"until science supersedes religions and then religions are discarded as irrelevant by the gigantic population."
Except that any rationalist could see that religion has not been discarded by the gigantic population, and you are therefore making baseless assertions.
You might think that you don't see a need for religion, and that's just fine. But trying to assert that you're smarter than everyone who believes in God...well, that's not very smart.
Show you scientific proof of something that's fundamentally not scientific. I'll get right on that.
And I definitely think that rejecting something that's present in every culture on Earth out of hand, because it doesn't fit into your philosophical outlook, is definitely a closed-minded attitude.
I simply don't care. I'm not responsible for 6 billion people. I'm responsible for me. I will make choices based on my own costs and benefits. My religious faith benefits me. You don't get a vote.
"prefer to be able to treat an illness with gene therapy for example"
Uh huh. Me too.
" and if you make it more difficult for me by changing the curriculum of the schools and by producing a population that is less inclined to do research into this particular area, I will fight you."
I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it's not me. I've been suspended from a Christian private school for my advocacy of evolution.
This is my fundamental point: You are advocating a false dichotomy. It's not "people like you" and "people like me". There is a continuum of perspectives on these subjects. I am a Christian, and I am a professional engineer and amateur scientist. I disagree with the people who say that science kills God. I disagree with people who say that God obviates science. I disagree with the people who want to teach creationism in the science classroom. I also disagree with the people who say that you're not allowed to talk about God in public. (Yes, I'm oversimplifying.) I see God's hand in my life. That doesn't have anything to do with you, or any other person.
There is simply no disconnect here. I can, and do, value my spirituality AND my rational faculties. If you say that I can't, "I will fight you."
"Basically to me your experiences are not pointless if I cannot use them in a productive way."
Absolutely true. However, the value of my experiences to you has nothing whatsoever to with their value to me.
"again, if your conclusions cannot be used for something useful to me, they are irrelevant to me"
Sure! Your lack of belief is irrelevant to my belief. I, however, am more than willing to respect your point of view. I'm not going to try to convince you to agree with me. I just wish to point out that people who disagree with you are not mentally defective...they just disagree with you.
"However at this point your experiences are not simply stupid and deluded, they are dangerous to my life."
Paranoid much? We've already established that my beliefs have nothing to do with you. Maybe your belief in the Conspiracy to Get You needs to be re-evaluated.
I take a retail approach to survival. I think individual humans are valuable. I don't have the evolved sensibility to only consider the faceless billions.
I'm sure this is a serious moral flaw. I'll work on it.
I submit that the people who eat dinner tonight because a religious organization gave it to them would not agree with you.
That's not to say that non-religious people aren't charitable, of course. However, it's unreasonable to discount the substantial investments in charity that religious believers make.
So your experience is different from other people's experience. You and I may observe the same world, and draw different conclusions. Why is it so hard to allow for the possibility that neither of us is stupid or deluded?
(I'm not the parent poster, but I agree with him...)
"it's that every person I know who is religious doesn't seem to understand everyday events"
OK. Many of the people I've met in religious organizations understand everyday events perfectly, up to and including advanced physics sorts of events.
Just because YOU don't happen to know smart people who are also religious doesn't mean they don't exist. Your conflation of the two unrelated characteristics makes me think you're not very scientifically minded, either.
Why on earth would my mother care to sift through tens of thousands of anythings? And I'd wager my mom's in the 95th percentile of technically apt moms....
The thing is, your "observant, well-trained professionals" are the SAME GOAT RODEO CLOWNS that are currently "responsible" for "security". They're just getting a different vocabulary to justify detaining and harassing people.
To a very good approximation, 0% of travelers are terrorists. Treating 100% of travelers like suspected terrorists is simply unacceptable.
If your contract doesn't include a requirement to be on call 24/7, what's the problem? Does your contract say "These portions of your contract will be voided, in such a way that you won't be allowed to renegotiate, if we hand you a piece of personal electronic equipment."? If it does, I suggest that you were not very smart when you signed that contract.
If you're subject to an unacceptable expectation, reset the expectation. "If you want me to be on call, you need to give me more money. If not, that's fine too."
Slashdot Mirror
"until science supersedes religions and then religions are discarded as irrelevant by the gigantic population."
Except that any rationalist could see that religion has not been discarded by the gigantic population, and you are therefore making baseless assertions.
You might think that you don't see a need for religion, and that's just fine. But trying to assert that you're smarter than everyone who believes in God...well, that's not very smart.
Show you scientific proof of something that's fundamentally not scientific. I'll get right on that.
And I definitely think that rejecting something that's present in every culture on Earth out of hand, because it doesn't fit into your philosophical outlook, is definitely a closed-minded attitude.
I simply don't care. I'm not responsible for 6 billion people. I'm responsible for me. I will make choices based on my own costs and benefits. My religious faith benefits me. You don't get a vote.
Just so long as you never make the assertion that you are an open minded person, that's just dandy with me.
