I suppose, if you're that sort of Atheist. But some of us think there is something psychologically valuable in practices like meditation, even if we think it's silly to believe in gods or adopt ideologies centered around gobbledygook.
I can see your frustration brother. but there is really no point in telling ideologues that they don't actually hold the unquestionable truth about what is Good and what is Evil.
It could simply be taken as a form of compliment - specifically, by way of self-deprecation. It's not uncommon, nor considered problematic in many cultures. (As one who has not yet subscribed to any particular culture, I have no opinion as to whether it offends me or not.)
Maybe it's wrong, but yep, I agree. The domains that set off my lamer detector are hotmail.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and (even though i have these) mac.com and me.com. To some extent I take gmail.com email accounts a little less seriously. And I definitely take any email address with numbers in it with a grain of salt. With apologies to joesmith622@yahoo.com, it just shows a lack of imagination and a tendency to take whatever is offered. Plus it looks like a typical spam source address.
In the meantime, there is way to "change the context". Stop behaving like the US and being assholes and occupying other countries, and behave more like Switzerland, the land of zero 9/11s.
And soon, zero minarets! (Eh, they might be just a little asshole-ish.)
You ask a lot of important questions, but most of them come from a misunderstanding of the situation - what you might call the prejudice of being *inside* the system. But keep pursuing those questions! And be careful about your attitude towards the word "theory." By placing the word in bold, you're emphasizing its informal usage, which stresses uncertainty. But in science the word has a formal meaning. In the parlance of science the most *certain* models that exist are theories. For what you're trying to express, you should say "the Big Bang Hypothesis."
Also worth mentioning that the Big Bang wasn't an event where a bunch of stuff existed as a dot within a big infinite space. Prior to the Big Bang there was no space and no time. Space itself inflated as a shared property of all energy. Space continues to inflate in the same manner. And given that the expansion is accelerating it looks as though space begets space.
Will this be like the knight's competition scene where the armored not-yet-Sir Patrick gets a slap in the face with a juniper branch before trying to pull the sword from the stone?
I'd prefer to drop that word "truth." Can we instead say that the point of science is the pursuit of "accurate predictive models" and leave "truth" in those looser realms where terms like "good" and "evil" are used? That would make me happier.
Why do grown adults in this day and age need to preserve the idea that the words of Genesis are somehow literally true, and that there's a creator God who stood apart from everything and created it as a separate thing? Why do they need to take everything that we now understand about the Universe and shoehorn it into an ancient tribal conception of the way the world is?
I've heard otherwise rational people say, "well, of course Genesis isn't 'literally' true! For example, one of God's days might actually correspond to 2 billion years! That would square with the way things are!" Such people need to be slapped repeatedly with a noodley appendage.
The Universe is just the way it is. Life developed within it over billions of years as a product of natural processes. It's a continuous and complete thing. What's the problem with just accepting that we're here, and life has certain requirements, and our job is to live in harmony and fulfill the requirements of life in the most responsible way we can, given our capacities? Do we need to do everything as a show, or to please some celestial daddy? Is that really the only reason that we act in the world?
To my mind, it is much more breathtaking and invigorating to realize I am a product of and participant in something so infinitely vast and self-sustaining, without need of any kind of intervention whatsoever.
Fact is, the point of religion is entirely psychological, and for that it needs to have a certain continuity with the reality we know through our sense and experience, and to a great extent that reality is now determined by scientific discovery. The Catholic (aka inclusive) church is breaking under the strain of new knowledge, and its psychological framework is increasingly untenable. They are desperate to preserve the church itself and its central tenets at a time when people are more than ever aware that it's all a load of symbolism.
I think it's absolutely foolish the way they're bending over backwards to try to get reality to fit into their storybook conception of things. Reality isn't a story. Reality is visceral, omnipresent, and immanent in itself. When we engage with it directly, all that narrative goes away, and really I think religions should be stripping down to essentials and helping people to face reality as it is.
