improve medicine, lower medical costs, and contribute to human knowledge.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Scientology, my friend, sciencefictionology...
Maybe it isn't wildly successfull among the people, but it seems to attract som wildly successfull people.
I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
My understanding of the KS debate was whether to explicitly deny that no form of creation other than evolution was possible or not.
Bad understanding.
Evolution theories are NOT creation theories. Whether current scientific theories of the evolutionary processes are complete and/or 100% correct is one thing. Feeling the need to say that, because the science is incomplete, creation dogmas might be valid is quite another thing.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
an shy-looking astronomer was interviewed and she said something to the effect of "you know, that experiment is sort of interesting, but we regret this "american buckaroo-style" (sic) way of doing space research, as a probe that could land and latch on the comet, then drill and study things would have done a better job for not much more money."
Sorry. If that's what she honestly said (and meant), she's a loony.
1: It's not easy to land on a comet or asteroid. The gravity's quite weak, and not regular either. Especially as you don't know the composition or internal structure.
2: It's not like the comet was going to stay pristine. Comets travel through very harsh environments. It's unlikely that if we went back to Tempel I on its next orbit that we'd see the same surface features. There's no "preservation" really needed.
3: The impactor created an explosion equivalent to about 5 tons of TNT. That would've taken a lot of drilling, and it still would've only given localized information.
4: Finally, and most importantly, it's simply ludicrous to believe that this mission could've been replaced with one with a controlled, long duration landing probe for nearly equivalent money. We know very little about the surface of a comet. It's entirely possible had we tried to design a lander, we would've sent it there and then said "well, um, we found out all of its instruments are useless on comets!"
The other comment I've heard, from a friend who studies all kinds of space things, is that he hoped NASA picked their comet-target right, because they probably changed its trajectory in minute ways
Do the math. Any change in its orbit is unmeasurable. Comets are still very big - Tempel 1 is in the 10^13 kg range. The impactor was 370 kg. Relative velocity was 10 km/s. That means you're talking about a delta-V in the neighborhood of a tenth of a micron per second.
It's just completely and totally pointless.
Flamebait.
Joke:
*Something silly to enjoy
*Having a laugh at someone elses expense
*Having a laugh even though it may offend something slightly.
Taking things too seriously:
*Reading a joke and taking serious offense and getting all riled up.
*Not enjoying something silly just to make people laugh and be happy
*General Asshattery
Lighten up dude... sheesh.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
The other comment I've heard, from a friend who studies all kinds of space things, is that he hoped NASA picked their comet-target right, because they probably changed its trajectory in minute ways, and it could come back to haunt us if it happens to be cyclical with a very long period, and NASA didn't know about it, and it came back with something that looks like a collision course in the future.
Tell that friend who "studies all kind of space things" to study some logic and probabilities too. Since all calculations done show that the comet isn't expected to impact Earth neither with the previous nor with the new trajectory, the probability that we have made it crash Earth in a few million years is the same that we have avoided a future crash.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Actually, lawsuits by crackpots are not uncommon.
To fix this, you should have a law liek Canada's where the loser pays the legal bills for both sides in a law suit. This ensure frivilous law suits have to think twice. While a suit with a legitimate chance of suceeding won't be unduly impeded.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
IANAL so could someone who is explain to me how someone from another country can sue NASA. I mean it seems to me the only athourity NASA is bound by would be the US government. It's a little like complaining about Germeny because they violate West Virginia state law by letting 16 year olds drink beer.
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
Like quarks ... where's the objective verification.
What about the hadron boot-strap? Branes?
I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith too!
By applying logic, I've never really got beyond the questions of other minds and the existence of external actual reality as an explanation for sense-data. And I don't see Occam's razor as being a logical method.
- During the time leading up to the suit, McDonald's sold more than 10 cups of coffee at that temperature. There were only 700 burn incidents. This is an excellent safety record, and shows that (statistically) everyone could drink this coffee safely. The coffee was safe.
