If you deny God and He does exist as He says, you will have eternity to contemplate your pride and ignorance.
I don't assume God is so vindictive. If he wanted us to worship in a certain way, he should have made that more clear. It seems to me that God stays hidden, so we can make up our own minds. If that is the case, how can he fault us after the fact?
I'd rather see the universe as a wonder unknoweable with the eyes of a child than as a jaded atheist who thinks life has no purpose other than to be. That's not to say I believe in miracles or anyone's religious texts. Just that the universe is a vast unknoweable wonder beyond the grasp of anything so small as a human mind as anything but symbols and approximations.
What could be more wondrous than that?
Well said. This is why I cock my head at people who say there is no God. The universe is a vast and strange place. We understand a lot, but even that is just a fraction. Maybe it's true that the Universe is just a machine with no maker. But to foreclose the possibility of a greater consciousness limits our perception. Science should be open to possibility.
it's self-evident. if you believe in unprovable things your brain is defective.
Sorry, but that is not scientific. The most you can say is that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. That is a far cry from evidence that God does not exist. The real answer is we don't know if God exists or not.
You know that intelligence (or the lack thereof) is a handy scapegoat for lack of a penchant for the obvious.
Most of the really smart people are aware God and Santa aren't real, but beneath a certain still pretty smart threshold, many seemingly very sharp people believe in a divinity.
It can be so ingrained culturally that you can't sort it out of yourself.
I agree, it's not about intelligence. It's about critical and free thinking. Free thinking can be difficult, as there are influences to our thoughts and opinions all around us; from the way we were raised to the wider culture to P.R. and advertizing. The issue, I think, is arrogance. It is arrogant to think that your unproven belief could contradict valid scientific observation.
I believe in God. I do not subscribe to any particular religion, but I believe that there is a higher, more powerful consciousness that gave rise to the Universe. HOWEVER, I recognize that as my belief. I cannot prove it. I do not expect anyone else to believe it. I would not base public policy on it, and I certainly would not use it to contradict scientific discovery. I am not so arrogant as to think I am necessarily correct in my belief. The atheist position is perfectly reasonable and valid. Any consciousness capable of creating something like this Universe would not need to be believed in. Do we care if ants believe in us? Do we even give it a thought?
I think it's fine for people to believe in Yaweh, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or no God at all. The issue comes in when people believe their 2000 year old book has more authority than current observation of the natural world. It's ridiculous.
See, that's the problem right there. We know he has lied to us. He has no credibility. If he told me the sky was blue, I'd look up to be sure. As we all know, once you have lost trust, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong; no on will listen to you. It's not just Hayden. So many government officials and spokespeople have lied to cover their asses, or hide wrongdoing, I just can't take their word for anything anymore.
The next attack will happen with or without illegal, unconstitutional domestic spying. I don't want you magic tiger protection rocks sir.
I can't imagine how (some? many?) Americans take a face value any comment that says NSA spying will prevent attacks on Americans when it was not needed in 2001. There was plenty of clear intelligence information leading up to the events of 9/11. No vast spying on Americans was needed to warn the Bush administration that something big was about to happen.
"Here is a representative sampling of the CIA threat reporting that was distributed to Bush administration officials during the spring and summer of 2001:
-- CIA, "Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations," April 20
-- CIA, "Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent," June 23
-- CIA, "Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays," July 2
-- CIA, "Threat of Impending al Qaeda Attack to Continue Indefinitely," August 3
The failure to respond adequately to these warnings was a policy failure by the Bush administration, not an intelligence failure by the U.S. intelligence community..."
It makes me wonder why the NSA is pushing so hard to keep unconstitutional spying programs in place. What are they really doing? What are they needing to justify? What snake-oil are they trying to sell the American people? What are they really afraid of? Who are they attempting to control?
Well said. There have been a number of people who have come forward to say that the intelligence agencies knew something big was going to happen before 9/11/01. Yet that is not covered much by the Media. Condi Rice got a lot more exposure than Susan Lindauer ever will.
So it's no wonder to me that so many people still buy the bullshit. The Media generally can be counted on to keep a lid on uncomfortable information. The more uncomfortable it is, the less likely they are to actually tell their readers and viewers about it. They don't want to bring heat on themselves, or jeopardize their reputation or access. So we get bad or incomplete information by which to make decisions about our republic. This dynamic is not lost on those in power.
