Sally Ride Takes Her Final Flight

Only the good die young by virgilcaine · 2012-07-23 11:10 · Score: 1

Tough chick, we should all miss her.

RIP Sally by slasher999 · 2012-07-23 11:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

I still remember that historic launch. Her name was one everyone who was old enough to remember knew and never forgot from that day forward.

Re:RIP Sally by Hatta · 2012-07-23 13:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

What I didn't know until now is that she was a lesbian. Which is fair enough, if she was out back then she probably wouldn't have been considered a good role model. Good for her, she broke ground in more ways than one.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:RIP Sally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 16:58 · Score: 1

I still remember that historic launch.

Historic? Well, I suppose so if you ignore the fact that Valentina Tereshkova orbited the Earth 20 years earlier.
Anyway, we're meant to have gender equality these days so talking about male vs female astronauts is surely irrelevant?

true pioneer by frovingslosh · 2012-07-23 11:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sally Ride was a true pioneer and hero.

I suspect that many if not most of the people who follow Slashdot don't believe in religious superstition. I find it truly unfortunate that someone would take advantage of her untimely passing and use it as an opportunity to preach his own religious views. And yes, I expect other supposedly "religious" people will now resort to name calling to mod me down rather than enter into discussion.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

Re:true pioneer by ClickOnThis · 2012-07-23 11:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sally Ride was a true pioneer and hero.
I suspect that many if not most of the people who follow Slashdot don't believe in religious superstition. I find it truly unfortunate that someone would take advantage of her untimely passing and use it as an opportunity to preach his own religious views. And yes, I expect other supposedly "religious" people will now resort to name calling to mod me down rather than enter into discussion.
As she literally flew, if you will, to "the heavens" during her lifetime, I see nothing wrong with suggesting metaphorically that she's doing it now for the final time. Yes, the imagery is religious. But it seems to fit the situation well.
Goodbye, Sally.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:true pioneer by jhoegl · 2012-07-23 11:34 · Score: 3

tolerance of superstition is not tolerance.
What?
Re:true pioneer by RearNakedChoke · 2012-07-23 11:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

tolerance of superstition is not tolerance.
when you are dead you are dead. there isn't any 'safe trip' about it.
let the myth of afterlife 'die' already!
Of course its tolerance, regardless of what you think about it. You live most of your life based, not on logic, but on personal preferences and emotional impulses that have little scientific justification. And I do too. And so the other 7 billion people on this planet.
Re:true pioneer by bmo · 2012-07-23 12:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

tolerance of superstition is not tolerance.
As a militant agnostic, I have to point out that your post is nothing but flamebait.
It is devoid of argument outside of assertion. It has no foundation. It is an accusation with nothing behind it. You are almost begging people to flame you.
Intolerance of belief is just as bad as intolerance of non-belief. Indeed it gives those with a system of religion ammunition to fuel whatever persecution complex they're nursing. So it leads to backlash. You decried the Moral Majority in another post. Stop giving them bad things to say about us.
To quote the Letter to the Touro Synagogue: The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ...
May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. -- G. Washington.
Go sit under your own fig tree.
--
BMO
Re:true pioneer by bmo · 2012-07-23 12:51 · Score: 1

>a whole lot of stuff I didn't say, accusing me of endorsing physical and mental abuse of children
You're an asshole. You disgust me.
Meet your new status.
--
BMO
Re:true pioneer by humanrev · 2012-07-23 13:16 · Score: 2

What the fuck man? Are you one of those "all or nothing" types who don't understand the concept of degrees?
Most of the people in the world are religious. You will therefore find yourself constantly rubbing people the wrong way if you're unable to tolerate their beliefs in at least a passive way (as in "that person is religious - OK then", and move on). Having said that, it's correct that you SHOULDN'T tolerate things like your first example - stupid parents thinking that only God can cure an illness and denying their child the help of modern medicine. Such thinking leads to unnecessary death and suffering and shouldn't be tolerated... yet most religious people don't think like that, so why bash those who are light or moderate believers if they're not harming anyone?
âoeSo I say, âoeLive and let live.â Thatâ(TM)s my motto. âoeLive and let live.â And anyone who canâ(TM)t go along with that, take him outside and shoot the motherfucker. Itâ(TM)s a simple philosophy, but itâ(TM)s always worked in our family.â
â George Carlin

--
Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
Re:true pioneer by colinrichardday · 2012-07-23 17:42 · Score: 1

Intolerance of belief is just as bad as intolerance of non-belief.
But how can we know that?
Re:true pioneer by Creedo · 2012-07-23 17:44 · Score: 1

Most of your "Marxism" comments are just stupid, but I just had to comment on one thing. Are you blind to the fact that atheists condemn Catholicism and the Southern Baptists on a regular basis? Look up Crackergate, or what atheists say about the SBC when it spouts off its regular round of crap about evolution or LGBT rights. Really, if you aren't aware of the criticism of those mainline Christian groups coming from atheists, then you aren't paying any attention anyway.

--
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Re:true pioneer by bmo · 2012-07-23 18:01 · Score: 1

Excuse me as I beat you senseless with a rolled up copy of "The Bloudy Tenant of Persecution for Cause of Conscience" by the founder of my state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bloudy_Tenent_of_Persecution_for_Cause_of_Conscience
Read and begone.
--
BMO
Re:true pioneer by colinrichardday · 2012-07-23 18:42 · Score: 1

Perhaps I was being too subtle, but how could Militant Agnostic know that tolerance is good?
I will try to read what you suggested, but I will not begone. Also, you may be confusing political tolerance with epistemological tolerance. Would The GratefulNet kill or prosecute the superstitious, or just not accept their claims?
Re:true pioneer by TheSeatOfMyPants · 2012-07-23 19:13 · Score: 1

Funny thing, the one person I've met that has tried to convince me to ditch my disability medications in favor of belief-based activities is an atheist that feels meditation can "cure" all kinds of things science indicates it can't. Likewise, when it comes to being aggressive jerks about folks that don't share their belief, I've unfortunately seen far more atheists like her engaging in it than religious people.

--
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
Re:true pioneer by bmo · 2012-07-23 19:41 · Score: 1

>Perhaps I was being too subtle, but how could Militant Agnostic know that tolerance is good?
Perhaps I'm being too subtle.
If you cannot divine my thoughts on the matter from what I've already written and referred you to, then I don't know what to say.
> Also, you may be confusing political tolerance with epistemological tolerance.
Why can't we have both?
Duh?
>Would The GratefulNet kill or prosecute the superstitious, or just not accept their claims?
Why don't you ask him? And there is a whole spectrum of intolerance between killing and not accepting claims.
You are being deliberately thick for no reason whatsoever. I'm done talking.
--
BMO
Re:true pioneer by colinrichardday · 2012-07-23 20:57 · Score: 1

If you cannot divine my thoughts on the matter from what I've already written and referred you to, then I don't know what to say.
I'm pretty sure that you were saying that we should tolerate people.
Why can't we have both?
We can have both, but should we have both?
I'm done talking.
Then so be it.
Re:true pioneer by icebraining · 2012-07-24 00:31 · Score: 1

If you promote intolerance against religious people, you increase the chance of your country being taken over by atheist Marxism
[citation needed]

which killed 100,000,000 people in the XX century.
No, that was Stalinism and Maoism.
Marxism defined a communist society as being stateless (lack of the State). Clearly this doesn't fit neither the USSR or the Mao Zedong's China.

If anti-theists were really defending reason and liberty, they would condemn Marxism with far more vigour than they condemn religion.
Unlike religion, Marxism is all but dead in Western countries. It doesn't make sense to condemn it any more than it makes sense to vigorously condemn the Vikings.
Furthermore, the fact that they aren't condemning it here doesn't mean they don't condemn it at all.

The fact that they don't give a damn about Marxism but hate religion strongly suggests that this isn't about reason or liberty - it is about arrongance. They find religion to be "supersticious" and "ridiculous" and do not tolerate that anyone believes in it.
You have no idea if they "give a damn about Marxism" or not, so this whole argument is baseless.

And you, giving examples of people who don't like doctors just prove your case to be wrong. Your examples are intellectually dishonest. If you were honest, you would criticize one prominent religion, such as Catholicism or Southern Baptist Protestantism.
The Catholic Church excommunicated the doctor who performed an abortion on a 9-year-old who had been raped (and whose pregnancy meant her life was extremely endangered), along with her mother, but not her rapist. Do you want something more fucked up than that?

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:true pioneer by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-07-24 03:23 · Score: 1

No, that was Stalinism and Maoism.
Which are implementations of Marxism.

Marxism defined a communist society as being stateless (lack of the State). Clearly this doesn't fit neither the USSR or the Mao Zedong's China.
That is the _ultimate_ goal of Marxism, but the _means_ to reach it is the "dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx _explicitly_ defended the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Unlike religion, Marxism is all but dead in Western countries. It doesn't make sense to condemn it any more than it makes sense to vigorously condemn the Vikings.
Absolutely false. Marxism runs Cuba, and has nearly taken over Venezuela. Bolivia and Equador are on their way. Colombia has a very violent Marxist narco-terrorist organization killing people in their country. Several other Latin American governments (including Brazil) have great admiration for Chavez, and explicitly defend dictatorial ideas such as "social control of the press". They aren't as bad as Venezuela because their opposition parties are stronger than the opposition of Venezuela; but they are getting stronger.
Second, you seem to have missed the later developments in Marxism - Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno. These people developed a cultural Marxism that is quite strong in Western Countries. See, for example, European Countries which censor politically incorrect ideas.

The Catholic Church excommunicated the doctor who performed an abortion on a 9-year-old who had been raped (and whose pregnancy meant her life was extremely endangered)
This is under dispute; you took one side of the dispute without any reason other than anti-Christian hatred.

, along with her mother, but not her rapist.
You are criticizing what you don't understand (as all anti-theists do). Excommunication is not a punishment for civil offenses. There is no excommunication for dealing cocaine, for example, even though dealing cocaine is a very serious sin. Civil offenses are not punished by the Church precisely because of the separation of Church and State.
Re:true pioneer by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-07-24 03:31 · Score: 1

Most of your "Marxism" comments are just stupid
For what reason?

Are you blind to the fact that atheists condemn Catholicism and the Southern Baptists on a regular basis?
That is not the point. The point is that anti-theists try very hard to mix Christianity and Islam (for example) in the same bag.
Whenever some theocratic Islamist terrorist blows a bomb in a crowded square, anti-theists say "this is what religion does". They know that Christian people, even if they have occasional faults, are nice and friendly people; so the only way to condemn religion per se is to say that Christianity is the same as Islam - which is a very ridiculous idea.
Re:true pioneer by Creedo · 2012-07-24 04:45 · Score: 1

For what reason?
For being false, first of all. "Atheistic Marxism" has been in decline for decades, and it's not because Christianity defeated it. It is because it is an unworkable social construct which failed in competition with moderate Socialism and Capitalism, especially when bolstered by a bedrock of humanism. Furthermore, defending against authoritarian dictatorship by embracing authoritarian dictatorship is stupid. Embracing the tinpot tyrants of Christianity to avoid Marxist dictators is a fool's game. What does the underlying dogma matter when they both would strip me of my rights and freedoms? And finally, your argument works just as well if you were arguing for Islam as a bulwark against "Atheistic Marxism."

