Darwin 'believed' in God for his wifes sake, and Newton poisoned his brain with mercury, and had the church on his back. I don't think either of them were any more believers than your average political servant - in American politics, where it is basically mandatory unless you don't want any votes.
What you think religious belief is, is not religious belief. People who question the teachings of the bible are people who don't believe things on faith.
You sound like you are agnostic. Unless you somehow can verify the existence of this God outside of our universe, you either a) believe it without proof or b) are open to the possibility because there is no way of knowing either way with the knowledge we have.
I'm sure you're a 'b', with your comment ''God' exists outside of our scientific understanding (that is, the existence or not of God or gods is not a scientific hypothesis at this time).', so it may comfort you to know that I am too. It would be irrational to think otherwise. We are however outside the 92%, as we don't actually believe that there is or isn't a God.
Most things require a lot less faith. Like gravity. When you drop something, it falls. There's the effect. We know by observation how gravity and mass and time are related (we don't know for sure, but people are trying to find out!) and so it's not a huge leap of faith to believe that gravity makes things fall.
Can you give me a similar example of any religious axiom that could be expressed mathematically? It's OK for you to use words.
Are you saying that religious doctrine is logical? To use an example, the question, 'What happens when we die?'. To believe that when we die, our body systems shut down and we begin to decay does not require any leaps of faith. It is observable. People die, they aren't alive. To believe in an afterlife requires you to believe that a) the universe was created for us, b) the being responsible follows you through your life and is able to judge you when you die, c) your 'life force' is transported to a place that we can't see or detect, and so on.
Is it at all sensible to build society around a system that may exist, even though there is not an inkling of proof, whatsoever?
In plain English, having 92% of your population believing in something for which there is no proof, is symptomatic of a nationwide failure of your education system to instill a will to learn, doubt and enquire. It's a significant part of the rampant anti-intellectualism in American identity as seen by outsiders.
Yes, it changes when Kings and priests want to do something that they otherwise couldn't. This just illustrates the hypocrisy and general made-up-out-of-thin-air nature of doctrine.
This isn't a discussion over whether America or France is the bigger bully or the most dumbest. The comment I replied to said that Non-Americans don't know that Tallahassee is the capital of Florida, and that it's wrong that American's should by some miracle of geographic genius be expected to know that Paris is the capital of France.
The French have a long history in Africa. If they could, I'm sure they would be out destabilising nations to secure cheap labor as well.
I'm sorry if I've affronted your beliefs, but the acceptance of religious doctrine as fact is ignorant at best, barbaric at worst.
Blakey, I truly believe what I am saying. I don't really know what I can say to your smear of a comment, but you're right, everything I say is true. The French are no saints either, but their imperialism is mostly limited to Africa.
Religious doctrine doesn't change, no matter how much more we learn about the world. Philosophy changes all the time. So no, I don't consider philosophers mentally ill.
I'm going to put this as simply as possible. Religious belief requires the suspension of critical and rational thought. At some point, you have to just accept that God Did It, and stop asking 'why'. As a human being, a member of the sentient species of the planet, I'm not ready to ignore my mental faculties and just accept things on blind faith. Frankly, I consider people that do to be mentally ill, and I normally write off everything else they say as unreliable because if they are willing to give up rational and critical thought for their God, how can I be sure that sound judgment went into any of their thought processes?
The truth is that I am agnostic towards the idea of an almighty being or beings. I believe what I see, what is testable and falsifiable. If you had a testable and falsifiable hypothesis positing the existance of such a being, that didn't require me to accept that 'God Did It' at any stage of the reasoning, I'll gladly eat my words.
For a fair comparison, ask a non-American what the American capital is. America has fifty states, with fifty capitals. I don't expect an American to know what the capital of a random province in my country is.
The reason we think you are stupid is because we are outside of the happy fun curtain. We get to see the effects that American imperialism has on the world, our news agencies actually report on the wars and insurgencies that America funds and / or fights by proxy. We see statistics coming out of America like 92% of Americans believe in a God. This speaks volumes.
Do you even know what piracy is? Ask the victims of the boats attacked and hijacked off the coast of Somalia. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, it isn't piracy and it isn't theft. When our (mostly Americas, because the rest of the world is forced into following suit by the WHO and WIPO and UN) antiquated notions of property finally catch up to the reality of digital storage and the internet, we might have a chance at getting it right.