Also, he's demonstrably wrong: After the whole Boston Marathon bombing went down, the support for the NSA spying went down, not up. A logical reason for this: the NSA had clearly failed to catch terrorists despite all their willful violation of the rights of all Americans, so the benefits for all that intrusion were approximately 0.
Besides that, regardless of what the NSA does or doesn't do, your average American is about 15 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist.
I thought the same thing. The next attack would show their ineffectiveness, not scare us all back into their arms. The powers that be will have to find something else with which to scare us all into compliance. This terrorism thing isn't working as well as it used to.
4. Nobody Wants A Fucking App JUST TO USE YOUR SITE.
Ugh, a million times this. I hate that crap.
Know what else I hate? The no-caps filter on this site. I can't type in caps because it's like yelling, on a site where I am free to type, "Suck my motherfucking dick". Really?
Also, tell me where in the Constitution this is stated as something the govt is to do. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the constitution knows its duties are enumerated, not infinite.
I'm sure this falls under the Interstate Commerce clause. Because everything the Federal Government wants to do, that it's not allowed to do, somehow falls under the Commerce clause.
And he'd be right to do so. Here's the thing people don't get about Snowden: He's not a revolutionary, or a hero. He's a coward. Rosa Parks didn't flee from the bus when the police came for her; She sat right there and waited. When Alabama told Martin Luther King they would arrest him if he marched, he marched anyway, and then got arrested. In fact, if you look at the history of civil rights leaders -- they all went to jail for what they believed in. They did it willingly -- they didn't run from the authorities, they stood right out in the open and said: Come and take me, but your laws are wrong, and you are wrong if you do.
Snowden stole a lot of classified materials from his employer, and then fled the country. And then he released all of it. This wasn't about "exposing" the NSA -- anyone with half a brain realizes that the very definition of a spy agency is that it spies on people. "They were spying on americans!" Yeah, ok, and? "They were spying on the germans!" Yeah, ok, and? It's their job to watch for threats both foreign and domestic. It's right there in their mission statement. Public record.
They are a spy agency who's charter is to spy on foreign signals. Foreign, not domestic. Spying on Americans is not "Yeah, ok, and?". It is illegal and unconstitutional unless they have a warrant. This isn't about them reading your book club emails. It's about stifling dissent and association.
Snowden's justification for his actions fall short of what a person truly concerned about civil liberties would have done. If I'm going to denounce my government's actions, I want the police to come. I want to be arrested, charged, and put on trial. And then I want a jury of twelve Americans to look me in the eye and say "You did wrong by us." And if I'm really sure this is a matter of human rights... I'm also really sure at least one of those twelve people is going to say: "You're right. The government was wrong."
Snowden is a coward, and 3 hot meals and a cot in a concrete cell is exactly where he needs to be if he really believes what he's shovelling.
But would that have happened? Would he have had his day in court with 12 of his peers? Or would he have been declared an enemy combatant and subjected to a military tribunal? Or would he have been arrested under the PATRIOT Act and imprisoned without trial? Snowden had every reason to think he would have been swallowed up by the military/intelligence apparatus. Look what happened to Bradley Manning, or Susan Lindauer.
I personally no longer trust the State to treat me fairly and within the law, especially in a matter like this one. There are secret laws and secret interpretations of public laws. The US had to promise not to torture Edward Snowden! That's what people think of the US these days. The gloves are off and we're working the dark side now. I don't blame Snowden for running. I would have too. If he were caught they would have thrown him in a hole for the rest of his life.
I'm always fascinated when literally true factual statements* are marked as "trolls."
On Slashdot we are always told how much everyone values science, data, and evidence, and it appears to be true..... as long as only certain subjects are discussed from only certain viewpoints, or unless it is politically inconvenient.
I wonder how things turn out in the long run when you knowingly and willingly apply bad data, or incorrect theories, to govern decision making? Can it be good?
Everyone has their own facts. There are so many facts, it's difficult to consider them all. So we often go with a subset that best represents the situation. But that is a subjective judgement. In describing US foreign policy, I would probably choose different facts than you would. We could each paint a different picture and still both be factual. Right and Wrong are slippery things.
