 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have always promoted healthy skeptic approach to everything regardless
of what your view of the world is (religious, atheist or whatever). If
nothing else, healthy skepticism helps you avoid being conned out of your
money. Also I'm 100% pro scientifical thinking and the scientific method.
I think this video explains clearly and concisely the concept of healthy
skepticism. I found it unusually straight-to-the-point, clear and without
fanaticism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think this video explains clearly and concisely the concept of healthy
> skepticism. I found it unusually straight-to-the-point, clear and without
> fanaticism.
Most of QualiaSoup's videos are very good in this way, yes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
This guy does some good stuff too, altho he gets a bit more emotional about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aCav-KtoXs
And "Edward Currant" does some really funny satire that actually pulls some
people in. Poe's law and all. If you're amused by that sort of thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNf3BfvxmBE
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> This guy does some good stuff too, altho he gets a bit more emotional about it.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aCav-KtoXs
I seriously think there was a slippery slope fallacy in there.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> This guy does some good stuff too, altho he gets a bit more emotional about it.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aCav-KtoXs
>
> I seriously think there was a slippery slope fallacy in there.
True. On the other hand, folks have been down that slippery slope already,
so it's not obvious it's really a fallacy in this case. Indeed, in the USA,
people are galloping down that slope. (A number of high-profile religious
leaders are publicly praying for the death of the president right now, for
example.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> True. On the other hand, folks have been down that slippery slope already,
> so it's not obvious it's really a fallacy in this case. Indeed, in the USA,
> people are galloping down that slope. (A number of high-profile religious
> leaders are publicly praying for the death of the president right now, for
> example.)
I also think (although I have nothing to back my opinion up) that the
idea that getting rid of all religion will fix these problems is incorrect.
I don't think religion causes stupidity. I think stupid people will use
religion as an excuse to exercise their stupidity because it's one of the
most convenient (and protected) ways to do it.
Getting rid of all religions at most removes that excuse, but stupid
people will then just find other excuses.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> True. On the other hand, folks have been down that slippery slope already,
>> so it's not obvious it's really a fallacy in this case. Indeed, in the USA,
>> people are galloping down that slope. (A number of high-profile religious
>> leaders are publicly praying for the death of the president right now, for
>> example.)
>
> I also think (although I have nothing to back my opinion up) that the
> idea that getting rid of all religion will fix these problems is incorrect.
I agree entirely. What it *will* do is to reduce the legitimacy of people
behaving badly.
For example, the Masai religion (African herders) teaches them that God gave
them all the cattle. When they see someone else's cows, it's not immoral for
them to take those cows, because they belong to the Masai anyway. (Kind of
like a Promised Land with cows, I guess.) If you do that in Africa, the
police will at worst come take the cows back. If you did that in America,
the Masai religion would not legitimize it and you'd probably be in jail.
If I drove around the city with a bumper sticker saying "Obama should die"
I'd probably get arrested. (Maybe not charged with anything, but certainly
inconvenienced.) But since these nut-case preachers are getting on national
TV and saying they're asking *GOD* to kill Obama, it's apparently not a
problem for the secret service to look into.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:09:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> But since these nut-case preachers are getting on national TV and saying
> they're asking *GOD* to kill Obama, it's apparently not a problem for
> the secret service to look into.
Well, yeah, there's nothing actionable there. Free speech and all that -
until someone actually *does* something to be a physical threat.
One could argue that such speech is incitement, which is illegal, but the
government seems to be reluctant to charge a religious organization (or
personality) with incitement. To an extent, I can see why - if they were
to go after them, that would inflame the situation. Remember David
Koresh?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If I drove around the city with a bumper sticker saying "Obama should die"
> I'd probably get arrested. (Maybe not charged with anything, but certainly
> inconvenienced.) But since these nut-case preachers are getting on national
> TV and saying they're asking *GOD* to kill Obama, it's apparently not a
> problem for the secret service to look into.
