If you really think that religion is the only way - or even a particularly effective way - of transforming a culture, then you're suffering from a paucity of both information and imagination. Kings, emperors, and generals, for starters, have historically had a lot of luck with changing cultures. So have scholars and scientists. The Enlightenment did more for the furtherance of human morality than any religion ever did.
So, yes, religion does serve a purpose when it comes to introducing cultural and moral values into humans lacking any.
Lacking any? I think you meant to say "lacking my particular cultural and moral values", but ended up sounding like a bigot instead. I'll assume that you don't actually believe there are human beings with no cultural and moral values at all, just because it'll make conversation easier.
Yes, religion can sometimes change the morals and values of people - the problem is that there's no guarantee that the morals and values being introduced are any better than the preexisting ones, and may very well be worse. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that if some asshole wants to impose his own views on large populations based on lies and trickery, chances are his views and morals won't be very good.
You do realize, don't you, that when religions "introduce moral values", they generally turn out to be negative? Greek and Roman societies were quite a bit more moral before Christianity than after. The middle-east was at one time relatively liberal and moderate - it took the invention of the Abrahamic faiths to start the real oppression and atrocities rolling.
Can you point to ANY time period where the introduction of religion brought peace, prosperity, or the development of more liberal laws/views/attitudes? Or are you just inventing hypotheticals?
Yes, I'm sure that ComputerWorld-UK is really an extension of the American military-industrial-complex. Maybe they're even owned by the Reptilian Overlords. Definitely propaganda either way. What do you suggest, Adolf? We can't let them spread propaganda which we don't like! Shall we round 'em up and turn 'em into soap?
Congrats, you win the Crazy Comment of the Day award. You've managed to pull conspiracy theories, antisemitism, and just plain old ignorance together into a diatribe that no sane person could ever fully appreciate. I applaud you, sir!
Please. It's true that Ferdinands assassination precipitated WW1, but to say that it was "the root cause" is utterly absurd. The causes behind the war were far more complex - the assassination was simply the tipping point.
What's that? You want a car analogy? Ok: You drive your car for 5 years without once changing the tires or doing any maintenance. One day you hit a small pothole, get a blowout, loose control, and hit a tree. Naturally, you blame the pothole for wrecking your car. It's "the root cause", right?
Heh, yeah, that makes all the difference. Germany declared war and basically did nothing about it until the US came to them. Hitler didn't have the resources to hurt the US - he was huffing and puffing the same as Saddam. The only difference between them is that one lived in a time when declaring war on the US didn't seem like a good way to commit suicide, while the other understood that it was much safer to take potshots at American aircraft and fund terrorist cells while pretending to want peace. Safer in the short-term, at least.
You sure you aren't American? As your knowledge of history points to being American educated.
Well, since you're clearly don't know what you're talking about, I'll take that as a compliment.
The US, Australia and Canada did not invade and defeat enemies across the ocean. They went across the the Ocean to a base on an Island just a few miles away from the mainland called the British Isles and attacked from there. Look it up, the invasion of Europe was launched from England.
Right, and there are absolutely no nations anywhere near that the US which could be used as a launching pad. It's not as if the Baring straight was a tiny stretch of water. It's not as if the US has the worlds largest undefended border on the northern side. No worries there at all!
Are you sure you actually understand geography? You know that google has an "Earth" program, too, right?
Also one of the main reasons for the success of the invasion was due to the USSR attacking overland from the other direction.
Ah, but of course. I mean, we can't give the western powers any credit, can we. No, it was the Mighty Russian Bear that won the war, while the rest of the "world powers" sat around and cried like a bunch of old women. Yes, it's too bad that the US used underhanded tricks in the Cold War, or the Glory of the Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublika would still be marching strong! For the workers, Comrade!
Up the page you show ignorance of the first World War as well, namely that one of the big motivations was the moving boundaries between the belligerents.
No, you just don't know how to read, or you make stupid assumptions. Either way, your ignorance is not my problem.