That is not the point. The point is that anti-theists try very hard to mix Christianity and Islam (for example) in the same bag.
Whenever some theocratic Islamist terrorist blows a bomb in a crowded square, anti-theists say "this is what religion does".
As it most certainly was.

They know that Christian people, even if they have occasional faults, are nice and friendly people; so the only way to condemn religion per se is to say that Christianity is the same as Islam - which is a very ridiculous idea.
Really? So Christians aren't calling gays demonically possessed? They aren't push lies to children in violation of the Constitution? They aren't involved in the cover up of horrific crimes against children? They aren't involved in killing children for witchcraft? They don't file charges to have skeptics arrested for debunking their lying claims? They aren't fighting against laws like the Violence against Women Act? Those are just a smattering of current problems that Christians are causing or exacerbating. That's not even counting the numerous acts of evil that Christians are historically guilty of.
Shall I continue, or do you get the point yet? An individual Christian is most likely a perfectly fine and upstanding citizen. The same is true for the average Muslim, the average Jew, the average Hindu, etc. The institutions of Christianity, however, are just as filled with dogmatic ideologies as those of Islam and such. You mistake the fact that they have been largely neutered in the west for the idea that they are benign.

--
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Re:true pioneer by icebraining · 2012-07-24 05:10 · Score: 1

Which are implementations of Marxism.
No, they're derivations.

That is the _ultimate_ goal of Marxism, but the _means_ to reach it is the "dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx _explicitly_ defended the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Which is orthogonal to the existance of the State.

Absolutely false. Marxism runs Cuba, and has nearly taken over Venezuela. Bolivia and Equador are on their way. Colombia has a very violent Marxist narco-terrorist organization killing people in their country. Several other Latin American governments (including Brazil) have great admiration for Chavez, and explicitly defend dictatorial ideas such as "social control of the press". They aren't as bad as Venezuela because their opposition parties are stronger than the opposition of Venezuela; but they are getting stronger.
Fair point. For "Western" I meant US and EU.

Second, you seem to have missed the later developments in Marxism - Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno. These people developed a cultural Marxism that is quite strong in Western Countries. See, for example, European Countries which censor politically incorrect ideas.
Maybe so. I'd call that a far cry from Marxim, 'though, which is primarily an economic theory.

This is under dispute; you took one side of the dispute without any reason other than anti-Christian hatred.
Of course it's under dispute, that's a tantology. And I have no problem with Christians. I do have some problem with the Catholic Church "dome". But then again, so do many other Christians; you may remember that some actually rebelled against it and formed their own churches.
By the way, here's a Catholic site criticizing the decision: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2009/03/hard-cases-brazilian-9-year-old-has-abortion (this is just an example, I heard many others at the time). Are they filled with "anti-Christian hatred" too?

You are criticizing what you don't understand (as all anti-theists do).
I'm not an anti-theist. And as I've shown, there were Catholics criticizing it too. (Cue No True Scotsman fallacy)

Excommunication is not a punishment for civil offenses. There is no excommunication for dealing cocaine, for example, even though dealing cocaine is a very serious sin. Civil offenses are not punished by the Church precisely because of the separation of Church and State.
That's only a relevant justification for not excommunicating him.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:true pioneer by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-07-24 07:34 · Score: 1

Which are implementations of Marxism.
No, they're derivations.
What would be "pure Marxism" then? Stalinism, Maoism and Troskysm all defend totalitarian dictatorships. Also, see below.

That is the _ultimate_ goal of Marxism, but the _means_ to reach it is the "dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx _explicitly_ defended the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Which is orthogonal to the existance of the State.
I have read a 19th-century text by Engels and he does support a strong dictatorial state.

Second, you seem to have missed the later developments in Marxism - Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno. These people developed a cultural Marxism that is quite strong in Western Countries. See, for example, European Countries which censor politically incorrect ideas.
Maybe so. I'd call that a far cry from Marxim, 'though, which is primarily an economic theory.
Hum, no. Marxism is a philosophy of _everything_. It includes an economic theory (based on the labor theory of value), a philosophy of history, human nature, society and culture (based on the "materialist conception of history"), and even a philosophy of knowledge itself (based on the idea that truth is not absolute, but relative to class interests). Cultural Marxism maintains all of this philosophy, and still wants a very powerful state; the only differences are:
1) They give up on establishing a one-party dictatorship via a violent revolution, and do their struggle via gradual, ostensibly democratic means
2) They broaden the focus of struggle to include not only poverty but also feminism, gender theory, reverse racism, immigration, etc.
See, for example, the English efforts to jail prople who criticize homosexualism.

Of course it's under dispute, that's a tantology. And I have no problem with Christians. I do have some problem with the Catholic Church "dome". But then again, so do many other Christians; you may remember that some actually rebelled against it and formed their own churches.
By the way, here's a Catholic site criticizing the decision: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2009/03/hard-cases-brazilian-9-year-old-has-abortion [uscatholic.org] (this is just an example, I heard many others at the time). Are they filled with "anti-Christian hatred" too?
Possibly yes. Many of the worst anti-Christians are (nominally) inside the Catholic Church. See for example the famous Swiss priest Hans Küng. That man spends some eight hours per day meditating on how much he hates the Pope. Also, liberation(Marxist) theologians such as Leonardo Boff - they say that the "official Church" is the "church of the rich", that "it is part of the Capitalist system", etc. This is what Pope Benedict calls "the hatred of the apostate". Fortunately, these anti-Catholics have been rapidly losing their strength and credibility since the times of blessed John Paul II.

Cue No True Scotsman fallacy
Falsely claiming "No true Scotsman fallacy" is itself a fallacy.
The fact that there are people nominally inside the Church that _hate_ Church teaching is crystal-clear.
See, for example, the "Catholics for Choice" group, which is funded by George Soros and the PlayBoy foundation.

Excommunication is not a punishment for civil offenses. There is no excommunication for dealing cocaine, for example, even though dealing cocaine is a very serious sin. Civil offenses are not punished by the Church precisely because of the separation of Church and State.
That's only a relevant justification for not excommunicating him.
"him" who? I didn't understand that.
Re:true pioneer by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-07-24 08:29 · Score: 1

By the way, here's a Catholic site criticizing the decision: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2009/03/hard-cases-brazilian-9-year-old-has-abortion (this is just an example, I heard many others at the time). Are they filled with "anti-Christian hatred" too?
Also, you can see that the poster in that blog has trusted the Reuters information; and Reuters, in turn, only relays the opinion of the very same abortionist who performed the act! That is not very trustworthy.
Second, the bishop did not excommunicate anyone; the abortionists were automatically(latae sententiae) excommunicated by their own action.
Re:true pioneer by Creedo · 2012-07-24 10:09 · Score: 2

Apparently you have not heard of China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Equador and Bolivia.
China embraced capitalism.
Viet Nam is mixing Capitalism with Marxism.
Cuba is embracing capitalism.
Venezuela is failing at constructing a Communist economy.
Brazil has prospered by not governing from hard left principals.

That leaves you with Ecuador(a mix of capitalism and communism) and North Korea(a completely failed state). That doesn't seem to match up with your paranoid narrative, though, does it?

And you have not heard of the latest developments in Marxism, created by Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno.
The latest deveopments? From a series of authors who have been dead for decades? Care to elucidate what makes these particular dead men so dangerous to your worldview?

Cultural Marxism is alive and kicking in the West. Just go to an average university and see what books the philosophy/geography students read.
That's funny. I had enough philosophy for a minor, and I never once had a philosophy professor mention Marxism more than in passing. And geography? Care to list out the horrible things students are learning?

Check out what "moderate socialism" did to the economy of Europe.
Oh, you mean the debt based economic problems? How is that different from the US? How is it the fault of socialism?

The Bible says "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" What happened in the Middle Ages was a perversion of Christianity. AND IT HAPPENED 400 YEARS AGO.
WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about the Dark Ages.

Saying that "bin Laden is religious" is as relevant as saying "bin Laden has a long beard".
If you think that bin Laden's actions were due to something other than his religion, then you are so wildly misinformed that I'm not sure where to start.

The probability of a Christian commiting terrorism is the same as a long-bearded man commiting terrorism. Being "similar" to bin Laden in one aspect does mean one is a terrorist.
Holding an irrational belief as your core philosophy is always dangerous.

Pat Robertson is more a politician then a pastor; and he is a televangelist.
No True Scotsman fallacy.

You don't find this kind of rhetoric in Catholic churches.
You are wrong. Moreover, the Catholic church is quite comfortable in claiming that homosexual marriage will result in the destruction of the fabric of society.

The crimes primarily happened 30 YEARS AGO, during the ecclesial chaos that followed the revolution of 1968.
The crimes were horrific. The cover up by the entire Vatican heirarchy was arguably worse. And that cover up and and denial persists to this day. The Catholic church still wants to brush this under the rug.

On average, a Catholic priest less likely to comit such a crime then a publich school teacher, and a Catholic bishop is less likely to cover it up than a public school principal. But you conveniently focus on priests.
And those priests and bishops claim to speak with t

--
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Re:true pioneer by icebraining · 2012-07-24 10:20 · Score: 1

I love how dislike or even hating the Pope or the Catholic Church makes one anti-Christian in your view. By your own definition, Protestants are all anti-Christians. And you have the nerve of calling others intolerants.

"him" who? I didn't understand that.
The rapist.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:true pioneer by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-07-24 12:15 · Score: 1

I love how dislike or even hating the Pope or the Catholic Church makes one anti-Christian in your view. By your own definition, Protestants are all anti-Christians.
Not at all. I know Protestants who tolerate the Catholic Church. "Disagreein with" and "hating" are very different.

"him" who? I didn't understand that.
The rapist.
So it seems you agree that the Church was right in not excommunicating him? (If I misunderstood you, remember that English is my second language).
Re:true pioneer by Creedo · 2012-07-24 17:52 · Score: 1

No. Marxism is larger than you think. Marxism is a philosophy of _everything_. It contains an economic theory (based on the labor theory of value), a philosophy of history, human nature and society (based on the "materialist conception of history") and even a philosophy of knowledge itself (based on the idea that truth is not absolute, but relative to class interests). The fact that the Chinese government has partially liberalized the economy (banking is still state-controlled, for example) does not mean it has displaced Marxism. Even Lenin opened the economy for a time.
No, there is no one coherent "Marxism." Even the authors you mentioned are all over the map in terms of their philosophy. Hell, even your favorite Catholic church has strong Marxist claims, or have you already forgotten the social justice encyclicals of JPII?

"Latest" in relation to the entire lifespan of Marxism.
What makes these men dangerous to freedom is the cultural Marxism they have developed. See, for example, England sending people to jail for criticizing homosexualism.
That's false. You are referring to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The Waddington Amendment specifically protects the right to do so. And what does that have to do with Marxism? You could just as easily chalk that up to overzealous Humanism.

Your professors never mentioned Karl Marx, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse or Theodor Adorno? That is an extremely atypical university.
No, it's not. It is extremely atypical of your mental caricature of a university.

The US is not even remotely close of defaulting; Europe has many countries close to defaulting.
And many countries which are growing quickly(like Germany).

The US has grown an average 0.3% per year in 2009-2011; Europe has shrunk 0.3% per year.
Citation please. Not sure of the context.

