From TFS: "This effect is impossible to create to anything near this level of detail or clarity using traditional digital tools. This is because the refresh rate of a video camera is 25 frames per second, and the refresh rate of a digital stills camera is even slower - between one and three seconds per image. Scanner photographs are made up of 15,000 individual slices of time, spread over 15,000 lines. Using any standard video camera to capture images this way can be done, but is limited to 720 lines, and the fastest capture rate is 40 milliseconds. This means that the images will be much low resolution, and the slower capture rate leads to blocky, jagged edges between the frames of video that are used to make up the composite."
So that's one point. But more broadly, it seems to me to be a bit more organic than using photoshop. He says the effect is reletively predictable, but given unpredictable environments, such as cars on a road, the picture could end up more interesting than anything you could concieve and then coerce into existance
Finally, I really, really, really don't understand why these types of comments are made. Every bloody hack article there's some grim, sad comments about how the hack sucks because a) it could be done easier in some other way, b) it's 'pointless', c) it's 'try-hard', or whatever other reason. It's so infuriating - do you have any sense of exploration and experimentation? Or understand the desire to tell others about your experiences?
Am I the only one who doesn't get the (great) appeal of RSS? I've tried it in various forms (Firefox Live Bookmarks, Google Homepage, RSS plugin for Firefox...) serveral times and I always end up forgetting about it. I really only read three web-pages every day and I like to scan the entire pages, so RSS is a waste of time in those cases as the various methods of using RSS only let you see, say, 20 headlines at once and my main news page, for example, has hundreds well organised in various sections.
The new Gmail implementation is vaugely interesting as I sometimes see something I wouldn't have otherwise seen (such as Google blog entries and stuff from other news sites I wouldn't normally visit) so I guess as a random selection it makes some sense, but not as a dedicated homepage/plugin etc. that I would deliberately load up frequently.
So I really am not suprised by the 4% figure, the only thing that is suprising is that anybody else is suprised:)
You're right I didn't RTFA, but I was replying to Reality Master 101's more general anti-youth post.
As for that specific case of the girl using abusive language etc. when doing her shopping, why wouldn't the proprieter just ban her from the shop? And if she wouldn't respect such a ban then call the police. Aren't these the steps you take in such a situation? The age of the person causing trouble is not the issue (as you note in your comments about X-box live players).
So now that you're old, you don't like the way young people act? Wow, insightful isn't the word.
How about instead of looking down on youth for acting the way you admittedly acted, try to remember why you acted that way and understand them. Then maybe you won't react with fear followed by reactionary measures like this ridiculous device which further alienate youth.
You may even remember that for all your youthful posturing, you weren't so dangerous and evil, that you loitering around a store wasn't so threatening. Next time you see a bunch of youths and you feel some emotional response (fear, disgust, derision, etc.) try looking for the root of that response and see if it's reall well founded, or if it's just there because you watch too many 60 Minutes stories about our out of control youth, or in your case, maybe you're just too entrenched in this clash-of-the-generations psyche.
You know I really wonder about comments like these. Is there some sort of negative Slashdot commenter's club that you join or are you guys just a bunch of unhappy people? I mean, someone goes out and creates something pretty cool, he/she announces it on a mailinglist for some feedback, and you just give this incredibly negative why-even-bother type comment. Not criticism either, no real points are raised, just a bashing of the effort. I just don't get it - why, in fact, do you bother?
For the record I think it looks pretty cool and no doubt will only get better. Oh and as for making it on an API that 'clearly isn't meant to support such a game' - isn't that the hacking mentality? Go out and create something that wasn't even envisioned... just for fun!
I'd love to see a version of Diplomacy made to work the same way - that is my favourite boardgame of all time and I believe Risk is based on it. Diplomacy's major strength though is the lack of die - it's all strategy and negotiation, chance plays just about no role (the allocation of countries at the beginning being the only exception).
I installed the original Desktop search, but since moving computers hadn't bothered to reinstall. I have just installed this new version and it is one very slick little app. I don't usually like giving up screen real-estate but I decided to try the sidebar and so far I'm impressed. I can see a lot I'll be able to use, not least the scratch pad instead of opening up notepad for one-liners. The to-do list is cool too - I know it sounds so simple, but my workload comes from two service desk queues, plus other projects, plus ad-hoc email requests - and I think just jotting down a few tasks to get done today in the morning might help organise things for the day rather than flitting about between tasks all day.
