I understand, but "rational by choice" is in and of itself irrational. A rational creature can and often does act irrationally, however, an irrational creature can never act rationally as it doesn't posses the capability to do so (or it would be a rational creature). Therefor the quality of being rational is in and of itself not a choice but by nature (or natural selection).
There are even many humanists who would argue that what seems irrational to the observer is the rational choice to the person committing the act. The notion being that when faced with choices, we always will choose what seems to be the best choice. Of course, perception then comes into play with that, but the fact that there is still a reasoning that occurs in the thought process that leads to the bad choice means a rational decision was made -- given the perception of the individual making the choice. Then, too, there is the whole subject of mathematics, which most would define as requiring rational thought, but make us accept things like imaginary numbers and non-euclidean geometry to describe the universe and the world around us.
Now, as for being atheist, well that is definitely a choice. A rational creature can at best only be agnostic by nature. We simply do not have the capabilities to be aware if there is anything outside what we can experience (a deity or otherwise). To make a statement that one is an atheist means one is choosing to accept that there is no deity, just as a theist chooses that there is a deity.
Thus the statement "Atheist by nature. Rational by choice." is incorrect on both parts. Or, put differently, it is irrational. It is only correctly phrased as "Rational by nature. Atheist by choice." As that is the only reality that is consistent with the humanist movement.
Your sig is wrong. One cannot choose to be rational. One can choose to act irrationally, but human beings are by their very nature rational creatures. With regards to belief in a deity or not, that is a choice. As such, your sig, if it is to make any logical sense should read "Rational by nature. Atheist by choice." unless your point is that you sig is not rational, which would mean neither is your choice.
The laying of a Priest's hands is financially cheap, and might be just enough to help someone if they believe enough in the action to activate the Placebo Effect.
Usually only Catholics capitalize the word "priest" and yet the Catholic Church is just as skeptical of faith healers as anybody else. It seems an injustice to imply a connection between them and faith healing.
I am not saying their (christians) position is correct, however, the modern university, hospital, and court systems came out of their church. Likewise, their jesuits did most of the early science that we take for granted today. In addition, what society accepts as normal with regards to how to treat one another today is based, again, on their influence.
You cannot say that the moral code predates their religion. Well, you can, but then you are just substituting one religion for another and the same cultural bias exists. With regards to Jewish influence, (eating of pork, and the like) it was minimal other than it's influence on the catholics. The catholics shaped Europe and they didn't have those admonitions you point out, that is an evangelical twisting that only occured in the last 75 years, so it is hardly long enough to be influentual on the inherited culture.
But the basic christian notion of right and wrong has been around long enough and we all abide by it whether we accept their deity or not. A child is not born into the world knowing right from wrong, it is taught that. And the right from wrong it is taught is what is acceptable by societies standards as understood by the parents. Even if the parents aren't theists, society's notion of right and wrong is heavily influenced by christian morality and that is what is passed on.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, it just simply is. Regardless of one's individual belief (or lack thereof), one cannot escape the influence of christianity in one's thinking if one is a product of Western civilization. And, since christianity was heavily influenced itself by judaism, then Western civilization is in fact a product of judea-christian thinking. That doesn't mean one has to believe in a deity, but if one denies the influence of religion on societal norms, one is just as dillusional as a theist.
I have yet to read about any religion doing anything to anybody. On the other hand, I have read and seen plenty about people who profess a religion who have done shitty things to people. But there is a difference between what a religion (or one's own life philosophy) says and how well the individual follows it.
So the Crusades & the Inquisition had nothing to do with the Catholic Church?
Actually, if you study history, that would be correct. Only the first crusade was started by the Church and that was to recapture Jerusalem which was captured and taken from them. The other crusades were started by the nobles. As for the inquisition, I assume you are referring to the "Spanish" inquisition. Again, started by the monarchy, although the catholic church did get dragged into it. Then again, in all of these things, it is important to separate the Catholic Church from the Holy Roman Empire. Just as the Church of England is not the same as the British Empire, neither was the Catholic Church the same as the Holy Roman Empire. I don't mean to be an apologist for the catholics, but really, a little googling can go a long way.
The flaw in your argument is that if you are born in Germany, you are German. You're not realistically born with inherent knowledge of any specific religion; it has to be taught to you which you then have a chance to accept or reject. Nationality is not taught, its geography, it's not a construct of man. However, religion would not exist without the people in the collective religion, it cannot exist without the people therefore the representatives of the belief are essentially the religion.
Exactly, religion, like culture is passed down or learned. Therefore, even an atheist, if born into a country that is or was predominately judea-christian, is going be assimilated into that culture and influenced by that religious base. There is no escaping it as the cultural values at the very core are based on religious influence. So, even though one may rationally reject a deity, one cannot escape the influence of the believe in that deity as embodied by the society of one's upbringing. This has nothing to do with nationality, per se, but everything to do with assimilation. Even if the last christian were wiped out from Germany, the german culture is predominately based on christian values and precepts and it would take a very, very, very long time for that to change, unless there were an active and conscious effort to immediately replace it with something else.
