Actually, that was a very vivid phrase. Your criticism was so vehement that it glowed blindingly with your rage at having to sit through this guy's classes. Coruscating is totally the right word.
So go to a precinct heavily supporting your opponent, stuff the ballot, and see that precinct's results thrown out. Plus, if you're good, the headlines are "heavily X-favoring districts corrupt" which further helps you.
Stalin himself got everything he wanted, so I don't see how he was irrational. The people who were irrational were his followers, and their irrational belief was in totalitarianism.
Point. You attribute more cynical views to Stalin than I had, but I can totally get on board with the notion that he wasn't really trying to better the lives of his people.
You correctly observe that totalitarianism and religion are very much alike. Since we recognize that totalitarianism is evil, it therefore stands to reason that religion is also evil.
Does not follow! Totalitarianism and religion share some qualities, but not others. Religion is just fine until religious people try to make unbelievers follow their religious laws. That is to say, religion is just fine until it starts to resemble totalitarianism.
Take your antireligious trolls elsewhere. You can get on your fine moral high hobbyhorse if you like, but if you actually want to accomplish anything you can't start by insulting 70% of the people you have to convince to follow you. You're preaching to the choir here, but if you talk like this to people who don't already agree with you it's no wonder nobody listens.
Quite to the contrary: atheists are considerably more "immune" to making important decisions based on no evidence because being an atheist does not intrinsically require you to make irrational decisions about anything, while being, say, a Catholic intrinsically requires you to make irrational decisions about some things.
I disagree*, but that's a different discussion from the Stalin example. Even if you're right, Stalin's atheism didn't save him from irrationality, because he believed in marxism-leninism in the same manner that Catholics believe in God.
*People in general will find justifications for their preferred course of action, rational if they exist, irrational if that's all there is. Atheists are not excepted, as it's a human tendency.
Atheism in specific doesn't, but lots of atheists (Stalin, for example) do. Also, lots of religious people don't let their irrational beliefs about God bleed into their policy preferences, and that's just fine.
The problem isn't people believing in God or the wheel of history or somesuch with zero evidence. The problem is people making real-world decisions that affect millions on the basis of this zero evidence. Atheists are no more immune than religious people to making important decisions based on no evidence.
My point is that killing lots of people due to irrationally believing that an omnipotent sky fairy told you you're right is no more or less evil than killing lots of people due to believing that you're right because you've applied "science" to history and confirmed your preconceptions.
It's not belief in God that's a problem, it's believing you're right in the face of all evidence. Atheists are not immune to the latter.
Actually, we have a similar law (the Rockefeller amendment to the 1996 Telecommunications bill). That doesn't require any particular quality of connection, though.
Bah, the movie was grade-b classic camp. The show was a completely different genre. If the show had a different name nobody would even connect the two at all.
I have no idea either, but something has got to wake the soccer moms up to the fact that we're falling behind and it's their childproof-the-world attitude that's causing it.
The thought behind this is the same as the one behind Germany's banning of certain computer security tools, and the assaults on cryptography. Dangerous tools exist in every important field, and those with no fear of falling behind will always want to ban more and more. We need another Sputnik moment to galvanize the angry reactionaries to demand more science instead of demanding more childproofing.
You can get tens of thousands of people to march against anything. In March 2003 50,000 people gathered in Central Park in NYC to protest the war. No one cared.
The activists are preaching to the choir, which is nice if you're the choir, but don't pretend anyone who doesn't already agree with them is listening. This isn't the 1960s, and people whose playbooks haven't changed since then are, in fact, irrelevant to the actual policy debate.
They can, you know, force Bush to veto popular measures, and force Republican senators to filibuster popular measures (like the Republicans did 2000-2005).
Pass the Smiling Babies Resolution, which calls upon Homeland Security and other agencies to prune their lists of everyone but the serious offenders, and then gleefully report "Senator X voted against the Smiling Babies Act!" That's only marginally dirty pool.
In the same mess as we are now, but with bolder peace activists?