The European population is aging, because each European woman has only 1.6 children. Yet their strong Marxist unions will not allow increasing the retirement age. The situation is unsustainable; expect the current troubles to get worse.
Do you just ignore countries like Germany when it suits your narrative? Do you not know that they have in fact raised their retirement age to 67 and are in discussions about raising it to 69?

And, the excess government spending is of course caused by socialism.
Ah, yes, those darned socialists, their concern for their fellow citizens and their unwillingness to be worked to death. How dispicable.

And the lack of fertility is caused by atheism. Religion has a well-known effect on fertility. It is no coincidence that Israel and the US have far greater fertility than other countries with similar income levels.
Ah, if only we atheists really could take the credit. Alas, it is mostly due to the availability of contraception, the educational level of females in a society and financial mobility. Religion does seem to cause spikes, but then, that argues that your little churches will be outbred by Muslims in short order, so I suppose you are screwed either way.

You mentioned Christianity as an authoritarian dictatorship, and that is from the Middle Ages.
Certainly, it wielded that power then. It attempts to do so now, and would certainly do so again if ever given the required political power. Something which I am very much opposed to.

They were (partially) due to ISLAM, NOT CHRISTIANITY. I am precisely protesting against this ridiculous, intellectually dishonest practice of mixing Christianity and Islam in the same bag.
And Fred Phelps is driven by Christianity. And Scott Roeder was d

--
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Re:true pioneer by icebraining · 2012-07-24 18:23 · Score: 1

Not at all. I know Protestants who tolerate the Catholic Church. "Disagreein with" and "hating" are very different.
Which is what the Catholics I linked to were doing - disagreeing with the decision, nothing more.

So it seems you agree that the Church was right in not excommunicating him?
It's not so much that I think they're right, but I think it's the irrelevant part in the whole issue.

If I misunderstood you, remember that English is my second language
I assume you're Brazilian based on your name and info? We actually speak the same native language ;) Well, two dialects of the same language, at least.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:true pioneer by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-07-25 04:19 · Score: 1

Which is what the Catholics I linked to were doing - disagreeing with the decision, nothing more.
OK, maybe I shot from the hip. But (as I wrote in another post) that Catholic was blindingly trusting Reuters, which was in turn blindingly trusting the very abortionist who performed the abortion! The mass media (including Reuters) has never been accused of being accurate or paying attention to details. Trusting Reuters is naive; both sides have to be listened to. And I have seen a gynecologist woman offering an opposite opinion.
And I prefer to speak in English, so I can train it. But thank you for the offer.
PS: I apologize for my brutishness and for "shooting from the hip". I try to correct these defects of mine, but it is hard.
Re:true pioneer by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-07-25 06:53 · Score: 1

No, there is no one coherent "Marxism." Even the authors you mentioned are all over the map in terms of their philosophy. Hell, even your favorite Catholic church has strong Marxist claims, or have you already forgotten the social justice encyclicals of JPII?
No. Defending the poor is absolutely different from being Marxist.

What makes these men dangerous to freedom is the cultural Marxism they have developed. See, for example, England sending people to jail for criticizing homosexualism.
That's false. You are referring to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The Waddington Amendment [wikipedia.org] specifically protects the right to do so. And what does that have to do with Marxism? You could just as easily chalk that up to overzealous Humanism.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
Cultural Marxism explicitly supports the marginalization of conservative speech. See the Herbert Marcuse concept of "repressive tolerance". It is no coincidence that these so-called "hate speech" laws are overwhelmingly supported by Marxism-inspired parties.

And many countries which are growing quickly(like Germany).
Growing 0.45% a year in 2009-2011 is not "quickly". And, the average (-0.3%) is more significant than the extremes.

The US has grown an average 0.3% per year in 2009-2011; Europe has shrunk 0.3% per year.
Citation please. Not sure of the context.
The CIA world factbook lists the growth in 2009, 2010 and 2011. I simply averaged them via the straightfoward
avg = (((1 + g1 / 100) * ( 1 + g2 / 100) * (1 + g3 / 100)) ** (1. / 3)) * 100 - 100

The European population is aging, because each European woman has only 1.6 children. Yet their strong Marxist unions will not allow increasing the retirement age. The situation is unsustainable; expect the current troubles to get worse.
Do you just ignore countries like Germany when it suits your narrative? Do you not know that they have in fact raised their retirement age to 67 and are in discussions about raising it to 69?
I am speaking of the European _average_. And Germany will have to increse the retirement age much more; it has 1.41 children per woman.

And, the excess government spending is of course caused by socialism.
Ah, yes, those darned socialists, their concern for their fellow citizens and their unwillingness to be worked to death. How dispicable.
A poll has shown that conservatives donate 30% more to charity than liberals.
Also, ruining your country's finances is not very responsible.

Ah, if only we atheists really could take the credit. Alas, it is mostly due to the availability of contraception, the educational level of females in a society and financial mobility. Religion does seem to cause spikes, but then, that argues that your little churches will be outbred by Muslims in short order, so I suppose you are screwed either way.
Except that the Muslim fertility rate has been not only declining, but collapsing.

You mentioned Christianity as an authoritarian dictatorship, and that is from the Middle Ages.
Certainly, it wielded that power then. It attempts to do so now, and would certainly do so again if ever given the required political power. Something which I am very much opposed to.
False. Freedom of religion/conscience/speech has been written down at the Second Vatican Cou

Re:Safe trip? by LordNimon · 2012-07-23 11:16 · Score: 1

Maybe it's another way of saying he hopes she doesn't go to Hell?

--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart

Rest well Sally by ravenswood1000 · 2012-07-23 11:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Rest well Sally. Sorry you passed away because of such a horrible condition. You did good maam.

Re:Rest well Sally by Kittenman · 2012-07-23 11:51 · Score: 1

Rest well Sally. Sorry you passed away because of such a horrible condition. You did good maam.
Well said. Condolences to her family, who have lost a remarkable lady.

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill

Re:Safe trip? by cpu6502 · 2012-07-23 11:28 · Score: 4, Informative

People do not want to admit that death==nonexistence so they make-up imaginary "trips" to some other place (heaven, hell, Elysian Fields, space, whatever). In reality Sally Ride's personality dissolved into nothingness at the moment her brain's neurons broke connection with one another when they were deprived of oxygen.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:Americans fixation with (a) deity by jhoegl · 2012-07-23 11:32 · Score: 1

You lost me with "Seriously."
If you are going to rant, stay on point, on topic, and within the same realm of thought.
Jebus H Visnu you must be new here.

Re:Safe trip? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 11:35 · Score: 2

as 'computer savvy people', we can all related to the analog of a computer running for a very long time. suppose its a calculation that is running for decades. its adding more info and detail to its result, converging in, getting closer to an answer, and, then ....

someone comes by, unplugs the power cord and the computer is thrown away, data and all.

is the data saved anywhere? not really! 2nd hand info could be saved but not the actual running program or its internal data.

it all gets turned off, thrown away and forgotton.

this is what life is. and its whole concept is stupid (from a conciousness POV).

some people need to make up stories to be ok with this absurd concept. they can't deal with the fact that an 80 year process just simply loses its power, all data is destroyed and that is that. the universe does not 'care'. there is no one there to care. all your work for your lifetime is ruined, destroyed, forgotton. you and I don't matter. none of us matters.

this drives people insane. or, it can. and so, our 'wise men' have created bedtime stories to keep those with simpler minds happier during their 80 year (or so) run.

I do understand the origin of the 'stories' but they are still very poor stories and they can do more harm than good.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:Americans fixation with (a) deity by MightyMartian · 2012-07-23 11:37 · Score: 1

He's just wasting some time waiting for the orange hair dye to set.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Yes, it is a sad day... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 11:40 · Score: 1

...when a supposed 'news for nerds' website starts alluding to dead people going on 'final trips'. What is this, Fox News? The Bible network?

Re:Yes, it is a sad day... by rossdee · 2012-07-24 00:45 · Score: 1

I was wondering if she was going to have her ashes sent into space (which would have been appropriate, however it wouldn't be NASA doing it of course)

curious what pops into your head at these times by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-07-23 11:41 · Score: 1

like the chorus from Mustang Sally.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.

Now she gets to roam the Universe !! by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-07-23 11:44 · Score: 1

Some people feel sad at the news of death

I do not

While we are living, we are _mostly_ stuck inside this gravity well - with the exception of our imagination

Only after one dies, that the spirit is freed from the bond of the body - if you believe in the existence of "spirit", that is - and in this gal's case, finally she gets to roam the Universe, without having to strap herself next to a big rocket

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Safe trip? by thereitis · 2012-07-23 11:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

some people need to make up stories to be ok with this absurd concept. they can't deal with the fact that an 80 year process just simply loses its power, all data is destroyed and that is that. the universe does not 'care'. there is no one there to care. all your work for your lifetime is ruined, destroyed, forgotton. you and I don't matter. none of us matters.

When a process dies, all the work it has accomplished remains. Same with a human.

I could counter your belittling of people who use these "bedtime stories" with this: those who have no belief in the possibility of a greater being are uncomfortable with the thought of something being inexplicable - ever.

She's dead. by REALMAN · 2012-07-23 11:45 · Score: 1

There is no "final journey'. When the brain stops working. life ends.

--
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -

Re:She's dead. by riverat1 · 2012-07-23 12:26 · Score: 3, Informative

It's a metaphor son.
Re:She's dead. by arth1 · 2012-07-23 17:19 · Score: 1

It's a metaphor son.
For it to be a metaphor, it has to be a metaphor for something. I fail to see what that could be, without invoking superstitious beliefs.

Here's to wishing her a safe trip... by Widowwolf · 2012-07-23 11:49 · Score: 1

Maybe she will get cremated and her ashes sent into outer space, which technically would be a final journey

--
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller

Let me clear it up for you... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 11:51 · Score: 5, Funny

It is simply pointing out a belief in Secular Frisbeeism.
The "final flight" is when your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck for all time.

- May you find the shingles soft Sally! -

Re:Let me clear it up for you... by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 21:12 · Score: 1

if you are not holy enough, you can also get stuck in the rain gutter.
but if you are holy, you can pass right thru.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Sally Ride was a Lesbian by adisakp · 2012-07-23 11:53 · Score: 5, Informative

I found out reading her obituary that she had a partner of 27 years, a fact that - despite her status as an American Hero - was not publicly announced until after her death.