- The plaintiff had purchased and consumed many cups of coffee at this same McDonalds previously with no incident. The coffee was safe, even in the plaintiff's own experience
- The plaintiff endeavored to dump the coffee into her own lap. This was her doing, not McDonalds' doing. The accident was 100% her own fault. McDonalds did not do this..
- The temperature McDonalds' sold the coffee at is the recommended optimum serving temperature.
- McDonalds, despite the phony claims in the linked article, claimed that their coffee was "hot". Precaution around hot liquids is taught at an early age. McDonald's gave sufficient warning.
I don't think that vandalizing someone else's property is generally considered to be a Constitutionally (or morally) defended form of expression.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
If she'd sued the Russian space agency, she'd already be in the gulag. Going after NASA? Now, that has potential.
Coming soon: All your spacecraft are belong to us!
Are you trolling, or do you just have your head in the clouds? This is the same old, tired, generic testimonial defense of faith healing and astrology I always see. No one doubts the power of placebo in alleviating symptoms of illness, but I've never seen any well-documented results indicating that faith healing really helps anyone. Nor have I seen anything compelling about astrology. An astrologer describing people who may come into your life--or even describing people who are known to you--well, that's pretty subjective all around and there are ways to sound specific and "dead on" without really having to be so. I mean, most normal people fluctuate in their personalities from day to day, and most of us have a few bad traits as well as good. So, if you describe someone as basically good but with the concession that there are few negative aspects to the person, you're generally right. As for YOUR comments...why don't YOU get specific in describing your so-called compelling experiences that lead you to believe in some of this faith healing/astrology BS? You sound as generic as every horoscope I've come across. And, btw, I don't really care if I'm being rude or not. I've been polite to people with dumb ass beliefs for so long and I'm tired of walking on eggshells with you people (and what do I mean by "you people"?). I'm tired of having to respect your naivete because you are so sickeningly spiritual and have such a sensitive world view that to disagree causes you such spiritual agony. I hate it when I try to talk sense with the New Age people I know and they pull that passive agressive "oh you cause me such pain and concern because you are headed down such a spiritually destructive path and I will go pray for you I hope you realize what a burden your attitude is on ME" crap...ah, hell with it, you're probably a troll anyway. Why bother?
Tolerance brought 'creation science' to our schools. While everyone get's all tolerant and PC, the religous right has consolidated a tremendous amount of power. I doubt there are many religions that wouldn't legislate their beliefs into law, given a chance. They are now getting lots of chances.
Tolerance has to end somewhere. For me, we've pretty much reached that point. If people want to believe in the supernatural (astrology, gods, devils, telekinesis, etc.) fine. When they get public with it, I mean to belittle them. The definition of supernatural I'm using is Oxford sense 1.
I've tried tolerance for half a century. That's all done.
*sigh* I'll take the bait.
I may not agree with em, but it's not my place to go burn them down if I dont.
(now please mod me as offtopic!)
"Nyquil - The stuffy, sneezy, why-the-hell-is-the-room-spinning medicine."
It goes both ways. Athiests vandalize churches, and Christians break windshields. Christians wave gay hate signs, and athiests try to get every reference to the 10 commandments removed. Yet, on both sides, it is a very small minority committing acts of violence. The issue is not Christians or athiests, but individuals within both worldviews. Neither side is committing significantly worse offenses than the other.
Arguably, I have more proof that the events of Star Trek or Lord of the Rings happened than anything in the bible.
IIRC quiet a few incidents described in the bible have been confirmed by other historical sources. I'm not talking about walking on water or plagues of locust, but wars, conquests, the names of rulers etc. By automatically dismissing everything in the bible as false, you show that you haven't critically evaluated it, which puts you in the same boat as those who assume everything in it is true.
I've never heard of any atheists vandalizing chruches.
And as far as getting references to the 10 commandments removed -- it ain't just the atheists. Don't forget about those who follow paths other than the Abrahamic religions. Even many Christians and Jews agree that the 10 commandments ought not to be displayed.
My blog
Wow! Those are two of the most ignorant comments I have heard, and you actually ended up defending both of them.