As for why you are modded Troll, I think you know. You are an establishmentarian on a forum that leans anti-establishment. You often defend the actions and propriety of the US government at a time and place that that government is not very popular. I say rock on. It's good to have differing viewpoints. But I'll still probably throw a few snarky comments your way.;-)
Who the fuck is going to invade the USA? - The US arsenal dwarfs anything else on Earth, even if we all ganged up against you we would still have a lot of trouble mounting a successful invasion.
This is what always cracks me up when i hear about threats to the United States. Nobody threatens the Unites States militarily. But we still hear about Iran and China and Russia as threats. And we spend $Texas defending against these supposed threats. Got to keep the populace a little afraid I guess.
Then next time try to compete on the grounds of merit, not by spying of your customers and competitors. Spend more money in research and less in espionage. Isn't that what "capitalism" is all about?
That's the popular myth. But no, that's not what capitalism is all about. Capitalism is about making a profit. There are lots of ways to do that, and building a better product is only one of them.
That is basically a strawman argument. Snowden hasn't provided any proof that the US engages in industrial espionage to directly benefit it's industry.
Good points. But I would counter that we don't understand what consciousness really is. And we know that simply observing an experiment can change the outcome. We don't know why that is either, AFAIK. Further, we know that one's mental state can affect one's health and/or physiology. So it seems that consciousness and attention can have effects in the physical world, the mechanism of which we cannot explain.
I still remember when I first moved from Nova Scotia to North Carolina and having an argument with the geography teacher over where Nova Scotia was located. After about five minutes of arguing we went to the map and I was kicked out of class for the rest of the year for "show boating" as he put it. Then even when I was living in Bar Harbor, Main I still met people that didn't know where *Canada* was. It's like come on, Main is right on the border with New Brunswick and there's a ferry that runs from Bar Harbor to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, How could you not know where Canada was?
Your geography teacher didn't know where Nova Scotia is? SMH. And then he/she kicks you out of class for making him/her look bad for not knowing his/her own damn material. BTW, it's spelled "Maine".;-)
I personally believe that there exists an entity who created the universe. But I have absolutely no issue with Atheists. My belief is personal, held for personal reasons. I cannot prove the existence of this higher consciousness that I believe in, so why would I expect anyone else to share my belief?
Here's what stresses me: according to the ever-reliable Wikipedia, of the ~7 billion people on the planet in 2010, about 80% of them were affiliated with one of 16 major religions. This means that 4 out of every 5 people I meet will believe that they are the lucky winners of the religion lottery, having chosen correctly among all religions, past, present, and future, and are now privy to the secrets of the universe.
The scale of this delusion is mind-boggling. Let's hypothesize there is a true religion. Then it follows the others would be false. How many others are there? Depending on how granular you want to be the answer is between 1 (everybody is right) and the world's population plus one (everybody has a different wrong idea, and the right idea) Since having more people believe one idea does not affect whether it is correct or not, that means the odds that the average person has chosen the CORRECT religion are pretty low.
I believe this is the first thing obscured by the religious mind: that numbers do not matter, only what they believe. Every injustice perpetrated by religion seems to spring forth from this immense conceit. It seem that, ironically, most people instinctively shield themselves from statistics while seeking the Truth.
I agree, that's a problem with religion. Who can say which one is right? That used to bother me when I was religious. I knew that the Jews and Muslims and Hindus all believed in their religion, just as I believed in Christianity. With my eternal soul in the balance, how could I be sure which was correct? Why wouldn't God just tell us how he wanted us to be? That's why it was so liberating when I dropped all that crap.
If there is a God, he clearly doesn't care what people do. I mean, he created the Universe. Think of the immense power and ability of such a being! Why would he get bent out of shape over what a bunch of creatures on one little planet in one little galaxy do? He operates on such a level that we cannot begin to comprehend. That's why I don't believe in sin. I don't think God needs to be worshiped. That's a primitive belief, from when the Earth was all there was. Now we know there is so much more. God doesn't care if we kill each other. How could it possibly make a difference to him? I think he probably feels bad for us, because we still haven't figured out how to get along with one another, rather than trying to dominate one another. But then, I'm probably just projecting.
