Hell, Microsoft reauthorized my OEM copy of Vista Home Premium twice when I moved the install to a new system, in spite of the license saying they don't allow that. Awfully kind of them, I thought.
Oh yes, lovely of them to allow you to actually use the software you bought.
Perhaps we should just build windows into everyones income tax, so even if you don't actually plan on buying a PC this year you're covered, just in case? Would that be nice and convenient for you? I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't mind.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, ad infinitum, but I really hate the way these measures end up punishing the "good guy". ie: I have a copy of Vista on my PC, which was installed when I purchase it, and is therefore entirely legit. But, I have never activated, mainly because I can't be assed. This particular box is not connected to the internet, nor does it have any (convenient) connectivity I can use to connect it, without running ethernet through a couple of rooms.
So of course, I'm now being persecuted by my legally purchased OS (makes me wait to log in, won't save my desktop settings, etc.), because I haven't kissed MS's ass yet, and called them for an activation code. Yes I know this would be very easy to do, but it just irks me that I *have to*.
And yet, if I had downloaded a cracked version of Vista, I wouldn't be getting this crap.
I bought the freakin thing, it's mine, I own it. This is no way to go about providing an operating system for computer users.
They need to ditch this preoccupation with squeezing their customers. So what if some fat-cat can't afford a new Rolls-Royce every year due to some people getting free copies of their OS, why the hell should that be my problem? I'm the one that DID pay for it, fer crissakes.
Sorry if this adds exactly nothing to the discussion, I just had to moan to somebody...
It's "would have thought", not "would of thought", as in "If I hadn't read that article, I would have thought they needed the sheep population controlled."
About the only bit I would question is the characterization of global warming as "the latest scientific fad"
To be honest I don't know how long global warming has been around, as a concept or a fact, but even if we argue that it is pretty recent, it still seems to trivialise it to call it a fad.
Also, I guess that does bring us back to the question: when do we say, ok now we have enough evidence, we know for sure we have to do something, or literally perish?
To me, it seems that time is past already. And I'm hardly a tree-hugger - I love V8s, and for that matter, all the other comforts of modern civilisation, many of which also depend on the exploitation of natural resources.
How many of those hysterias, and "great new solutions" which turned out to be wrong were based on masses of incontrovertible evidence?
I'm guessing none, which is why they turned out to be wrong.
Global warming is not in question - it is real; the planet is getting warmer.
Whether is it partly, mostly, or wholly, due to human activities is what is in question. And there is a lot of evidence that it is at least partly, and probably mostly.
It's similar to the debate on evolution - ALL of the evidence points to global warming being real, but still people want to drag their feet and say "it's not proven", and "I can't trust the science".
"But this time... it's different! This time it's REAL!"
This is not the latest watertight, 100% foolproof pyramid scheme, guaranteed to make you a millionaire in six weeks. This is real and verifiable.
WAKE UP. There IS a problem here, and it ain't going away just because you didn't want it to be true.
I'm curious: what is your point? Are you advocating that we wait and see, until you are satisfied that there is (or isn't) a problem? Or are you already convinced that there isn't one?
Either way you seem to have missed something: we already have the data - there is nothing left to wait for. Now it is time for us to start deciding how to act on the data.
The Vegas analogy doesn't hold up. Stealing the chips from a poker game is against the rules of the game. In fact, I would say it is an activity which is completely outside of the game of poker. As such, it is rightly illegal.
What Dentara Rask did appears to have been entirely within the allowed rules of the game he was playing. As such, no crime has been committed, and the real-world value of the game money is irrelevant. All that has happened is that CCP have chosen to reward players in their game with something which can be worth money in the real world.
Therefore, if Dentara Rask is guilty of something, then every player who has received any game money, while staying withing the rules of that game, is also guilty of the same thing. Real-world fraud or theft would only apply in the case of someone cracking a game.
This whole discussion is missing a fairly obvious point: the artists in question have already decided not to sell their songs separately, so what anyone here thinks isn't going to change a thing. Gee, I guess that means it's their own business what they decide to offer for sale, doesn't it? Who'd a thunk it?
