Which morals would those be? Promoting genocide, misogyny, stoning people to death, slavery etc etc? Those are the morals of the bible which are cherry picked "out" of the morals espoused by christians
Which morals? Thou shall not kill for one.
I've always found that commandment interesting in its interpretation. It is quite stark; it says Thou Shalt Not Kill. It doesn't say "except in cases of self-defense, or war". But show me a Christian or Jew that will not add those qualifiers in, even though they are not in the commandment. You can't!
you've missed the point completely. the subject i was commenting was the so called "morals" of religion. last time i checked science wasn't and has never been a religion.
Though science is not a religion, there are those that take it to that level. There are those that think that if something has not been understood through the scientific method, it is invalid. This belief has fostered a literalism in society. If something can't be quantified, measured, and repeatably tested, it is wrong or does not exist. This reflects a chauvinism that science is the one true way of interpreting and understanding the world around us.
Having said that, it is obvious to me that the scientific method is an extremely valuable tool for figuring out how things work, and how they can be manipulated to work differently or in combinations. It has given us an increasingly accurate understanding of the system in which we live. But it doesn't have all the answers, and I think an honest scientist would acknowledge that.
If I remember correctly, someone once said that religion is the opiate of the masses
I must clarify that I am not an atheist - I do believe that there is a ***Creator*** - I see the religions that are being practiced by the billions on this earth contribute nothing to human civilization
Of course, those who believe will tell you that their religion is the "true one", that their version of "true religion" is "peaceful"
Ultimately, religion is a sales / marketing campaign, on a global scale, and many millions depend on "GOD" for the bread that they bring home to feed their kids - that the better they sell "GOD" the more income they gonna get
That is why I am not surprised at all at the anger of those Hindu priests --- Their anger is not towards that guy who expose the "miracle", but rather, they know full well that their income gonna drastically drop after the expose
Yeah, basically. I too believe that there is some consciousness or entity that created the universe. I believe he/she (probably neither) is still with us. But I have the humility to know that it is only my belief. I cannot prove it, and I don't expect anyone else to believe it. I am open to changing my mind, as I have done so in the past.
But all of these religious leaders and their followers claim to have the ultimate truth! How can they possibly know? And yet their identity and world view is so enmeshed in this faith they become quite defensive and threatened when it is shown to be the mythology that it is. They need a good dose of humility and perspective. But like you said, that doesn't keep the donations coming in.
To this day, I feel this was a violation of the pre-launch protocols for the biological experiments. If the mass spectrometer trumped all, why fly the biologicals? If the biological experiments were worth doing, why were they not worth investigating further? Gilbert Levin (the Labeled Release experiment PI), for example, has always felt that the LR experiment detected biology. Is that not worthy of a followup ?
Instead, this was announced in such a fashion as to make it as uninteresting as possible and the Mars science budget was cut to the point that, in the early 1980's, it was almost impossible for a student to get a job in the field. The JPL Mars crew was broken up, let go or reassigned (I was at JPL at the time, I saw it happen). Basically, a generation was lost (Viking Lander 1 died, from a lack of funding, in 1982; the next successful US mission to Mars was 1997).
Because of the way this was handled, this problem has never been investigated further on Mars. We have had successful 4 lander / rovers since then, but no biological tests whatsoever. I must say that, since then, I have not had a lot of respect for the "conventional wisdom" of the Mars science community. In my book, this was blown, and blown badly, with serious damage to the course of science.
This a very interesting account. Do you have any opinion as to why the findings were presented the way they were?
I think there are early and late hurdles. We have overcome some, but mankind has yet to learn how to manage its resources in an equitable and sustainable manner. We often have trouble being proactive, and only change in response to crises. It's not hard to imagine that one day we will encounter a crisis that we cannot overcome, that prudent planning might have avoided.
When you have a son and he starts thinking that gangsta thug culture is GREAT, that all the rap and hip-hop about how awesome it is to be a career criminal is something more than entertainment, that's your cue to ACT LIKE A PARENT and straighten his ass out before he gets either jailed or shot in the streets. Of course, not deciding to start and raise a family in a high-crime area is a nice touch too.
Do we have any evidence that this describes Treyvon Martin?
You do. It's in the definition of consenting adults. If you have an adult friend who regularly throws temper tantrums for no rational reason you disengage from that relationship. Same with a temper-tantrum employer. Easy.
Indivuduals that are profitable to retain are retained, those that aren't are not - that's what business (and life) is about. This isn't about exploitation - if you think that any company is going to pay you 100 units of currency a day when they only scrape 50 off of your back, you are mistaken.