Of course, there are already good, austere schools that serve that end well, with an emphasis on living ethically and developing the mind through meditation and other practices, so as to be as happy, helpful, and fulfilled in life as is possible. My hope is that such schools will gain precedence over the primitive and superstitious religions that still hang on to the idea that we're all living in a book with God as a character. Reality is much deeper and more noble than such a childish outlook allows for.
Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?
The Constitution doesn't lay out everything permissible in minute detail. It simply lays the ground rules, and gives the framework for the process. Somewhere in there it explicitly states that anything not specifically forbidden is left to our discretion. In other words, we are free to choose this path.
Section 8, Powers of Congress, begins:
The Congress shall have Power To... provide for the... general Welfare of the United States....
It could be said that for our own benefit some of our pre or post-tax allocations must go towards insurance against conditions that undermine the welfare of the people, who after all are the raison-d'etre for the government to exist.
A healthy person is more capable of pursuing life, liberty, and happiness than one who suffers from a disease, and therefore it is in our collective interest that a universally-accessible system be in place to ensure our health.
it is about forcing one group to pay for another group
We're all one group. You know, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? So, let's try and crown our good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea, if we can.
For a system like ours to work there has to be some support for its foundations, and public health is an issue that costs everyone. Either we do more on the side of care and prevention now, or we pay for it in treating disease later.
I swear, people just can't see the forest for all their gazing at the trees. More systemic thinking, less shortsightedness, please!
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose, if you're that sort of Atheist. But some of us think there is something psychologically valuable in practices like meditation, even if we think it's silly to believe in gods or adopt ideologies centered around gobbledygook.
Herbert should have been more specific about the weirding way in the novels. It ain't the frickin' Glass Bead Game!
Seriously, if all the corporations become as scrupulous as Google is suddenly seeming, it might end up giving Fascism a good name.
I can see your frustration brother. but there is really no point in telling ideologues that they don't actually hold the unquestionable truth about what is Good and what is Evil.
There, fixed that for you.
It could simply be taken as a form of compliment - specifically, by way of self-deprecation. It's not uncommon, nor considered problematic in many cultures. (As one who has not yet subscribed to any particular culture, I have no opinion as to whether it offends me or not.)
Other cool retro addresses...
@map.com
@well.com
Just so you know. Usage of web-based email instead of a desktop email client also tends to set off the Lamer Alarm.
Maybe it's wrong, but yep, I agree. The domains that set off my lamer detector are hotmail.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and (even though i have these) mac.com and me.com. To some extent I take gmail.com email accounts a little less seriously. And I definitely take any email address with numbers in it with a grain of salt. With apologies to joesmith622@yahoo.com, it just shows a lack of imagination and a tendency to take whatever is offered. Plus it looks like a typical spam source address.
Actually, Sosumi is just one of the alert sounds, not the startup chime. Here's the true story behind the sound's funny name: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/24/early_apple_sound_de.html
The wall didn't even work for Nazi Germany! Learn from history!
Are you channeling the ghost of John Blutarsky?
In the meantime, there is way to "change the context". Stop behaving like the US and being assholes and occupying other countries, and behave more like Switzerland, the land of zero 9/11s.
And soon, zero minarets! (Eh, they might be just a little asshole-ish.)
You ask a lot of important questions, but most of them come from a misunderstanding of the situation - what you might call the prejudice of being *inside* the system. But keep pursuing those questions! And be careful about your attitude towards the word "theory." By placing the word in bold, you're emphasizing its informal usage, which stresses uncertainty. But in science the word has a formal meaning. In the parlance of science the most *certain* models that exist are theories. For what you're trying to express, you should say "the Big Bang Hypothesis."
Also worth mentioning that the Big Bang wasn't an event where a bunch of stuff existed as a dot within a big infinite space. Prior to the Big Bang there was no space and no time. Space itself inflated as a shared property of all energy. Space continues to inflate in the same manner. And given that the expansion is accelerating it looks as though space begets space.