The first is typical of American-bashing that comes from mindless, spineless Euro-snobs. Everything done by Americans is bad. This comet is 83 million miles away and travelling at an enormous velocity, but this anonymous super-genius could land a gentle probe on it "for not much more money". That explains the stunningly successful European mission that did just that.
The second comment from your friend who studies these things seems at odds with the endless comments about how we lack the technology to prevent a comet or asteroid from colliding with the Earth. The largest atomic weapons could not budge an asteroid in time, we are told. It is already too late for us, and yet, this rather insignificant probe can alter the course of this comet enough to cause a collision over such vast distances. In that case, why don't we launch another probe or two to swat it away?
Then you were modded up as informative by the same nitwit teenagers who endlessly bash organized religion, with enough bile to fill the Pacific ocean.
I'm going to sue this Russian bimbo for $300 million for causing me such morale outrage.
You're not in the minority here, it's just exasperating to deal with the tongue-lashing we get if we say anything pro-religion. Heck, I've had people try to steer threads into religion just to try and debunk the thread, even if the connection between the thread and religion is really thin.
/.
It is fascinating to see self-proclaimed athiests talk about science being their god. Science proves the existence of God (a supreme creator) at every corner. Every new discovery validates more and more how beautiful and intricate the universe is. There are architects that lay the foundations of man's institutions on earth who are powerful indeed, but they can never approach the glory of God, no matter what they force-feed their cattle.
I think a lot of people are bitter because a nun slapped them on the knuckles too many times in Catholic school or something. Man corrupts things and the church is built by man. These corruptions do not invalidate the existence of God, they just validate that man needs guidance more than ever.
The latest election shows how people really think. These self-proclaimed intellectuals just like to shout loud so that they seem more numerous than they are.
You are in the silent majority, even on
I think that it is difficult to to draw clear line on what would qualify people as "crackpots." Its like trying to decide who is insane. I think that we call them insane because they are significantly different to us. They are a small minority and act in a way that is incomprehensible to us.
Society has determined that things like murder are fundamentally wrong. Its generally accepted, but do we really know that death is terrible? What if there is a life after this that is so incredible that we are actually doing people favors by killing them? (I don't actually believe this, but it's some thing that we could be wrong about).
As time goes on and as people start ignoring things like morals, society will degrade until we are back to the stone age. You may disagree, but then again that is just opinion.
Really, as it turns out people all live some sort of religion. Some don't recognize being agnostic or atheist as its own religion, but it is. It is riddled with its own beliefs and doctrine. None of it has any more proof of truth than any other form of belief.
So to deal with this we have a system here in the United States that deals with majorities (like Christians) and minorities so that each has their rights preserved. For the most part majorities get their way (that's democracy) and so the standard for morality is set by them. But minorities have the opportunity to be able to speak and make impacts to influence the majority (hence the importance of free speech).
But we can't have every minority wielding huge influence otherwise we will end up with laws permitting murder. Of course the majority isn't perfect either. But you have to remember that the premise of democracy is that the majority is usually right as long as they are well informed. Of course this isn't a true democracy but a representative democracy...
And if someone gets AIDs through a blood transfusion/needle-stick/some-other-means, their spouse should obviously be happy to die from it, because wearing a condom to prevent transmission would be a sin. Brilliant.
Logic isn't a form of faith. Whether one believes in logic or not, logical conclusions are "true" on the basis it introduces no contradictions. Do you need to "believe" in logical math to balance your checkbooks? 1+1=2 no matter what you believe, but Jesus Christ isn't God unless you believe in Christian faith.
And as far as getting references to the 10 commandments removed -- it ain't just the atheists. Don't forget about those who follow paths other than the Abrahamic religions. Even many Christians and Jews agree that the 10 commandments ought not to be displayed.
Why would you post a list of "laws" you are not legally required to follow in a house of secular law?
The very nature of astrology implies that the universe is a giant machine and that it determines your attributes. The placements of planets A, B, and C indicate that I have attribute X.
Astrologers believe their is some mystical relationship between the positions of the planets, sun aand the future of someone born at that particular point in time.