The problem with replacing it with something else is that everybody in the West, whether atheist or deist also has the same cultural bias because it is fundamental to western civilization, so any moral or value judgement proposed would be impossible to separate from a religious core value. It would be possible for somebody from the East to propose the new moral code, but it is unlikely, given the other cultural barriers, it would be accepted.
So, like it or not, theist or not, we are all products of our environment, which unfortunately for the atheist is based on the belief in a deity. That fundamental discord between the culture and what the atheist wants to believe is probably at the root of the acrimonious tone most discussions take on the subject (not that the atheist is necessarily the cause of such acrimony, very often it is the theist).
I'm sorry... but a religion is a ideology, its dogmas and beliefs inform and direct the actions of its adherents and these dogmas and beliefs are handed down by clerics and church leaders, so when the leader of a church, like the misbegotten slime mold inhabiting the Phelp's Compound in Westboro go out and commit atrocities, its consistent with their religious views and the fact that they've turned Christianity inside out belies the fact that the Southern Baptists Churches they came from had already done a pretty decent job of reinterpreting the word of Jesus Christ in such a way that hatred, murder and assaults against otherwise innocent children is perfectly consistent with their world view, and I'd be only too happy to pick specific examples. Without the religion the people would not act and without the people the religion vanishes, so you cannot separate the two, they must be viewed as a single whole. The meme and the mind dance together.
Religion is an ideology, with self proclaimed clerics, but then again, so is the NRA. There is nothing unique about a religious based ideology versus any other ideology other than a belief in a supernatural power. However, that only changes how the rules are handed down, but not how the individual actual acts out.
Using Westboro as an example, most other christian groups denounce what they are doing. They are an example of a human being using religion for their own purpose NOT religion causing the atrocities. If their behaviour is consistent with their religious views, it is only because they have re-shaped the christian doctrine to fit what they want their views to be. It's not the first time something like that has happened nor will it be the last and it doesn't just happen with religion.
You say that without religioun people would no act like this, however, there are examples of non-religious societies throughout history and they pretty much committed the same atrocities as those that believed in a deity. That is not a condemnation on religion as much as it shows that human nature is what it is, regardless of ones ideology. Religion attempts to establish a moral code for its followers, but even without religion, for society to exist, there has to be an agreed upon moral code.
Even for an atheist, in the US, whether they like it or not, their value system is heavily influenced by judeo-christian thinking, because the culture they were raised in was influenced by judeo-christian thinking. Why is an adult sleeping with a child wrong? It is because it is unacceptable based on the religious principles that have been established for centuries. In non-christian countries, however, it was common practice and still is in parts of the world. Why do we not marry our first cousins? It's not because of genetic problems, but because biblically, first cousins were considered brothers and sisters and fell under the taboo of incest. They interpreted the genetic problems that arose as their god's displeasure, but until we had DNA, we didn't have scientific proof to "know" why it was problematic.
In otherwords, whether one believes in a deity or not, our modern culture in the West is so steeped in religious tradition (who do we give thanks to on Thanksgiving and and whose mass do we celebrate on Christmas) and practice, why did men used to where hats? It wasn't to keep the sun off their head, but a carry over from showing humility before god. We may have forgotten the reasons, but like it or not, even athiests are wrapped up in judeo-christian practices. (That's not all bad - those 10 commandment things tend to be good for society as a whole).
Which comes back to the point that whether you want to call it an ideology or a philosophy or whatever it is, removing the deity does not change they dynamics from any other ideology or philosophy or whatever. Any and all of them can be corrupted by the people leading them. The meme and the mind do dance together, they just don't need a deity to play the music.
You can argue all day that the people aren't the religion, but at the end of the day the only real representation of any organization is how the people within it act and it can therefore be said that the religion is more the people who follow and individually interpret it than the dogma taught to them. After all without the people, there would be no religion, with or without the doctrine.
But that argument is bogus. Take Islam. It has specific tennets about protecting innocents in times of battle (like women and children). The majority of practicing Muslims follow those tennets. However, radical Islamists don't. Does that mean that all of Islam are violent or only those who have twisted it to mean something other than what the religion teaches (I am not a Muslim, so I don't know if I have the above exactly right or not, but you get my point).
Take Catholics, some clerics abused young males. Does that mean their religion teaches or approves that or all Catholics are guilty of that? And if so, what about the atheists throughout the ages that slaughtered tens of thousands and then ate their foes? Does that mean all atheists are that way?
The answer to all of these is "Of course not!" Just as Hitler did not represent what every German believed, neither do the actions of any person of "faith" mean that they are the embodiment of their religion. Even the Catholics, when they talk about papal infallability only refer to papal statements related to defining issues of faith. In all other areas, their pope is as fallable as anybody else and can be, and often has been of as poor character as the the culture and society that produced him.
One could argue that any world view or philosophy that asks it's followers to put the needs of others before the wants of one's self is going to find it difficult to follow all the time. Face it, we are all selfish creatures, whether created by a deity or not. It is true that without the people, there would be no religion, but then again, that wouldn't change human nature and the people would still do the same terrible things. They just wouldn't feel guilty about it afterwards.
And that is what makes Scientology so dangerous. It is as if RIAA claimed to be a religion in order to protect their litigiousness and greed behind a shield of anti-discrimination laws and tax exempt status.
And that is what makes Scientology so dangerous. It is as if RIAA claimed to be a religion in order to protect their litigiousness and greed behind a shield of anti-discrimination laws and tax exempt status.
I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, but that is simply not true. If you read the news you can find plenty examples of long established, "legitimate religions" still doing shitty things to people.
I have yet to read about any religion doing anything to anybody. On the other hand, I have read and seen plenty about people who profess a religion who have done shitty things to people. But there is a difference between what a religion (or one's own life philosophy) says and how well the individual follows it.
However, when you look at they claim, how they act and what they do, it all seems the same, from an atheists point of view.
Assuming that atheism is correct, which would mean that religion is just a philosophy instead of a theology, then it should be relatively easy to judge a religion based on its philosophical teachings instead of how any individual follower of those teachings lived up to the standard. In other words, what does the religious philosophy stand for? If, as in christianity, it is do unto others as you would have them do unto you, then is that such a bad philosophy from an atheistic point of view? There seem to be some benefits to society, quite a few actually, from following that, so strictly from a moral code, no deity involved, it seems a positive philosophy.
But what then, brings the knee-jerk reaction against religion when it is viewed as something more than a philosophy? Almost always a venomous dialogue begins between believers and non-believers which never gets anywhere. Most often, any discourse deteriorates into atrocities of the past, but again, were those atrocities "ordained" by the religion or did they come about by human beings using the religion for their own agenda?
I am not trying to take a side as to whether a deity exists or not. But from what I have studied, most religions, when viewed as a moral code or philosophy are pretty positive in their tenants. As a society, we pretty much agree that it is better not to murder and steal, whether a deity said so, or some really wise person said so. Same thing for caring for those who are less fortunate, etc.
It would seem, therefore, that the atheist's objection to religion is not on the philosophical realm, and not even on whether or not a deity exists (anymore than Santa Claus or unicorns), but instead, the problem most atheists seem to object to is not the religion itself, but the human failings of those who profess that religion.
The real problem isn't people who believe in invisible martians (for fun and profit), it's the legal system that lets them torment other people with flagrant abandon.
If you have enough money and a good team of lawyers you can effectively destroy someone else's life.
We live in a nightmare world.
That doesn't take religion. The RIAA does it all the time.
It was never the battery that was the problem. Now, maybe the charging system of the battery, that's a different story. But the batteries themselves were not really though to be problematic. Most lithium ion batteries will become damaged if overcharged and overheat, even much later than the original overcharging. That is technically not a problem with the battery anymore than holding a lit match to a piece of paper is a problem with the paper (unless of course the design spec says it's not supposed to happen even if mistreated this way).
Since when is Google storing a cookie on your local computer the same as Google collecting data on you. Collecting, by its very definition, would mean that they are storing the data on their computer. Now, if Google then harvests the data stored locally and does something with it, that is a different story, but just having Google store a cookie, does not in and of itself mean that they are collecting personal data, even if the cookie contains personal data. If that were the case, then just about every website you visit would be guilty of the same thing as almost all of them store cookies.
Here is another problem with the legal action being brought. It is being done so by somebody who knows and understands how computers work. Therefore, if you know that Google, or anybody else, is storing cookies and you allow it to persist, when your browser allows you to refuse cookies from certain sites, isn't their a form of contributory fault there? I'm not talking about John Q. Public, but a so called expert in the field (whether self proclaimed or not).
I know that you have a much more difficult time getting an insurance company to pay a claim for a valuable stolen item if it was left on the front seat of a car with the windows rolled down and the door unlocked. It doesn't mean that the person should have stolen it, but that you should have protected it. If that is accepted, then why would an "expert" in the field of computer security not be held to the same standard?
Correction, I should have said "blacklisted" instead of just "fired".
Isn't that term considered racist, though? Is there a P.C. replacement?
No, there is no P.C. replacement because blacklisting has nothing to do with race. From wWikipedia: According to the Henry Holt Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins the word "blacklist" originated with a list England's King Charles II made of fifty-eight judges and court officers who sentenced his father, Charles I, to death in 1649. When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, thirteen of these executioners were put to death and twenty-five sentenced to life imprisonment, while others escaped.
It's not that Darwin was lazy, it was that the religious environment was such that one risked being fired for ticking off the religious establishments. It wasn't quite as bad as Galileo, but the same kind of forces.
Thus, he wanted the publication to be as water-tight as possible before releasing it; and that's one of the reasons why the work, for the most part, stands the test of time.
Except that is pure speculation. There is no evidence that Darwin delayed publishing because he was afraid of the religious establishments. Based on his other writings, one could construe that he was anything but afraid of the religious establishment.
It's simple really. Consumers are moving towards tablet like devices. Businesses are sticking with traditional desktop/laptop. Windows 8 targets tablet like devices, which could be good for consumers, but that isn't where most desktop/laptop sales are occuring, which is the business market. Desktop/laptop sales in the consumer market are are very price conscious. Desktop/laptop sales in the business market are directed at productivity, which equate to lowering costs of duing business.
Windows 8 may be the next best thing since sliced bread as a technology (although I doubt that). However, it appears that it misses the mark in both the consumer and business markets for traditional desktop/laptop computing. Maybe Microsoft needs to go back and take a Marketing 101 course or two, because Microsoft has nobody to blame but themself. The hardware manufacturers are producing what the market will buy. It is simple supply and demand and there isn't a lot of demand for Windows 8.
Yes it matters. An iPad isn't a Powerbook and an ultrabook isn't a full laptop either. All of those devices are designed for different needs and using the wrong one based on one's need is sure to be frustrating.
To say it is popular when it is the only choice available is a sign of ant-trust violations, not good business models. There are only a handful of cellular companies and they somehow all have the same business model with out collusion? Seems might odd. When the railroads tried this back in the first part of the last century, the government stepped in to protect the rights of the users. My how times have changed. Today, the government seems more interested in protecting the rights of the companies.
Except that it's not the only option available. Right here in Chicago, T-Mobile is pushing their value plans which don't subsidize the phones. My wife and I bought our first Android-based smartphones a little over a year ago, paying for the phones up front (still at a discount, but they're locked) but a less-expensive shared minutes/data plan. For a while now, many carriers including the big players have offered pay-as-you-go even voice & data plans.
More to the point, in the last 10 years that I've had cell phones, I don't EVER remember a time when the ONLY option was subsidized phone + contract. I think people generally understand that they pay for "free" or cheap high-end phones with what is basically a short-term loan. (I haven't seen surveys on this, so I could be wrong).
T-Mobile covers rural IL? When did that happen? Last time I was there, pretty much, if you travelled outside the metropolitan areas and a short distance from the interstate, you need AT&T to get statewide coverage. But if that has changed, that's great!
What steps has MIT taken to to ensure that the something like this will never happen again?
And, in case there is any confusion, I am not referring to steps to protect data, but instead to keep a student from being persecuted by federal authorities with the full support of the university.
He was not an MIT student or affiliated with MIT in any capacity. MIT has no obligation to protect a physical and electronic trespasser.
T-Mobile offers a cheaper plan with no phone subsidies, and there are plenty pay-as-you-go carriers as well (boost, virgin, etc)
None of that changes the fact of the collusion between the major carriers. It has to do with market share and coverage. When talking about collusion and anti-trust, it doesn't matter what the smaller players in the field are doing, it is all about what the major players do.
Actually, though, unlocking to avoid roaming charges is no different than having a second phone, there is no financial harm to the original company. You aren't using their network while you are roaming.
The original company still gets a good part of the extortionate charges. So there is certainly financial "harm" done to them if you refuse to be robbed.
Cell companies always claim how they lose money on roaming because the fees they can charge are less then what they get charged. As such, by unlocking a phone to use a different network when out of range of your own towers would be a benefit to your regular provider. That is, unless, they aren't telling the truth.
What steps has MIT taken to to ensure that the something like this will never happen again?
And, in case there is any confusion, I am not referring to steps to protect data, but instead to keep a student from being persecuted by federal authorities with the full support of the university.
Let's see... chiclet keyboard, move to 6-row keyboard layout (no more grouped F-keys, no Del/Home/End/PgUp/PgDn grouping), and this abomination (coming soon!):
Non-removable battery, trackpoint buttons nixed (they're now integrated in the top of the trackpad), an even bigger trackpad (aka space-waster)...
Two more generations and we'll be looking at black MacBook clones.
Ummm, it's an ultrabook. How many ultrabooks have removable batteries? As for the bigger trackpad, well, they could have used a smaller screen, which would have allowed a smaller case or used this screen with a lot of plastic around the trackpad instead. I do agree, though, I don't like trackpad buttons at the top of the trackpad instead of the bottom (where my thumb can hit them). However, if using the trackpoint, having them at the top of the trackpad works out pretty well.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand, but "rational by choice" is in and of itself irrational. A rational creature can and often does act irrationally, however, an irrational creature can never act rationally as it doesn't posses the capability to do so (or it would be a rational creature). Therefor the quality of being rational is in and of itself not a choice but by nature (or natural selection).