So, of course every religion is wrong. I'm probably wrong too. But religions have to be Right! Each one is the only way to salvation! And that's the problem. They all think they know the Truth and use that belief to justify all kinds of terrible things. It would be better if they had the humility to understand that a belief in God is not about right and wrong. As you point out, how can one say what is right about a being that created the Universe? And as I pointed out, we can't know for sure either way. If such a being exists, we cannot possibly know its mind. A belief in God is just about what helps you in your life. Don't kid yourself, we all have our delusions. As long as they're not used to dominate others, I let people have them.
Is is me or are you just "repeating what you have been told to think about the particular topic" by the parent post? Were you going for Funny but accidentally got Insightful?
It was not the parent post that introduced me to that idea. But I will admit I did not come to it completely on my own. I have come to understand over the past 15 years or so that the world does not work the way I was taught it did, and that there is more to society, history and current events than I previously understood. It is a work in progress, as it must be. But these realizations have caused me to rethink why I held the beliefs that I did, and have led me to a new understanding of the truth and indeed, reality itself.
I hold some quite unconventional beliefs and understandings, which most people are unreceptive to. In discussing these things I have come to understand how important perspective and preconception are to people's beliefs; what they consider possible or impossible, likely and unlikely. I have studied advertising, public relations and propaganda to better understand the methods and mechanisms of influencing the public mind. And I now see just how relative everything is. I try my best to be a free-thinker. But if I am honest I must admit that I have my own biases and preconceptions. Like I said, it's a work in progress.
But spying for a political race? There aren't really any defenses you can latch onto to rationalize it. Maybe supporting a pro-NSA candidate might have some traction since that could tie back to the other narratives, but even then, the awareness that you're crossing the Rubicon would be overwhelming.
Not everyone has the same moral compass or scruples. There are plenty of people who would want to spy on one or another side of a political race. Not any rational defense? How about making sure the right guy wins? People can rationalize almost anything if they think their motives are good.
Slashdot Mirror
Great quotes, Johann. Thanks!
If you deny God and He does exist as He says, you will have eternity to contemplate your pride and ignorance.
I don't assume God is so vindictive. If he wanted us to worship in a certain way, he should have made that more clear. It seems to me that God stays hidden, so we can make up our own minds. If that is the case, how can he fault us after the fact?
I'd rather see the universe as a wonder unknoweable with the eyes of a child than as a jaded atheist who thinks life has no purpose other than to be. That's not to say I believe in miracles or anyone's religious texts. Just that the universe is a vast unknoweable wonder beyond the grasp of anything so small as a human mind as anything but symbols and approximations.
What could be more wondrous than that?
Well said. This is why I cock my head at people who say there is no God. The universe is a vast and strange place. We understand a lot, but even that is just a fraction. Maybe it's true that the Universe is just a machine with no maker. But to foreclose the possibility of a greater consciousness limits our perception. Science should be open to possibility.
it's self-evident. if you believe in unprovable things your brain is defective.
Sorry, but that is not scientific. The most you can say is that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. That is a far cry from evidence that God does not exist. The real answer is we don't know if God exists or not.
You know that intelligence (or the lack thereof) is a handy scapegoat for lack of a penchant for the obvious.
Most of the really smart people are aware God and Santa aren't real, but beneath a certain still pretty smart threshold, many seemingly very sharp people believe in a divinity.
It can be so ingrained culturally that you can't sort it out of yourself.
I agree, it's not about intelligence. It's about critical and free thinking. Free thinking can be difficult, as there are influences to our thoughts and opinions all around us; from the way we were raised to the wider culture to P.R. and advertizing. The issue, I think, is arrogance. It is arrogant to think that your unproven belief could contradict valid scientific observation.
I believe in God. I do not subscribe to any particular religion, but I believe that there is a higher, more powerful consciousness that gave rise to the Universe. HOWEVER, I recognize that as my belief. I cannot prove it. I do not expect anyone else to believe it. I would not base public policy on it, and I certainly would not use it to contradict scientific discovery. I am not so arrogant as to think I am necessarily correct in my belief. The atheist position is perfectly reasonable and valid. Any consciousness capable of creating something like this Universe would not need to be believed in. Do we care if ants believe in us? Do we even give it a thought?
I think it's fine for people to believe in Yaweh, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or no God at all. The issue comes in when people believe their 2000 year old book has more authority than current observation of the natural world. It's ridiculous.
Just mount the next attack. That'll teach them!
It's just for the Good of the USA!
This would all be new and innovative... oh, wait.