Re:Sally Ride was a Lesbian by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 12:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Except she wasn't (publicly) a lesbian when she rode the shuttle. She was married to Steve Hawley (another astronaut). They married in 1982, she got her seat on the shuttle in 1983. She got together again with Tam O'Shaughnessy in 1985 (they were childhood friends), and she divorced Hawley in 1987. I would suspect that the marriage to Steve Hawley was more a political move (on her part, at least) to dispel any question within NASA about her sexuality and secure her position as the first American woman in space. Had she been an admitted lesbian in 1983, I seriously doubt she would have gotten her shot to go into space. The fact that she left NASA the same year she divorced Hawley lends credence to the possibility that the revelation of her sexuality (at least, internally within the organization) ended her space career.
Re:Sally Ride was a Lesbian by rubycodez · 2012-07-23 12:17 · Score: 1

So she was also the first U.S. lesbian in space; but was she the first lesbian in space? Who was the first gay man in space, or has that happened yet?
Re:Sally Ride was a Lesbian by RabidReindeer · 2012-07-23 12:46 · Score: 2

I cried a little when I heard she died.
Then I read about her having a "partner" and cried a little more. I would have loved to have her fly me to the moon. Dang.
Re:Sally Ride was a Lesbian by Swampash · 2012-07-23 13:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ride's partner of 27 years, Tam O'Shaughnessy, will be denied federal benefits because the Defense of Marriage Act says that was an unrelationship, not like the real relationships that good Christian hetero real Americans have.
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Re:Sally Ride was a Lesbian by arth1 · 2012-07-23 16:52 · Score: 1

She was married to Steve Hawley (another astronaut). They married in 1982, she got her seat on the shuttle in 1983. She got together again with Tam O'Shaughnessy in 1985 (they were childhood friends), and she divorced Hawley in 1987.
"Ah, gentle dames! it gars me greet,
To think how mony counsels sweet,
How mony lengthen'd, sage advices,
The husband frae the wife despises!"
Re:Sally Ride was a Lesbian by colinrichardday · 2012-07-23 17:49 · Score: 1

Tereshkova was 20 years before Sally Ride, who was in space 29 years before that (1934)? Or did you mean 49 years ago this year? Also, there were only two women in space before Ride.
Re:Sally Ride was a Lesbian by adisakp · 2012-07-23 18:55 · Score: 1

Here is an article with some quotes from the family:

Bear Ride, talking with BuzzFeed, said today, "We consider Tam a member of the family."
And, I hope the GLBT community feels the same," Bear Ride, who identifies as gay, said.
"I hope it makes it easier for kids growing up gay that they know that another one of their heroes was like them," she added.
The aritcle seems to imply that Sally's sister Bear is gay as well.
Re:Sally Ride was a Lesbian by rubycodez · 2012-07-24 13:43 · Score: 1

one of the other two in that 49 years was a lesbian?
Re:Sally Ride was a Lesbian by PyroMosh · 2012-07-24 15:39 · Score: 1

A couple problems:
First her first flight was in 1983. 49 years before her flight would be 1934. Clearly this is not correct.
Second, Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space flew 1963. But the Soviets didn't fly a second woman in space until Svetlana Savitskaya 19 years later. And she flew just a year before Ride's first flight.
So even though she was beat by 20 years, Ride was actually the third woman in space. So it's unlikely that one of the two before her was a lesbian also.
Both the Russians who went before her are still alive and as far as I know still married. But who knows for sure?
Personally I think it's a irrelevant to her legacy. Her accomplishments were the things she did, not the things she did as a woman, or the things she did as a lesbian.
Scientist, astronaut, educator. She sat on the Rogers Commission, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, and the Augustine Commission. Her contributions to human spaceflight are innumerable. The way she touched the next generations are incalculable.

--
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Re:Sally Ride was a Lesbian by PyroMosh · 2012-07-24 15:52 · Score: 1

I get your point, and I agree with your sentiment. But I think you have your facts wrong in this case.
I don't think Ride was eligible for any kind of federal benefits. She wasn't a career federal employee. She served as an Astronaut from 1978 to 1987. After that, as far as I know she returned to academia in California.
Would nine years as a federal employee have made her eligible for spousal death benefits after she left?
I don't think so, but does anyone know for sure?

--
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.

Re:Safe trip? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 12:01 · Score: 1

the works that it has 'calculated' is the emotions, knowledge, experience, insight. that is all 'dumped on the floor' when you die. shreds of 2nd hand versions of those 'results' are saved but not the first hand ones.

it all seems a waste. data held in ram (the brain) and power is pulled out, dumping the data forever into the bit bucket.

you say 'belief in a greater being' and I say that there is not one bit of evidence to support that. in fact, which greater being are you referring to? odin? no, we stopped believing in him. Ra? nope. long haired black dude that we insist was a white guy? nope, he's dust right now, also. has not been heard from in quite a long time.

where does it end? should we believe in unicorns? elves? there is exactly as much evidence to support the idea that elves live in keebler trees.

oh right, YOUR fairy stories are real. its the others that we 'know' are not true.

gotcha.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:Safe trip? by ubrgeek · 2012-07-23 12:02 · Score: 1

Best ... response ... ever. Very nicely said.

--
Bark less. Wag more.

Re:Safe trip? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 12:04 · Score: 1

the running program stopped and the algorithms lost. the power fuse blew, it cannot be replaced and the data is all gone, now.

at best, you have a screen capture and maybe some past data printouts.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:Safe trip? by sootman · 2012-07-23 12:05 · Score: 4, Funny

> ... personality dissolved into nothingness at the moment
> her brain's neurons broke connection with one another
> when they were deprived of oxygen.

Cool, I'm totally putting that on my tombstone.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.

Re:Awesome Gal. by camperslo · 2012-07-23 12:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Condolences to her family.

And condolences to her partner of 27 years, Dr. Tam E. O'Shaughnessy

Sadly even hero status didn't bring the right to legal marriage during their time together

Death is not a flight, it is the end of you. by itsybitsy · 2012-07-23 12:15 · Score: 1, Interesting

Death is not a flight, it's not a trip, it's not a journey, it is the obliteration of you where you cease to exist the moment your brain cells have died.

"What happens after you die? Nature is a harsh mistress indeed.

What happens after death is very clear, your body rots as it’s being recycled by Nature and “you” are permanently and utterly obliterated you cease to be no magical heaven, no roasting hell, you just cease to be when your brain stops working that’s it nothing more.

What happens when you take something apart, such as a car? As you begin to remove non-critical pieces it’s still a car, you can take the roof off and it’s still a car, you can take the hub caps off and it’s still a car, you can even take the doors off and it’s still a car; taking the wheels off and while it’s still a car it’s now a disabled car but at some point as you remove parts – critical parts – it’s no longer a car; and if as you take those parts off the car and destroy them so there is no chance of putting it back together either that’s what happens with humans and other living things at some point a critical component or critical components are removed or cease functioning that are critical for it to be alive and that’s it that is the moment you cease to be – when your brain stops functioning, just like a car ceases to be.

Now to be sure, did the car go to “car heaven”? Nope, it simple ceased to be, it vanished it’s car-ness is no more it existed from the point that it’s critical parts made it a car and was a car while it was a car and then it ceased to be after it was disassembled at that critical moment when enough parts where removed that it ceased to be

Enjoy being alive. It is all that matters. Everything else is meaningless.

There is no mystery about death. Only people who don’t want to face it or those that don’t like it make it mysterious and invent alleged gods and being saved by jesus to a futile pitiful attempt to defy the objective reality of Nature in it’s harshness and cold fact of obliterating end of life.

Science wins over mythology. If after reading the attached article/document you still believe in the resurrection of jesus you know that you’re highly delusional and denying the facts of life in the objective reality of Nature.

BE. Even BE kind to others. For no other reason than the shocking horror of our own ceasing to be.

Here is the science:"
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/07/29/what-happens-after-you-die/

Re:Death is not a flight, it is the end of you. by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 14:16 · Score: 1

ego.
its the only explanation of why humans think they 'deserve' to keep going forever.
is there any evidence AT ALL other than the untrustworthy info that is based on your perceptions and is entirely emotional-based?
just WHY would we continue to live on and on? why? because some other entity wants it that way?
really? is your mind that simple that this seems perfectly reasonable to you?
your assertion that spirts exist and conciousness continues is entirely synthetic and is a product of man's ego. its the same thinking that says 'the earth is the center of the universe'.
I know its hard to let go of the childhood stories but, man, they are just not real! its a shame that a grown man has to continue to believe childhood tales. that's really a shame.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Death is not a flight, it is the end of you. by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 15:33 · Score: 1

and let me leave you with this. the mind is a lousy piece of test gear. it can't be relied on to measure anything with reliability. (I design audio gear; and while I enjoy listening to it, I trust my instruments to tell me when things are peaked, nulled or optimized. I ack that my gear is better than I am when it comes to making greater-than or less-than valuation. my emotions could sway things way more than the variation I'm trying to test or measure. I know this and so I'm suspicious of any things that come in ONLY via mind/emotions. and so far, my friend, religion is entirely unverifyable (on purpose, for evasive defensive reasons). it exists only for those that have an emotional need or attraction to these things.
remove the emotion and you have nothing but a simple set of fairy stories and they are absolutely no different from each other. quite a lot of us realize this and its not just a few people who see it. in fact, a lot of people see this but are pressured into remaining silent or shamed into rejecting their own better judgement.
when you have a 'revelation' its only in your mind. and because of this, us 'sciencey folk' don't really take that seriously. it can't be verified or reproduced or studied and even the subject can't be sure its not just a bad trip or mind illusion.
when under severe stress, the mind really is not reliable. there's no reason you should base a whole way of life on something so untrustable!
I feel sorry for those that are conned and realize this very late. I am one of those; who was brought up in traditional religion, middle class, mainstream, etc. I was fed the whole 'god on a cloud' thing from early age and for quite a few decades, held onto it since it felt *good* to believe that a sky daddy is there to ultimately take care of me.
as I got a few more decades under my belt and saw the world for all its warts, there was no other conclusion I could come to that there really is no one in control 'up there'. no evidence to it and lots of counter evidence that shows there is no master controller, never was and never will be. its just not reasonable to assume there is one! a long-held myth is still a myth.
please don't waste your life thinking there's some daddy out there to make your 'afterlife' better. what we have is what we have now and that's it. to life in any way 'for some other life' is to waste that bit of life you have right now. this is NOT a 'savings bank'. there IS no 'save for the future'. there is no future.
have a good nite.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Death is not a flight, it is the end of you. by itsybitsy · 2012-07-23 15:35 · Score: 1

The car is a metaphor which you clearly missed.
We do not have a spirit that survives past the end of our life. What people call "spirit" is merely your consciousness or your feeling of being alive, when your cells dies that dies with you.
You're not talking about an open mind, you're letting your brain fall out of the hole you call an open mind. The laws of Nature prevent any afterlife for you other than bugs eating your corpse.
Logic isn't enough, evidence of science is also required. Read the linked article.
Yes the laws of Nature disprove the entire notion of a disembodied "spirit".
Re:Death is not a flight, it is the end of you. by itsybitsy · 2012-07-23 15:40 · Score: 1

Certain processes in Nature are irreversible. Take for example breaking a glass by smashing it on the floor into millions of bits and pieces of varying sizes. It's not possible to put it back together again as you'll always miss some pieces and it won't ever be the same. Cells are like that. When you starve them of oxygen at death they break up. They disintegrate. They are eaten by microbes fairly quickly. The decay process beings within minutes of death. Read the linked article for the gory in-depth details. These processes are irreversible in the same way that the broken glass reassembly is irreversible. The difference is that you're sentient and living and once the critical systems and cells in your body undergo this irreversible process there is no turning back. You can't alter the laws of Nature. So enjoy your life while you can and do the best you can to make a positive difference in the world.
Re:Death is not a flight, it is the end of you. by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 16:56 · Score: 1