If I hire a programmer at 60K per year, you can be certain that he's worth 75K to me, and I get to keep the 15K per year per programmer - I have enough of them that I can afford a pointy haired boss to keep them all going in the same general direction and still pocket a nice sum at the end of the year.
Welcome to profitable business, where is it any different? There may be differences in title, but nothing else.
And thus we are reduced to "human resources". So you think paying someone worth $75k $60k isn't exploitation? It seems in Europe people believe the government has a place in encouraging a society that is dignified and equitable for the public at large. In America your worth and place in society is based on your value to someone else.
Nope. Because the US is (mostly, there are obvious and absurd exceptions) governed in a way that assumes consenting adults can engage in mutually beneficial relationships without a nanny telling them what to do as if they were five year old children. In Europe most laws are written to the point where they assume the ordinary citizenry are mentally handicapped five year olds that needs to be monitored, watched and told what to do at all times by responsible adults.
I prefer the government treat me as an adult.
This ignores the fact that most people are powerless against their employers. That is why laws exist in Europe. There used to be laws like that in the US too, but they have changed over time.
friend of a friend got killed while on a bike, during a commute. bikes and cars are a DANGEROUS mixture. if you are commuting, people are tired and not yet up in the AM; and again, tired (and often grouchy) in the PM commute.
the weight ratios suck if you are on the bike.
bikes in the US are a risk-your-life thing if you rely on that for a commute anywhere near traffic.
again, its not the bike rider but all the mindless car drivers around you!
I could not recommend a bike commute to anyone. sorry for being anti-green but its just not safe..
I will second this. I rode a bike for about 3 months. I crashed 4 times in that span, once onto train tracks. That last one, the train tracks, was what made me hang it up. You're right, it's the drivers. They don't look, don't see you, and generally disrespect you.
Now that I'm a driver again, I hate cyclists. They get in the way and yet are tiny compared to other things you need to watch for. They weave in and out and maneuver in unpredictable ways and do not obey traffic laws. I try to be careful and courteous, as I know how it can be to be a cyclist in a city. And obviously I don't want anyone to get hurt. But I still think those folks are taking their life in their hands.
It's just dangerous having two types of vehicles, with such a discrepancy in speed, power and injury potential, traveling so close together. At least on my motorcycle I can travel at the same speed and in traffic with cars.
Somehow I imagine if your comment had been about Jews and the Holocaust you would not have been modded funny. But somehow because the "genocide" was directed at Christians and not Jews, its ok to mock?
Yeah, pretty much. It's the same reason it's ok to make fun of white people. They are clearly still dominant and therefore legitimate targets.
Great dissertation. Old school idea, though, of Illuminati / Freemasonry / Mormonism.
But to what end? So you have control of everything, to argue hypothetically. Then what? You've established the worldwide government, religious or not, run by elitists, who just happen to still have to drop their drawers to poop, unless they are descendent's of Cuthulu. What is the master plan of the New World Order past conquering everything?
Power is it's own end and means is it not? It seems like you are asking what the value of power is. Can you put a price on the ability to envision the world the way you want it to be, and then having the power to make it so? It is the province of the Gods! And some are arrogant enough to think they have the right and the wisdom to wield it.
You know, one of the most insidious and diabolical tricks the rulers ever pulled was (through the media they own) to make into a popular notion something so close to the truth of the matter, that the person who accepts it as truth will never see what's actually going on.
Don't let the concern about wealth and wealth envy distract you. It's not about transferring wealth. The people who make things happen already have enough wealth to secure a high standard of living for the next 20 generations of their descendants. They have wealth in effectively limitless quantities.
It's about power. It's about transferring more and more power from the masses to the ruling elite. Money is involved only because money is a form of power; it is economic power. Old-style slaves had to be fed and housed; economic slaves will feed and house themselves. That's why it is not just money.
It is also increasingly intrusive government, declining privacy, demonization of things like guns that are also a form of power, demonization of things like drugs that tend to alter conscious enough to make people see things differently and not through the media-defined lenses, attacks on the family and on religion because those demand loyalty to something other than the state, control of the education system so that childhood immaturities extend well into adulthood, conditioned helplessness instead of independence, obsession with group identity and ignorance of individuality, promotion of left/right either-or thinking, unreasonable laws and burdensome tax codes, marginalization of the tiny minority who can see what's wrong with this, etc.
You really, really want to put a population under your thumb, you subject them to a blitz by throwing all of these at them at once. Then you supply them with charismatic, popular, almost Messianic leaders who claim to understand them. They fall for that one every time, as though telling the truth required slick presentation and the great speaking skill to sway the crowds.