The solution to that problem is not getting rid of religion, but removing
their special protected status.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> True. On the other hand, folks have been down that slippery slope
>>> already, so it's not obvious it's really a fallacy in this case.
>>> Indeed, in the USA, people are galloping down that slope. (A number
>>> of high-profile religious leaders are publicly praying for the death
>>> of the president right now, for example.)
>>
>> I also think (although I have nothing to back my opinion up) that the
>> idea that getting rid of all religion will fix these problems is
>> incorrect.
>
> I agree entirely. What it *will* do is to reduce the legitimacy of
> people behaving badly.
>
It may reduce the behavior, though. There is the nice psychological echo
chamber effect, of sitting around a large crowd of people who, you
think, all believe the exact same things you do. It is one of the
reasons those mega-churches scare me so much.
When you have a crowd of people who all know that every one else
believes points A, B, and C, any person in that crowd might make some
connection to justify point X. They think that A, B, and C lead to X, so
therefore everyone else in the crowd must believe X too. It gets worse
when it hits "everyone I know believes X, therefore everyone believes
X." And it hits that point because people have to generalize. There is a
term, which I can't remember right now, for describing how many people a
person can actually know. It isn't a small number like 5, but after that
a person has to start generalizing the people around them. Large crowd,
lots of generalization, becomes lots of justification for their belief.
"They all believe in X, therefore we are right."
Won't fix the problem entirely, since religion isn't the only place this
happens. Any time a large crowd gets together and talks about the facts
they all agree on, it is bound for trouble.
Now I need to stop rambling on, take my antibiotics and go back to
sleep. I did way too much generalizing to make people fit the behavior I
wanted to explain. And now I just made the post more meta than I
intended. And now I broke meta . . .
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, yeah, there's nothing actionable there. Free speech and all that -
> until someone actually *does* something to be a physical threat.
Free speech doesn't cover threatening the president's life.
http://newsok.com/okc-officer-pulls-man-over-for-anti-obama-sign-on-vehicle/article/3347038?custom_click=headlines_widget
(What, you think I make this crap up? :-)
Remember, some governments are even more scary than some religions. ;-)
> government seems to be reluctant to charge a religious organization (or
> personality) with incitement.
Bingo! That's precisely what I'm saying.
Actually, it's not that they're reluctant to charge a religious
organization. It's that they're reluctant to charge a mainstream religious
organization.
> To an extent, I can see why - if they were
> to go after them, that would inflame the situation. Remember David
> Koresh?
Yes, exactly that too. That's kind of my point. *If* you were to
marginalize religion, this would be less of a problem. (Which is not to say
I believe religion should be marginalized for that reason.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If I drove around the city with a bumper sticker saying "Obama should die"
>> I'd probably get arrested. (Maybe not charged with anything, but certainly
>> inconvenienced.) But since these nut-case preachers are getting on national
>> TV and saying they're asking *GOD* to kill Obama, it's apparently not a
>> problem for the secret service to look into.
>
> The solution to that problem is not getting rid of religion, but removing
> their special protected status.
Yes, I'd agree with that. But that's hard to do without marginalizing it in
the first place. The whole point of religion is that it's a special
protected status for those that practice it. (Well, mostly. Jews may
disagree with that. :-) Certainly if you manage a good level of secularity
in your country, that makes religion much more palatable to those who aren't.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> Won't fix the problem entirely, since religion isn't the only place this
> happens.
That's certainly true. Seeing political campaign speeches from the US,
I can't see any significant difference from charismatic christian gatherings.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If I drove around the city with a bumper sticker saying "Obama should die"
>> I'd probably get arrested. (Maybe not charged with anything, but certainly
>> inconvenienced.) But since these nut-case preachers are getting on national
>> TV and saying they're asking *GOD* to kill Obama, it's apparently not a
>> problem for the secret service to look into.
>
> The solution to that problem is not getting rid of religion, but removing
> their special protected status.
