The only way to deal with something like this is to drown it out. There are tonnes of people with my name online, some of whom I disapprove of. So what did I do? Registered my name as a URL, built a decent website and made sure that anyone searching for me found what I wanted them to see.
You can't control what other people post about you, but you can control what you put out there.
Ahem... And this is different from every other religion... how?
And you may claim that it's all commercial nonsense, but some of them are actually fairly committed to living by a clear ethics code that's alright in my book.
But fundamentally his beliefs are no different! There is not a shred of evidence in favour of his beliefs over Great Uncle McCrazy (GUmC henceforth). You're correct that we should judge him purely based on his actions as a human being. However, these actions are based on his beliefs, and we can criticize these actions as being immoral (homophobia, being an example that greatly annoys me). Yet he gets accorded respect because of his position as a head believer of [the purple dinosaur] regardless of his homophobia and promotion of actions that cause harm (non-use of barrier contraception).
Summary: We can't criticise someones beliefs rationally directly, but we can certainly criticise immoral actions made because of them. And you can't give someone respect for believing strongly in something that's unprovable, because if we did then lunatics (actual lunatics, I mean crazy people here) would be in charge of society - due to their unshakeable belief in concepts not provable in reality.
And as for the whole slashdotter science fiction angle that you're worked up about, sure they can't disprove the existence of god. But remember, they can't disprove the claims of Great Auntie McCrazy that somewhere out there are invisible alien beings watching over the universe.
That all said however, we can rationally discuss the actions of a religion. If, for example, the big purple dinosaur instructed great uncle McCrazy to go out and start killing people who disagreed with him...
At that point we consider it immoral and illegal, and his new-found religion rapidly gains cult status (unless he has access to vast quantities of oil, but again, let's not go there). Or, even if he simply started making claims that are provably false, we can rationally demolish those.
Believe me, I didn't say they were real.
They're no more amenable to rational discussion than my great uncles drunken visions of a big purple dinosaur. No-one can disprove this dinosaur that appears only to him, but it doesn't mean that we show him any particular deference because of it.
What defines a religion then? Obviously you can't judge based on beliefs, since these can't be rationally compared or assessed in terms of truth.
You say to call you in a couple of hundred years; why do you in particular get to pick an arbitrary date? As for what is and isn't a cult, this is a word with a broad, varied definition. Generally people define cults as a small religion which violates the moral or legal strictures of the society within which it resides, but historically all it means is small religion. We generally consider scientology a cult because of its questionable practices (both legally and morally). Whereas Jediism (or whatever it's generally called) is basically an unprovable belief system which makes untestable claims about spirituality - how is that any different from any other religion?
GPS is another great example. The benefits are taken for granted by the majority, but ask a sailor what he thinks is the most important development in recent times.
Look at a picture of the moon. Go on I'll wait.
OK, did you see the craters covering the surface? Look again if you want.
Those are quite big no? In fact, they're bigger than the rocket booster - about half a million of them have diameters bigger than 1km (according to wikipedia). Since not one of those 500,000 (some of which are fairly recent) has had any significant effect on the moons orbit I'd say we're safe.
I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my take:
Do a Masters if you want to learn more.
Go straight into employment if you want to earn more.
Personally, in 2 years time, i'm going to be doing a Masters or a Ph.D, simply because I love learning - contrast that to a friend who left this year who suggested not even doing honours because all she wanted was a decent paying job.
Different routes suit different people.
It's even trickier than that to work out who's good and bad. As an example take my 5th and 6th year chemistry teachers:
Ms B (5th Year/Year 12) - eloquent, helpful, friendly and patient; really good at helping a student learn simple concepts. An average chemist.
Mr H (6th Year/Year 13) - Less likeable, not as good at getting his points across. An excellent chemist with a firm grasp of advanced topics
Now which of these is a better teacher? I couldn't even begin to tell you the answer to that.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
I read an excellent article once (no idea where) about ancient people (again, can't remember where) who had no trouble with tooth decay because the rocks they used to grind flour for their bread resulted in gritty bread that cleaned their teeth for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Second life was always just a silly fad. The money situation with it was just silly - it was just a bubble.
Tiger? Is that you? ;p
The only way to deal with something like this is to drown it out. There are tonnes of people with my name online, some of whom I disapprove of. So what did I do? Registered my name as a URL, built a decent website and made sure that anyone searching for me found what I wanted them to see.
You can't control what other people post about you, but you can control what you put out there.