It's been done before. And if people think it couldn't happen in America, they need to study some history.
"Right now, since there have been no abuses..." NSA employee spied on nine women without detection NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds No abuses, General?
See, that's the problem right there. We know he has lied to us. He has no credibility. If he told me the sky was blue, I'd look up to be sure. As we all know, once you have lost trust, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong; no on will listen to you. It's not just Hayden. So many government officials and spokespeople have lied to cover their asses, or hide wrongdoing, I just can't take their word for anything anymore.
The next attack will happen with or without illegal, unconstitutional domestic spying. I don't want you magic tiger protection rocks sir.
I can't imagine how (some? many?) Americans take a face value any comment that says NSA spying will prevent attacks on Americans when it was not needed in 2001. There was plenty of clear intelligence information leading up to the events of 9/11. No vast spying on Americans was needed to warn the Bush administration that something big was about to happen.
"Here is a representative sampling of the CIA threat reporting that was distributed to Bush administration officials during the spring and summer of 2001:
-- CIA, "Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations," April 20 -- CIA, "Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent," June 23 -- CIA, "Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays," July 2 -- CIA, "Threat of Impending al Qaeda Attack to Continue Indefinitely," August 3
The failure to respond adequately to these warnings was a policy failure by the Bush administration, not an intelligence failure by the U.S. intelligence community..."
It makes me wonder why the NSA is pushing so hard to keep unconstitutional spying programs in place. What are they really doing? What are they needing to justify? What snake-oil are they trying to sell the American people? What are they really afraid of? Who are they attempting to control?
Well said. There have been a number of people who have come forward to say that the intelligence agencies knew something big was going to happen before 9/11/01. Yet that is not covered much by the Media. Condi Rice got a lot more exposure than Susan Lindauer ever will.
So it's no wonder to me that so many people still buy the bullshit. The Media generally can be counted on to keep a lid on uncomfortable information. The more uncomfortable it is, the less likely they are to actually tell their readers and viewers about it. They don't want to bring heat on themselves, or jeopardize their reputation or access. So we get bad or incomplete information by which to make decisions about our republic. This dynamic is not lost on those in power.
Also, he's demonstrably wrong: After the whole Boston Marathon bombing went down, the support for the NSA spying went down, not up. A logical reason for this: the NSA had clearly failed to catch terrorists despite all their willful violation of the rights of all Americans, so the benefits for all that intrusion were approximately 0.
Besides that, regardless of what the NSA does or doesn't do, your average American is about 15 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist.
I thought the same thing. The next attack would show their ineffectiveness, not scare us all back into their arms. The powers that be will have to find something else with which to scare us all into compliance. This terrorism thing isn't working as well as it used to.
4. Nobody Wants A Fucking App JUST TO USE YOUR SITE.
Ugh, a million times this. I hate that crap.
Know what else I hate? The no-caps filter on this site. I can't type in caps because it's like yelling, on a site where I am free to type, "Suck my motherfucking dick". Really?
Also, tell me where in the Constitution this is stated as something the govt is to do. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the constitution knows its duties are enumerated, not infinite.
I'm sure this falls under the Interstate Commerce clause. Because everything the Federal Government wants to do, that it's not allowed to do, somehow falls under the Commerce clause.
This president will give him 3 hots and a cot.
And he'd be right to do so. Here's the thing people don't get about Snowden: He's not a revolutionary, or a hero. He's a coward. Rosa Parks didn't flee from the bus when the police came for her; She sat right there and waited. When Alabama told Martin Luther King they would arrest him if he marched, he marched anyway, and then got arrested. In fact, if you look at the history of civil rights leaders -- they all went to jail for what they believed in. They did it willingly -- they didn't run from the authorities, they stood right out in the open and said: Come and take me, but your laws are wrong, and you are wrong if you do.
Snowden stole a lot of classified materials from his employer, and then fled the country. And then he released all of it. This wasn't about "exposing" the NSA -- anyone with half a brain realizes that the very definition of a spy agency is that it spies on people. "They were spying on americans!" Yeah, ok, and? "They were spying on the germans!" Yeah, ok, and? It's their job to watch for threats both foreign and domestic. It's right there in their mission statement. Public record.
They are a spy agency who's charter is to spy on foreign signals. Foreign, not domestic. Spying on Americans is not "Yeah, ok, and?". It is illegal and unconstitutional unless they have a warrant. This isn't about them reading your book club emails. It's about stifling dissent and association.
