Christianity with it's origin as a major religion in the Roman Empire, and later on the various forces of Europe, has gone out into the world and slaughtered and enslaved other people, as well as forced them to give up their own religions in favor of Christianity. Christianity is big today because it was brutal throughout history, or it piggybacked on brutal regimes in order to spread itself.
We've gotten a lot more civilized in the past couple of centuries, and at the same time the dominance of Christianity has faded. The good that people claim come from Christianity, is the good stuff we choose to take from it, while we leave quite a lot of nasty stuff be. Sure, Jesus was a much nicer guy than his dad, but he's been around since they didn't use his instrument of death as a symbol for belief in him.
No, survival is far more valid than "God said it, God made it so". Don't kill your children, or that it's for your genes. Make your children strong, and there'll be a lot more of your genes out there.
Well, to take an extreme example. Some people don't like having strangers burn down their house.
More subtle would be not wanting to be preached to about Jesus or Muhammad, or whatever truths you feel you hold, that you think you would've liked to have been told about if you were them. Not wanting to be signed up for an activity without being asked, not wanting someone to donate to a charity in their name, not wanting to have specific words banned from broadcasting, not want abstinence taught while contraception is being demonized, and anything that you could do to or on behalf of someone else that you think they want, or that you think is good for them, because you're basing it all on what you feel.
I'm mostly fine with that type of view, except people still believe in a personal god along with that scenario, and that it's the same god that started it all. If your program ends up producing petabytes of data, how much time are you going to devote to each byte?
Google Gang Duck Rape and answer the question: Is gang rape moral?
Possibly. Moral is what works, what's beneficial to a species. Good morals are the ones that keep your species going, bad morals decrease your chances of survival.
There are rules about slaves in the Constitution, should we ignore that as well?
Do they say how to keep slaves, that it's okay to have slaves as long as they're not of your tribe, that it's okay to beat your slave as long as they don't die within a day or two, stuff like that? I agree it's a major blemish that the US declared independence and all men as free, and then kept the slavery. But at least that's accepted by most as a document made by men, not by an allmighty eternal judge.
Thing is, you can't disprove God, you can't disprove an infinite number of versions of supernatural beings that might exist on some level. What's the point in inventing a specific version for yourself, when you have absolutely no basis on which to argue that yours is the one correct out of infinite possibilities? Especially as that god was originally invented by people who did not understand anything compared to the level of knowledge we have today. Almost all statements made about God have turned out to be wrong. What level of faith can you have that whatever's left is true?
What role does that leave God, though? How exactly would God have a hand in evolution? Does he make that predator chase you? Does he make your pray run away? Does God cause genetic mutations? Did God cause all the mass extinctions? Or did he just cause the very first event, and then left everything alone forever? Can you believe in souls at that point? Does God wait for nature to create new individuals, and then he tosses in a soul for each one, yet the soul has no function since the brain is responsible for our consciousness, etc. Can you then believe in life after rotting corpse? Does he clone us? Is that then not us who live on, but God just wanted nature to create a blueprint for him?
Morality exists without religion. Look to any other species. They have morals. But they're not religious, certainly not socially and organized like humans.
Religion is more like the morality of a specific time period frozen, along with their limited level of knowledge, but forcefully carried on into the present. We can easily dismiss the majority of the content of the Bible, scientifically, historically and morally. Yet some people still marvel at the few sensible things in there, as if we couldn't have figured that out ourselves. As if people who had never heard about it weren't already aware.
There are rules about slavery in the Bible. And they're not "don't fucking keep slaves". That should be enough for all of us to ignore it as any sort of divine revelation. Or to reject the revealer as not worthy.
People are still denying evolution because of their magical sky fairy friend. There are still plenty of people who believe that the Sun is only thousands of years old. And far too many people who see homosexuality as anything but natural. If you first go with the belief that a sentient humanlike being created everything, and that that same being is your personal friend today, you'll be open to quite a lot of nonsense that goes against science.
Except people aren't all like you, and won't like the same things as you. Especially if you're of one religion and they are of another, or none at all.