A hammer is never just a hammer when it is bought by the military. It is a hammer, enough replacement hammers for the projected life of the hammer, training to use those hammers, etc etc.
I suppose this is your idea of a fair and balanced comparison. The differences are stark however. In the 1,600+ year holy war between the Christians and the Muslims, each side has their doctrine and refuse to make concessions to the other. Islam is still spread by the sword today, but Christianity has figured out that you don't have to kill people, you just make their lives unliveable.
The science vs religion battle is a completely different beast. It is logic and rational thought vs religious doctrine.
It IS time to restructure society in a way that recognises the power of our intellect and doesn't reward blind following. Our intelligence is what separates us from the other inhabitants of this planet, and the sooner we take on the responsibility we have to our planet and our future, the sooner we stop believing ancient fairy tales and start working, unified, towards the future we deserve the better.
The government regulates countless other 'drugs' (cannabis comes to mind).
The government doesn't regulate cannabis, it prosecutes for possession and supply. If the government regulated it, it would be clearly labelled, taxed, and not sold to people under 18.
So it's not ok to sell something knowing it's illegal, but it's ok to possess it with the same knowledge? Seems like a double standard.
This is simple. Selling the substance for profit is generating income. This is very different to possessing the substance for your own use. A person possessing the substance is not taking advantage of the black market profits that a dealer receives.
In any case, your logic is flawed - if I have a large quantity of a drug, they'll assume I was going to sell it (and they'll prosecute me for it) even if I never intended to sell it. Should I be set free, according to your logic? If so, how do you separate those who legitimately didn't intend to sell it and those who simply say they didn't intend to sell it? Remember, lie detector tests aren't admissible in court, and so cannot be used as a basis for their release.
I am happy with the differentiation between personal use, dealing and trafficing quantities...
What about dealers who are smart enough to only carry small quantities, and get busted for simple possession? Should they be set free simply because they weren't caught for dealing, even if it is known (in some non-court-admissible fashion) that they were dealing their small quantities?
Yes, they should be, as they were charged and convicted of carrying a small amount.
Hopefully you can see that if you let out those jailed for possession, the only way to be fair is to let out those who were jailed for dealing - and vice versa. If you keep in jail those who were jailed for dealing, to be fair you must also keep in jail those who were jailed for possession.
For the record, I was relatively specific; if you read my original post you'll see I gave the example of traffic laws.
Dealing and possession, like I said above, are different. One is done because a person wants to get high, and one is done because a person wants to make money. Getting high shouldn't be illegal. Making shit tons of money off things that are illegal should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Darwin 'believed' in God for his wifes sake, and Newton poisoned his brain with mercury, and had the church on his back. I don't think either of them were any more believers than your average political servant - in American politics, where it is basically mandatory unless you don't want any votes.
What you think religious belief is, is not religious belief. People who question the teachings of the bible are people who don't believe things on faith.
I'm sure you're a 'b', with your comment ''God' exists outside of our scientific understanding (that is, the existence or not of God or gods is not a scientific hypothesis at this time).', so it may comfort you to know that I am too. It would be irrational to think otherwise. We are however outside the 92%, as we don't actually believe that there is or isn't a God.
Can you give me a similar example of any religious axiom that could be expressed mathematically? It's OK for you to use words.
Is it at all sensible to build society around a system that may exist, even though there is not an inkling of proof, whatsoever?
In plain English, having 92% of your population believing in something for which there is no proof, is symptomatic of a nationwide failure of your education system to instill a will to learn, doubt and enquire. It's a significant part of the rampant anti-intellectualism in American identity as seen by outsiders.
Yes, it changes when Kings and priests want to do something that they otherwise couldn't. This just illustrates the hypocrisy and general made-up-out-of-thin-air nature of doctrine.
The French have a long history in Africa. If they could, I'm sure they would be out destabilising nations to secure cheap labor as well.
I'm sorry if I've affronted your beliefs, but the acceptance of religious doctrine as fact is ignorant at best, barbaric at worst.
Blakey, I truly believe what I am saying. I don't really know what I can say to your smear of a comment, but you're right, everything I say is true. The French are no saints either, but their imperialism is mostly limited to Africa.
Religious doctrine doesn't change, no matter how much more we learn about the world. Philosophy changes all the time. So no, I don't consider philosophers mentally ill.