Whatever works for you is ok. I suggest that 'Religion' is all entirely man-made, and has really nothing to do with a divine God. Your "sciencey" views do strike me as rather cold and you do seem somewhat cold yourself. Hey whatever floats your boat, Sir. I know of one adage to leave you with though, and I mean not to cause further distress to you, try it on to see if it fits. "Don't worry if you don't believe in God. Just KNOW that God believes in YOU."
Re:Death is not a flight, it is the end of you. by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 22:41 · Score: 1

Well itsy, you taught me what a 'flamebaiter' is, and that there's really no difference between a religous zealot and a science zealot. Both are close-minded and feel the need to be ''right'' no matter how. Playing your game allowed me to 'plant some seeds' that will always be in you. And I was also able to reach another important human being in obvious pain and angst over her medical worries. A double "win" in my book. Some might even comment how God works in mysterious ways.....
Re:Death is not a flight, it is the end of you. by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 23:14 · Score: 1

Pick any or all, just be sincere.
Re:Death is not a flight, it is the end of you. by Urkki · 2012-07-24 08:37 · Score: 1

Death is not a flight, it's not a trip, it's not a journey, it is the obliteration of you where you cease to exist the moment your brain cells have died.
Maybe. That's your belief, at least. I for one have hard time believing, that this "me" who is thinking about writing this, about self-conciousnes, is just a lump of atoms interacting electromagnetically. There's no "me" in that, it'd be just a glorified computer program, and I don't see a "me" like I feel I am rising from just that.
Therefore I'm inclined to believe, there's gotta be something more, something we don't know about.
Of course that "something more" could still gradually emerge as brain grows and then just vanish when the brain ceases to work. Observing effects of certain chemicals and drugs, as well as cases of brain damage, certainly proves that critical parts of that "me" and its memories etc depend on physical structure and chemical workings of the brain. But again, that does not necessarily tell anything about this "something more" or what happens to it if it remains after the brain is destroyed.
So, all I can say is, I believe there's something about true consciousnes we don't know anything about. But, not really knowing anything about it, it's hard to even speculate what this means in practice.
Re:Death is not a flight, it is the end of you. by fustakrakich · 2012-07-24 11:52 · Score: 1

...it is the obliteration of you where you cease to exist the moment your brain cells have died...
Still only temporary. Or, as they say, it's just a phase.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Ride, Sally Ride! by ChrisMaple · 2012-07-23 12:19 · Score: 1

T.A.N.J.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:Safe trip? by Roachie · 2012-07-23 12:36 · Score: 1

At last I found you O Great Philosopher!

Might I be so bold as to suggest you elaborate on your philosophy- but this time use the very effective technique of explaining it as a Car Analogy?

for example: "life is like car... when its out of gas.... it dont go anymore.... and thats it."

--
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.

Re:Safe trip? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 12:39 · Score: 1, Flamebait

the world is a shit-hole. animals feed on each other in order to survive. feed on each other in severe pain

you think a kind and wonderful designer came up with this?

now, I'm a carnivore, don't get me wrong. but I do see something horribly wrong with the notion that some infinitely smart and powerful being came up with this idea as his 'best attempt'.

life, as we know it and can see it, is all the proof one needs that there can't be a benevolent designer.

"oh, but you don't know all the details!"

bullshit answer. no designer worth anything would have 'designed' this world as it is.

I'm constantly amazed that people can suspend actual thinking when it comes to the notion of gods.

btw, you don't know shit about what comes after. stop acting like you know something. you don't. you're fooled and your emotions won't let your reasoning thru. its really just that simple. remove the handicap and you'll see things as they are. sans gods, demons, fairies and witches.

and while I'm on the subject, why believe in some of those and not others? I have as much 'proof' of demons and witches as you have of your favorite god story.

One last thing. Young Sir, after you die, get ready for a surprise!

stupid sheep.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

fuck you cancer by decora · 2012-07-23 12:40 · Score: 2

god i fucking hate cancer.

Re:fuck you cancer by arth1 · 2012-07-23 16:46 · Score: 1

Me too. What sucks about (as yet) uncurable cancers is that you're helpless to do anything about it. You cant argue with it, fight it away, wish it away, nothing. No matter, it'll do what it'll do. If you gotta' hate something in life, hate cancer.

I don't get this. We're all going to die; some die sooner, some later. I don't see it as that a big deal, cause we all do it.
Not all that many hundred years ago, 61 would have been considered a ripe old age -- around twice the average lifespan.
Cancer can be painful, and that's a concern. Especially when life is prolonged with nothing but pain to show for it. But at least you get the chance to finish up and try to do right for those left behind, if you want to.
I'd much rather get cancer and know I'd be gone in a while than a mind-altering disease or a disease that doesn't give me time enough to tie the loose ends, or one that would cause people to shun me. Cancer isn't the worst, as I see it. No need to hate it. Nor hate death.
Re:fuck you cancer by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 17:23 · Score: 1

I guess it depends on your point of view, at the time. Some say fires the worst way to go, other say drowning (real painful just 'before, I hear). My friend handled his cancer situation with amazing aplomb. I sure wouldn't have.

rest in peace by decora · 2012-07-23 12:42 · Score: 1

in my less angry mode, i remember talking about salyl ride when i was a kid. these were real people we could look up to. i dont know if they have a name for that kind of idealism of youth but i still think it is worth something, even after all we have been through and all we have learned about our own failures and mistakes as a species.

Re:rest in peace by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 17:09 · Score: 2

Yeah, there's a name for it. It's "Hero(ine) Worship.". And the kid in you sure picked a good one to 'idolize'. Sally Ride was tough, advenureous, brave and strong. She had what they call "sand". Grit. True grit, if you will. A fine choice you made.

Why did it take so long? by sageres · 2012-07-23 12:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

The first woman in space was Valentina Tereshkova. She flew on June 16th, 1963. That was two years after the first man flew into the space.
On the other hand, the first American woman (Sally Ride, RIP) flew in 1982.
Question: Why did it take NASA almost two decades to send the woman in space?

Re:Why did it take so long? by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 13:08 · Score: 2

The first woman in space was Valentina Tereshkova. She flew on June 16th, 1963. That was two years after the first man flew into the space. On the other hand, the first American woman (Sally Ride, RIP) flew in 1982. Question: Why did it take NASA almost two decades to send the woman in space?
Answer: At that time it was still very much a male dominated society in the U.S. Ms Ride shattered that way of thinking then, made a lot of then male-chauvinists begin to think, 'differently'. She knowingly 'rode an untested controlled bomb', in the search of knowledge. That is quite a brave feat that many males would have been too afraid to do. Gotta' respect that
Re:Why did it take so long? by arth1 · 2012-07-23 17:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

The first woman in space was Valentina Tereshkova. She flew on June 16th, 1963. That was two years after the first man flew into the space.
On the other hand, the first American woman (Sally Ride, RIP) flew in 1982.
Question: Why did it take NASA almost two decades to send the woman in space?
While part of the answer undoubtedly is misogyny and discrimination against women in general, part of it is a cultural taboo - female plumbing. Female cosmonauts used diapers, and thought little of it. Female astronauts probably would have (not alluding to the one that did) if male-dominated NASA hadn't spent millions and countless years on designing a space toilet and non-intrusive "devices" to let women pee in space.
Re:Why did it take so long? by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 17:50 · Score: 1

According to the movie, "The Right Stuff", John Glenn had to get permission from Houston to pee in his spacesuit, but it took quite a while to finally get the aok to do so, worries about short circuiting the spacecraft.
Re:Why did it take so long? by techybod · 2012-07-23 20:34 · Score: 1

wasn't that Alan Shepard rather than Glenn?

--
"Friends help you move, Real Friends help you move bodies"
Re:Why did it take so long? by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 23:08 · Score: 1

wasn't that Alan Shepard rather than Glenn?
Yes, correct. Never post while over-tired.

Theres a song about that by Killer+Instinct · 2012-07-23 12:56 · Score: 1

Ride Sally Ride
-KI

--
#include bier;

Re:Theres a song about that by GrahamCox · 2012-07-23 16:32 · Score: 1

We didn't start the fire....

(well, not about her, but mentions her)

Re:Safe trip? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 13:02 · Score: 1

It still baffles me that people assume that they can honestly state anything more than "I don't know" when discussing something that by its very definition cannot be known.

Fly in peace by opkool · 2012-07-23 13:06 · Score: 1

Fly in peace Sally.

Now cancer cannot touch you.

Your dream will live on with younger generations, thanks to your books and Sally Ride Science.

Peace!

Re:Safe trip? by artor3 · 2012-07-23 13:14 · Score: 1

And you base that on... what, exactly? Because I suspect it's based entirely on your need to feel smarter than other people.

The truth is, we have no understanding of what makes up the mind/spirit/soul/consciousness/free-choice-widget. Maybe you choose to believe there's no such thing, but I doubt it. I've yet to meet someone who honestly believed that they had no free will, and lived their life that way.

A talented and brave lady by HuguesT · 2012-07-23 13:17 · Score: 1

First American woman in space, she also served on both the Challenger and Columbia disaster investigation committees. She was not outspoken about her personal life but spared no effort so that future endeavors into space might be safer.

We are all sorry for her family's loss.

Re:Safe trip? by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 13:22 · Score: 1

That's cool man. Not ordering you to "believe" anything. I'd always been a 'prove it to me' kinda' guy myself. Well, for me, it was 'proven'. Just wish it wasn't proved up to me the way it happened, is all. Slashdot is where people can freely post ideas and opinions, which is what I've done. As they say, "Opinions and assholes. Everyone's got one!" You have a good, happy life, my friend. S.F.

Sally at JPL, circa 1985 by Xilinx_guy · 2012-07-23 13:23 · Score: 3, Informative

I met Sally (briefly) at JPL, after her 1984 Challenger mission. My impression was of someone who was confident, supremely able, and didn't worry a lot how she dressed. I got this impression since she showed up at the lab wearing shorts, and seemed instantly at home, like she'd been working there for years. Her later partnership with Tam was a surprise, since she gave no hint of that during her astronaut years. But yes, getting a ride on the big machine in the early 80's was a very political game, as much about appearances as it was about ability. And ability she had in spades. During the October 84 Challenger mission, all kinds of shit went wrong. An RF antenna cable on the radar overloaded and started arcing, causing the SNR to radically drop. The monitoring equipment at Johnson acted up, showing loss of TDRS downlink data when it was actually fine. I also seem to recall that Sally had to take apart parts of the shuttle with a wrench to get access to the data recorder, because of some malfunction or other. So overall, the mission was a disaster. But Sally took it all in stride. Best wishes, Sally. Some of us remember you.

Re:Sally at JPL, circa 1985 by Erbo · 2012-07-23 15:10 · Score: 1

I also got a chance to meet Dr. Ride, at a function for city government officials in the mid-80's, after her flight but before Challenger died. (My father, city manager of Poway at the time, took me.) She signed my copy of The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual.
Now the Shuttle is gone, and so is she. Sigh. Clear skies to you, ma'am.

--
Be who you are...and be it in style!

Re:Safe trip? by Capsaicin · 2012-07-23 13:23 · Score: 1

People do not want to admit that death==nonexistence

But death != non-existence, as anyone who has smelt a decaying cadaver can attest. "Her final trip" means the drive to the crematorium, or?

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke

Re:Safe trip? by artor3 · 2012-07-23 13:31 · Score: 1

Why does one need a god to believe in afterlife?