No, there's no logic here. You don't understand physics, and you don't understand how we evaluate postulates, and you refuse to actually address what I was saying. Instead of admitting that you have no argument to make, you keep moving goal posts and throwing out completely nonsensical claims. Next you'll be telling me that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, because "an atheist physicist" told you that. So, we're done. As long as you insist on basing your views on ignorance and rhetoric, I have no interest in discussing anything with you.
We got attacked by Saudis based in Afghanistan, so we invaded Iraq.
Saudi, UAE, and Lebanese. The nationality was irrelevant, though - it was the ideology that was an issue.
We could have simplified logistics and saved a bunch of money by invading a much closer country like Jamaica. It would have made the same amount of sense under your logical analysis.
You're still talking about WW2 there, right? Makes perfect sense - why attack Germany when you can attack Jamaica.
Oh, is *that* why we didn't get involved until we were directly attacked? Huh. How about that.
Ditto on Iraq?
In WW2 you got hit by the Japanese and invaded Germany. In 2001 you got hit by a multinational group of thugs and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not seeing a big difference there. Anyone who can argue that Iraq was unjustified can just as easily argue that American involvement in Germany was unjustified. Of course, they don't, because their views are inconsistent, but I was simply pointing out that both positions are equally "logical".
How does what you were referring to relate to my referration to your referral?
Wait... what?
I don't care what he said. I was responding to you. You suggested that the only reason "they" are attacking is because "we" are in "their" country. How in the world do you come to that conclusion?
Leave aside the fact that Al Qaeda doesn't actually have a country per-say, and that even if they were based out of a specific nation it wouldn't be "theirs" by any stretch of the imagination... even if we ignore all that, there's still the fact that wars and attacks of all stripes tend to be motivated by a vast variety of factors. You don't get to ignore them all and just blame your personal pet-cause.
No, we all have a variety of beliefs about a number of things that can not be proven.
Apparently you missed the part of your own definition where it says "agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".
That is precisely the problem. You have a finite amount of mass. What happens just beyond the boundary where there is no mass? You'd literally have absolutely nothing and a pressure differential.
You are, in effect, asking how come everything from the earth doesn't get sucked into space, since space is a vacuum. Except, you're not really asking even that - you're asking how come everything doesn't get sucked out from one vacuum into another. I'm trying to think of a way to explain this to you nicely. I need to stop before I either say things which would be very very mean, or I develop an aneurysm.
Interestingly enough, our universe IS expanding. I suppose if I just wanted to blow you off I could say "SEE - the vacuum out there is sucking up OUR vacuum!". But that would be dishonest. I'd rather leave you with no answer at all than offer some half-baked claims such as the ones you're making.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Open a dictionary and look up the definition of postulate. A postulate can not be proven.
postulate/v. pstlet; n. pstlt, -let/ Show Spelled [v. pos-chuh-leyt; n. pos-chuh-lit, -leyt] Show IPA verb,-lated, -lating, noun... 6. Mathematics, Logic. a proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof of other propositions; axiom. 7. a fundamental principle. 8. a necessary condition; prerequisite.
The fact that Math works means that it's postulates are true. When Mathematics stops functioning, we will have a reason to doubt their validity. If you are insisting on a different definition of the word "proof", then you are simply playing word games since, using that definition, nothing would ever be provable.
Furthermore, while there are "proofs" in math, the scientific principle can only disprove, not prove.
Yep, you're playing word games, and I'm not interested.
You've veered so far off the original topic that there's no point continuing, so I'm just going to restate my original claim:
That's stupid. You can't make up something called "religion" and then say "even if you reject this, you're still religious". I mean, you can, but if you do then you're an idiot. And you're certainly not saying anything useful about my beliefs.
If you think you can provide an intelligent refutation, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise... please, just stop.
Care to explain, say, WW1 then? Did Belgium, France and Luxembourg all have troops stationed in Germany?
Or were you speaking more generally? Do you think that the war started because a Belgian, two French guys, and a nun from Luxembourg decided to hop the border for a picnic?