As I said, some simple tools, but helpful, and well organised. As for the desktop search itself, we can now specify network drives to index which is really cool for the dis-organised mess of nested folders that is my corporate drive. Gmail search can't get through my firewall unfortunately. The News search is great, it seems to have figured out my habits from history - I haven't visited any news sites except slashdot since installing and it's already got some new stories from my favourite sites... Plus some seemingly random interesting maps and blogs... no doubt these will cancel out any gains to my productivity made by ease of finding things:)
So all in all, first impression is a good one.
btw, does anyone know a way to create a firefox keyword to search the with this? It seems to need a session id to work, but maybe there's a way round?
Largely agricultural economy? Maybe in 1900. Well I'm not quite sure what classifies as 'largely', but given these stats, I'd say Australia's economy is minimally agricultural. 3.7% to be exact. And the government subsidises that heavily (explicitly because of politics, and implicitly through idiotic short-sightedness, such as cheap-as-hell water for rice farmers, that's right, rice in the second dryest continent on earth). Some say the subsidies outweigh the real contribution to our economy. Maybe the best thing for us would be to have this sector destroyed, then we can get to cleaning up the mess they've created over the last two centuries, such as salination.
While I think it is a good idea for a well regulated market economy to investigate mergers and acquisitions thoroughly, I think sending multi-billion dollar probes to scrutinise Hyperion's recent purchase of Brio to be a bit much...
I welcome this standard with open arms. I look forward to the not-too-distant day when I will be able to buy 100m(sq) of Standard Data Centre on eBay for $25. No more un-backed-up un-RAIDed hard drives for my mp3s!
I am very happy that this is finally going to happen, now we'll see Bigpond (Telstra's ISP) compete evenly with other providers. Maybe bigpond will even join WAIX, Western Australia's peering network, and other similar organisations around Aus.
It's a pity that the price of this move is the just about definite sell-off of that remaining government stake in Telstra. The sale is going through because the Gov got a majority in the senate at the last election (first time sice the late 70s) so they can push it through now. But this in turn means they have to placate their coalition partners, the Nationals, who only care about Telstra services to the bush being at parity with the city - i.e. heavily subsidised. So we finally get the Telstra split to allay fears of Telstra pricing getting out of control without the Gov holding them back. I would have like the split+maintaining Gov control. Actually there was a plan floated I believe which would sell off some parts - such as the ISP side of things, but keep infrastructure and wholesale under Gov control - the best of both worlds I think.
Of course it's all going now in the final stage of Uncle Howard's Great Fire Sale where all the nation's assets get sold off for short term gain.
Okay, I capitulate on all matters except your post script. Yes, I don't know much about the Jewish faith and how it is taught. If it is as you say then it sounds better that I had concieved. I don't know how such enlightened teaching can yield the ultra-orthadox that we see on the TV so often these days, but perhaps the reverence for learning and questioning is not equally shared by all sects.
As for your rephasing of my origonal post, yes it reads much better, I'll try to be more tactful in the future.
Finally the post script: I am aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, and I have just discussed this more lengthily on two previous posts on this thread, if a theory yields no testable predictions then it yields nothing. If one requires no evidence to accept something then one accepts everything. You were told that your particular god exists and all the lore that goes with it because you were born to people who had those beliefs. My parents had others. Some other guy has Muslim parents and another has Hindu. The point being that each of us is presented with a theory (of religion) with equal amounts of evidence (none) and if we accept these theories we all come to different conclusions on the same matter. This is not a rigorous way of thinking that comes to four different conclusions on the same matter not based on different evidence, but based on different untested theories.
So yes, I do not believe a god exists as I have not been presented a credible theory that says one does. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy for the same reason (but don't get into such debates on this matter for some reason). I don't believe that the Earth will explode tomorrow - same again. There are infinite things that I don't believe because I havent been offered a credible theory. There are finite things I do believe because I have been offered one. You can phrase any of the infinite things I don't believe in as a theory of its own and call it a belief (e.g. you believe god doesn't exist - no, I do not believe god does exist) but that doesn't make it religious.
If you don't believe in a supernatural force of some sort you are not religious - that can not be disputed. Trying to label me religious because I am vehemently atheist is a contradiction. You can say, if you wish, that my atheism is analagous to the reasoning behind religion, which seems to be what you are saying, but no god = no religion, at least in the most widely accepted form of the definiton. You can broaden religion to include me if you wish, but then politics, sport and just about anything else can become religion as well.
As for your actual point: I simply try to be as rational as I can. I look at a belief I have and if it has no basis I should throw it away. Yes I do not think any god exists, because there has been no evidence for it that I have seen. That's it - a very simple bit of logic. True, it is impossible to prove the absence of something, but if you then believe that everything that can not be disproven exists then you have Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy as well. Again that's very simple logic - you can not disprove the existence of Santa Clause in exactly the same way you can not disprove the existence of a god - at least any of the gods in which the major religions believe, as they yield no testable hypotheses.