Snowden's justification for his actions fall short of what a person truly concerned about civil liberties would have done. If I'm going to denounce my government's actions, I want the police to come. I want to be arrested, charged, and put on trial. And then I want a jury of twelve Americans to look me in the eye and say "You did wrong by us." And if I'm really sure this is a matter of human rights... I'm also really sure at least one of those twelve people is going to say: "You're right. The government was wrong."
Snowden is a coward, and 3 hot meals and a cot in a concrete cell is exactly where he needs to be if he really believes what he's shovelling.
But would that have happened? Would he have had his day in court with 12 of his peers? Or would he have been declared an enemy combatant and subjected to a military tribunal? Or would he have been arrested under the PATRIOT Act and imprisoned without trial? Snowden had every reason to think he would have been swallowed up by the military/intelligence apparatus. Look what happened to Bradley Manning, or Susan Lindauer.
I personally no longer trust the State to treat me fairly and within the law, especially in a matter like this one. There are secret laws and secret interpretations of public laws. The US had to promise not to torture Edward Snowden! That's what people think of the US these days. The gloves are off and we're working the dark side now. I don't blame Snowden for running. I would have too. If he were caught they would have thrown him in a hole for the rest of his life.
I'm always fascinated when literally true factual statements* are marked as "trolls."
On Slashdot we are always told how much everyone values science, data, and evidence, and it appears to be true ..... as long as only certain subjects are discussed from only certain viewpoints, or unless it is politically inconvenient.
I wonder how things turn out in the long run when you knowingly and willingly apply bad data, or incorrect theories, to govern decision making? Can it be good?
Everyone has their own facts. There are so many facts, it's difficult to consider them all. So we often go with a subset that best represents the situation. But that is a subjective judgement. In describing US foreign policy, I would probably choose different facts than you would. We could each paint a different picture and still both be factual. Right and Wrong are slippery things.
As for why you are modded Troll, I think you know. You are an establishmentarian on a forum that leans anti-establishment. You often defend the actions and propriety of the US government at a time and place that that government is not very popular. I say rock on. It's good to have differing viewpoints. But I'll still probably throw a few snarky comments your way. ;-)
Who the fuck is going to invade the USA? - The US arsenal dwarfs anything else on Earth, even if we all ganged up against you we would still have a lot of trouble mounting a successful invasion.
This is what always cracks me up when i hear about threats to the United States. Nobody threatens the Unites States militarily. But we still hear about Iran and China and Russia as threats. And we spend $Texas defending against these supposed threats. Got to keep the populace a little afraid I guess.
Then next time try to compete on the grounds of merit, not by spying of your customers and competitors. Spend more money in research and less in espionage. Isn't that what "capitalism" is all about?
That's the popular myth. But no, that's not what capitalism is all about. Capitalism is about making a profit. There are lots of ways to do that, and building a better product is only one of them.
That is basically a strawman argument. Snowden hasn't provided any proof that the US engages in industrial espionage to directly benefit it's industry.
Maybe Snowden hasn't, but others have.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-busted-conducting-industrial-espionage-in-france-mexico-brazil-and-other-countries.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130909/04383424450/latest-leak-shows-nsa-engaging-economic-espionage-not-fighting-terrorism.shtml
So, yeah.
If pictures of parts of the human body presented for education are a problem, you're in the wrong society.
I long ago concluded that I am indeed in the wrong society.
Good points. But I would counter that we don't understand what consciousness really is. And we know that simply observing an experiment can change the outcome. We don't know why that is either, AFAIK. Further, we know that one's mental state can affect one's health and/or physiology. So it seems that consciousness and attention can have effects in the physical world, the mechanism of which we cannot explain.
Well said. Many people seem to think that everything has been discovered.
That's the impression I'm getting!
I still remember when I first moved from Nova Scotia to North Carolina and having an argument with the geography teacher over where Nova Scotia was located. After about five minutes of arguing we went to the map and I was kicked out of class for the rest of the year for "show boating" as he put it. Then even when I was living in Bar Harbor, Main I still met people that didn't know where *Canada* was. It's like come on, Main is right on the border with New Brunswick and there's a ferry that runs from Bar Harbor to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, How could you not know where Canada was?