I may just do that. Although I'm not overly interested in matters of spirituality etc., I have to admit to quite liking the eastern take on philosophy (not claiming to know much here, just that I have generally been able to relate what I have heard or read).
I'll keep an eye out for an English language version. Thanks.
Loquax - Thanks for your patient explanations - I know I'm pretty stubborn in my views. I guess a lot of people are. I don't know that I'll ever come to think of religion, or spirituality in a positive way. For me, the wonder of the world I see around me is more than enough - I don't feel the need to have anything metaphysical in my life.
Obviously I accept that we don't know for sure what the universe is all about, but as stated previously, I just don't see any need to invent anything to explain things we don't know, or understand yet.
Still, at least you are able to calmly debate me, rather than just take offence that I'm not agreeing with you.
It's very tempting for me to try and argue your points some more, but I think that would just be wasting both of our time, so I'll leave it. As much as it is probably human to try and bring others around to your own way of thinking, the world would probably be a very boring place if everyone thought exactly alike.
"Pissed is the least of our worries. Think of the poor English guy who walks in to a bar and asks the barman if it's okay to smoke a fag."
Thank you for that MysteriousPreacher, I needed a good laugh. That was excellent.
For the record, most of us here in New Zealand speak "real" english (albeit with a funny accent). People say a language must evolve, but that implies some kind of improvement, and most of the changes in US english are more like watering it down, as far as I'm concerned. ie: favour favor, colour color, etc. What are we, preschoolers?
I think you're using a certain amount of subterfuge in your arguments there. Ok, everyone knows that our perceptions are not perfect, but we are able to use that knowledge sensibly, and understand our world anyway.
And the meaning of words may be flexible, depending on the situation, but that doesn't invalidate their meaning, or my perception of a given situation.
Example: everyone knows that if you jump off a tall building, you're going to fall, and probably die.
So. Decision time - do I jump off one day because I'm running late, and I want to float to the bottom, rather than wait for the lift, or do I wait for the lift, because my (imperfect) human perceptions tell me if I jump off I will die?
Sorry, but I'm going with my flawed perception of reality. Equally, if someone tells me that some guy in the clouds created the whole planet, and everything on it, etc., and therefore I should change the way I live my life, I'm going to want some proof. The onus of proof must always be on the person/s who are introducing the concept. If it can't be proven, then it is actually irresponsible to accept it.
Our perceptions may not be perfect, and our knowledge of this world may not be complete, but that is no reason to make stuff up.
Still, It's not really for me to try and argue you out of your beliefs. The only reason religious beliefs get a bit of a response from me is that they unfortunately get used sometimes, by some people, to try and control others, and sometimes I'm in the "others" group, regardless of my feelings on the validity of the beliefs in question. I don't begrudge people having their beliefs if it makes them feel good.
But if that was me, it would drive me crazy thinking that I was maybe ignoring some facts, and simply going on stuff I was told by other people, and maybe missing out somewhere.
The thing is, from reading your comments, I think you're probably much like me - ie: you base your day to day decisions on logical, rational decisions, using the best tool you have at your disposal - your perception on what is real, and what is not. This is what always surprises me about intelligent people who are religious - there seems to be a suspension of disbelief, when it comes to matters of spirituality, and I find it hard to reconcile that with the person's general approach to thinking.
So what you're telling me is that up is down, black is white, and the complete lack of "emirical" evidence for a "god" is all the proof I need that one exists.
Sorry, but your "One final thought" is logically flawed.
Trusting someone who believes things for which there is no evidence is a bad idea. People who believe whatever they want are the same people who do whatever they want, and then delude themselves into "believing" they must be right. Especially when they are constantly hypnotizing themselves into believing they must be "good" and "true", because they "follow god".
Conversely, people who accept reality are not in the habit of deluding themselves, and are less likely to lie to themselves and excuse their own actions. This is more likely to result in a trustworthy person. "Be true to yourself" is good advice.
"It's hard to describe exactly what spirituality is, but all people seem to have it... is it the ability to entertain ideas which are purely abstract & irrational?"