There are even many humanists who would argue that what seems irrational to the observer is the rational choice to the person committing the act. The notion being that when faced with choices, we always will choose what seems to be the best choice. Of course, perception then comes into play with that, but the fact that there is still a reasoning that occurs in the thought process that leads to the bad choice means a rational decision was made -- given the perception of the individual making the choice. Then, too, there is the whole subject of mathematics, which most would define as requiring rational thought, but make us accept things like imaginary numbers and non-euclidean geometry to describe the universe and the world around us.
Now, as for being atheist, well that is definitely a choice. A rational creature can at best only be agnostic by nature. We simply do not have the capabilities to be aware if there is anything outside what we can experience (a deity or otherwise). To make a statement that one is an atheist means one is choosing to accept that there is no deity, just as a theist chooses that there is a deity.
Thus the statement "Atheist by nature. Rational by choice." is incorrect on both parts. Or, put differently, it is irrational. It is only correctly phrased as "Rational by nature. Atheist by choice." As that is the only reality that is consistent with the humanist movement.
Your sig is wrong. One cannot choose to be rational. One can choose to act irrationally, but human beings are by their very nature rational creatures. With regards to belief in a deity or not, that is a choice. As such, your sig, if it is to make any logical sense should read "Rational by nature. Atheist by choice." unless your point is that you sig is not rational, which would mean neither is your choice.
The laying of a Priest's hands is financially cheap, and might be just enough to help someone if they believe enough in the action to activate the Placebo Effect.
Usually only Catholics capitalize the word "priest" and yet the Catholic Church is just as skeptical of faith healers as anybody else. It seems an injustice to imply a connection between them and faith healing.
I am not saying their (christians) position is correct, however, the modern university, hospital, and court systems came out of their church. Likewise, their jesuits did most of the early science that we take for granted today. In addition, what society accepts as normal with regards to how to treat one another today is based, again, on their influence.
You cannot say that the moral code predates their religion. Well, you can, but then you are just substituting one religion for another and the same cultural bias exists. With regards to Jewish influence, (eating of pork, and the like) it was minimal other than it's influence on the catholics. The catholics shaped Europe and they didn't have those admonitions you point out, that is an evangelical twisting that only occured in the last 75 years, so it is hardly long enough to be influentual on the inherited culture.
But the basic christian notion of right and wrong has been around long enough and we all abide by it whether we accept their deity or not. A child is not born into the world knowing right from wrong, it is taught that. And the right from wrong it is taught is what is acceptable by societies standards as understood by the parents. Even if the parents aren't theists, society's notion of right and wrong is heavily influenced by christian morality and that is what is passed on.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, it just simply is. Regardless of one's individual belief (or lack thereof), one cannot escape the influence of christianity in one's thinking if one is a product of Western civilization. And, since christianity was heavily influenced itself by judaism, then Western civilization is in fact a product of judea-christian thinking. That doesn't mean one has to believe in a deity, but if one denies the influence of religion on societal norms, one is just as dillusional as a theist.
I have yet to read about any religion doing anything to anybody. On the other hand, I have read and seen plenty about people who profess a religion who have done shitty things to people. But there is a difference between what a religion (or one's own life philosophy) says and how well the individual follows it.
So the Crusades & the Inquisition had nothing to do with the Catholic Church?
Actually, if you study history, that would be correct. Only the first crusade was started by the Church and that was to recapture Jerusalem which was captured and taken from them. The other crusades were started by the nobles. As for the inquisition, I assume you are referring to the "Spanish" inquisition. Again, started by the monarchy, although the catholic church did get dragged into it. Then again, in all of these things, it is important to separate the Catholic Church from the Holy Roman Empire. Just as the Church of England is not the same as the British Empire, neither was the Catholic Church the same as the Holy Roman Empire. I don't mean to be an apologist for the catholics, but really, a little googling can go a long way.
The flaw in your argument is that if you are born in Germany, you are German. You're not realistically born with inherent knowledge of any specific religion; it has to be taught to you which you then have a chance to accept or reject. Nationality is not taught, its geography, it's not a construct of man. However, religion would not exist without the people in the collective religion, it cannot exist without the people therefore the representatives of the belief are essentially the religion.
Exactly, religion, like culture is passed down or learned. Therefore, even an atheist, if born into a country that is or was predominately judea-christian, is going be assimilated into that culture and influenced by that religious base. There is no escaping it as the cultural values at the very core are based on religious influence. So, even though one may rationally reject a deity, one cannot escape the influence of the believe in that deity as embodied by the society of one's upbringing. This has nothing to do with nationality, per se, but everything to do with assimilation. Even if the last christian were wiped out from Germany, the german culture is predominately based on christian values and precepts and it would take a very, very, very long time for that to change, unless there were an active and conscious effort to immediately replace it with something else.
The problem with replacing it with something else is that everybody in the West, whether atheist or deist also has the same cultural bias because it is fundamental to western civilization, so any moral or value judgement proposed would be impossible to separate from a religious core value. It would be possible for somebody from the East to propose the new moral code, but it is unlikely, given the other cultural barriers, it would be accepted.
So, like it or not, theist or not, we are all products of our environment, which unfortunately for the atheist is based on the belief in a deity. That fundamental discord between the culture and what the atheist wants to believe is probably at the root of the acrimonious tone most discussions take on the subject (not that the atheist is necessarily the cause of such acrimony, very often it is the theist).
I'm sorry... but a religion is a ideology, its dogmas and beliefs inform and direct the actions of its adherents and these dogmas and beliefs are handed down by clerics and church leaders, so when the leader of a church, like the misbegotten slime mold inhabiting the Phelp's Compound in Westboro go out and commit atrocities, its consistent with their religious views and the fact that they've turned Christianity inside out belies the fact that the Southern Baptists Churches they came from had already done a pretty decent job of reinterpreting the word of Jesus Christ in such a way that hatred, murder and assaults against otherwise innocent children is perfectly consistent with their world view, and I'd be only too happy to pick specific examples. Without the religion the people would not act and without the people the religion vanishes, so you cannot separate the two, they must be viewed as a single whole. The meme and the mind dance together.
Religion is an ideology, with self proclaimed clerics, but then again, so is the NRA. There is nothing unique about a religious based ideology versus any other ideology other than a belief in a supernatural power. However, that only changes how the rules are handed down, but not how the individual actual acts out.
Using Westboro as an example, most other christian groups denounce what they are doing. They are an example of a human being using religion for their own purpose NOT religion causing the atrocities. If their behaviour is consistent with their religious views, it is only because they have re-shaped the christian doctrine to fit what they want their views to be. It's not the first time something like that has happened nor will it be the last and it doesn't just happen with religion.
You say that without religioun people would no act like this, however, there are examples of non-religious societies throughout history and they pretty much committed the same atrocities as those that believed in a deity. That is not a condemnation on religion as much as it shows that human nature is what it is, regardless of ones ideology. Religion attempts to establish a moral code for its followers, but even without religion, for society to exist, there has to be an agreed upon moral code.
Even for an atheist, in the US, whether they like it or not, their value system is heavily influenced by judeo-christian thinking, because the culture they were raised in was influenced by judeo-christian thinking. Why is an adult sleeping with a child wrong? It is because it is unacceptable based on the religious principles that have been established for centuries. In non-christian countries, however, it was common practice and still is in parts of the world. Why do we not marry our first cousins? It's not because of genetic problems, but because biblically, first cousins were considered brothers and sisters and fell under the taboo of incest. They interpreted the genetic problems that arose as their god's displeasure, but until we had DNA, we didn't have scientific proof to "know" why it was problematic.
In otherwords, whether one believes in a deity or not, our modern culture in the West is so steeped in religious tradition (who do we give thanks to on Thanksgiving and and whose mass do we celebrate on Christmas) and practice, why did men used to where hats? It wasn't to keep the sun off their head, but a carry over from showing humility before god. We may have forgotten the reasons, but like it or not, even athiests are wrapped up in judeo-christian practices. (That's not all bad - those 10 commandment things tend to be good for society as a whole).
Which comes back to the point that whether you want to call it an ideology or a philosophy or whatever it is, removing the deity does not change they dynamics from any other ideology or philosophy or whatever. Any and all of them can be corrupted by the people leading them. The meme and the mind do dance together, they just don't need a deity to play the music.
You can argue all day that the people aren't the religion, but at the end of the day the only real representation of any organization is how the people within it act and it can therefore be said that the religion is more the people who follow and individually interpret it than the dogma taught to them. After all without the people, there would be no religion, with or without the doctrine.
But that argument is bogus. Take Islam. It has specific tennets about protecting innocents in times of battle (like women and children). The majority of practicing Muslims follow those tennets. However, radical Islamists don't. Does that mean that all of Islam are violent or only those who have twisted it to mean something other than what the religion teaches (I am not a Muslim, so I don't know if I have the above exactly right or not, but you get my point).
Take Catholics, some clerics abused young males. Does that mean their religion teaches or approves that or all Catholics are guilty of that? And if so, what about the atheists throughout the ages that slaughtered tens of thousands and then ate their foes? Does that mean all atheists are that way?
The answer to all of these is "Of course not!" Just as Hitler did not represent what every German believed, neither do the actions of any person of "faith" mean that they are the embodiment of their religion. Even the Catholics, when they talk about papal infallability only refer to papal statements related to defining issues of faith. In all other areas, their pope is as fallable as anybody else and can be, and often has been of as poor character as the the culture and society that produced him.
One could argue that any world view or philosophy that asks it's followers to put the needs of others before the wants of one's self is going to find it difficult to follow all the time. Face it, we are all selfish creatures, whether created by a deity or not. It is true that without the people, there would be no religion, but then again, that wouldn't change human nature and the people would still do the same terrible things. They just wouldn't feel guilty about it afterwards.
And that is what makes Scientology so dangerous. It is as if RIAA claimed to be a religion in order to protect their litigiousness and greed behind a shield of anti-discrimination laws and tax exempt status.
And that is what makes Scientology so dangerous. It is as if RIAA claimed to be a religion in order to protect their litigiousness and greed behind a shield of anti-discrimination laws and tax exempt status.
Actually, the RIAA is tax exempt,
I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, but that is simply not true. If you read the news you can find plenty examples of long established, "legitimate religions" still doing shitty things to people.
I have yet to read about any religion doing anything to anybody. On the other hand, I have read and seen plenty about people who profess a religion who have done shitty things to people. But there is a difference between what a religion (or one's own life philosophy) says and how well the individual follows it.
However, when you look at they claim, how they act and what they do, it all seems the same, from an atheists point of view.
Assuming that atheism is correct, which would mean that religion is just a philosophy instead of a theology, then it should be relatively easy to judge a religion based on its philosophical teachings instead of how any individual follower of those teachings lived up to the standard. In other words, what does the religious philosophy stand for? If, as in christianity, it is do unto others as you would have them do unto you, then is that such a bad philosophy from an atheistic point of view? There seem to be some benefits to society, quite a few actually, from following that, so strictly from a moral code, no deity involved, it seems a positive philosophy.
But what then, brings the knee-jerk reaction against religion when it is viewed as something more than a philosophy? Almost always a venomous dialogue begins between believers and non-believers which never gets anywhere. Most often, any discourse deteriorates into atrocities of the past, but again, were those atrocities "ordained" by the religion or did they come about by human beings using the religion for their own agenda?
I am not trying to take a side as to whether a deity exists or not. But from what I have studied, most religions, when viewed as a moral code or philosophy are pretty positive in their tenants. As a society, we pretty much agree that it is better not to murder and steal, whether a deity said so, or some really wise person said so. Same thing for caring for those who are less fortunate, etc.
It would seem, therefore, that the atheist's objection to religion is not on the philosophical realm, and not even on whether or not a deity exists (anymore than Santa Claus or unicorns), but instead, the problem most atheists seem to object to is not the religion itself, but the human failings of those who profess that religion.
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
The real problem isn't people who believe in invisible martians (for fun and profit), it's the legal system that lets them torment other people with flagrant abandon.
If you have enough money and a good team of lawyers you can effectively destroy someone else's life.
We live in a nightmare world.
That doesn't take religion. The RIAA does it all the time.
It was never the battery that was the problem. Now, maybe the charging system of the battery, that's a different story. But the batteries themselves were not really though to be problematic. Most lithium ion batteries will become damaged if overcharged and overheat, even much later than the original overcharging. That is technically not a problem with the battery anymore than holding a lit match to a piece of paper is a problem with the paper (unless of course the design spec says it's not supposed to happen even if mistreated this way).
Since when is Google storing a cookie on your local computer the same as Google collecting data on you. Collecting, by its very definition, would mean that they are storing the data on their computer. Now, if Google then harvests the data stored locally and does something with it, that is a different story, but just having Google store a cookie, does not in and of itself mean that they are collecting personal data, even if the cookie contains personal data. If that were the case, then just about every website you visit would be guilty of the same thing as almost all of them store cookies.
Here is another problem with the legal action being brought. It is being done so by somebody who knows and understands how computers work. Therefore, if you know that Google, or anybody else, is storing cookies and you allow it to persist, when your browser allows you to refuse cookies from certain sites, isn't their a form of contributory fault there? I'm not talking about John Q. Public, but a so called expert in the field (whether self proclaimed or not).
I know that you have a much more difficult time getting an insurance company to pay a claim for a valuable stolen item if it was left on the front seat of a car with the windows rolled down and the door unlocked. It doesn't mean that the person should have stolen it, but that you should have protected it. If that is accepted, then why would an "expert" in the field of computer security not be held to the same standard?
Correction, I should have said "blacklisted" instead of just "fired".
Isn't that term considered racist, though? Is there a P.C. replacement?
No, there is no P.C. replacement because blacklisting has nothing to do with race. From wWikipedia:
According to the Henry Holt Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins the word "blacklist" originated with a list England's King Charles II made of fifty-eight judges and court officers who sentenced his father, Charles I, to death in 1649. When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, thirteen of these executioners were put to death and twenty-five sentenced to life imprisonment, while others escaped.
It's not that Darwin was lazy, it was that the religious environment was such that one risked being fired for ticking off the religious establishments. It wasn't quite as bad as Galileo, but the same kind of forces.