Maybe we exist in a massive computer simulation, which is programmed to simulate an afterlife for us. Maybe there are infinitely many worlds, and we live on in the other ones (i.e. quantum immortality). Maybe we're all part of a distributed hivemind that lives as long as humanity lives. Maybe the universe is on loop and we'll all re-exist in the next one. Maybe some religion got it right, and we'll end up in heaven or nirvana or get reincarnated. Maybe there is a right religion that has since been abandoned, and we'll all be surprised to end up in Elysium/Hades. Who the heck knows?

And what does it matter? None of them suggest you ought to do anything short of live life to the fullest, because, to steal from Shakespeare:

To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause

We don't know what comes next, so it's better to stick with the devil we know -- life.

It seems to me that you're the only here who has a problem with that, going off on your woe-is-me tirades, insisting that it's all for naught. If you really believe that, why not off yourself? Perhaps because you too fear "what dreams may come"?

Re:Safe trip? by Capsaicin · 2012-07-23 14:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Over the same 20 year period that you have been slipping into ... what should we call it ... spiritualism, my wife has been nursing in ICU and cardiac wards. Though she was raised to be religious, the many deaths she has witnessed have moved her from the "imaginary" position (to quote OP) to one more in keeping with the available evidence: that is something not dissimilar from OP's observation that "personality [is] dissolved into nothingness at the moment the brain's broke connection with one another."

Despite all the chatter of "weird unexplainable shit" happening, no-one has yet been able to provide any persuasive evidence of human consciousness existing absent a functioning human brain.

Old man, after you die, chances are you won't be aware that the surprise never came.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke

Wheel of Fortune Sally Ride Heavy Metal Suicide. by asn · 2012-07-23 14:08 · Score: 1

47 down, 9 to go: Queen Elizabeth II, Brigitte Bardot, Fidel Castro, Chubby Checker, Bob Dylan, John Glenn, Doris Day, and Bernhard Goetz.

The cat food can by andyring · 2012-07-23 14:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wow. I'm honestly quite surprised at what is a fairly high level of vitriol over what people choose to believe or not believe from a religious standpoint. C'mon, people. Can't we just let someone hold their religious beliefs without going out of our way to mock and deride them because you think you know better?

Ponder your cat. It has it's own world, it lives life freely, is fairly intelligent. It can plan, make decisions, etc. And yet it is not remotely possible for that kitty to understand, when you open the cat food can, how that food got there. All kitty understands is that you open the can and the food is simply there. Kitty's mind is not able to comprehend how that cat food came to be created, how it was packaged, labeled, transported, sold, etc. Kitty's brain isn't capable of understanding it. To kitty, it's not even a known unknown, it's an unknown unknown (to use some military/war/intelligence terminology).

Why couldn't us mere humans be the same way? Why couldn't there be a God or similar being whose entire existence completely and totally transcends ours? I realize that *could* open the face-two-mirrors-at-each-other paradox, but lets set that aside for the moment. To put it simply - just because you cannot conclusively prove that a God does not exist DOES NOT mean that God doesn't exist.

Re:The cat food can by gumpish · 2012-07-23 16:31 · Score: 2

To put it simply - just because you cannot conclusively prove that a God does not exist DOES NOT mean that God doesn't exist.
Russell's teapot
To put it simply - just because you cannot conclusively prove that an invisible Bob Newhart is not trying to steal your brain DOES NOT mean that he isn't.
Re:The cat food can by ThatsMyNick · 2012-07-23 16:47 · Score: 1

If you cannot prove it, he very well could be. This is one of the known unknowns as GP put it. There are many things that go well into unknown unknowns territory.

And do you realize you did not disprove GP's post (I suspect you believe you did), but just stated that the opposite could be possible too.
Re:The cat food can by dunkelfalke · 2012-07-23 20:17 · Score: 1

Why couldn't us mere humans be the same way?

There are humans that are exactly the same way. Look up Wikipedia for cargo cult.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:The cat food can by TrekkieGod · 2012-07-24 00:05 · Score: 1

In your analogy, humans are the cat gods. We're responsible for building the plant where the food gets packaged, something the cat doesn't know exists. We're responsible for going to the store and buying the cat food, another place the cat doesn't even know exists. Finally, we're responsible for opening the can, a process the cat can observe, but cannot hope to achieve.
There is one important difference between the cats and ourselves, in your analogy. It is in constant interaction with its gods, it can see us doing things it cannot do and cannot comprehend. And while we can can question whether there is a soul or whether we are entirely a product of the functioning of our brains, the cat has proof there was food inside the can and therefore something it doesn't understand must be happening.
There are plenty of things about the universe that we cannot yet understand, but considering how much progress we continue to make in explaining things that were once unexplainable, no reason to believe that there's anything we're intellectually incapable of understanding.

--
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Re:The cat food can by girlintraining · 2012-07-24 08:05 · Score: 1

Can't we just let someone hold their religious beliefs without going out of our way to mock and deride them because you think you know better?
Not when their religious beliefs cause them to deny others very real, tangible benefits in society. At that point it ceases to be a religious belief and instead becomes religious oppression. While not everyone is so eloquent at delineating the difference, religious fundamentalists still deserve every ounce of shit we can fling on them on that basis alone.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:Americans fixation with (a) deity by radiumsoup · 2012-07-23 14:22 · Score: 1

Oh, you must be right because you're not an American, is that it? Because all Americans are xenophobic, and all non-Americans aren't, right? Like you? Right? You probably don't even wonder why I don't care to know where you're from. And if that's true, that'd be the most telling thing of this entire exchange. I'll let you stew on that for a while. For your sake, and that of your neighbo(u)rs, I hope you take an objective step back and do some self analysis on it.

and you know the worst fucking thing about cancer by decora · 2012-07-23 14:30 · Score: 1

is that its not like some psycho in a movie theatre. one minute you are there, eating popcorn, the next minute you are in the afterlife. no

cancer last for years. sometimes 10 years sometimes 30. you never know. and what do you get to do while you are waiting? sit around on a fucking tube while your body wastes into some kind of alien being while you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on $9 advils and whatever. but you cant get marijuana, that would be 'wrong'. just a fuckton of morphine. its all fucking bullshit.

Re:Safe trip? by Bad_Feeling · 2012-07-23 14:32 · Score: 1

Thanks Sheldon.

--
Disclaimer: On the other hand, I am kind of a psycho...

Please keep logic and language intact by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-07-23 14:46 · Score: 1

tolerance of superstition is not tolerance.

If you want to support intolerance of people who think differently of you, say so.

Don't rationalize with this bizarre redefinition of the word "tolerance".

Re:Please keep logic and language intact by arth1 · 2012-07-23 16:31 · Score: 1

If you want to support intolerance of people who think differently of you, say so.
Superstition isn't about thinking, though. It's an ability to suspend thinking.
Of course the people should be tolerated, but their superstitions should not.
If I point out to a child that truly, there is no monster under the bed, that's not intolerance.
Disallowing public nudity or same sex marriage because it's against your religion, on the other hand, is intolerance.
Re:Please keep logic and language intact by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-07-24 03:34 · Score: 1

If I point out to a child that truly, there is no monster under the bed, that's not intolerance.
You are free to criticize Christianity by _expressing_ your anti-Christian ideas.
The problem with anti-theism is that they actively campaing against the human rights of Christians - such as the right to freedom of conscience and religion, and the right to political participation, which are both recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Disallowing public nudity or same sex marriage because it's against your religion, on the other hand, is intolerance.
The same would hold for other belief systems.
Disallowing oil drilling in Alaska because it's against your beliefs is intolerance.

Re:Safe trip? by gumpish · 2012-07-23 14:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

I like how you gloss over the fact that science has been quite successful at ushering members of the set of inexplicable things to the set of understood phenomena.

I for one am glad that there are rational humans who chafe at the inexplicable - that's what drives them to discovery.

I would rather have progress than convenient, reassuring bedtime stories.

Re:Safe trip? by Genda · 2012-07-23 15:21 · Score: 1

The problem is you don't know anything. We don't know anything about what it means to die. One great big presumption on top of another. Your religion is no more compelling than the one with the big white guy on a throne. Are the ripples of our consciousness part of the signal of space-time, is our consciousness the universe impinging on the meat, and does it stop when the meat does. You presume the signal lives in the meat, my friend, that is purely speculation. You have no idea what our universe is, how it related to other universes, is it a 2D projection on the surface of a black hole, in which case the information of which we're composed never dies and time is an illusion. You don't know anything about any of this with anything resembling certainty and we are all still searching for possible truths. What's apparently so, is that we experience the meat ceasing to be. That's what we can say. Anything else is simple hubris.

Re:Safe trip? by fructose · 2012-07-23 15:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Original story submitter, here. I am an atheist, but I don't believe that death=nonexistence. Her accomplishments, her impacts, and her memories will continue to affect others for a long time. In a way she is still with us, especially to those whom she was closest to. Her final flight is in to our collective memories and our history.

Re:and you know the worst fucking thing about canc by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 16:18 · Score: 1

So, it's you, you have a cancer. I hate even that word. Maybe, and please don't hate me ( it's me, sternishefan here posting ac again), maybe in 'this' life, we all get 'tested', in one way or another. Sometimes, I think, we even get 'used' by 'the big cheese' for his/her own reasons. Maybe because He/She knows we can handle it. I've been through some stuff in my life, not like what you're having to endure, but hard for me. I learned that I was stronger than I knew, at the time. You couldn't have convinced me of that then, I think. YOU have strength and bravery I wish I had. I've learned that, looking back, every time I was down, don't ask me how or even why sometimes, I got up again. I guess maybe because that's what we do best, getting up after being knocked down, you relate to that, right? Keep on keeping on, dear, until you finally can't. Then, go a little more, then rest. You can't see them, but you DO have angels, spirits, around you, 'singing' you on. And I'm saying this to piss off some other /.ers reading along now. I 'know' some things that quite frankly I wish I didn't sometimes, as you see the response I get sometimes! (lol) I would not lie to you dear, I know of what I speak. Stay strong, handle 'your' burden with the best 'grace' possible for you, that is the true measure of a man or woman. Not that bad things happen to us, but in how we handle ourselves when they do. How we 'react' is what we 're 'judged' by. Something tells me you'll do just fine in that department. Be proud of yourself! for getting way further than some of us would ever get if in your position. I don't even know you, and I am very proud of you! Take good care, dear. S.F. ;-)

Re:and you know the worst fucking thing about canc by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 16:25 · Score: 1

And 20 years ago there was no such thing as 'medical' marijuana. Our friend wanted to smoke a joint, he smoked! No debate. Any lawmaker had a loved one with cancer would break their own law, if they had any humanness to them. Get a friend to smuggle something in for you, do it in the bathroom or out the window. What are they gonna do, arrest a patient?! I don't think so!

Re:Safe trip? by Amiga+Trombone · 2012-07-23 16:34 · Score: 1

no designer worth anything would have 'designed' this world as it is.

Rather arrogant of you to be telling a being presumed to be omniscient, immortal and capable of creating universes how it should be running things, isn't it?

I submit that if He/She/It exists, it probably has a somewhat broader and more mature perspective than you do.