Under that definition, I'd like to flatter myself I'm spiritual.
Unfortunately, I can't relate that definition to what I have always understood spirituality to mean. I have always understood it to be very specific to a belief in something supernatural.
Anyhoo, I guess thats a fairly minor point amongst what you are trying to communicate. Thanks SirPavlova, you've certainly got patience, I'll give you that!
I really am gonna quit bugging you with this stuff shortly...
"encumbered with any spiritual weaknesses"
- Sorry, just realized how offensive that could sound... sadly I have to say that because I don't believe any of that stuff, I can't help seeing it as a weakness. I don't mean to be offensive, but I have to be honest about this. Kind of like how you might relate to someone who is genuinely delusional - you don't want to offend, but on the other hand, you just can't see what they believe as anything other than unreal. I'm not trying to liken religion to a delusion, I just can't think of a better analogy. Also I'm not claiming to "know" the origin of the universe etc., because obviously, no one does.
And some more pedantry: I would say that having fun "for the sake of it" is perfectly rational - ie: I purposefully do stuff I know is going to be fun. If it has no other purpose, well I still don't see it as "irrational". Also, I agree that sometimes the "irrational" stuff ends up being fun, but I have to say, I don't generally go out to be irrational - that usually happens by accident! Actually, the word irrational generally makes me think of things like self-destructive impulses, or anger and violence. And they aren't fun.
I'm now wondering if I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing... Am I being irrational? Probably...oops, I hope its not fun. It's late here 10:30pm, so I may be talking cr*p again. I know thats not all that late, but I've had long day. I should really go to bed.
Heh. Curiously, I've been accused of the same myself, on occasion. I dunno, some things are important, thats all...
I daresay you're right tho. I guess I've just got a problem with being "tarred with the same brush" as it were. It's my conceit to imagine I'm not encumbered with any spiritual weaknesses. Probably a good psychiatrist could tell you volumes about where my psyche is broken, just from that;-)
Re:Sensationalist Journalism?
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
Thanks Afrosheen. Now I'm off to Google me a doozy. I'm all fired up about exclusive early American cars now. So much for work for the day. Never mind, I'm sure the obsession will abate when a co-worker mentions a new gadget that I just have to have sometime after lunch. Wonder what it'll be?
"Either way there's something both theists & atheists have which agnostics don't."
See, not wanting to be all negative, and stuff, but the point I'm trying to make is that "belief" isn't a point of similarity.
I don't see a big difference between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God". They are two ways of saying the same thing - either way, I've heard about it, I've had it explained in various ways by people who do believe, and - I'm not convinced.
It's like saying the fact that I think there is no "Flying Spaghetti Monster", also means I have "a belief". All of a sudden, because someone invented something, and mentioned it to me, my rejection of it means that I am now encumbered with "a belief"? I don't think so.
Re:Sensationalist Journalism?
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
When you're looking up "doozy" in your dictionary, perhaps you could look up "fucktard" as well.
Presumably that will occupy your brilliant intellect until sometime around christmas, and keep you from annoying the grown-ups.
Re:Sensationalist Journalism?
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
oh, and:
"A religion is a set of rules or guides to how to behave & what to believe."
I don't think "I believe there is no god" qualifies as "a set of rules or guides to how to behave", does it?
Religion: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."
Regardless of the above, I understand what you're trying to say. Nevertheless, I see in your comments what I have seen many times with religious people - an inability to relate to the concept of being free from religion. For me religion is simply irrelevant. I don't give it a second thought unless someone else brings it up. You can call my state "religious" if you want to, but in the generally accepted meaning of the word, it isn't.
I note that one of the symptoms of schizophrenia is a tendency to relate everything in the world to ones own situation, whether it has any relevance or not. Just a thought.
"Because in most democracies, there is some notion of free speech. Are you proposing, perhaps, that I should not be permitted to mention God anywhere except within special ghettoes where it is allowed?"