Will this be like the knight's competition scene where the armored not-yet-Sir Patrick gets a slap in the face with a juniper branch before trying to pull the sword from the stone?
...just imagine a Beowulf cluster of Firefox plugins!
Don't laugh, some joker will probably do it just to prove it can be done.
The point of science is the pursuit of truth.
I'd prefer to drop that word "truth." Can we instead say that the point of science is the pursuit of "accurate predictive models" and leave "truth" in those looser realms where terms like "good" and "evil" are used? That would make me happier.
But the climate change people are claiming that we've got to do this and do that and etc in order to prevent the end of the world.
I know there must be an apropos comparison to be made here about the WMD in Iraq, but I don't feel like spelling it out.
...and there's no ti-i-i-i-ime for fussing and fighting, my friends.
Why do grown adults in this day and age need to preserve the idea that the words of Genesis are somehow literally true, and that there's a creator God who stood apart from everything and created it as a separate thing? Why do they need to take everything that we now understand about the Universe and shoehorn it into an ancient tribal conception of the way the world is?
I've heard otherwise rational people say, "well, of course Genesis isn't 'literally' true! For example, one of God's days might actually correspond to 2 billion years! That would square with the way things are!" Such people need to be slapped repeatedly with a noodley appendage.
The Universe is just the way it is. Life developed within it over billions of years as a product of natural processes. It's a continuous and complete thing. What's the problem with just accepting that we're here, and life has certain requirements, and our job is to live in harmony and fulfill the requirements of life in the most responsible way we can, given our capacities? Do we need to do everything as a show, or to please some celestial daddy? Is that really the only reason that we act in the world?
To my mind, it is much more breathtaking and invigorating to realize I am a product of and participant in something so infinitely vast and self-sustaining, without need of any kind of intervention whatsoever.
Fact is, the point of religion is entirely psychological, and for that it needs to have a certain continuity with the reality we know through our sense and experience, and to a great extent that reality is now determined by scientific discovery. The Catholic (aka inclusive) church is breaking under the strain of new knowledge, and its psychological framework is increasingly untenable. They are desperate to preserve the church itself and its central tenets at a time when people are more than ever aware that it's all a load of symbolism.
I think it's absolutely foolish the way they're bending over backwards to try to get reality to fit into their storybook conception of things. Reality isn't a story. Reality is visceral, omnipresent, and immanent in itself. When we engage with it directly, all that narrative goes away, and really I think religions should be stripping down to essentials and helping people to face reality as it is.
Of course, there are already good, austere schools that serve that end well, with an emphasis on living ethically and developing the mind through meditation and other practices, so as to be as happy, helpful, and fulfilled in life as is possible. My hope is that such schools will gain precedence over the primitive and superstitious religions that still hang on to the idea that we're all living in a book with God as a character. Reality is much deeper and more noble than such a childish outlook allows for.
...it's a real growth industry.
unconstitutional
You keep on saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?
The Constitution doesn't lay out everything permissible in minute detail. It simply lays the ground rules, and gives the framework for the process. Somewhere in there it explicitly states that anything not specifically forbidden is left to our discretion. In other words, we are free to choose this path.
Section 8, Powers of Congress, begins:
The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States....
It could be said that for our own benefit some of our pre or post-tax allocations must go towards insurance against conditions that undermine the welfare of the people, who after all are the raison-d'etre for the government to exist.
A healthy person is more capable of pursuing life, liberty, and happiness than one who suffers from a disease, and therefore it is in our collective interest that a universally-accessible system be in place to ensure our health.
Money, money, money. Where does it come from? What gives it value?
Citing both Rand and Heinlein? You need to get out more.
it is about forcing one group to pay for another group
We're all one group. You know, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? So, let's try and crown our good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea, if we can.
For a system like ours to work there has to be some support for its foundations, and public health is an issue that costs everyone. Either we do more on the side of care and prevention now, or we pay for it in treating disease later.
I swear, people just can't see the forest for all their gazing at the trees. More systemic thinking, less shortsightedness, please!