Re:Safe trip? by Iskender · 2012-07-23 16:34 · Score: 1

In reality Sally Ride's personality dissolved into nothingness at the moment her brain's neurons broke connection with one another when they were deprived of oxygen.

I won't comment on the religion discussion here, since there's something more relevant to say:

Regardless of what what you or anyone else thinks about religion your above line is a total dickhead response to someone else's passing. You're trying to further your opinion while giving off the impression of having no empathy whatsoever.

I hope it's a role you play only on the Internet and that you actually behave like a human when you hear of someone's passing in real life.

Re:Safe trip? by Capsaicin · 2012-07-23 16:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is no conclusive evidence of life after death, but there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know, so why fret about it?

Heinlein misspoke. Surely that should be "there is no evidence of any kind of life after death, but there is no conclusive evidence against it." If I didn't know any better I might think that the author stemmed from a time and place in which the belief in life after death was generally accepted.

One can postulate any number of imaginary things for which there is no, or cannot be, any evidence of their non-existence. Which is why we usually don't waste too much effort establishing the non-existence of things for which there is no prima facie evidence.

As regards post-mortem consciousness, we have a) an absence of any empirical evidence, b) no necessary logical inference from the nature of existence and c) a compelling psychological reason for self-deception. Although post-mortem consciousness may not be impossible, we cannot establish at a high probability that it does occur. Thus contra Heinlein, there is no good reason to believe that we will "know" soon enough ... chances are, we simply won't know.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke

Re:Wheel of Fortune Sally Ride Heavy Metal Suicide by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 16:36 · Score: 1

47 down, 9 to go: Queen Elizabeth II, Brigitte Bardot, Fidel Castro, Chubby Checker, Bob Dylan, John Glenn, Doris Day, and Bernhard Goetz.

And one fine day, you and I. "No one here gets out alive."-Jim Morrison

Re:Safe trip? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 16:52 · Score: 1

Ah, you're one of those "big picture" people, eh? Do you at least have the intellectual probity to take those beliefs to their logical, bilious conclusion?

I mean, if everything is fit to be considered at the "heat death of the universe" scale, then you should live an amoral life. Because, after all, if it's all destined for eventual destruction, then what's the matter with killing a few billion people for your transient amusement?

Let "Did It 4 Teh Lulz" be the whole of the law...

Re:Safe trip? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 17:22 · Score: 1

those who have no belief in the possibility of a greater being are uncomfortable with the thought of something being inexplicable - ever.

Your logical fallacy is Black-or-white

I for one have no issues with things being inexplicable. But I am curious, and like knowing about the world instead of living in a fairytale. You see, understanding this world makes us able to improve on it in remarkable ways. Those who are uncomfortable are those who refuse to accept well-proven science, not the ones that seek to expand their knowledge no matter what answers they get. The truth may be harsh, but it's far better than the alternative.

And I'll end it with a Tim Minchin quote:
"Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved".

Re:Safe trip? by arth1 · 2012-07-23 17:36 · Score: 1

I mean, if everything is fit to be considered at the "heat death of the universe" scale, then you should live an amoral life. Because, after all, if it's all destined for eventual destruction, then what's the matter with killing a few billion people for your transient amusement?

The problems of (a) doing it, and (b) getting away with it.

If I had a big red button that would kill all life on the planet in a millisecond, I probably would use it. It'd cease a lot of pain and suffering, both now and in the future. And no one would know.

Re:Safe trip? by Creedo · 2012-07-23 17:36 · Score: 1

The truth is, we have no understanding of what makes up the mind/spirit/soul/consciousness/free-choice-widget. Maybe you choose to believe there's no such thing, but I doubt it. I've yet to meet someone who honestly believed that they had no free will, and lived their life that way.

First off, if you think we have no understanding of what makes up the mind, I must assume that you are deliberately remaining ignorant of basically all neuro-biology for a reason. Because that's the only reason you can't be familiar with the general view of consciousness.
And your "free will" idea is just silly. How exactly would someone live if they didn't believe in free will? I believe that free will is an illusion. How am I supposed to behave differently than if I didn't believe that?

--
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.

Re:Charles Tart on moving past materialistic think by Creedo · 2012-07-23 17:37 · Score: 1

I can't decide if you are trolling or not. If so, bravo! If not, I pity your foolish gullability.

--
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.

Yep by colinrichardday · 2012-07-23 17:38 · Score: 1

I wonder how Steve Hawley felt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Ride#Personal_life

Re:Yep by cyn1c77 · 2012-07-24 06:21 · Score: 1

Since most men find lesbians fascinating, I am sure he was ecstatic about it.

Re:Vagina Pioneer! by colinrichardday · 2012-07-23 17:51 · Score: 1

She was the first American woman in space; she was preceded by two women cosmonauts.

Re:Agressiveness and arrogance prove one is wrong by Dave+Cole · 2012-07-23 17:57 · Score: 1

So according to your logic we can disprove the theory of gravity (or any other scientific theory) just by finding someone obnoxious to claim it is true.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Safe trip? by phantomfive · 2012-07-23 18:00 · Score: 1

then what's the matter with killing a few billion people for your transient amusement?

Because it wouldn't actually amuse me.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:Safe trip? by bolt_the_dhampir · 2012-07-23 18:31 · Score: 1

To say something is "inexplicable", you first have to prove it is so. Otherwise I am very uncomfortable with you calling it that. I am much more comfortable with "we haven't figured that one out yet" and am willing to live my life either not having that information, or helping to figure it out, depending on what the information is. Deciding on one's own that something is "inexplicable" is a pointless activity and is probably detrimental to progress.

Re:Not first person in space by colinrichardday · 2012-07-23 18:45 · Score: 2

I don't discriminate between men and women.

That doesn't mean no one else does.

Re:Safe trip? by TheSeatOfMyPants · 2012-07-23 18:54 · Score: 1

As an agnostic that used to self-identify as atheist, I agree. It was actually the new-atheist cult that showed me where my beliefs truly are: their comments made me see that it's one thing to believe that we can't know either way while harboring strong suspicions, and a whole other (extremely arrogant) one to claim absolute knowledge of something that thus far can't be measured or proven, let alone to harass or attack others for disagreeing.

--
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)

Re:Safe trip? by fremsley471 · 2012-07-23 19:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Several people I have known have appeared to me in my dreams as they died. One recent apparition was during the day, in an idle moment my thoughts were a tumble of old memories of an old acquaintance as they died of cancer (which I was unaware of). They don't haunt me, and only in one case has there been any interaction; someone I went to school with was stabbed, I was shaking him awake in my dreams, although I was 200 miles away at the time. I told his cousin on the Monday morning, after he asked "Did you hear what happened to Mark?" Mark died on the operating table, but was bought back. There have been several other incidences, but nothing supernatural happened when my father died when I was eight, or my mother in my arms a few weeks back.

These are the most amazing events that have happened in my life. I know that were are more than a bunch cells. However, and it's a big however, I also understand that the most likely explanations are I'm a big, fat liar or it's all just coincidences. It's impossible to refute the first, it's all about that beautiful word, trust. I'm also a scientist and understand the concept of proof and how coincidences work. But we're 30 years on, and still haven't dreamed about Mark again.

Re:Safe trip? by Ultracrepidarian · 2012-07-23 19:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm an atheist, but have given this a great deal of thought in the last few months since my wife's death after a long illness. My wife is gone, and I shan't see her again, but I can see the imprint she left on those around her. She left this world a better place by inspiring those around her to better things. Perhaps it's just a localized reversal of entropy. Sally Ride was one of those people who has left the wold better than she found it. Some are just along for the ride.

Re:Safe trip? by kermidge · 2012-07-23 20:24 · Score: 1

Yup, we don't know means we don't know.

Meanwhile, goodbye, Sally, and thank you.

Re:Safe trip? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 21:23 · Score: 1

dreams are firings of stuff in your brain. its house-cleaning and you are watching it clean up memory and yet you think that there should be meaning attached to this firings? you actually believe this?

the mind cannot be trusted. I think the blindfold experiment where they conditioned a person to expect hot but it was really ice. he got burns. the mind messed with him and he got an invalid conclusion from it.

after that, I stopped trusting the mind as a test gear device or measurement instrument. its just too easily fooled. and one should not come to major conclusions (god is real or not real) based on what your bag of chemicals upstairs is lying to you about.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:Agressiveness and arrogance prove one is wrong by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 21:31 · Score: 2

if you want to get into it, lets go!

yes, I hate the belief in god. its a weakness, it causes fights and violence due to the us-vs-them syndrome. its more of a means to separate us than to bind us.

mental illness is mental illness. being in fashion does not excuse the fact that its harmful and is a flaw that should be fixed.

mass delusion does not mean the masses are correct. the masses were wrong and the size of the gullible group does not make their viewpoints any more correct.

what else do I hate about the whole religion thing? the fact that we used to (still do, in some places) fear for our lives just by speaking how we feel. do YOU get threatened by staying you believe in sky fairies? no, you don't. you can't understand what its like to be persecuted and threatened with violence simply because you won't buy into the groupthink that everyone else was forced to go along with.

and yes, its forced. how many children have a free choice in their indoctrination? almost none of them. they get you while you are young, impressionable and defenseless.

the only difference between a cult and a religion is the size of the groupthink and how many followers they have. we don't 'like' cults but we seem to tolerate religions.

I hate illogic and intentional misdirection. that is what religion is mostly about and so I do hate it. I hate what it does to people and I hate that its so lodged in society that its near impossible to remove (safely).

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:Safe trip? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 21:37 · Score: 1

not arrogant.

I'll take woody allen's quote: if this is the best god can do, it seems as if he's a bit of an under-achiever.

(somewhat of a quote, not exact words, though. and I'm too lazy to net.search the exact words)

seems reasonable to me. if you are impressed by the design of this world, you are EASILY impressed, my friend.

I dont think a world where living forms feast on each other in pain is ANY kind of wonderful deity-designed world.

that is, unless the deity is a supreme ASSHOLE.

but that contradicts the idea of god. right?

this world is full of pain. why add pain? you mean to tell me this was the ONLY way to 'run things' ?

no matter where I look, I see stupid ways that did not come about from careful thought and foresight.

I don't know - how come some of us see this and yet others think its all sunshine and sugar, in this world?

I do understand that we have no say in how life works. we eat food and there is pain and suffering all throughout the process. we can't change that. but would YOU design a world based on pain and suffering? really? and an infinitely wise being? this is the BEST he can do?

under-achiever. woody's joke is spot-on.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:Safe trip? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 21:41 · Score: 1

and even that will fade.

we will fade.

our history will be forgotton.

the sun will supernova.

and yet some people still think that 'things continue to exist forever'.

even the solar system will not be around forever. you think 'the soul' is going to outlive the supernova that eventually comes?

all things are temporary. even the galaxy that we would have thought, not too many years ago, will die someday.

(laughs at the thought that maybe someone will reply back, 'yeah but galaxies also have souls!')

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Are astronauts at higher risk of cancers? by fantomas · 2012-07-23 21:52 · Score: 1

An awful shame when somebody dies that young.

Anybody know if astronauts are markedly more susceptible to illnesses like cancer due to greater exposure to radiation outside of the Earth's atmosphere?