No, it's one 100% troll. For one thing, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with NASA's budget. For another, picking on wars is like shooting fish in a barrel - you could just as easily argue that getting involved in WW2 was unnecessary for the US.
It has wasted a trillion dollars, and we have nothing to show for it but a bunch of fresh graves.
First off, that's the (estimated) combined cost for both wars, so you're wrong right off the bat. Second, the figures provided by the various "counter" sites are, for some reason, never sourced. If you can provide the raw data to support that claim, I'd very much appreciate it - nobody else seems to know how to find it. Third, there are plenty of things that you can "show for it" - the problem is that you apparently don't think they've been worth the cost.
We wasted enough money in Iraq to pay for universal health care, AND a trip to the moon.
Canadian healthcare - for a population one tenth the size of yours - costs $120+ billion per year. At a cost of roughly 700 billion over 7 years, the Iraq war wouldn't even be enough to fund OUR healthcare, let alone yours. You're living in a dream world. Wake up.
Ya, and if Columbus hadn't sailed to the New World he could have given the money to the poor.
Isn't it just mind-boggling how people can make such idiotic statements without even a hint of self-doubt? It's as if they truly can't comprehend the idea that there may be things which are more important than turning the general populace into fat, lazy, happy slobs.
Slashdot Mirror
That's actually pretty slow for a strip/assemble, even blindfolded. Pretty good for a kid with no real training, though.
And how do you transport that culture?
Transport? You mean transform?
If you really think that religion is the only way - or even a particularly effective way - of transforming a culture, then you're suffering from a paucity of both information and imagination. Kings, emperors, and generals, for starters, have historically had a lot of luck with changing cultures. So have scholars and scientists. The Enlightenment did more for the furtherance of human morality than any religion ever did.
So, yes, religion does serve a purpose when it comes to introducing cultural and moral values into humans lacking any.
Lacking any? I think you meant to say "lacking my particular cultural and moral values", but ended up sounding like a bigot instead. I'll assume that you don't actually believe there are human beings with no cultural and moral values at all, just because it'll make conversation easier.
Yes, religion can sometimes change the morals and values of people - the problem is that there's no guarantee that the morals and values being introduced are any better than the preexisting ones, and may very well be worse. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that if some asshole wants to impose his own views on large populations based on lies and trickery, chances are his views and morals won't be very good.
You do realize, don't you, that when religions "introduce moral values", they generally turn out to be negative? Greek and Roman societies were quite a bit more moral before Christianity than after. The middle-east was at one time relatively liberal and moderate - it took the invention of the Abrahamic faiths to start the real oppression and atrocities rolling.
Can you point to ANY time period where the introduction of religion brought peace, prosperity, or the development of more liberal laws/views/attitudes? Or are you just inventing hypotheticals?
I'm sorry that your mom is a nut, and that it's apparently genetic.
Yes, I'm sure that ComputerWorld-UK is really an extension of the American military-industrial-complex. Maybe they're even owned by the Reptilian Overlords. Definitely propaganda either way. What do you suggest, Adolf? We can't let them spread propaganda which we don't like! Shall we round 'em up and turn 'em into soap?
150 feet. Did you not hear him the first time?
You know MY library of congress is way bigger than YOUR library of congress ...
Congrats, you win the Crazy Comment of the Day award. You've managed to pull conspiracy theories, antisemitism, and just plain old ignorance together into a diatribe that no sane person could ever fully appreciate. I applaud you, sir!
Well put :) Where do these people get these ideas??
Religion can actually serve a valuable purpose, especially in primitive cultures. They offer a focal point and a sense of belonging in large groups.
Culture does the same thing, without requiring stupid beliefs or human sacrifice.
The human nature does not allow a sensible cooperation in groups larger than twenty people.
When you lack the technology to enforce even the most basic laws...
Why in the world would you need technology to enforce laws?
One thing to keep in mind when gambling: in the long run, the house always wins.
Please. It's true that Ferdinands assassination precipitated WW1, but to say that it was "the root cause" is utterly absurd. The causes behind the war were far more complex - the assassination was simply the tipping point.