Leave people be. Help them when they're in need, but don't push stuff on them that they don't want.
Couldn't we just stop at #1? Same rules for all, and the rules should be no more complicated than exactly what we need. If the hat or no hat isn't vital, don't make it a rule.
And with #3 you're going into an area where you'll start having people just simply not qualified to drive a car. If their minds can do that to them, maybe they'll end up seeing something that doesn't exist on the road, and make a sudden turn into the other lane right into someone who has no reason to expect anyone to do that.
#3 to me seems it'd be something that requires treatment, rather than exceptions to rules.
I wonder if one day we'll not have a concept of what spaghetti is, and maybe a different view of what monsters are, and we risk ending up with people taking the FSM seriously as a religion.
I haven't actually followed the channel that much, living in Norway for about 99% of my life. But I have enjoyed several of its shows, and I would like to see more of them that fit the sci fi genre.
Stealing is stealing, but copyright infringement isn't stealing.
Abusing the language doesn't make me feel that piracy is any worse, it just tells me that the opponents know that it isn't considered serious enough on its own.
There are basically two kinds of porn on the net. Free and FREE. The first kind might be ad-supported, but often it's just part of a site with more types of content. I don't see those sites having interest in an xxx domain.
Maybe we'll be a few steps closer to being able to cover the Sahara desert with solar panels if more regimes fall. A deal between the EU and the new hopefully democratic governments?
Giving the same people who would put a man to death for letting someone speak out about what the US is actually up to, the power to shut down communications, is only good for those people, not the rest of the population.
Free flow of information is a requirement for having a democracy.
I honestly don't worry that much about speed. If they need to literally cut corners to boost the speed further, okay, but make that optional for those of us who don't want to sacrifice and good interface for a tiny boost in speed. As has been mentioned to a degree, if all the browsers look the same, there's fewer reasons for there to be more of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Christianity with it's origin as a major religion in the Roman Empire, and later on the various forces of Europe, has gone out into the world and slaughtered and enslaved other people, as well as forced them to give up their own religions in favor of Christianity. Christianity is big today because it was brutal throughout history, or it piggybacked on brutal regimes in order to spread itself.
We've gotten a lot more civilized in the past couple of centuries, and at the same time the dominance of Christianity has faded. The good that people claim come from Christianity, is the good stuff we choose to take from it, while we leave quite a lot of nasty stuff be. Sure, Jesus was a much nicer guy than his dad, but he's been around since they didn't use his instrument of death as a symbol for belief in him.
No, survival is far more valid than "God said it, God made it so". Don't kill your children, or that it's for your genes. Make your children strong, and there'll be a lot more of your genes out there.
Well, to take an extreme example. Some people don't like having strangers burn down their house.
More subtle would be not wanting to be preached to about Jesus or Muhammad, or whatever truths you feel you hold, that you think you would've liked to have been told about if you were them. Not wanting to be signed up for an activity without being asked, not wanting someone to donate to a charity in their name, not wanting to have specific words banned from broadcasting, not want abstinence taught while contraception is being demonized, and anything that you could do to or on behalf of someone else that you think they want, or that you think is good for them, because you're basing it all on what you feel.
I'm mostly fine with that type of view, except people still believe in a personal god along with that scenario, and that it's the same god that started it all. If your program ends up producing petabytes of data, how much time are you going to devote to each byte?
Google Gang Duck Rape and answer the question: Is gang rape moral?
Possibly. Moral is what works, what's beneficial to a species. Good morals are the ones that keep your species going, bad morals decrease your chances of survival.
There are rules about slaves in the Constitution, should we ignore that as well?
Do they say how to keep slaves, that it's okay to have slaves as long as they're not of your tribe, that it's okay to beat your slave as long as they don't die within a day or two, stuff like that? I agree it's a major blemish that the US declared independence and all men as free, and then kept the slavery. But at least that's accepted by most as a document made by men, not by an allmighty eternal judge.
Of course with a larger range of scientics in between as well, and after, but that's the gist of it. God is where we don't know.
And then Einstein came to fill whatever holes Newton had left for God to occupy.