The truth is that I am agnostic towards the idea of an almighty being or beings. I believe what I see, what is testable and falsifiable. If you had a testable and falsifiable hypothesis positing the existance of such a being, that didn't require me to accept that 'God Did It' at any stage of the reasoning, I'll gladly eat my words.
For a fair comparison, ask a non-American what the American capital is. America has fifty states, with fifty capitals. I don't expect an American to know what the capital of a random province in my country is. The reason we think you are stupid is because we are outside of the happy fun curtain. We get to see the effects that American imperialism has on the world, our news agencies actually report on the wars and insurgencies that America funds and / or fights by proxy. We see statistics coming out of America like 92% of Americans believe in a God. This speaks volumes. Do you even know what piracy is? Ask the victims of the boats attacked and hijacked off the coast of Somalia. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, it isn't piracy and it isn't theft. When our (mostly Americas, because the rest of the world is forced into following suit by the WHO and WIPO and UN) antiquated notions of property finally catch up to the reality of digital storage and the internet, we might have a chance at getting it right.
A hammer is never just a hammer when it is bought by the military. It is a hammer, enough replacement hammers for the projected life of the hammer, training to use those hammers, etc etc.
I suppose this is your idea of a fair and balanced comparison. The differences are stark however. In the 1,600+ year holy war between the Christians and the Muslims, each side has their doctrine and refuse to make concessions to the other. Islam is still spread by the sword today, but Christianity has figured out that you don't have to kill people, you just make their lives unliveable. The science vs religion battle is a completely different beast. It is logic and rational thought vs religious doctrine. It IS time to restructure society in a way that recognises the power of our intellect and doesn't reward blind following. Our intelligence is what separates us from the other inhabitants of this planet, and the sooner we take on the responsibility we have to our planet and our future, the sooner we stop believing ancient fairy tales and start working, unified, towards the future we deserve the better.
The first rule of usenet is...
To see the absurdity of this, come to New Zealand :D We just enacted the exact same law because our previous Government hates freedom.
Well just infringe the publishers copyright then. You see ads when you pay to go see movies...
The government regulates countless other 'drugs' (cannabis comes to mind).
The government doesn't regulate cannabis, it prosecutes for possession and supply. If the government regulated it, it would be clearly labelled, taxed, and not sold to people under 18.
This alone would create a statistical correlation between coffee consumption and caffeine.
If the correlation between coffee and caffeine is a little stronger than that...
I remember seeing them a lot when I was young but now I'm in my mid-20's and I haven't seen one in years. They became very infrequent after puberty.
Detergent is generally toxic to life. That's why we use it to clean our dishes. Also why it says not to drink it on the bottle.
Why don't you put your normal glasses over the 3D glasses then. They would still work.
I am so surprised that someone actually read the link. :D
Before the election last year I wrote to the MPs who ran in my electorate and posted the replies in facebook group forum..
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=29834002818&topic=5497
Would be good to get some feedback from others.
So it's not ok to sell something knowing it's illegal, but it's ok to possess it with the same knowledge? Seems like a double standard.
This is simple. Selling the substance for profit is generating income. This is very different to possessing the substance for your own use. A person possessing the substance is not taking advantage of the black market profits that a dealer receives.
In any case, your logic is flawed - if I have a large quantity of a drug, they'll assume I was going to sell it (and they'll prosecute me for it) even if I never intended to sell it. Should I be set free, according to your logic? If so, how do you separate those who legitimately didn't intend to sell it and those who simply say they didn't intend to sell it? Remember, lie detector tests aren't admissible in court, and so cannot be used as a basis for their release.
I am happy with the differentiation between personal use, dealing and trafficing quantities...
What about dealers who are smart enough to only carry small quantities, and get busted for simple possession? Should they be set free simply because they weren't caught for dealing, even if it is known (in some non-court-admissible fashion) that they were dealing their small quantities?
Yes, they should be, as they were charged and convicted of carrying a small amount.
Hopefully you can see that if you let out those jailed for possession, the only way to be fair is to let out those who were jailed for dealing - and vice versa. If you keep in jail those who were jailed for dealing, to be fair you must also keep in jail those who were jailed for possession.
For the record, I was relatively specific; if you read my original post you'll see I gave the example of traffic laws.
Dealing and possession, like I said above, are different. One is done because a person wants to get high, and one is done because a person wants to make money. Getting high shouldn't be illegal. Making shit tons of money off things that are illegal should be.