What's that? You want a car analogy? Ok: You drive your car for 5 years without once changing the tires or doing any maintenance. One day you hit a small pothole, get a blowout, loose control, and hit a tree. Naturally, you blame the pothole for wrecking your car. It's "the root cause", right?
Heh, yeah, that makes all the difference. Germany declared war and basically did nothing about it until the US came to them. Hitler didn't have the resources to hurt the US - he was huffing and puffing the same as Saddam. The only difference between them is that one lived in a time when declaring war on the US didn't seem like a good way to commit suicide, while the other understood that it was much safer to take potshots at American aircraft and fund terrorist cells while pretending to want peace. Safer in the short-term, at least.
Have you considered applying for James Randi's million dollar challenge?
Actually, I just realized that you're trying to argue that Math is a religion. Not even figuratively, but quite literally.
Really? Are you THAT desperate to defend your silly superstitions? And that poorly equipped?
You sure you aren't American? As your knowledge of history points to being American educated.
Well, since you're clearly don't know what you're talking about, I'll take that as a compliment.
The US, Australia and Canada did not invade and defeat enemies across the ocean. They went across the the Ocean to a base on an Island just a few miles away from the mainland called the British Isles and attacked from there. Look it up, the invasion of Europe was launched from England.
Right, and there are absolutely no nations anywhere near that the US which could be used as a launching pad. It's not as if the Baring straight was a tiny stretch of water. It's not as if the US has the worlds largest undefended border on the northern side. No worries there at all!
Are you sure you actually understand geography? You know that google has an "Earth" program, too, right?
Also one of the main reasons for the success of the invasion was due to the USSR attacking overland from the other direction.
Ah, but of course. I mean, we can't give the western powers any credit, can we. No, it was the Mighty Russian Bear that won the war, while the rest of the "world powers" sat around and cried like a bunch of old women. Yes, it's too bad that the US used underhanded tricks in the Cold War, or the Glory of the Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublika would still be marching strong! For the workers, Comrade!
Up the page you show ignorance of the first World War as well, namely that one of the big motivations was the moving boundaries between the belligerents.
No, you just don't know how to read, or you make stupid assumptions. Either way, your ignorance is not my problem.
There is a very simple flow of logic here.
No, there's no logic here. You don't understand physics, and you don't understand how we evaluate postulates, and you refuse to actually address what I was saying. Instead of admitting that you have no argument to make, you keep moving goal posts and throwing out completely nonsensical claims. Next you'll be telling me that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, because "an atheist physicist" told you that. So, we're done. As long as you insist on basing your views on ignorance and rhetoric, I have no interest in discussing anything with you.
How many Germans hit Pearl Harbor?
Right. Like all the other twits, you're simply ignoring inconvenient facts.
We got attacked by Saudis based in Afghanistan, so we invaded Iraq.
Saudi, UAE, and Lebanese. The nationality was irrelevant, though - it was the ideology that was an issue.
We could have simplified logistics and saved a bunch of money by invading a much closer country like Jamaica. It would have made the same amount of sense under your logical analysis.
You're still talking about WW2 there, right? Makes perfect sense - why attack Germany when you can attack Jamaica.
Of course, if I knew math, I would have said "three times as much". Whoops.
So you're saying Canada can afford 120 billion a year for health care, and the U.S. can't? It doesn't seem to be bankrupting them.
In 2008 alone you spent $386 billion on healthcare, so apparently you can afford twice as much as Canada.
Why is it that I seem to know more about your country than you do?
Oh, is *that* why we didn't get involved until we were directly attacked? Huh. How about that.
Ditto on Iraq?
In WW2 you got hit by the Japanese and invaded Germany. In 2001 you got hit by a multinational group of thugs and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not seeing a big difference there. Anyone who can argue that Iraq was unjustified can just as easily argue that American involvement in Germany was unjustified. Of course, they don't, because their views are inconsistent, but I was simply pointing out that both positions are equally "logical".
How does what you were referring to relate to my referration to your referral?