Or is the increased exposure in their few days out of the atmosphere pretty insignificant in terms of increasing the chances of cancers etc. developing compared to their various exposures in 60 years plus of living inside the atmosphere?

Re:Are astronauts at higher risk of cancers? by rossdee · 2012-07-24 01:34 · Score: 1

I don't know if they have enough of a sample to analyse that. But The ISS astronauts and Mir cosmonauts have each spent a lot more time in space than Sally Ride. Have any of them died of cancer?
And going into space in a shuttle was not the safest thing to do anyway.

Re:Agressiveness and arrogance prove one is wrong by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 21:59 · Score: 1

news item from today. witness the power of god and his believers:

http://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/police-have-no-suspects-in-reported-hate-crime/article_7f7885ce-ceb6-5ced-93bc-24c101aab53b.html

'believers' are really the only ones who seem to hate gays. they are so SURE they are right and on god's side, they feel that violence is justified.

remove relgion and its dogma and this woman would not have been victimized.

the brainwashing from the extremist christianists is extremely harmful.

I'm not aware of any athiests that threaten bodily harm to non-athiests, though..

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Ms. Ride's bio links. by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 23:02 · Score: 1

Sally Ride taught the world about how our lives should never be taken for granted. Farewell Dr. Ride. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/aviationspace/p/sally_ride.htm . Ms. Ride's Facebook resume: www.facebook.com/sallyridescience/info . http://library.thinkquest.org/4034/ride.html . Wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Ride

Not even the first *woman* in space by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 23:12 · Score: 1

That was a troll, but more to the point, Sally Ride was also not the first woman in space. Come on, this is the internet. It extends outside of America. Why are the accomplishments of non-Americans invisible here? The first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, beat Sally Ride by 20 years! I have no problem with Ms. Ride being honored and revered, but the downside of treating her as some sort of pioneer for women presupposes that non-US women don't matter.

Re:Not even the first *woman* in space by SternisheFan · 2012-07-23 23:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

American press did not report that fact an awful lot, and U.S. schools really did not teach much to kids of the Soviet space-race achievments, basically only U.S. progress got any airplay during those post cold war days. Not one of our best moments. But that's why it's not as ingrained in the American psyche.

Re:Safe trip? by no+bloody+nickname · 2012-07-23 23:42 · Score: 1

Maybe you choose to believe there's no such thing, but I doubt it. I've yet to meet someone who honestly believed that they had no free will, and lived their life that way.

Well hello there then.
I don't believe in free will, not yours and not mine. The reason is simply because I have seen no evidence to support the existence of it.

Your logic is severely flawed: If I have no free will I cannot, due to my very lack of said free will, make a free decision to alter my behavioural patterns
to better fit my lack of free will.
It makes no matter to how a person lives his/her life since we are mainly following the instructions from our neurons/glands anyway.
If, for instance, I see a person kicking an infant (or performing a similarly heinous act) I'd automatically feel repulsed and want that person to suffer
some form of punishment. The fact that I can rationally comprehend that the persons mental faculties may be somehow 'broken' does not
actually change my behaviour. As a male I am hardwired so that I would enjoy seeing this person get his (in my mind) rightful punishment; the
pleasure centers in my mind would light right up with activity if you were to measure it.

Simply put if you have no free will and you know it doesn't make you any more free to do anything about your lack of free will than if you are blissfully
ignorant of it

Re:Safe trip? by icebraining · 2012-07-23 23:50 · Score: 1

An agnostic is still an atheist, just not a gnostic one /pedant.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

Re:Safe trip? by icebraining · 2012-07-23 23:56 · Score: 1

Sorry, but in this case, Carlin > Allen:

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the rÃ©sumÃ© of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

Re:Charles Tart on moving past materialistic think by markbark · 2012-07-24 01:08 · Score: 1

"while many skeptics and scientists deny the existence of these spiritual phenomena, the experiences of millions of people indicate that they do take place."

Sorry, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"

Take all those experiences and add specificity and controls and maybe we can talk.

Re:Safe trip? What is life? by scharkalvin · 2012-07-24 01:56 · Score: 1

I watched my two daughters grow up from babies to young adults. I remember that as babies they at times seemed like soleless animals, little more than puppies, eating, sleeping, (and other body functions). At night they would sometimes wake up with a totally blank look in their eyes as if nobody was at home. You can say that this is just the way the human brain matures, that not all of our nurons are switched on at the moment of birth and that we have to make the connections. You can also call this 'learning'. However to me it seemed as if their souls had not been 'delivered yet'. This happened at a few months of age when it seemed they had suddenly turned into people with real consciousness and self awareness. If you've never watched the day by day the process of a new life starting out and developing you might not understand what I've experienced here.

Re:Safe trip? by cpu6502 · 2012-07-24 02:07 · Score: 1

There is not evidence of any sort against the existence of Santa Claus or Easter Bunny either. Does that mean I should build shrines to them & bow down to worship them?

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:Safe trip? by gshegosh · 2012-07-24 02:28 · Score: 1

People do not want to admit that death==nonexistence so they make-up imaginary "trips" to some other place (heaven, hell, Elysian Fields, space, whatever). In reality Sally Ride's personality dissolved into nothingness at the moment her brain's neurons broke connection with one another when they were deprived of oxygen.

+1 Uncomfortably True, but...
Is this really a place and time to write something like that? I guess if someone close to you dies, that's too all you're gonna have to say?

Re:Agressiveness and arrogance prove one is wrong by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-07-24 02:56 · Score: 1

http://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/police-have-no-suspects-in-reported-hate-crime/article_7f7885ce-ceb6-5ced-93bc-24c101aab53b.html

What is the evidence that this was caused by Christianity?

'believers' are really the only ones who seem to hate gays.

Baseless lie. The Catholic Church condemns unjust discrimination. Violence
against homosexuals is often caused by neo-nazis, who hate authentic Christianity
as much as they hate Jews, blacks and homosexuals.

I'm not aware of any athiests that threaten bodily harm to non-athiests, though..

Marxists.

Re:Agressiveness and arrogance prove one is wrong by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-07-24 03:24 · Score: 1

So according to your logic we can disprove the theory of gravity (or any other scientific theory) just by finding someone obnoxious to claim it is true.

Straw-man.

Re:Safe trip? by WhitePanther5000 · 2012-07-24 04:07 · Score: 1

Our sun is too small to form a supernova. It will, however, turn into a red giant and engulf what was once known as Earth.

Re:Safe trip? by turtledawn · 2012-07-24 08:03 · Score: 1

My sympathy for your loss.

--
Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10

Re:Agressiveness and arrogance prove one is wrong by Urkki · 2012-07-24 08:09 · Score: 1

if you want to get into it, lets go!

yes, I hate the belief in god. its a weakness, it causes fights and violence due to the us-vs-them syndrome. its more of a means to separate us than to bind us.

mental illness is mental illness. being in fashion does not excuse the fact that its harmful and is a flaw that should be fixed.

Religion is not mental illness, it's a normative behavioural pattern of human species. Also, without religion to promote literacy and help maintain organized society in times when just not dying of hunger was the number one concern for majority of people, we'd still live in leaf huts in jungles. Without religion to help organize people and keep them in line, there wouldn't ever have been a civilization able to develop science and technology.

Sure, all religions may be fairy tales for adults, and like practically everything we have ever come up with, they can be used for great evil. Still, you have so much to thank religion for in your current life, that hating it sounds like a mental illness to me. You'd be better of thinking religion to be like alcohol, nicotine, drugs, emotion evoking entertainment... Just because overdoing it can ruin and even kill you and your family, and enable "evil" people to gain power, doesn't make the thing itself worth hating, especially when it's so bred into human behaviour by evolutionary pressure over thousands of generations.

Re:Safe trip? by Urkki · 2012-07-24 08:19 · Score: 1

Our sun is too small to form a supernova. It will, however, turn into a red giant and engulf what was once known as Earth.

Oh, not necessarily. Sun will lose a lot of mass, which will expand Earths orbit, so Earth may well be spared that fate. In that case earth will just be scorched, sufrace glasified. By that time plate tectonics may have ceased, in which case once Sun turns into white dwarf, Earth will slowly cool into a frigid glass ball, with core temperature slowly decreasing as radioactive decay slows down over aeons, while the starts of combined Milky Way - Andromeda slowly blink out one by one...

Now let's get our act together, so something derived from us will remain to observe that!

Re:Agressiveness and arrogance prove one is wrong by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-07-24 08:57 · Score: 1

There is a difference betwenn "I don't believe in God", and "I hate the belief in God", which became more common after people started idolizing Ruchard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is not just an atheist, he is an anti-theist.

If I'm not allowed to hate the belief in g/God, what about communism and nazism? All three of these made otherwise good people do bad things. Since I hate the latter two for that reason, why is the former one so special?

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re:Agressiveness and arrogance prove one is wrong by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-07-24 12:20 · Score: 1

If I'm not allowed to hate the belief in g/God, what about communism and nazism? All three of these made otherwise good people do bad things. Since I hate the latter two for that reason, why is the former one so special?

1.) If anti-theists would spend 10% of the energy they devote to attacking religion to attacking Marxism, I would have more respect for them.
2) Marxism has killed 100,000,000 people in the XX century, yet we respect the human rights of Marxists. But Richard Dawkins actively campaings against the human rights of religious people*, because of things that happened 400 YEARS AGO and were not nearly as bad as Marxism.

* The right to freedom of conscience and religion and the right to political participation are part of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Re:Safe trip? by Capsaicin · 2012-07-24 13:13 · Score: 1

There is not evidence of any sort against the existence of Santa Claus or Easter Bunny either. Does that mean I should build shrines to them & bow down to worship them?

It's up to you of course. However, since the set of postulated but non-existing objects for which there can be no evidence of either existence or non-existence (as opposed to those postulated but non-existing objects for which there are definite falsification criteria) is unbounded, you should prepare for some serious building work if you adopt this as a criterion for shrine construction. :)

And yes, I do realise you were only agreeing with me ... I'm not sure you did though.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke

Re:Safe trip? by phantomfive · 2012-07-24 15:08 · Score: 1

If I wanted to, I would. Why shouldn't I? There's no reason.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:Agressiveness and arrogance prove one is wrong by Bill+Dog · 2012-07-24 17:09 · Score: 1

I'm a Christian and I would say that you're perfectly justified in hating certain flavors of the belief in God/gods, as you are in hating certain flavors of political philosophies. You just wouldn't be if you hated all belief in God/gods like you wouldn't be if you hated all political philosophies.

So in summary, the former one is "so special" because it's not equivalent to those others in cardinality. The three are not directly comparable because the latter two are members of a set and the former is itself a (different) set.

--
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100

Re:Awesome Gal. by richardfoleyrfi · 2012-07-25 23:59 · Score: 1

Why couldn't they marry?

Pancreatic Cancer by Aqua+Moon+Keepsakes · 2012-07-27 05:01 · Score: 1

More research is needed for earlier detection of pancreatic cancer. It has such a devastating diagnosis due to lack of early symptoms. A member of our family was just recently diagnosed. He was one of the very fortunate where it was caught early, and is currently enduring chemo after his recovery from a Whipple surgery. What a difficult road but we are remaining hopeful.

--
Aqua Moon Keepsakes

Slashdot Mirror

Sally Ride Takes Her Final Flight

170 of 251 comments (clear)