A favorite example is a clock in a railway station. There is no direct physical connection between the position of the hands of the clock and departing trains but there is a relationship set by a higher intelligence (in this case the timetable set by the rail company).
Raise this line of thought to the astrological level, with train timetables being replaced by planetary almanacs, then there is the conclusion that being born at different times leads you to different paths in life.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
This isn't faith, because you don't forget that it's based on an assumption. Science isn't about absolute truth, it's about coming up with a usable model. Maybe Quarks "really exist," and maybe they don't. They're part of our model. No matter how much experimental evidence we have, and no matter how beautifully our model clicks together, there will never be any reason to believe that quarks exist. It may be useful to assume that they exist, but that's not belief.
Sure, you can believe in quarks if you want to, but I think that's a foolish way to create your worldview.
[javac] 100 errors
Basically debases every single point you brought up but to summerize it for you.
Any remedes that the drug companies see any benifit in become the startingpoint for new meds. Your tea is a perfect example as two companies at this moment now are infact looking into it and have been for some time.
Most "alternatives" are completly bullshit and have no basis whatsoever to make their claims.
Worse some can even cause serious harm or even death.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Logic does NOT exist outside of the human mind. "Logic" is a human construct based on properties of the physical universe as we know it, and as we understand them. Logic doesn't exist outside of the human mind anymore than language or the laws of nature exist outside of the human mind.
Toothbrushes REDUCE, not ELIMINATE the amount of stinky scum growing on your nasty teeth. The amount by which they reduce is not usually specified.
And your logic is what? We would all be better off if we stopped brushing/stopped using condoms?
And yet a significant proportion of the students said that the horoscope matched them. This is the entire point - that it wasn't a genuine horoscope, but people believed it fit them. It was written in horoscope style - full of vague waffle that could fit just about anyone. And of course people will generally remember the hits and ignore the misses. It's just human nature - and professional con-artists are very well aware of how to take advantage of human nature.
Wow. Just.... wow.
And you seriously just accept that? The notion that, for a very small expenditure of time on their part, they could walk away with one million dollars.... one million dollars that they could donate to any charity in the world (if they weren't interested in the money themselves)... and yet they say they're not interested?
Bullshit. Sheer undiluted bullshit.
Oh, and by the way - I can turn invisible and fly through the air. I just don't feel like demonstrating it to anyone, not even for money. You see, money's not that important to me, so that's why I make my living working an eight-to-six office job. So... what do you mean, I'm talking crap?? Don't be so close-minded!
Just out of interest, why don't you ask your psychic pals exactly how much money would have to be offered to make it worth their while? Ten million? A hundred million? A billion? Ten billion? If they just keep saying that "it's not worth their effort"... at some point you just have to realise that it's bullshit.
If I could earn (cue Dr Evil voice) "one meeeellion dollars" simply by demonstrating an ability I possess, you can bloody well be certain that I'd do it.
The reason your "psychic" acquaintances don't take up the Randi challenge is because they know it's incredibly unlikely that they'd pass, and it'd be an embarrassing waste of time for them... though I suspect the embarrassment factor would be the biggest component.
Pot, meet kettle.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick.
If your psychic acquaintances had any genuine abilities, they shouldn't disappear just because they're faced with a sceptic. The reality is that very few "psychics" have enough faith in their own abilities to put them to a genuine test.
> Religion and logic don't necessarily disclude one another, but for those who belive in both, the order
> of which supercedes which might determine whether they're agnostic or if they're religious.
Religion may be logical, but it is based on flawed principles. It is very easy to show the problems with the basic principles, and the rest comes crumbling down. I am referring to religion having any bearing on the physical world, e.g. creationism. Leave it in the spiritual realm where it belongs and you won't have any problems.
jfs
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an "intellectual": find out how he feels about astrology. -- Robert A. Heinlein
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
The sad thing about sick minds is that they can pervert any belief system. That's not the fault of the belief system, that's the fault of the minds.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Two deadly flaws with your idea:
"Alternative" medicine is an oxymoron. Something is biologically active or it's not, which is also why homeopathy doesn't really exist except on the labels of tiny bottles of very expensive water.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'm sure it was meant to have punctuation. Something like:
On the other hand, you realize that a Linux fish is essentially a mobile insult against their religious expression, which is their right to express, as is your mockery.