- sorry, its late here, and I can't be bothered with html. To answer the above, thats quite a good point. I didn't really explain myself too well there. I guess what I really meant was "Why should God be mentioned in any manner which officially sanctions the existence of such a being", or something like that. ie: The state, and other bodies which are for the usage of the general populace, should be neutral. To me, as an absolute atheist, such a thing would be the same, I assume, as the opposite for you - ie: the government specifically teaching that God doesn't exist - offensive.
"Why should my children be exposed to modern superstitions?"
- I'm not suggesting that any superstitions are worth respect.
"For example, I suspect you would agree that a proposition is true only if it is either basic to knowledge (such as logic) or founded on evidence in accordance with that basis. Rationalism in a nutshell, as it were. Yet the interesting thing is that this definition of "true" does not rise to its own standards -- it is very purely a philosophical assumption."
- Sorry, couldn't quite follow your logic there. I'm not even sure that I would pass some of that as acceptable english - "proposition is true only if it is either basic to knowledge"?
Plus, saying that a rejection of religion is a religious statement seems a little pointless to me. I don't know if you are one of them, but I have seen religious people state the atheism is a religion. To me this is simply a rejection by religious people that anyone could possibly have no belief in a god of any kind, which is obviously wrong.
You could be right about the world not being improved by religion disappearing. To my mind, that is simply because there are so many people who have problems, and need some kind of guidance that they are not getting anywhere else. I have read that there is actually a genetic disposition among a large percentage of people to beleive in the supernatural.
Here's a thought for you: If there really isn't any kind of god/s in the universe, wouldn't it be nice if humankind could leave behind all the historical baggage of religious beliefs, and try to live decent lives simply because it makes sense to do so. To care about other people, regardless of sex, or race, because it is simply a better way to live. I know that being religious doesn't preclude also being a genuinely decent person, but I also know that I don't need the threat of an angry god to make me one.
I haven't read the link you posted, mainly because of time constraints, so I can't comment too much on that, but I would say that moving people away from religion would presumably have some immediate problems for people who had been indoctrinated all their lives - ie they may not know how to behave without the strict moral guidance of their religion. But my opinion is that long-term it could be of benefit, if people were given strong guidance in the place of the church.
Caveat: I realise you are not aggressively pushing your religion at me, and I hope the following part of my comment doesn't offend. I just happen to like thinking about this stuff!
It is impossible to prove, conclusively, that something doesn't exist. e.g., I can't prove to you that there is no such thing as a planet in the universe on which pink elephants, with tv screens in the back of their heads, grow naturally. To prove conclusively it doesn't exist, I'd have to take you to every planet in the universe, etc. The burden of proof must always be on the group which is trying to push something. As far as I am concerned, it is wrong, and in fact irresponsible, even dangerous to believe in, and act on something which is unproven, when there are reasonable, and much more credible, alternatives. There is currently no conclusive p
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, Microsoft reauthorized my OEM copy of Vista Home Premium twice when I moved the install to a new system, in spite of the license saying they don't allow that. Awfully kind of them, I thought.
Oh yes, lovely of them to allow you to actually use the software you bought. Perhaps we should just build windows into everyones income tax, so even if you don't actually plan on buying a PC this year you're covered, just in case? Would that be nice and convenient for you? I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't mind.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, ad infinitum, but I really hate the way these measures end up punishing the "good guy". ie: I have a copy of Vista on my PC, which was installed when I purchase it, and is therefore entirely legit. But, I have never activated, mainly because I can't be assed. This particular box is not connected to the internet, nor does it have any (convenient) connectivity I can use to connect it, without running ethernet through a couple of rooms. So of course, I'm now being persecuted by my legally purchased OS (makes me wait to log in, won't save my desktop settings, etc.), because I haven't kissed MS's ass yet, and called them for an activation code. Yes I know this would be very easy to do, but it just irks me that I *have to*. And yet, if I had downloaded a cracked version of Vista, I wouldn't be getting this crap. I bought the freakin thing, it's mine, I own it. This is no way to go about providing an operating system for computer users. They need to ditch this preoccupation with squeezing their customers. So what if some fat-cat can't afford a new Rolls-Royce every year due to some people getting free copies of their OS, why the hell should that be my problem? I'm the one that DID pay for it, fer crissakes. Sorry if this adds exactly nothing to the discussion, I just had to moan to somebody...