That is the essence of what I'm saying - if your theory yields nothing to test then sure, it can't be disproven. But equally it can not be proven. So it yields nothing to a person intent on using reason to shape his/her views. The sun rising tomorrow, inductive logic yields the hypothesis, you can test it tomorrow! It's a great hypothesis, readily testable and based on some good induction. The same with your volcano, you test the hypothesis that it won't explode again every day. If it ever does, theory is proven false, find a new one. That's the scientific method.
Dark matter is a different matter (ha ha). I am no physicist (IANAP) but from what I understand it is a theory developed from observation. That is, a theory of the existence of something which would cause certain observed phenomena. Sounds a lot like religion eh? But the crucial difference: the scientific theory of dark matter yields some testable predictions - if it did not, as religion does not, then it would be a pointless excersise.
So there it is - give me a religion which yields testable predictions, test them, and if they come out correct then hallelujah I'm a believer. The fact is no major religion yields such predictions. So anyone who believes does so for one reason and one only, because they want to. I find that pointless, I don't want to believe something just because it makes me feel better, or less afraid or part of something or any of the myriad other reasons people believe it gods. I want my beliefs to be founded on solid reasoning and evidence.
But no matter how enlightened or progressive the religion or practitioner, if someone is religious then by definition they must believe in a supernatural power.
Of course I can only speak from my experience - and I am always open to the idea of an argument I haven't heard which may prove me wrong - but as far as I can tell it is impossible to prove the existence of such a supernatural power. Any religious person I have ever spoken to on the matter has ended claiming that 'you have to have faith', which is simply code for: 'I have no reason to believe but I want to so I will.'
So a summary of my line of reasoning is:
All religions claim a supernatural power exists (by definition, therefore some forms of buddhism e.g. are not religions by this definition)
It is impossible to prove the existence of such a supernatural being.
Any adherent of any religion (by definition again) must believe in the existence of this supernatural being.
Therefore any adherent of any religion must not have seriously examined that particular and intrinsic tenet of their religion.
That is of course a short summary but you can see the essence of it. I really can't see how a religion can foster anything but dogmatism, and from all the religious people I have met, the effects of religion in politcs, opinion pieces written by religious people in the paper, statements by church leaders or imams or rabbis or gurus - from all of this that I have experienced nothing has even hinted that religion might be a force for reason or rationalism.
Yes there are people who claim to be religious and who are intelligent and nobel prize winners and all the rest. But equally there are catholics who use birth control. What I mean by this is that just because someone says he/she is a religious practitioner doesn't mean they actually know half the tenets of their religion - usually it's just because they were born into it and are afraid of examining it.
But in my mind, there can be no doubt that a religious person has rejected reason.
you wrote "I consider all religions to be completely and obviously false, therefore all religions are cults."
The flaw in your reasoning is readily apparent: just because you can't or won't understand something doesn't mean that it's false.
You have a point in that the definition says 'generally considered', although this of course depends on the opinions of the society in which you live. Yes, by this definition, the big religions are not cults as they are not generally considered false in my or your society.
However the alleged flaw that you point out in my reasoning has nothing to do with whether or not religions are cults. As I have just conceeded, the 'generally considered' element of the definition was my flaw. But you say: I call religions false and hence cults. I come to the conclusion that religions are false because I can't or won't understand religions/your religion, which is bad reasoning, hence my conclusion is invalid and so religions are not cults.
Now it is obvious here that you have no idea why I have come to the conclusion that religions are false and you are presuming that I don't understand religion because you think that yours is true. Which looks to me like circular reasoning. Suffice to say, this particular point didn't say much, but gave you the opportunity to make a jibe about me criticizing that which I don't understand - I had always thought the religious had a patent on that process (beware, another jibe.)
Now to the charismatic leader. (Although of course I have conceeded the point about cults, I feel the need to debate this point anyway.) You say that a) most rabbis are not described as charismatic and b) rabbi means teacher. So a rabbi is not the sort to be an authoritarian cult leader.
As to weather rabbis are frequently described as charismatic, or whether there are some who exert a controlling influence over the thoughts of their congregation I can not say. I'm pretty sure there are more than a few extremist Jewish sects (extremist in the opinions of the majority of Jews I suppose) led by their own extreme rabbis and these could probably fit the bill as far as a cult is concerned.
Then there is the issue of whether a God can be called charismatic. I think that the first definition you gave there fits the bill entirely:
leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.
What is a judeo-christian-islamic god if not this? Yes it does say 'personal quality', but I think that has more to do with syntax than semantics. Whether or not the god is actively appearing to people doesn't matter if it's purported words are being read every day by millions and used as the basis for their lives.
Then of course after all of this is the second definition for cult: A system or community of religious worship and ritual. (again from dictionary.com) I think that one is pretty hard to argue with.
Onto brainwaishing - the crux of the matter for me is whether active questioning of the subject matter is encouraged. That is, whether the subject is being taught dogmatically or not. I've never attended a religious class or church where anything is questioned. Indeed questioning is actively discouraged from my experience. You can't call that education and you certainly can call it brainwashing, especially if the subject matter relates to ethics and ideology. When those subjects are being taught (i.e. education) everything is questioned, every idea examined. In a religious setting the very opposite is the norm: ideas and beliefs are presented as facts, to question them - blasphemy. That, to me, is brainwashing.
Your next point, if I may call it that, is mainly composed of varios jibes. You call me an angry atheist - I assure you I'm not angry and I don't see how anything I have said has implied that I am. To be sure I am an atheist, and I despise religion as I despise any unreasonably held belief. That doesn't make me angry thoug
cult n. 1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
That's the first definition I get from dictionary.com and it fits - I consider all religions to be completely and obviously false, therefore all religions are cults. Although the secondary part of the definition is optional, a mythical god suffices for the authoritarian, charismatic leader (even if it hasn't shown itself for a few millennia), or a particular rabbi/imam/priest/guru etc. who is leading a particular sect of your chosen cult would fit the bill even moreso.
So that does it for cult. Yeah it has negative connotations, but rightly so - followers aren't known for their perspicacity.
Next we come to brainwash. Well what else do you call putting a child through regular rituals when they are too young to understand or argue the basis of those rituals. I don't know if your particular rituals involve the chanting and devoted kneeling, bowing of heads etc. of the Roman Catholic rituals to which I was subjected as a child, but I'm sure they involve similarly baseless affirmations of various beliefs necessary to nurture a future cult member.
Now I have rechecked my definitions as you have asked and found them sound. I think I used them well within normal usage but that you are more used to other, more revering words being used such as 'religion' and 'ceremony' rather than 'cult' and 'brainwashing ritual' - but then I try to use precise words that reflect the reality of the situation.
What a shame you'll find it harder to brainwash your youngsters. If you choose to base your life on a bunch of ancient superstitious rituals then you can hardly complain about the modern world not working around them as it progresses.
Having said that, I think DST is worthless. However, someosne's cult rituals will never be a reason for anyone to do anything, excepting of course said cult member.
I don't think it's as simple as that last sentance. See my previous post - but basically there are people in positions of power, the majority of those in such positions in fact, who control your destiny and who will use your affiliations against you.
If I have an opinion that I would defend happily in an argument with someone who can think and who isn't offended by his or her ideas being challenged, but I know this same opinion *would* offend 90% of people, I certainly wouldn't want this opinion to be able to be connected to me by just anyone.
So your conclusion should read:...if most people wouldn't be proud of your affiliations, then either you need to change your affiliations or hide them (see my previous post) OR change yourself.
Which of these choices you make depends on the validity of "most people"'s problem with the affiliation. If they are grounded and logical, then change yourself. If they are baseless and irrational then hide the affiliation. This is the sad necessity in our mob-rule/group-think society.
For a case in practice of someone who refused to compromise his opinions or hide them see Bertrand_Russell. About halfway down that page you can see how Russell was disallowed from a teaching position at New York City College in the 40s because of a "public outcry" over his opinions. He didn't comprimise and ended up teaching at Harvard instead:) Of course Russell had such a magnificent reputation as a philosopher and freethinker that he didn't need to worry what a bunch of idiots thought of him, even if they did control the Mayor of New York and the state judiciary. However, I am not so fortunate:)
That's why you don't connect your online persona(e) to your real identity - at least if you think you might say something that some idiot somewhere might find offensive or controversial - i.e. anything interesting.
Of course my email address is linked pretty well to my real identity, but then I give that out to real people I know. If I were to post something on, oh, I don't know, slashdot, I use some alias which no one who knows me personally could connect to me. Some with usenet etc.
I'm not saying this is a great or easy thing - certainly it would be nice not to worry about this stuff, but yeah, I don't want every potential employer to be able to look up my name in Google and get a bunch of my opinions on things like religion and abortion and government. Unfortunately there are people who will use opinions agains you as OP said, and so you have to divorce your online-freethinking/speaking self from your reality-polite-kowtowing-non-offending self.
What I wouldn't give for a society of freethinkers...
Also fun are double comparitives (more better), and forgetting the correct comparitive or superlative form (gooder, goodest), and of course absolutely bizzare errors: betterer, more gooder, bestest...
In Australia at least, these aren't confined to 4 year olds leaning to speak or uneducated boobs whose main cultural activity involves watching other uneducated boobs in Big Brother, I've actually seen a news reader use a double superlative (it could be argued that said news reader was just an uneducated boob, but is that really an excuse?:)
How the hell do you link those two things together? I mean I know that the unthinking wretches that control our culture link them as 'sex and violence' but the obvious difference to my mind is that one turns you on (good) and one is perpetuates violence (bad). Any ethical (not polluted by religious distortions) person would see no problem with the former and a whole heap of problems with the latter.
US$8.50 for an hour? I guess with this kind of service (more overheads?) it is reasonable, but seems a bit pricey when I could get a car for
AU$21 for the whole day.
Slashdot Mirror
So that's one point. But more broadly, it seems to me to be a bit more organic than using photoshop. He says the effect is reletively predictable, but given unpredictable environments, such as cars on a road, the picture could end up more interesting than anything you could concieve and then coerce into existance
Finally, I really, really, really don't understand why these types of comments are made. Every bloody hack article there's some grim, sad comments about how the hack sucks because a) it could be done easier in some other way, b) it's 'pointless', c) it's 'try-hard', or whatever other reason. It's so infuriating - do you have any sense of exploration and experimentation? Or understand the desire to tell others about your experiences?
Am I the only one who doesn't get the (great) appeal of RSS? I've tried it in various forms (Firefox Live Bookmarks, Google Homepage, RSS plugin for Firefox...) serveral times and I always end up forgetting about it. I really only read three web-pages every day and I like to scan the entire pages, so RSS is a waste of time in those cases as the various methods of using RSS only let you see, say, 20 headlines at once and my main news page, for example, has hundreds well organised in various sections.
The new Gmail implementation is vaugely interesting as I sometimes see something I wouldn't have otherwise seen (such as Google blog entries and stuff from other news sites I wouldn't normally visit) so I guess as a random selection it makes some sense, but not as a dedicated homepage/plugin etc. that I would deliberately load up frequently.
So I really am not suprised by the 4% figure, the only thing that is suprising is that anybody else is suprised:)
As for that specific case of the girl using abusive language etc. when doing her shopping, why wouldn't the proprieter just ban her from the shop? And if she wouldn't respect such a ban then call the police. Aren't these the steps you take in such a situation? The age of the person causing trouble is not the issue (as you note in your comments about X-box live players).
How about instead of looking down on youth for acting the way you admittedly acted, try to remember why you acted that way and understand them. Then maybe you won't react with fear followed by reactionary measures like this ridiculous device which further alienate youth.
You may even remember that for all your youthful posturing, you weren't so dangerous and evil, that you loitering around a store wasn't so threatening. Next time you see a bunch of youths and you feel some emotional response (fear, disgust, derision, etc.) try looking for the root of that response and see if it's reall well founded, or if it's just there because you watch too many 60 Minutes stories about our out of control youth, or in your case, maybe you're just too entrenched in this clash-of-the-generations psyche.
For the record I think it looks pretty cool and no doubt will only get better. Oh and as for making it on an API that 'clearly isn't meant to support such a game' - isn't that the hacking mentality? Go out and create something that wasn't even envisioned... just for fun!
I'd love to see a version of Diplomacy made to work the same way - that is my favourite boardgame of all time and I believe Risk is based on it. Diplomacy's major strength though is the lack of die - it's all strategy and negotiation, chance plays just about no role (the allocation of countries at the beginning being the only exception).
I installed the original Desktop search, but since moving computers hadn't bothered to reinstall. I have just installed this new version and it is one very slick little app. I don't usually like giving up screen real-estate but I decided to try the sidebar and so far I'm impressed. I can see a lot I'll be able to use, not least the scratch pad instead of opening up notepad for one-liners. The to-do list is cool too - I know it sounds so simple, but my workload comes from two service desk queues, plus other projects, plus ad-hoc email requests - and I think just jotting down a few tasks to get done today in the morning might help organise things for the day rather than flitting about between tasks all day.
As I said, some simple tools, but helpful, and well organised. As for the desktop search itself, we can now specify network drives to index which is really cool for the dis-organised mess of nested folders that is my corporate drive. Gmail search can't get through my firewall unfortunately. The News search is great, it seems to have figured out my habits from history - I haven't visited any news sites except slashdot since installing and it's already got some new stories from my favourite sites... Plus some seemingly random interesting maps and blogs... no doubt these will cancel out any gains to my productivity made by ease of finding things:)
So all in all, first impression is a good one.
btw, does anyone know a way to create a firefox keyword to search the with this? It seems to need a session id to work, but maybe there's a way round?