Peace unto you.
"but when was the last time your religion was able to move around millions of people a day at high speeds around the globe?"
Um, it didn't. I wasn't aware that that was one of the mission objectives for philosophy. You are grading on an extremely strange curve...
*sigh*
Do you really, seriously think that everybody who believes in God advocates intelligent design?
Whoops...I hit submit too early.
"prefer to be able to treat an illness with gene therapy for example"
Uh huh. Me too.
" and if you make it more difficult for me by changing the curriculum of the schools and by producing a population that is less inclined to do research into this particular area, I will fight you."
I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it's not me. I've been suspended from a Christian private school for my advocacy of evolution.
This is my fundamental point: You are advocating a false dichotomy. It's not "people like you" and "people like me". There is a continuum of perspectives on these subjects. I am a Christian, and I am a professional engineer and amateur scientist. I disagree with the people who say that science kills God. I disagree with people who say that God obviates science. I disagree with the people who want to teach creationism in the science classroom. I also disagree with the people who say that you're not allowed to talk about God in public. (Yes, I'm oversimplifying.) I see God's hand in my life. That doesn't have anything to do with you, or any other person.
There is simply no disconnect here. I can, and do, value my spirituality AND my rational faculties. If you say that I can't, "I will fight you."
"Basically to me your experiences are not pointless if I cannot use them in a productive way."
Absolutely true. However, the value of my experiences to you has nothing whatsoever to with their value to me.
"again, if your conclusions cannot be used for something useful to me, they are irrelevant to me"
Sure! Your lack of belief is irrelevant to my belief. I, however, am more than willing to respect your point of view. I'm not going to try to convince you to agree with me. I just wish to point out that people who disagree with you are not mentally defective...they just disagree with you.
"However at this point your experiences are not simply stupid and deluded, they are dangerous to my life."
Paranoid much? We've already established that my beliefs have nothing to do with you. Maybe your belief in the Conspiracy to Get You needs to be re-evaluated.
I take a retail approach to survival. I think individual humans are valuable. I don't have the evolved sensibility to only consider the faceless billions.
I'm sure this is a serious moral flaw. I'll work on it.
I submit that the people who eat dinner tonight because a religious organization gave it to them would not agree with you.
That's not to say that non-religious people aren't charitable, of course. However, it's unreasonable to discount the substantial investments in charity that religious believers make.
Perhaps Matthew hadn't visited Sweden. That doesn't make his observation any less true than your grandfather's.
Have you ever sat down and read Genesis? It's not a terrible allegory, if your audience is nomadic shepherds...
So your experience is different from other people's experience. You and I may observe the same world, and draw different conclusions. Why is it so hard to allow for the possibility that neither of us is stupid or deluded?
(I'm not the parent poster, but I agree with him...)
"it's that every person I know who is religious doesn't seem to understand everyday events"
OK. Many of the people I've met in religious organizations understand everyday events perfectly, up to and including advanced physics sorts of events.
Just because YOU don't happen to know smart people who are also religious doesn't mean they don't exist. Your conflation of the two unrelated characteristics makes me think you're not very scientifically minded, either.
You're confusing diversity of choice with quality. These are not the same thing.
Why on earth would my mother care to sift through tens of thousands of anythings? And I'd wager my mom's in the 95th percentile of technically apt moms....
The thing is, your "observant, well-trained professionals" are the SAME GOAT RODEO CLOWNS that are currently "responsible" for "security". They're just getting a different vocabulary to justify detaining and harassing people.
To a very good approximation, 0% of travelers are terrorists. Treating 100% of travelers like suspected terrorists is simply unacceptable.
"Or not screen at all?"
Now you're talkin'. Let me keep my shoes on, and carry a pocket knife, and we're back on track to some reasonable security strategies.
Integration with iTMS is bad, but integration with Netflix is great? Why? What makes you think this box will be so "open"?
What you mean "we"? I have more Ansel Adams prints than painted landscapes...
Card readers? Pah! SanDisk Ultra II Plus cards fold in half and present a USB connector. Only way to fly!
I'll take a do-gooder liberal over a bloodthirsty conservative.
I'd prefer somebody who's actually read the Constitution, but those are in short supply.
Uh huh. I know. I used to talk to my watch, and I'm more than slightly familiar with the physics of bodies traveling through the air.
If you think that air brakes are going to get you 150g's, you need to look at the physics of bodies traveling through air more carefully.
Two words: Contact patches.
Seems to me that if you're concerned about security, you should think very carefully about using a public terminal.
If your contract doesn't include a requirement to be on call 24/7, what's the problem? Does your contract say "These portions of your contract will be voided, in such a way that you won't be allowed to renegotiate, if we hand you a piece of personal electronic equipment."? If it does, I suggest that you were not very smart when you signed that contract.
If you're subject to an unacceptable expectation, reset the expectation. "If you want me to be on call, you need to give me more money. If not, that's fine too."