If you honestly think that guns are going to make a difference you might as well use one on yourself. The fact of the matter is that the guns that people have and know how to use aren't going to be useful against any military in the world at this point.
Oh yeah? Tell that to the Iraqis or Afghans. They seem to still be able to make trouble for our military.
It's not about defending your house against a frontal assault by the military. Of course they have bombs and missiles, so you lose. It's about the fact that it is much harder to subdue an armed populace. An armed populace can mount an insurgency; picking off soldiers, setting traps and ambushes, etc.
If one wants to control a population, it is easier to do if they are not armed. Can we agree on that?
I'm a parent myself - let me say, it's really hard work. There's very little down time, doing it well requires the bulk of your concentration and resources, and you may never feel like you get out of it what you put into it.
You just listed most of the reasons I have no interest in being a parent. But I dig what you say otherwise. I have no issue with supporting the efforts of other people's kids. So long as I don't gotta raise 'em!
And the one thing in common with every major pandemic, catastrophe, and economic collapse has had in common? No one ever saw them coming.
This got modded Insightful? It's just plain wrong. You cannot say, categorically, that no one saw them coming. Most people did not. Important People in the news media didn't. But that doesn't mean no one did. For example, the housing and economic crash of 2008 was predicted by many. Few listened, but that doesn't mean it wasn't predicted.
I agree with you, marriage should be a religious ceremony, the problem is that according to the laws of the land it also is a legal agreement. Until the two concepts are separated you can't be for one and against the other.
I was under the impression that they were separated, legally speaking (I know they are not separated in many people's minds). A couple can go down to city hall and get married, no church/synagogue/mosque required. Isn't that right? If so, I don't see why that part should be affected at all by what God does or doesn't like.
Slashdot Mirror
Not from my work address, I don't! Use my personal email through web-mail, sure. But the work account is for work only.
Which morals would those be? Promoting genocide, misogyny, stoning people to death, slavery etc etc? Those are the morals of the bible which are cherry picked "out" of the morals espoused by christians
Which morals? Thou shall not kill for one.
I've always found that commandment interesting in its interpretation. It is quite stark; it says Thou Shalt Not Kill. It doesn't say "except in cases of self-defense, or war". But show me a Christian or Jew that will not add those qualifiers in, even though they are not in the commandment. You can't!
you've missed the point completely. the subject i was commenting was the so called "morals" of religion. last time i checked science wasn't and has never been a religion.
Though science is not a religion, there are those that take it to that level. There are those that think that if something has not been understood through the scientific method, it is invalid. This belief has fostered a literalism in society. If something can't be quantified, measured, and repeatably tested, it is wrong or does not exist. This reflects a chauvinism that science is the one true way of interpreting and understanding the world around us.
Having said that, it is obvious to me that the scientific method is an extremely valuable tool for figuring out how things work, and how they can be manipulated to work differently or in combinations. It has given us an increasingly accurate understanding of the system in which we live. But it doesn't have all the answers, and I think an honest scientist would acknowledge that.
If I remember correctly, someone once said that religion is the opiate of the masses
I must clarify that I am not an atheist - I do believe that there is a ***Creator*** - I see the religions that are being practiced by the billions on this earth contribute nothing to human civilization
Of course, those who believe will tell you that their religion is the "true one", that their version of "true religion" is "peaceful"
Ultimately, religion is a sales / marketing campaign, on a global scale, and many millions depend on "GOD" for the bread that they bring home to feed their kids - that the better they sell "GOD" the more income they gonna get
That is why I am not surprised at all at the anger of those Hindu priests --- Their anger is not towards that guy who expose the "miracle", but rather, they know full well that their income gonna drastically drop after the expose
Yeah, basically. I too believe that there is some consciousness or entity that created the universe. I believe he/she (probably neither) is still with us. But I have the humility to know that it is only my belief. I cannot prove it, and I don't expect anyone else to believe it. I am open to changing my mind, as I have done so in the past.
But all of these religious leaders and their followers claim to have the ultimate truth! How can they possibly know? And yet their identity and world view is so enmeshed in this faith they become quite defensive and threatened when it is shown to be the mythology that it is. They need a good dose of humility and perspective. But like you said, that doesn't keep the donations coming in.
To this day, I feel this was a violation of the pre-launch protocols for the biological experiments. If the mass spectrometer trumped all, why fly the biologicals? If the biological experiments were worth doing, why were they not worth investigating further? Gilbert Levin (the Labeled Release experiment PI), for example, has always felt that the LR experiment detected biology. Is that not worthy of a followup ?