Largely agricultural economy? Maybe in 1900. Well I'm not quite sure what classifies as 'largely', but given these stats, I'd say Australia's economy is minimally agricultural. 3.7% to be exact. And the government subsidises that heavily (explicitly because of politics, and implicitly through idiotic short-sightedness, such as cheap-as-hell water for rice farmers, that's right, rice in the second dryest continent on earth). Some say the subsidies outweigh the real contribution to our economy. Maybe the best thing for us would be to have this sector destroyed, then we can get to cleaning up the mess they've created over the last two centuries, such as salination.
While I think it is a good idea for a well regulated market economy to investigate mergers and acquisitions thoroughly, I think sending multi-billion dollar probes to scrutinise Hyperion's recent purchase of Brio to be a bit much...
I welcome this standard with open arms. I look forward to the not-too-distant day when I will be able to buy 100m(sq) of Standard Data Centre on eBay for $25. No more un-backed-up un-RAIDed hard drives for my mp3s!
It's a pity that the price of this move is the just about definite sell-off of that remaining government stake in Telstra. The sale is going through because the Gov got a majority in the senate at the last election (first time sice the late 70s) so they can push it through now. But this in turn means they have to placate their coalition partners, the Nationals, who only care about Telstra services to the bush being at parity with the city - i.e. heavily subsidised. So we finally get the Telstra split to allay fears of Telstra pricing getting out of control without the Gov holding them back. I would have like the split+maintaining Gov control. Actually there was a plan floated I believe which would sell off some parts - such as the ISP side of things, but keep infrastructure and wholesale under Gov control - the best of both worlds I think.
Of course it's all going now in the final stage of Uncle Howard's Great Fire Sale where all the nation's assets get sold off for short term gain.
As for your rephasing of my origonal post, yes it reads much better, I'll try to be more tactful in the future.
Finally the post script: I am aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, and I have just discussed this more lengthily on two previous posts on this thread, if a theory yields no testable predictions then it yields nothing. If one requires no evidence to accept something then one accepts everything. You were told that your particular god exists and all the lore that goes with it because you were born to people who had those beliefs. My parents had others. Some other guy has Muslim parents and another has Hindu. The point being that each of us is presented with a theory (of religion) with equal amounts of evidence (none) and if we accept these theories we all come to different conclusions on the same matter. This is not a rigorous way of thinking that comes to four different conclusions on the same matter not based on different evidence, but based on different untested theories.
So yes, I do not believe a god exists as I have not been presented a credible theory that says one does. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy for the same reason (but don't get into such debates on this matter for some reason). I don't believe that the Earth will explode tomorrow - same again. There are infinite things that I don't believe because I havent been offered a credible theory. There are finite things I do believe because I have been offered one. You can phrase any of the infinite things I don't believe in as a theory of its own and call it a belief (e.g. you believe god doesn't exist - no, I do not believe god does exist) but that doesn't make it religious.
As for your actual point: I simply try to be as rational as I can. I look at a belief I have and if it has no basis I should throw it away. Yes I do not think any god exists, because there has been no evidence for it that I have seen. That's it - a very simple bit of logic. True, it is impossible to prove the absence of something, but if you then believe that everything that can not be disproven exists then you have Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy as well. Again that's very simple logic - you can not disprove the existence of Santa Clause in exactly the same way you can not disprove the existence of a god - at least any of the gods in which the major religions believe, as they yield no testable hypotheses.
That is the essence of what I'm saying - if your theory yields nothing to test then sure, it can't be disproven. But equally it can not be proven. So it yields nothing to a person intent on using reason to shape his/her views. The sun rising tomorrow, inductive logic yields the hypothesis, you can test it tomorrow! It's a great hypothesis, readily testable and based on some good induction. The same with your volcano, you test the hypothesis that it won't explode again every day. If it ever does, theory is proven false, find a new one. That's the scientific method.
Dark matter is a different matter (ha ha). I am no physicist (IANAP) but from what I understand it is a theory developed from observation. That is, a theory of the existence of something which would cause certain observed phenomena. Sounds a lot like religion eh? But the crucial difference: the scientific theory of dark matter yields some testable predictions - if it did not, as religion does not, then it would be a pointless excersise.