Seriously, the peace activists, bold or not, are completely irrelevant. Support for the war has risen and fallen with noble goals and complete failure to deliver, not with anything the antiwar movement has done.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that was a very vivid phrase. Your criticism was so vehement that it glowed blindingly with your rage at having to sit through this guy's classes. Coruscating is totally the right word.
So go to a precinct heavily supporting your opponent, stuff the ballot, and see that precinct's results thrown out. Plus, if you're good, the headlines are "heavily X-favoring districts corrupt" which further helps you.
Sentence him to 50% wage garnishment for life.
Point. You attribute more cynical views to Stalin than I had, but I can totally get on board with the notion that he wasn't really trying to better the lives of his people.
You correctly observe that totalitarianism and religion are very much alike. Since we recognize that totalitarianism is evil, it therefore stands to reason that religion is also evil.
Does not follow! Totalitarianism and religion share some qualities, but not others. Religion is just fine until religious people try to make unbelievers follow their religious laws. That is to say, religion is just fine until it starts to resemble totalitarianism.
Take your antireligious trolls elsewhere. You can get on your fine moral high hobbyhorse if you like, but if you actually want to accomplish anything you can't start by insulting 70% of the people you have to convince to follow you. You're preaching to the choir here, but if you talk like this to people who don't already agree with you it's no wonder nobody listens.
I disagree*, but that's a different discussion from the Stalin example. Even if you're right, Stalin's atheism didn't save him from irrationality, because he believed in marxism-leninism in the same manner that Catholics believe in God. *People in general will find justifications for their preferred course of action, rational if they exist, irrational if that's all there is. Atheists are not excepted, as it's a human tendency.
The problem isn't people believing in God or the wheel of history or somesuch with zero evidence. The problem is people making real-world decisions that affect millions on the basis of this zero evidence. Atheists are no more immune than religious people to making important decisions based on no evidence.
It's not belief in God that's a problem, it's believing you're right in the face of all evidence. Atheists are not immune to the latter.
Hierakonpolis definitely exists.
Stalin kept referring to how "the wheel of history" was on his side, with as little evidence as anyone who claims that God is on their side.
Oh please. Tortured logic? They're just waterboarding it.
The takeover took place in 2000. The occupation took another month after that--if you'll recall, there were some delays in getting out of Florida.
Marinara pasta sauce? Hardly an abomination.
Actually, we have a similar law (the Rockefeller amendment to the 1996 Telecommunications bill). That doesn't require any particular quality of connection, though.
When the appalachians are strip-mined, we grieve not for the hills but for the plants and animals poisoned by the byproducts. At least I do.
Bah, the movie was grade-b classic camp. The show was a completely different genre. If the show had a different name nobody would even connect the two at all.
Damn Japanese imports.
Wondermark is already on it.
I have no idea either, but something has got to wake the soccer moms up to the fact that we're falling behind and it's their childproof-the-world attitude that's causing it.
The thought behind this is the same as the one behind Germany's banning of certain computer security tools, and the assaults on cryptography. Dangerous tools exist in every important field, and those with no fear of falling behind will always want to ban more and more. We need another Sputnik moment to galvanize the angry reactionaries to demand more science instead of demanding more childproofing.
The activists are preaching to the choir, which is nice if you're the choir, but don't pretend anyone who doesn't already agree with them is listening. This isn't the 1960s, and people whose playbooks haven't changed since then are, in fact, irrelevant to the actual policy debate.
It'd have been interesting if they'd voted for Gore, but that wouldn't have helped Kerry any.
Pass the Smiling Babies Resolution, which calls upon Homeland Security and other agencies to prune their lists of everyone but the serious offenders, and then gleefully report "Senator X voted against the Smiling Babies Act!" That's only marginally dirty pool.
Seriously, the peace activists, bold or not, are completely irrelevant. Support for the war has risen and fallen with noble goals and complete failure to deliver, not with anything the antiwar movement has done.
Actually, Imax porn would be thoroughly awesome.
If Fox News reported this, you might have a case. But this is Slashdot.