Instead, this was announced in such a fashion as to make it as uninteresting as possible and the Mars science budget was cut to the point that, in the early 1980's, it was almost impossible for a student to get a job in the field. The JPL Mars crew was broken up, let go or reassigned (I was at JPL at the time, I saw it happen). Basically, a generation was lost (Viking Lander 1 died, from a lack of funding, in 1982; the next successful US mission to Mars was 1997).
Because of the way this was handled, this problem has never been investigated further on Mars. We have had successful 4 lander / rovers since then, but no biological tests whatsoever. I must say that, since then, I have not had a lot of respect for the "conventional wisdom" of the Mars science community. In my book, this was blown, and blown badly, with serious damage to the course of science.
This a very interesting account. Do you have any opinion as to why the findings were presented the way they were?
I think there are early and late hurdles. We have overcome some, but mankind has yet to learn how to manage its resources in an equitable and sustainable manner. We often have trouble being proactive, and only change in response to crises. It's not hard to imagine that one day we will encounter a crisis that we cannot overcome, that prudent planning might have avoided.
When you have a son and he starts thinking that gangsta thug culture is GREAT, that all the rap and hip-hop about how awesome it is to be a career criminal is something more than entertainment, that's your cue to ACT LIKE A PARENT and straighten his ass out before he gets either jailed or shot in the streets. Of course, not deciding to start and raise a family in a high-crime area is a nice touch too.
Do we have any evidence that this describes Treyvon Martin?
These days it seems you need a tinfoil hat to see what is blatantly obvious if one is not blinded by fear.
So, in other words. The terrorists were more successful than they ever could have dreamed.
Yes, and the terrorists aren't even who we've been told they are.
You do. It's in the definition of consenting adults. If you have an adult friend who regularly throws temper tantrums for no rational reason you disengage from that relationship. Same with a temper-tantrum employer. Easy.
You can't be serious.
America! Fuck yeah!
Indivuduals that are profitable to retain are retained, those that aren't are not - that's what business (and life) is about. This isn't about exploitation - if you think that any company is going to pay you 100 units of currency a day when they only scrape 50 off of your back, you are mistaken. If I hire a programmer at 60K per year, you can be certain that he's worth 75K to me, and I get to keep the 15K per year per programmer - I have enough of them that I can afford a pointy haired boss to keep them all going in the same general direction and still pocket a nice sum at the end of the year. Welcome to profitable business, where is it any different? There may be differences in title, but nothing else.
And thus we are reduced to "human resources". So you think paying someone worth $75k $60k isn't exploitation? It seems in Europe people believe the government has a place in encouraging a society that is dignified and equitable for the public at large. In America your worth and place in society is based on your value to someone else.
Because the USA is run by Big Business
Nope. Because the US is (mostly, there are obvious and absurd exceptions) governed in a way that assumes consenting adults can engage in mutually beneficial relationships without a nanny telling them what to do as if they were five year old children. In Europe most laws are written to the point where they assume the ordinary citizenry are mentally handicapped five year olds that needs to be monitored, watched and told what to do at all times by responsible adults.
I prefer the government treat me as an adult.
This ignores the fact that most people are powerless against their employers. That is why laws exist in Europe. There used to be laws like that in the US too, but they have changed over time.
friend of a friend got killed while on a bike, during a commute. bikes and cars are a DANGEROUS mixture. if you are commuting, people are tired and not yet up in the AM; and again, tired (and often grouchy) in the PM commute.
the weight ratios suck if you are on the bike.
bikes in the US are a risk-your-life thing if you rely on that for a commute anywhere near traffic.
again, its not the bike rider but all the mindless car drivers around you!
I could not recommend a bike commute to anyone. sorry for being anti-green but its just not safe..
I will second this. I rode a bike for about 3 months. I crashed 4 times in that span, once onto train tracks. That last one, the train tracks, was what made me hang it up. You're right, it's the drivers. They don't look, don't see you, and generally disrespect you.
Now that I'm a driver again, I hate cyclists. They get in the way and yet are tiny compared to other things you need to watch for. They weave in and out and maneuver in unpredictable ways and do not obey traffic laws. I try to be careful and courteous, as I know how it can be to be a cyclist in a city. And obviously I don't want anyone to get hurt. But I still think those folks are taking their life in their hands.
It's just dangerous having two types of vehicles, with such a discrepancy in speed, power and injury potential, traveling so close together. At least on my motorcycle I can travel at the same speed and in traffic with cars.