So there it is - give me a religion which yields testable predictions, test them, and if they come out correct then hallelujah I'm a believer. The fact is no major religion yields such predictions. So anyone who believes does so for one reason and one only, because they want to. I find that pointless, I don't want to believe something just because it makes me feel better, or less afraid or part of something or any of the myriad other reasons people believe it gods. I want my beliefs to be founded on solid reasoning and evidence.
Of course I can only speak from my experience - and I am always open to the idea of an argument I haven't heard which may prove me wrong - but as far as I can tell it is impossible to prove the existence of such a supernatural power. Any religious person I have ever spoken to on the matter has ended claiming that 'you have to have faith', which is simply code for: 'I have no reason to believe but I want to so I will.'
So a summary of my line of reasoning is:
All religions claim a supernatural power exists (by definition, therefore some forms of buddhism e.g. are not religions by this definition)
It is impossible to prove the existence of such a supernatural being.
Any adherent of any religion (by definition again) must believe in the existence of this supernatural being.
Therefore any adherent of any religion must not have seriously examined that particular and intrinsic tenet of their religion.
That is of course a short summary but you can see the essence of it. I really can't see how a religion can foster anything but dogmatism, and from all the religious people I have met, the effects of religion in politcs, opinion pieces written by religious people in the paper, statements by church leaders or imams or rabbis or gurus - from all of this that I have experienced nothing has even hinted that religion might be a force for reason or rationalism.
Yes there are people who claim to be religious and who are intelligent and nobel prize winners and all the rest. But equally there are catholics who use birth control. What I mean by this is that just because someone says he/she is a religious practitioner doesn't mean they actually know half the tenets of their religion - usually it's just because they were born into it and are afraid of examining it.
But in my mind, there can be no doubt that a religious person has rejected reason.
you wrote "I consider all religions to be completely and obviously false, therefore all religions are cults."
The flaw in your reasoning is readily apparent: just because you can't or won't understand something doesn't mean that it's false.
You have a point in that the definition says 'generally considered', although this of course depends on the opinions of the society in which you live. Yes, by this definition, the big religions are not cults as they are not generally considered false in my or your society.
However the alleged flaw that you point out in my reasoning has nothing to do with whether or not religions are cults. As I have just conceeded, the 'generally considered' element of the definition was my flaw. But you say: I call religions false and hence cults. I come to the conclusion that religions are false because I can't or won't understand religions/your religion, which is bad reasoning, hence my conclusion is invalid and so religions are not cults.
Now it is obvious here that you have no idea why I have come to the conclusion that religions are false and you are presuming that I don't understand religion because you think that yours is true. Which looks to me like circular reasoning. Suffice to say, this particular point didn't say much, but gave you the opportunity to make a jibe about me criticizing that which I don't understand - I had always thought the religious had a patent on that process (beware, another jibe.)
Now to the charismatic leader. (Although of course I have conceeded the point about cults, I feel the need to debate this point anyway.) You say that a) most rabbis are not described as charismatic and b) rabbi means teacher. So a rabbi is not the sort to be an authoritarian cult leader.
As to weather rabbis are frequently described as charismatic, or whether there are some who exert a controlling influence over the thoughts of their congregation I can not say. I'm pretty sure there are more than a few extremist Jewish sects (extremist in the opinions of the majority of Jews I suppose) led by their own extreme rabbis and these could probably fit the bill as far as a cult is concerned.
Then there is the issue of whether a God can be called charismatic. I think that the first definition you gave there fits the bill entirely: leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.
What is a judeo-christian-islamic god if not this? Yes it does say 'personal quality', but I think that has more to do with syntax than semantics. Whether or not the god is actively appearing to people doesn't matter if it's purported words are being read every day by millions and used as the basis for their lives.
Then of course after all of this is the second definition for cult: A system or community of religious worship and ritual. (again from dictionary.com) I think that one is pretty hard to argue with.
Onto brainwaishing - the crux of the matter for me is whether active questioning of the subject matter is encouraged. That is, whether the subject is being taught dogmatically or not. I've never attended a religious class or church where anything is questioned. Indeed questioning is actively discouraged from my experience. You can't call that education and you certainly can call it brainwashing, especially if the subject matter relates to ethics and ideology. When those subjects are being taught (i.e. education) everything is questioned, every idea examined. In a religious setting the very opposite is the norm: ideas and beliefs are presented as facts, to question them - blasphemy. That, to me, is brainwashing.