It's "would have thought", not "would of thought", as in "If I hadn't read that article, I would have thought they needed the sheep population controlled."
About the only bit I would question is the characterization of global warming as "the latest scientific fad"
To be honest I don't know how long global warming has been around, as a concept or a fact, but even if we argue that it is pretty recent, it still seems to trivialise it to call it a fad.
Also, I guess that does bring us back to the question: when do we say, ok now we have enough evidence, we know for sure we have to do something, or literally perish?
To me, it seems that time is past already. And I'm hardly a tree-hugger - I love V8s, and for that matter, all the other comforts of modern civilisation, many of which also depend on the exploitation of natural resources.
I'm guessing none, which is why they turned out to be wrong.
Global warming is not in question - it is real; the planet is getting warmer. Whether is it partly, mostly, or wholly, due to human activities is what is in question. And there is a lot of evidence that it is at least partly, and probably mostly.
It's similar to the debate on evolution - ALL of the evidence points to global warming being real, but still people want to drag their feet and say "it's not proven", and "I can't trust the science".
"But this time... it's different! This time it's REAL!"
This is not the latest watertight, 100% foolproof pyramid scheme, guaranteed to make you a millionaire in six weeks. This is real and verifiable. WAKE UP. There IS a problem here, and it ain't going away just because you didn't want it to be true.
I'm curious: what is your point? Are you advocating that we wait and see, until you are satisfied that there is (or isn't) a problem? Or are you already convinced that there isn't one? Either way you seem to have missed something: we already have the data - there is nothing left to wait for. Now it is time for us to start deciding how to act on the data.
Right on, dude.
The Vegas analogy doesn't hold up. Stealing the chips from a poker game is against the rules of the game. In fact, I would say it is an activity which is completely outside of the game of poker. As such, it is rightly illegal.
What Dentara Rask did appears to have been entirely within the allowed rules of the game he was playing. As such, no crime has been committed, and the real-world value of the game money is irrelevant. All that has happened is that CCP have chosen to reward players in their game with something which can be worth money in the real world.
Therefore, if Dentara Rask is guilty of something, then every player who has received any game money, while staying withing the rules of that game, is also guilty of the same thing.
Real-world fraud or theft would only apply in the case of someone cracking a game.
This whole discussion is missing a fairly obvious point: the artists in question have already decided not to sell their songs separately, so what anyone here thinks isn't going to change a thing. Gee, I guess that means it's their own business what they decide to offer for sale, doesn't it? Who'd a thunk it?
I'll keep an eye out for an English language version. Thanks.
Obviously I accept that we don't know for sure what the universe is all about, but as stated previously, I just don't see any need to invent anything to explain things we don't know, or understand yet.
Still, at least you are able to calmly debate me, rather than just take offence that I'm not agreeing with you. It's very tempting for me to try and argue your points some more, but I think that would just be wasting both of our time, so I'll leave it. As much as it is probably human to try and bring others around to your own way of thinking, the world would probably be a very boring place if everyone thought exactly alike.
Cheers.
Thank you for that MysteriousPreacher, I needed a good laugh. That was excellent.
For the record, most of us here in New Zealand speak "real" english (albeit with a funny accent). People say a language must evolve, but that implies some kind of improvement, and most of the changes in US english are more like watering it down, as far as I'm concerned. ie: favour favor, colour color, etc. What are we, preschoolers?
Example: everyone knows that if you jump off a tall building, you're going to fall, and probably die.
So. Decision time - do I jump off one day because I'm running late, and I want to float to the bottom, rather than wait for the lift, or do I wait for the lift, because my (imperfect) human perceptions tell me if I jump off I will die?
Sorry, but I'm going with my flawed perception of reality. Equally, if someone tells me that some guy in the clouds created the whole planet, and everything on it, etc., and therefore I should change the way I live my life, I'm going to want some proof. The onus of proof must always be on the person/s who are introducing the concept. If it can't be proven, then it is actually irresponsible to accept it.