Living in the US, gas prices is my least concern. $4.50 per gallon? That's ridiculously cheap - far less than I paid in the 90s back in Europe.
What's a gallon again?
3.78541178 liters
You seem to have a very narrow definition of "green".
Somehow I imagine if your comment had been about Jews and the Holocaust you would not have been modded funny. But somehow because the "genocide" was directed at Christians and not Jews, its ok to mock?
Yeah, pretty much. It's the same reason it's ok to make fun of white people. They are clearly still dominant and therefore legitimate targets.
Great dissertation. Old school idea, though, of Illuminati / Freemasonry / Mormonism.
But to what end? So you have control of everything, to argue hypothetically. Then what? You've established the worldwide government, religious or not, run by elitists, who just happen to still have to drop their drawers to poop, unless they are descendent's of Cuthulu. What is the master plan of the New World Order past conquering everything?
Power is it's own end and means is it not? It seems like you are asking what the value of power is. Can you put a price on the ability to envision the world the way you want it to be, and then having the power to make it so? It is the province of the Gods! And some are arrogant enough to think they have the right and the wisdom to wield it.
You know, one of the most insidious and diabolical tricks the rulers ever pulled was (through the media they own) to make into a popular notion something so close to the truth of the matter, that the person who accepts it as truth will never see what's actually going on. Don't let the concern about wealth and wealth envy distract you. It's not about transferring wealth. The people who make things happen already have enough wealth to secure a high standard of living for the next 20 generations of their descendants. They have wealth in effectively limitless quantities.
It's about power. It's about transferring more and more power from the masses to the ruling elite. Money is involved only because money is a form of power; it is economic power. Old-style slaves had to be fed and housed; economic slaves will feed and house themselves. That's why it is not just money.
It is also increasingly intrusive government, declining privacy, demonization of things like guns that are also a form of power, demonization of things like drugs that tend to alter conscious enough to make people see things differently and not through the media-defined lenses, attacks on the family and on religion because those demand loyalty to something other than the state, control of the education system so that childhood immaturities extend well into adulthood, conditioned helplessness instead of independence, obsession with group identity and ignorance of individuality, promotion of left/right either-or thinking, unreasonable laws and burdensome tax codes, marginalization of the tiny minority who can see what's wrong with this, etc.
You really, really want to put a population under your thumb, you subject them to a blitz by throwing all of these at them at once. Then you supply them with charismatic, popular, almost Messianic leaders who claim to understand them. They fall for that one every time, as though telling the truth required slick presentation and the great speaking skill to sway the crowds.
You. I like you.
If you honestly think that guns are going to make a difference you might as well use one on yourself. The fact of the matter is that the guns that people have and know how to use aren't going to be useful against any military in the world at this point.
Oh yeah? Tell that to the Iraqis or Afghans. They seem to still be able to make trouble for our military.
It's not about defending your house against a frontal assault by the military. Of course they have bombs and missiles, so you lose. It's about the fact that it is much harder to subdue an armed populace. An armed populace can mount an insurgency; picking off soldiers, setting traps and ambushes, etc.
If one wants to control a population, it is easier to do if they are not armed. Can we agree on that?
I'm a parent myself - let me say, it's really hard work. There's very little down time, doing it well requires the bulk of your concentration and resources, and you may never feel like you get out of it what you put into it.
You just listed most of the reasons I have no interest in being a parent. But I dig what you say otherwise. I have no issue with supporting the efforts of other people's kids. So long as I don't gotta raise 'em!
Yeah. Nothing says "sustainable welfare state" and "stable retirement" like having no children.
Sustainable retirement? Do you have any idea how much money I save by not having kids??
And the one thing in common with every major pandemic, catastrophe, and economic collapse has had in common? No one ever saw them coming.
This got modded Insightful? It's just plain wrong. You cannot say, categorically, that no one saw them coming. Most people did not. Important People in the news media didn't. But that doesn't mean no one did. For example, the housing and economic crash of 2008 was predicted by many. Few listened, but that doesn't mean it wasn't predicted.
We are created for god's purpose. Exclusively.
For God's special purpose? ;-)
I agree with you, marriage should be a religious ceremony, the problem is that according to the laws of the land it also is a legal agreement. Until the two concepts are separated you can't be for one and against the other.
I was under the impression that they were separated, legally speaking (I know they are not separated in many people's minds). A couple can go down to city hall and get married, no church/synagogue/mosque required. Isn't that right? If so, I don't see why that part should be affected at all by what God does or doesn't like.