Your next point, if I may call it that, is mainly composed of varios jibes. You call me an angry atheist - I assure you I'm not angry and I don't see how anything I have said has implied that I am. To be sure I am an atheist, and I despise religion as I despise any unreasonably held belief. That doesn't make me angry thoug
cult
n. 1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
That's the first definition I get from dictionary.com and it fits - I consider all religions to be completely and obviously false, therefore all religions are cults. Although the secondary part of the definition is optional, a mythical god suffices for the authoritarian, charismatic leader (even if it hasn't shown itself for a few millennia), or a particular rabbi/imam/priest/guru etc. who is leading a particular sect of your chosen cult would fit the bill even moreso.
So that does it for cult. Yeah it has negative connotations, but rightly so - followers aren't known for their perspicacity.
Next we come to brainwash. Well what else do you call putting a child through regular rituals when they are too young to understand or argue the basis of those rituals. I don't know if your particular rituals involve the chanting and devoted kneeling, bowing of heads etc. of the Roman Catholic rituals to which I was subjected as a child, but I'm sure they involve similarly baseless affirmations of various beliefs necessary to nurture a future cult member.
Now I have rechecked my definitions as you have asked and found them sound. I think I used them well within normal usage but that you are more used to other, more revering words being used such as 'religion' and 'ceremony' rather than 'cult' and 'brainwashing ritual' - but then I try to use precise words that reflect the reality of the situation.
What a shame you'll find it harder to brainwash your youngsters. If you choose to base your life on a bunch of ancient superstitious rituals then you can hardly complain about the modern world not working around them as it progresses.
Having said that, I think DST is worthless. However, someosne's cult rituals will never be a reason for anyone to do anything, excepting of course said cult member.
If I have an opinion that I would defend happily in an argument with someone who can think and who isn't offended by his or her ideas being challenged, but I know this same opinion *would* offend 90% of people, I certainly wouldn't want this opinion to be able to be connected to me by just anyone.
So your conclusion should read: ...if most people wouldn't be proud of your affiliations, then either you need to change your affiliations or hide them (see my previous post) OR change yourself.
Which of these choices you make depends on the validity of "most people"'s problem with the affiliation. If they are grounded and logical, then change yourself. If they are baseless and irrational then hide the affiliation. This is the sad necessity in our mob-rule/group-think society.
For a case in practice of someone who refused to compromise his opinions or hide them see Bertrand_Russell. About halfway down that page you can see how Russell was disallowed from a teaching position at New York City College in the 40s because of a "public outcry" over his opinions. He didn't comprimise and ended up teaching at Harvard instead:) Of course Russell had such a magnificent reputation as a philosopher and freethinker that he didn't need to worry what a bunch of idiots thought of him, even if they did control the Mayor of New York and the state judiciary. However, I am not so fortunate:)
That's why you don't connect your online persona(e) to your real identity - at least if you think you might say something that some idiot somewhere might find offensive or controversial - i.e. anything interesting.
Of course my email address is linked pretty well to my real identity, but then I give that out to real people I know. If I were to post something on, oh, I don't know, slashdot, I use some alias which no one who knows me personally could connect to me. Some with usenet etc.
I'm not saying this is a great or easy thing - certainly it would be nice not to worry about this stuff, but yeah, I don't want every potential employer to be able to look up my name in Google and get a bunch of my opinions on things like religion and abortion and government. Unfortunately there are people who will use opinions agains you as OP said, and so you have to divorce your online-freethinking/speaking self from your reality-polite-kowtowing-non-offending self.
What I wouldn't give for a society of freethinkers...
I believe it is a double superlative.
Also fun are double comparitives (more better), and forgetting the correct comparitive or superlative form (gooder, goodest), and of course absolutely bizzare errors: betterer, more gooder, bestest...
In Australia at least, these aren't confined to 4 year olds leaning to speak or uneducated boobs whose main cultural activity involves watching other uneducated boobs in Big Brother, I've actually seen a news reader use a double superlative (it could be argued that said news reader was just an uneducated boob, but is that really an excuse?:)
How the hell do you link those two things together? I mean I know that the unthinking wretches that control our culture link them as 'sex and violence' but the obvious difference to my mind is that one turns you on (good) and one is perpetuates violence (bad). Any ethical (not polluted by religious distortions) person would see no problem with the former and a whole heap of problems with the latter.
...but then I was so horrified by the high ranking of a certain team that I had to join this one to keep from screaming.
Go Atheists/Agnostics!
US$8.50 for an hour? I guess with this kind of service (more overheads?) it is reasonable, but seems a bit pricey when I could get a car for AU$21 for the whole day.
Is this guy Fraiser? ...oh yeah - Fraiser has a BMW...
You do realise that just because a remote access vulnerability hasn't been reported does not mean it doesn't exist.
That is to say: a lack of reports can imply *either* no vulnerabilities or not rigourous enough checking for them. On it's own the fact means nothing.