Thing is, you can't disprove God, you can't disprove an infinite number of versions of supernatural beings that might exist on some level. What's the point in inventing a specific version for yourself, when you have absolutely no basis on which to argue that yours is the one correct out of infinite possibilities? Especially as that god was originally invented by people who did not understand anything compared to the level of knowledge we have today. Almost all statements made about God have turned out to be wrong. What level of faith can you have that whatever's left is true?
What role does that leave God, though? How exactly would God have a hand in evolution? Does he make that predator chase you? Does he make your pray run away? Does God cause genetic mutations? Did God cause all the mass extinctions? Or did he just cause the very first event, and then left everything alone forever? Can you believe in souls at that point? Does God wait for nature to create new individuals, and then he tosses in a soul for each one, yet the soul has no function since the brain is responsible for our consciousness, etc. Can you then believe in life after rotting corpse? Does he clone us? Is that then not us who live on, but God just wanted nature to create a blueprint for him?
Morality exists without religion. Look to any other species. They have morals. But they're not religious, certainly not socially and organized like humans.
Religion is more like the morality of a specific time period frozen, along with their limited level of knowledge, but forcefully carried on into the present. We can easily dismiss the majority of the content of the Bible, scientifically, historically and morally. Yet some people still marvel at the few sensible things in there, as if we couldn't have figured that out ourselves. As if people who had never heard about it weren't already aware.
There are rules about slavery in the Bible. And they're not "don't fucking keep slaves". That should be enough for all of us to ignore it as any sort of divine revelation. Or to reject the revealer as not worthy.
People are still denying evolution because of their magical sky fairy friend. There are still plenty of people who believe that the Sun is only thousands of years old. And far too many people who see homosexuality as anything but natural. If you first go with the belief that a sentient humanlike being created everything, and that that same being is your personal friend today, you'll be open to quite a lot of nonsense that goes against science.
Except people aren't all like you, and won't like the same things as you. Especially if you're of one religion and they are of another, or none at all.
Leave people be. Help them when they're in need, but don't push stuff on them that they don't want.
Couldn't we just stop at #1? Same rules for all, and the rules should be no more complicated than exactly what we need. If the hat or no hat isn't vital, don't make it a rule.
And with #3 you're going into an area where you'll start having people just simply not qualified to drive a car. If their minds can do that to them, maybe they'll end up seeing something that doesn't exist on the road, and make a sudden turn into the other lane right into someone who has no reason to expect anyone to do that.
#3 to me seems it'd be something that requires treatment, rather than exceptions to rules.
I wonder if one day we'll not have a concept of what spaghetti is, and maybe a different view of what monsters are, and we risk ending up with people taking the FSM seriously as a religion.
I haven't actually followed the channel that much, living in Norway for about 99% of my life. But I have enjoyed several of its shows, and I would like to see more of them that fit the sci fi genre.
Ruining death for everyone.
Stealing is stealing, but copyright infringement isn't stealing.
Abusing the language doesn't make me feel that piracy is any worse, it just tells me that the opponents know that it isn't considered serious enough on its own.
Don't turn that around on me.
I want my tabs just where they are now.
There are basically two kinds of porn on the net. Free and FREE. The first kind might be ad-supported, but often it's just part of a site with more types of content. I don't see those sites having interest in an xxx domain.
But how many are near that size and as close to the equator?
Maybe we'll be a few steps closer to being able to cover the Sahara desert with solar panels if more regimes fall. A deal between the EU and the new hopefully democratic governments?
Giving the same people who would put a man to death for letting someone speak out about what the US is actually up to, the power to shut down communications, is only good for those people, not the rest of the population.
Free flow of information is a requirement for having a democracy.
Sort of. There's more than two sides to be agreeing or disagreeing in the UK and other European countries.
I honestly don't worry that much about speed. If they need to literally cut corners to boost the speed further, okay, but make that optional for those of us who don't want to sacrifice and good interface for a tiny boost in speed. As has been mentioned to a degree, if all the browsers look the same, there's fewer reasons for there to be more of them.