Thus, he wanted the publication to be as water-tight as possible before releasing it; and that's one of the reasons why the work, for the most part, stands the test of time.
Except that is pure speculation. There is no evidence that Darwin delayed publishing because he was afraid of the religious establishments. Based on his other writings, one could construe that he was anything but afraid of the religious establishment.
It's simple really. Consumers are moving towards tablet like devices. Businesses are sticking with traditional desktop/laptop. Windows 8 targets tablet like devices, which could be good for consumers, but that isn't where most desktop/laptop sales are occuring, which is the business market. Desktop/laptop sales in the consumer market are are very price conscious. Desktop/laptop sales in the business market are directed at productivity, which equate to lowering costs of duing business.
Windows 8 may be the next best thing since sliced bread as a technology (although I doubt that). However, it appears that it misses the mark in both the consumer and business markets for traditional desktop/laptop computing. Maybe Microsoft needs to go back and take a Marketing 101 course or two, because Microsoft has nobody to blame but themself. The hardware manufacturers are producing what the market will buy. It is simple supply and demand and there isn't a lot of demand for Windows 8.
Yes it matters. An iPad isn't a Powerbook and an ultrabook isn't a full laptop either. All of those devices are designed for different needs and using the wrong one based on one's need is sure to be frustrating.
To say it is popular when it is the only choice available is a sign of ant-trust violations, not good business models. There are only a handful of cellular companies and they somehow all have the same business model with out collusion? Seems might odd. When the railroads tried this back in the first part of the last century, the government stepped in to protect the rights of the users. My how times have changed. Today, the government seems more interested in protecting the rights of the companies.
Except that it's not the only option available. Right here in Chicago, T-Mobile is pushing their value plans which don't subsidize the phones. My wife and I bought our first Android-based smartphones a little over a year ago, paying for the phones up front (still at a discount, but they're locked) but a less-expensive shared minutes/data plan. For a while now, many carriers including the big players have offered pay-as-you-go even voice & data plans.
More to the point, in the last 10 years that I've had cell phones, I don't EVER remember a time when the ONLY option was subsidized phone + contract. I think people generally understand that they pay for "free" or cheap high-end phones with what is basically a short-term loan. (I haven't seen surveys on this, so I could be wrong).
T-Mobile covers rural IL? When did that happen? Last time I was there, pretty much, if you travelled outside the metropolitan areas and a short distance from the interstate, you need AT&T to get statewide coverage. But if that has changed, that's great!
What steps has MIT taken to to ensure that the something like this will never happen again?
And, in case there is any confusion, I am not referring to steps to protect data, but instead to keep a student from being persecuted by federal authorities with the full support of the university.
He was not an MIT student or affiliated with MIT in any capacity. MIT has no obligation to protect a physical and electronic trespasser.
Okay, change the word student to person.
T-Mobile offers a cheaper plan with no phone subsidies, and there are plenty pay-as-you-go carriers as well (boost, virgin, etc)
None of that changes the fact of the collusion between the major carriers. It has to do with market share and coverage. When talking about collusion and anti-trust, it doesn't matter what the smaller players in the field are doing, it is all about what the major players do.
Actually, though, unlocking to avoid roaming charges is no different than having a second phone, there is no financial harm to the original company. You aren't using their network while you are roaming.
The original company still gets a good part of the extortionate charges. So there is certainly financial "harm" done to them if you refuse to be robbed.
Cell companies always claim how they lose money on roaming because the fees they can charge are less then what they get charged. As such, by unlocking a phone to use a different network when out of range of your own towers would be a benefit to your regular provider. That is, unless, they aren't telling the truth.
How about no H-1B visas until unemployment drops below 5%.
What steps has MIT taken to to ensure that the something like this will never happen again?
And, in case there is any confusion, I am not referring to steps to protect data, but instead to keep a student from being persecuted by federal authorities with the full support of the university.
Let's see... chiclet keyboard, move to 6-row keyboard layout (no more grouped F-keys, no Del/Home/End/PgUp/PgDn grouping), and this abomination (coming soon!):
http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/T400-T500-and-newer-T-series/ThinkPad-T431s-User-Guide-amp-Pictures/m-p/993279/highlight/true#M73300
Non-removable battery, trackpoint buttons nixed (they're now integrated in the top of the trackpad), an even bigger trackpad (aka space-waster)...
Two more generations and we'll be looking at black MacBook clones.
Ummm, it's an ultrabook. How many ultrabooks have removable batteries? As for the bigger trackpad, well, they could have used a smaller screen, which would have allowed a smaller case or used this screen with a lot of plastic around the trackpad instead. I do agree, though, I don't like trackpad buttons at the top of the trackpad instead of the bottom (where my thumb can hit them). However, if using the trackpoint, having them at the top of the trackpad works out pretty well.