Man, if someone released plans for a Nuke under the GPL I think every government in the world would simultaneously crap themselves.
Ahem... And this is different from every other religion... how?
And you may claim that it's all commercial nonsense, but some of them are actually fairly committed to living by a clear ethics code that's alright in my book.
But fundamentally his beliefs are no different! There is not a shred of evidence in favour of his beliefs over Great Uncle McCrazy (GUmC henceforth). You're correct that we should judge him purely based on his actions as a human being. However, these actions are based on his beliefs, and we can criticize these actions as being immoral (homophobia, being an example that greatly annoys me). Yet he gets accorded respect because of his position as a head believer of [the purple dinosaur] regardless of his homophobia and promotion of actions that cause harm (non-use of barrier contraception).
Summary: We can't criticise someones beliefs rationally directly, but we can certainly criticise immoral actions made because of them. And you can't give someone respect for believing strongly in something that's unprovable, because if we did then lunatics (actual lunatics, I mean crazy people here) would be in charge of society - due to their unshakeable belief in concepts not provable in reality.
And as for the whole slashdotter science fiction angle that you're worked up about, sure they can't disprove the existence of god. But remember, they can't disprove the claims of Great Auntie McCrazy that somewhere out there are invisible alien beings watching over the universe.
That all said however, we can rationally discuss the actions of a religion. If, for example, the big purple dinosaur instructed great uncle McCrazy to go out and start killing people who disagreed with him...
At that point we consider it immoral and illegal, and his new-found religion rapidly gains cult status (unless he has access to vast quantities of oil, but again, let's not go there). Or, even if he simply started making claims that are provably false, we can rationally demolish those.
Believe me, I didn't say they were real.
They're no more amenable to rational discussion than my great uncles drunken visions of a big purple dinosaur. No-one can disprove this dinosaur that appears only to him, but it doesn't mean that we show him any particular deference because of it.
What defines a religion then? Obviously you can't judge based on beliefs, since these can't be rationally compared or assessed in terms of truth.
You say to call you in a couple of hundred years; why do you in particular get to pick an arbitrary date? As for what is and isn't a cult, this is a word with a broad, varied definition. Generally people define cults as a small religion which violates the moral or legal strictures of the society within which it resides, but historically all it means is small religion. We generally consider scientology a cult because of its questionable practices (both legally and morally). Whereas Jediism (or whatever it's generally called) is basically an unprovable belief system which makes untestable claims about spirituality - how is that any different from any other religion?
Scientology and Mormonism beg to differ.
Unfortunately.
Uh... apple do make servers, and they have a version of the OS for servers. Just fyi. http://www.apple.com/uk/xserve/ http://www.apple.com/uk/server/macosx/
You need to be modded up more sir!
GPS is another great example. The benefits are taken for granted by the majority, but ask a sailor what he thinks is the most important development in recent times.
This.
Randall Munroe had a cool python program on his blag at one point for a simple GPS program for linux. Can be found here
Well... It would have worked if you'd spelt it right.
tiannanmen
Look at a picture of the moon. Go on I'll wait.
OK, did you see the craters covering the surface? Look again if you want.
Those are quite big no? In fact, they're bigger than the rocket booster - about half a million of them have diameters bigger than 1km (according to wikipedia). Since not one of those 500,000 (some of which are fairly recent) has had any significant effect on the moons orbit I'd say we're safe.
I adored that show.
Yes, because any average Joe user is capable of utilising that 'solution'.
I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my take:
Do a Masters if you want to learn more.
Go straight into employment if you want to earn more.
Personally, in 2 years time, i'm going to be doing a Masters or a Ph.D, simply because I love learning - contrast that to a friend who left this year who suggested not even doing honours because all she wanted was a decent paying job.
Different routes suit different people.
And, all the primes (except for one of them) end with the digit 1 as well.
A "-1: Wrong" option would be nice.
It's even trickier than that to work out who's good and bad. As an example take my 5th and 6th year chemistry teachers:
Ms B (5th Year/Year 12) - eloquent, helpful, friendly and patient; really good at helping a student learn simple concepts. An average chemist.
Mr H (6th Year/Year 13) - Less likeable, not as good at getting his points across. An excellent chemist with a firm grasp of advanced topics
Now which of these is a better teacher? I couldn't even begin to tell you the answer to that.
It's not a troll if you're right...
I read an excellent article once (no idea where) about ancient people (again, can't remember where) who had no trouble with tooth decay because the rocks they used to grind flour for their bread resulted in gritty bread that cleaned their teeth for them.