Something akin to the statement 'They have a right to express their religion. You have a right to express your mockery of their religion.' It doesn't include anything about vandalism.
the relevent point here is.
Is it reasonable to assume that if you spill hot coffee in your lap you will be burned. YES
Is it reasonable to assume that you will recieve 3rd degree burns and require skin grafts to recover. NO
Why does beauty or complexity have to indicate the presence of a divine creator? Quite a lot of complexity has shown to arise naturally without intervention being necessary, provided a source of energy.
The latest election shows how people really think. These self-proclaimed intellectuals just like to shout loud so that they seem more numerous than they are.
Congratulations. An essentially war-time president running on a campaign of fear barely managed to edge out the pathetic loser the democrats chose. A mop and bucket with a face drawn on it would have had as much leadership potential as Kerry. If thats going to be the bar for how the "people really think" maybe you should go check out Bush's current approval ratings.
/.
You are in the silent majority, even on
The lurkers support me in email!
Why?
Ooh, and if your coworkers were mentally or physically injured (spat Pepsi upon), you can make it a class action law suit.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Science is not faith-based but fact-based. Faith has no room in the scientific process.
A certain degree of faith is included in the scientific process. Science and religion both share the common root of philosophy. The difference between religion and science is religion is based on blind faith, science is based on tempered faith.
When you drop a rock, you believe it will fall. This belief is based on huge amounts of historical evidence. However, science doesn't actually dictate what will happen to the rock, it merely gives a reasonable prediction based on our knowledge. One of the biggest mistakes people make in science is to say we observe X because of theory Y, because theory doesn't dictate behavior. All we can say is we observe X, which is consistant with the prediction of theory Y.
Faith also gives birth to our new ideas. Einstein's faith that the universe neither expanded nor contracted led him to create the cosmological constant. Even the idea that we somehow can explain the behavior of the universe is based in faith. Since we can't know everything, we must make assumptions. In the absence of knowledge all we have is faith.
Scientists working on string theory do so because of faith. String theory is unfalsifiable, and it explains no known phenomenon that isn't already explained by another theory. I would argue string theory right now sits in the same ballpark as creationism. The difference is that those working on string theory will reformulate if they have conflicting observations. While creationists will tend to dismiss or give alternate explainations on conflicting observations.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Funny doesn't get you karma. And it was substantive, I guess you just missed the point. My point was that just because you can't disprove something, it doesn't mean it isn't stupid to believe it. You saying "disprove it" over and over is meaningless, yet you parrot it as if you are somehow "winning the argument".
You think my comment was funny, so I guess you'd ridicule somebody who truly believed that there are pink unicorns living on Mars. What is the difference between that and Christianity? Because somebody wrote a book a couple of thousand years ago? If I wrote a book about pink unicorns today, would it be sensible for somebody to believe in them in the year 4005?
You know, many Christians point out that a lot of the Bible is historically verifiable and contains many things that we know to be true. Did I mention that the book I am writing is set during World War 2 and features Winston Churchill riding pink unicorns into battle against Hitler?
Maybe in the year 4005, people will dig up evidence that Winston Churchill and Hitler existed, that many of the events portrayed in my Pink Unicorn Bible actually happened, and so on. Then the Pink Unicorn worshippers will be vindicated and all the disbelievers will see the error of their "scientific" ways.
Here. Dupes are not just for articles anymore.
I see 57005 people
You're thinking of Catholocism, which has certain areas of overlap with Christianity, but in no way is representative of it.
Condoms do provide limited protection from HIV and a handful of the other dozens of STDs out there, but kind of like a hitman using lead-free bullets, they don't actually fix the problem.
The real cause is a culture that encourages massive sexual promiscuity. Myths are perpetuated across the african continent such as the belief that shagging a virgin will cure a man of HIV, of course exacerbating the problem.
That, my friends, is the sin.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife