Riiight. Got an actual citation? How was it measured? Is that exclusively gay, or do bisexual people count (they sure do for the religious). More people than that self identified in the United States as being gay on an exit poll in the 2008 US presidential election.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Some proportion (not zero) of the human population is gay, and some proportion (also not zero) of the animal population is gay. Furthermore, sexual orientation doesn't hurt anyone, so the scientific evidence clearly flies in the face of religious condemnation.
"Well it is not like anyone is even shown evidence that the holocaust ever happened"
You can go to Europe and look for yourself. Several of the Nazi prison camps have been preserved. There are lots of records as well, many of them kept by the Nazis themselves, others eyewitness accounts from liberators, citizens and observers of many different nations.
If you don't believe a scientist, you're free to check what he says. You might have to invest a considerable amount of time, but you can. If you don't want to do it personally, there are others who will, and do. Priests... not so much.
"As for Canada (my country as well), I believe you are wrong. I don't think anything is really said about hate speech."
Don't "believe," find out. It's a little bit of work to see evidence of the holocaust with your own eyes (originals, anyway). It's beyond your reach to verify all of science, but you can do spot checks if you feel like it, and things like the computer you typed your message on verify some of the rest. But that last thing you could have checked in about thirty seconds with an elementary Google search.
No need for luck. We do it right now. Unfortunately our current choice of cheap solar energy looks like it has some unsustainable detrimental effects on the environment and is getting harder and harder to find anyway.
So are you suggesting we abandon industrial civilization or just invent fusion?
It doesn't have to replace all the energy we get from oil, just the stuff we use to make our small personal transport devices work. The rest can come from more efficient solar collectors.
"And hate speech, and even sometimes just speech contrary to some belief, is outlawed in most countries."
Let's not be disingenuous. My country (Canada) for example, has anti-hate speech laws that make it illegal to advocate genocide or incite hatred against an identifiable group. Saying "there is/isn't a God" is perfectly acceptable. Saying "all members of $IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP deserve to die" is not.
Hate speech laws in the US and UK are broadly similar. Much of Europe is also similar, except that you can get in trouble for saying the holocaust didn't happen (but then the holocaust isn't really a matter of belief).
Science can certainly provide a rational basis for morality. Personally, I've come to the conclusion that religion has nothing to do with morality. Moral codes are certainly preached by religions, but I don't believe they're originated by them.
Take murder for instance:
Thou shalt not kill. It's in the bible (cribbed from older ideas, of course, but it's in there). Except when it's in God's interest, and God's designated representative on Earth commands you to. And heresy was absolutely a good reason to kill, and in horrific ways.
As evidenced by this article, some of us have purged that second bit from our moral code. Many of us don't even think it's right to imprison someone for heresy. Why? Did some great thinker in some religion or another issue an edict after studying the bible/torah/qur'an? Nope.
Some religions eventually adopt new moral ideas, but I really don't see them originating them. If you want a more contemporary example, take homosexuality. Many or most of the non-religions, and even lots of religious people, think that homosexuality is not immoral. All the major religions disagree. Yes, even the Dalai Lama thinks homosexuality is, "from a Buddhist point of view... generally considered sexual misconduct."
Science: About 10% of the human population, and higher or lower percentages of most other species' populations, are homosexual. There are also identifiable physical brain differences between hetero- and homosexual animals, as well as patterns that strongly suggest sexual orientation is influenced by factors before birth. Thus, homosexuality is natural, and not a choice.
Pope John Paul II: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."
The Catholic church has had to make some interesting about faces in the last few hundred years, but they still seem to fall pretty securely in the GPs category of religions that embrace only the scientific discoveries that they find convenient.
Feudalism is a form of government. A pretty strict one, in fact. If you really want to try the alternative, you need to go with anarchy. To KEEP it anarchy, you really need to somehow make sure that no organization emerges.
That's right, no government is a bunch of individuals beating each other up for their lunch money.
I think you'd find that most experts would disagree that selecting all the blue eyed individuals is evolution. Making it more likely for people with blue eyes to breed, certainly, but since blue eyes are a recessive trait, having a hard selection for them will eliminate all other eye colours in a single generation. You can call it evolution if you really want, but the example has nothing to teach us about what happens naturally.
Disagree. EVERYONE can make use of critical thinking skills. There's no reason a non-scientist should know the details, but they should be taught how science works. And science doesn't work by listening to someone tell you how it is. It's far more useful to teach someone, anyway, how to find information for themselves (and how to assess the information they do find) rather than pouring facts into their heads.
Slashdot Mirror
Your original statement: "As for Canada (my country as well), I believe you are wrong. I don't think anything is really said about hate speech."
The worst thing you can do when you're clearly wrong is to write something even sillier so you can pretend you weren't.
"The true figure is 1%."
Riiight. Got an actual citation? How was it measured? Is that exclusively gay, or do bisexual people count (they sure do for the religious). More people than that self identified in the United States as being gay on an exit poll in the 2008 US presidential election.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Some proportion (not zero) of the human population is gay, and some proportion (also not zero) of the animal population is gay. Furthermore, sexual orientation doesn't hurt anyone, so the scientific evidence clearly flies in the face of religious condemnation.
Backscatter X-ray scanners have been banned in Europe. Europe decided to use only millimetre wave scanners.
Why? Do you dislike flashlights too?