Wait ... what?
I don't care what he said. I was responding to you. You suggested that the only reason "they" are attacking is because "we" are in "their" country. How in the world do you come to that conclusion?
Leave aside the fact that Al Qaeda doesn't actually have a country per-say, and that even if they were based out of a specific nation it wouldn't be "theirs" by any stretch of the imagination ... even if we ignore all that, there's still the fact that wars and attacks of all stripes tend to be motivated by a vast variety of factors. You don't get to ignore them all and just blame your personal pet-cause.
No, we all have a variety of beliefs about a number of things that can not be proven.
Apparently you missed the part of your own definition where it says "agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".
That is precisely the problem. You have a finite amount of mass. What happens just beyond the boundary where there is no mass? You'd literally have absolutely nothing and a pressure differential.
You are, in effect, asking how come everything from the earth doesn't get sucked into space, since space is a vacuum. Except, you're not really asking even that - you're asking how come everything doesn't get sucked out from one vacuum into another. I'm trying to think of a way to explain this to you nicely. I need to stop before I either say things which would be very very mean, or I develop an aneurysm.
Interestingly enough, our universe IS expanding. I suppose if I just wanted to blow you off I could say "SEE - the vacuum out there is sucking up OUR vacuum!". But that would be dishonest. I'd rather leave you with no answer at all than offer some half-baked claims such as the ones you're making.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Open a dictionary and look up the definition of postulate. A postulate can not be proven.
postulate /v. pstlet; n. pstlt, -let/ Show Spelled [v. pos-chuh-leyt; n. pos-chuh-lit, -leyt] Show IPA verb,-lated, -lating, noun ...
6. Mathematics, Logic. a proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof of other propositions; axiom.
7. a fundamental principle.
8. a necessary condition; prerequisite.
The fact that Math works means that it's postulates are true. When Mathematics stops functioning, we will have a reason to doubt their validity. If you are insisting on a different definition of the word "proof", then you are simply playing word games since, using that definition, nothing would ever be provable.
Furthermore, while there are "proofs" in math, the scientific principle can only disprove, not prove.
Yep, you're playing word games, and I'm not interested.
You've veered so far off the original topic that there's no point continuing, so I'm just going to restate my original claim:
That's stupid. You can't make up something called "religion" and then say "even if you reject this, you're still religious". I mean, you can, but if you do then you're an idiot. And you're certainly not saying anything useful about my beliefs.
If you think you can provide an intelligent refutation, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise ... please, just stop.
Care to explain, say, WW1 then? Did Belgium, France and Luxembourg all have troops stationed in Germany?
Or were you speaking more generally? Do you think that the war started because a Belgian, two French guys, and a nun from Luxembourg decided to hop the border for a picnic?
It got modded troll, but it's 100% true.
No, it's one 100% troll. For one thing, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with NASA's budget. For another, picking on wars is like shooting fish in a barrel - you could just as easily argue that getting involved in WW2 was unnecessary for the US.
It has wasted a trillion dollars, and we have nothing to show for it but a bunch of fresh graves.
First off, that's the (estimated) combined cost for both wars, so you're wrong right off the bat. Second, the figures provided by the various "counter" sites are, for some reason, never sourced. If you can provide the raw data to support that claim, I'd very much appreciate it - nobody else seems to know how to find it. Third, there are plenty of things that you can "show for it" - the problem is that you apparently don't think they've been worth the cost.
We wasted enough money in Iraq to pay for universal health care, AND a trip to the moon.
Canadian healthcare - for a population one tenth the size of yours - costs $120+ billion per year. At a cost of roughly 700 billion over 7 years, the Iraq war wouldn't even be enough to fund OUR healthcare, let alone yours. You're living in a dream world. Wake up.
Ya, and if Columbus hadn't sailed to the New World he could have given the money to the poor.
Isn't it just mind-boggling how people can make such idiotic statements without even a hint of self-doubt? It's as if they truly can't comprehend the idea that there may be things which are more important than turning the general populace into fat, lazy, happy slobs.