Our perceptions may not be perfect, and our knowledge of this world may not be complete, but that is no reason to make stuff up.
Still, It's not really for me to try and argue you out of your beliefs. The only reason religious beliefs get a bit of a response from me is that they unfortunately get used sometimes, by some people, to try and control others, and sometimes I'm in the "others" group, regardless of my feelings on the validity of the beliefs in question. I don't begrudge people having their beliefs if it makes them feel good.
But if that was me, it would drive me crazy thinking that I was maybe ignoring some facts, and simply going on stuff I was told by other people, and maybe missing out somewhere.
The thing is, from reading your comments, I think you're probably much like me - ie: you base your day to day decisions on logical, rational decisions, using the best tool you have at your disposal - your perception on what is real, and what is not. This is what always surprises me about intelligent people who are religious - there seems to be a suspension of disbelief, when it comes to matters of spirituality, and I find it hard to reconcile that with the person's general approach to thinking.
Thanks for putting me straight on that. :-)
Conversely, people who accept reality are not in the habit of deluding themselves, and are less likely to lie to themselves and excuse their own actions. This is more likely to result in a trustworthy person. "Be true to yourself" is good advice.
It should be "insert deity of choice", or perhaps "insert favourite deity".
"insert favourite deity of choice" is redundant.
"It's hard to describe exactly what spirituality is, but all people seem to have it... is it the ability to entertain ideas which are purely abstract & irrational?" Under that definition, I'd like to flatter myself I'm spiritual. Unfortunately, I can't relate that definition to what I have always understood spirituality to mean. I have always understood it to be very specific to a belief in something supernatural. Anyhoo, I guess thats a fairly minor point amongst what you are trying to communicate. Thanks SirPavlova, you've certainly got patience, I'll give you that!
I really am gonna quit bugging you with this stuff shortly...
"encumbered with any spiritual weaknesses"
- Sorry, just realized how offensive that could sound... sadly I have to say that because I don't believe any of that stuff, I can't help seeing it as a weakness. I don't mean to be offensive, but I have to be honest about this. Kind of like how you might relate to someone who is genuinely delusional - you don't want to offend, but on the other hand, you just can't see what they believe as anything other than unreal. I'm not trying to liken religion to a delusion, I just can't think of a better analogy. Also I'm not claiming to "know" the origin of the universe etc., because obviously, no one does.
And some more pedantry:
I would say that having fun "for the sake of it" is perfectly rational - ie: I purposefully do stuff I know is going to be fun. If it has no other purpose, well I still don't see it as "irrational". Also, I agree that sometimes the "irrational" stuff ends up being fun, but I have to say, I don't generally go out to be irrational - that usually happens by accident! Actually, the word irrational generally makes me think of things like self-destructive impulses, or anger and violence. And they aren't fun.
I'm now wondering if I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing...
Am I being irrational? Probably...oops, I hope its not fun.
It's late here 10:30pm, so I may be talking cr*p again. I know thats not all that late, but I've had long day. I should really go to bed.
"Yeah, well, I'm a pedant."
;-)
Heh.
Curiously, I've been accused of the same myself, on occasion. I dunno, some things are important, thats all...
I daresay you're right tho. I guess I've just got a problem with being "tarred with the same brush" as it were. It's my conceit to imagine I'm not encumbered with any spiritual weaknesses.
Probably a good psychiatrist could tell you volumes about where my psyche is broken, just from that
Thanks Afrosheen. Now I'm off to Google me a doozy. I'm all fired up about exclusive early American cars now.
So much for work for the day.
Never mind, I'm sure the obsession will abate when a co-worker mentions a new gadget that I just have to have sometime after lunch.
Wonder what it'll be?
"Either way there's something both theists & atheists have which agnostics don't."
See, not wanting to be all negative, and stuff, but the point I'm trying to make is that "belief" isn't a point of similarity.
I don't see a big difference between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God". They are two ways of saying the same thing - either way, I've heard about it, I've had it explained in various ways by people who do believe, and - I'm not convinced.