"Well it is not like anyone is even shown evidence that the holocaust ever happened"
You can go to Europe and look for yourself. Several of the Nazi prison camps have been preserved. There are lots of records as well, many of them kept by the Nazis themselves, others eyewitness accounts from liberators, citizens and observers of many different nations.
If you don't believe a scientist, you're free to check what he says. You might have to invest a considerable amount of time, but you can. If you don't want to do it personally, there are others who will, and do. Priests... not so much.
"As for Canada (my country as well), I believe you are wrong. I don't think anything is really said about hate speech."
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=canada%20hate%20speech%20laws&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHate_speech_laws_in_Canada&ei=664cT-eiMOb00gGpus3KAQ&usg=AFQjCNGr3grkKI0DzF70DLOo_yZAbIK8Bw
or, if you prefer, the actual criminal code (check sections 318 and 319):
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html
Don't "believe," find out. It's a little bit of work to see evidence of the holocaust with your own eyes (originals, anyway). It's beyond your reach to verify all of science, but you can do spot checks if you feel like it, and things like the computer you typed your message on verify some of the rest. But that last thing you could have checked in about thirty seconds with an elementary Google search.
No need for luck. We do it right now. Unfortunately our current choice of cheap solar energy looks like it has some unsustainable detrimental effects on the environment and is getting harder and harder to find anyway.
So are you suggesting we abandon industrial civilization or just invent fusion?
It doesn't have to replace all the energy we get from oil, just the stuff we use to make our small personal transport devices work. The rest can come from more efficient solar collectors.
Ever smelled a clump of dead seaweed?
There are LOTS of microorganisms that like to eat it.
There are already rather a lot of microbes that like to eat dead seaweed.
"And hate speech, and even sometimes just speech contrary to some belief, is outlawed in most countries."
Let's not be disingenuous. My country (Canada) for example, has anti-hate speech laws that make it illegal to advocate genocide or incite hatred against an identifiable group. Saying "there is/isn't a God" is perfectly acceptable. Saying "all members of $IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP deserve to die" is not.
Hate speech laws in the US and UK are broadly similar. Much of Europe is also similar, except that you can get in trouble for saying the holocaust didn't happen (but then the holocaust isn't really a matter of belief).
Why? So they can see what their secular countries would be like if they were under Christian rule?
Science can certainly provide a rational basis for morality. Personally, I've come to the conclusion that religion has nothing to do with morality. Moral codes are certainly preached by religions, but I don't believe they're originated by them.
Take murder for instance:
Thou shalt not kill. It's in the bible (cribbed from older ideas, of course, but it's in there). Except when it's in God's interest, and God's designated representative on Earth commands you to. And heresy was absolutely a good reason to kill, and in horrific ways.
As evidenced by this article, some of us have purged that second bit from our moral code. Many of us don't even think it's right to imprison someone for heresy. Why? Did some great thinker in some religion or another issue an edict after studying the bible/torah/qur'an? Nope.
Some religions eventually adopt new moral ideas, but I really don't see them originating them. If you want a more contemporary example, take homosexuality. Many or most of the non-religions, and even lots of religious people, think that homosexuality is not immoral. All the major religions disagree. Yes, even the Dalai Lama thinks homosexuality is, "from a Buddhist point of view... generally considered sexual misconduct."
Science: About 10% of the human population, and higher or lower percentages of most other species' populations, are homosexual. There are also identifiable physical brain differences between hetero- and homosexual animals, as well as patterns that strongly suggest sexual orientation is influenced by factors before birth. Thus, homosexuality is natural, and not a choice.
Pope John Paul II: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."
The Catholic church has had to make some interesting about faces in the last few hundred years, but they still seem to fall pretty securely in the GPs category of religions that embrace only the scientific discoveries that they find convenient.
Feudalism is a form of government. A pretty strict one, in fact. If you really want to try the alternative, you need to go with anarchy. To KEEP it anarchy, you really need to somehow make sure that no organization emerges.
That's right, no government is a bunch of individuals beating each other up for their lunch money.
Most of the laws of the old testament, including the ones you give as examples, pre-exist their supposed divine revelation in the old testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
How about organized religion shouldn't be allowed? It does seem to be far more trouble than it's worth. Kind of like the Mafia.
Because it's his country? He probably has family there.
He's an Iranian citizen. He's not a citizen of Canada, but a permanent resident.
I think you'd find that most experts would disagree that selecting all the blue eyed individuals is evolution. Making it more likely for people with blue eyes to breed, certainly, but since blue eyes are a recessive trait, having a hard selection for them will eliminate all other eye colours in a single generation. You can call it evolution if you really want, but the example has nothing to teach us about what happens naturally.
Good point.
Or just don't turn it off if you've got an alarm you want to go off....
If Earth had any significant net charge you'd stick to it. Really hard. Much harder than gravity pulls you.
Iron monoxide would be the modern standardized name.
I'm not surprised. They don't know what they're talking about, so why would you be able to figure it out?
Time was when any astronomical or earth science story on /. would bring out legions of very sincere electric universe crazies.
Disagree. EVERYONE can make use of critical thinking skills. There's no reason a non-scientist should know the details, but they should be taught how science works. And science doesn't work by listening to someone tell you how it is. It's far more useful to teach someone, anyway, how to find information for themselves (and how to assess the information they do find) rather than pouring facts into their heads.