Your geography teacher didn't know where Nova Scotia is? SMH. And then he/she kicks you out of class for making him/her look bad for not knowing his/her own damn material. BTW, it's spelled "Maine". ;-)
And they say the British Empire is dead.
I personally believe that there exists an entity who created the universe. But I have absolutely no issue with Atheists. My belief is personal, held for personal reasons. I cannot prove the existence of this higher consciousness that I believe in, so why would I expect anyone else to share my belief?
Here's what stresses me: according to the ever-reliable Wikipedia, of the ~7 billion people on the planet in 2010, about 80% of them were affiliated with one of 16 major religions. This means that 4 out of every 5 people I meet will believe that they are the lucky winners of the religion lottery, having chosen correctly among all religions, past, present, and future, and are now privy to the secrets of the universe.
The scale of this delusion is mind-boggling. Let's hypothesize there is a true religion. Then it follows the others would be false. How many others are there? Depending on how granular you want to be the answer is between 1 (everybody is right) and the world's population plus one (everybody has a different wrong idea, and the right idea) Since having more people believe one idea does not affect whether it is correct or not, that means the odds that the average person has chosen the CORRECT religion are pretty low.
I believe this is the first thing obscured by the religious mind: that numbers do not matter, only what they believe. Every injustice perpetrated by religion seems to spring forth from this immense conceit. It seem that, ironically, most people instinctively shield themselves from statistics while seeking the Truth.
I agree, that's a problem with religion. Who can say which one is right? That used to bother me when I was religious. I knew that the Jews and Muslims and Hindus all believed in their religion, just as I believed in Christianity. With my eternal soul in the balance, how could I be sure which was correct? Why wouldn't God just tell us how he wanted us to be? That's why it was so liberating when I dropped all that crap.
If there is a God, he clearly doesn't care what people do. I mean, he created the Universe. Think of the immense power and ability of such a being! Why would he get bent out of shape over what a bunch of creatures on one little planet in one little galaxy do? He operates on such a level that we cannot begin to comprehend. That's why I don't believe in sin. I don't think God needs to be worshiped. That's a primitive belief, from when the Earth was all there was. Now we know there is so much more. God doesn't care if we kill each other. How could it possibly make a difference to him? I think he probably feels bad for us, because we still haven't figured out how to get along with one another, rather than trying to dominate one another. But then, I'm probably just projecting.
So, of course every religion is wrong. I'm probably wrong too. But religions have to be Right! Each one is the only way to salvation! And that's the problem. They all think they know the Truth and use that belief to justify all kinds of terrible things. It would be better if they had the humility to understand that a belief in God is not about right and wrong. As you point out, how can one say what is right about a being that created the Universe? And as I pointed out, we can't know for sure either way. If such a being exists, we cannot possibly know its mind. A belief in God is just about what helps you in your life. Don't kid yourself, we all have our delusions. As long as they're not used to dominate others, I let people have them.
Is is me or are you just "repeating what you have been told to think about the particular topic" by the parent post? Were you going for Funny but accidentally got Insightful?
It was not the parent post that introduced me to that idea. But I will admit I did not come to it completely on my own. I have come to understand over the past 15 years or so that the world does not work the way I was taught it did, and that there is more to society, history and current events than I previously understood. It is a work in progress, as it must be. But these realizations have caused me to rethink why I held the beliefs that I did, and have led me to a new understanding of the truth and indeed, reality itself.
I hold some quite unconventional beliefs and understandings, which most people are unreceptive to. In discussing these things I have come to understand how important perspective and preconception are to people's beliefs; what they consider possible or impossible, likely and unlikely. I have studied advertising, public relations and propaganda to better understand the methods and mechanisms of influencing the public mind. And I now see just how relative everything is. I try my best to be a free-thinker. But if I am honest I must admit that I have my own biases and preconceptions. Like I said, it's a work in progress.
But spying for a political race? There aren't really any defenses you can latch onto to rationalize it. Maybe supporting a pro-NSA candidate might have some traction since that could tie back to the other narratives, but even then, the awareness that you're crossing the Rubicon would be overwhelming.
Not everyone has the same moral compass or scruples. There are plenty of people who would want to spy on one or another side of a political race. Not any rational defense? How about making sure the right guy wins? People can rationalize almost anything if they think their motives are good.