It's like saying the fact that I think there is no "Flying Spaghetti Monster", also means I have "a belief". All of a sudden, because someone invented something, and mentioned it to me, my rejection of it means that I am now encumbered with "a belief"? I don't think so.
When you're looking up "doozy" in your dictionary, perhaps you could look up "fucktard" as well. Presumably that will occupy your brilliant intellect until sometime around christmas, and keep you from annoying the grown-ups.
I thought a "doozy" was something good, or great?
oh, and: "A religion is a set of rules or guides to how to behave & what to believe." I don't think "I believe there is no god" qualifies as "a set of rules or guides to how to behave", does it?
Religion:
"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."
Regardless of the above, I understand what you're trying to say. Nevertheless, I see in your comments what I have seen many times with religious people - an inability to relate to the concept of being free from religion. For me religion is simply irrelevant. I don't give it a second thought unless someone else brings it up. You can call my state "religious" if you want to, but in the generally accepted meaning of the word, it isn't.
I note that one of the symptoms of schizophrenia is a tendency to relate everything in the world to ones own situation, whether it has any relevance or not. Just a thought.
"Because in most democracies, there is some notion of free speech. Are you proposing, perhaps, that I should not be permitted to mention God anywhere except within special ghettoes where it is allowed?"
- sorry, its late here, and I can't be bothered with html.
To answer the above, thats quite a good point. I didn't really explain myself too well there. I guess what I really meant was "Why should God be mentioned in any manner which officially sanctions the existence of such a being", or something like that. ie: The state, and other bodies which are for the usage of the general populace, should be neutral. To me, as an absolute atheist, such a thing would be the same, I assume, as the opposite for you - ie: the government specifically teaching that God doesn't exist - offensive.
"Why should my children be exposed to modern superstitions?"
- I'm not suggesting that any superstitions are worth respect.
"For example, I suspect you would agree that a proposition is true only if it is either basic to knowledge (such as logic) or founded on evidence in accordance with that basis. Rationalism in a nutshell, as it were. Yet the interesting thing is that this definition of "true" does not rise to its own standards -- it is very purely a philosophical assumption."
- Sorry, couldn't quite follow your logic there. I'm not even sure that I would pass some of that as acceptable english - "proposition is true only if it is either basic to knowledge"?
Plus, saying that a rejection of religion is a religious statement seems a little pointless to me. I don't know if you are one of them, but I have seen religious people state the atheism is a religion. To me this is simply a rejection by religious people that anyone could possibly have no belief in a god of any kind, which is obviously wrong.
You could be right about the world not being improved by religion disappearing. To my mind, that is simply because there are so many people who have problems, and need some kind of guidance that they are not getting anywhere else. I have read that there is actually a genetic disposition among a large percentage of people to beleive in the supernatural.
Here's a thought for you: If there really isn't any kind of god/s in the universe, wouldn't it be nice if humankind could leave behind all the historical baggage of religious beliefs, and try to live decent lives simply because it makes sense to do so. To care about other people, regardless of sex, or race, because it is simply a better way to live.
I know that being religious doesn't preclude also being a genuinely decent person, but I also know that I don't need the threat of an angry god to make me one.
I haven't read the link you posted, mainly because of time constraints, so I can't comment too much on that, but I would say that moving people away from religion would presumably have some immediate problems for people who had been indoctrinated all their lives - ie they may not know how to behave without the strict moral guidance of their religion. But my opinion is that long-term it could be of benefit, if people were given strong guidance in the place of the church.
Caveat: I realise you are not aggressively pushing your religion at me, and I hope the following part of my comment doesn't offend. I just happen to like thinking about this stuff!
It is impossible to prove, conclusively, that something doesn't exist. e.g., I can't prove to you that there is no such thing as a planet in the universe on which pink elephants, with tv screens in the back of their heads, grow naturally. To prove conclusively it doesn't exist, I'd have to take you to every planet in the universe, etc.
The burden of proof must always be on the group which is trying to push something.
As far as I am concerned, it is wrong, and in fact irresponsible, even dangerous to believe in, and act on something which is unproven, when there are reasonable, and much more credible, alternatives.
There is currently no conclusive p