>
Religion could keep it's otherwise protected status if they could just
be held responsible. I am all for people believing what ever they want,
but if they pray hard enough and a hurricane hits my house because I am
immoral or some other disagreeable term, I should be able to drag them
to court for setting their unmonitored deity loose on my property.
I bet that deity hasn't even had it's vaccinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:04:33 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, yeah, there's nothing actionable there. Free speech and all that
>> - until someone actually *does* something to be a physical threat.
>
> Free speech doesn't cover threatening the president's life.
>
> http://newsok.com/okc-officer-pulls-man-over-for-anti-obama-sign-on-
vehicle/article/3347038?custom_click=headlines_widget
>
> (What, you think I make this crap up? :-)
Oh, no, but praying for a president's death is different than making a
threat against the president. That's what I was trying to say.
> Remember, some governments are even more scary than some religions. ;-)
True....
>> government seems to be reluctant to charge a religious organization (or
>> personality) with incitement.
>
> Bingo! That's precisely what I'm saying.
>
> Actually, it's not that they're reluctant to charge a religious
> organization. It's that they're reluctant to charge a mainstream
> religious organization.
True, though even those not in the mainstream (FLDS comes to mind) they
tend to hold off on prosecuting as long as possible. IMNSHO, Jeffs
should've been indicted, prosecuted, and incarcerated LONG before the
process even started.
>> To an extent, I can see why - if they were to go after them, that would
>> inflame the situation. Remember David Koresh?
>
> Yes, exactly that too. That's kind of my point. *If* you were to
> marginalize religion, this would be less of a problem. (Which is not to
> say I believe religion should be marginalized for that reason.)
:-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Oh, no, but praying for a president's death is different than making a
> threat against the president. That's what I was trying to say.
Why, because the hit-man is imaginary?
Do you think if I got up on national TV and started talking about how I'd
summon Satan's demons to attack the president, I'd still be on TV a week later?
> True, though even those not in the mainstream (FLDS comes to mind) they
> tend to hold off on prosecuting as long as possible.
FLDS? You mean the mormons? That's pretty mainstream.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> It may reduce the behavior, though. There is the nice psychological echo
> chamber effect, of sitting around a large crowd of people who, you
> think, all believe the exact same things you do.
There was a very recent study I read. Apparently, religious people don't
trust atheists, as in, they say they wouldn't give atheists jobs that
demanded a high level of trust. But when they find out that something like
20% of the people around them in general are atheists, they are much more
likely to give them such jobs. It's no longer "those weird atheists, I don't
know why they're weird" and more "apparently I know a lot of atheists and
didn't know that, so what's that to do with how trustworthy they are?"
> term, which I can't remember right now, for describing how many people a
> person can actually know.
I've heard it called "monkey circle", but that's probably an informal name.
It's between 100 and 200 or so for humans, based on estimates of brain size
vs other animals. Anything bigger than that and you can't give people unique
personalities in your mind.
> Won't fix the problem entirely, since religion isn't the only place this
> happens. Any time a large crowd gets together and talks about the facts
> they all agree on, it is bound for trouble.
Well, unless there's a correcting mechanism involved.
> And now I broke meta
Stop banging your head against the fourth wall. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:20:25 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Oh, no, but praying for a president's death is different than making a
>> threat against the president. That's what I was trying to say.
>
> Why, because the hit-man is imaginary?
>
> Do you think if I got up on national TV and started talking about how
> I'd summon Satan's demons to attack the president, I'd still be on TV a
> week later?
I think the national TV networks would distance themselves from you, but
would you be prosecuted? I honestly don't know.
>> True, though even those not in the mainstream (FLDS comes to mind) they
>> tend to hold off on prosecuting as long as possible.
>
> FLDS? You mean the mormons? That's pretty mainstream.
No, FLDS is the Fundamentalist branch of the LDS church. Not mainstream
at all. They've been disowned by the LDS church, left Utah for Texas,
and their leader is being prosecuted for child abuse. They also still
practice polygamy IIRC.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I've heard it called "monkey circle", but that's probably an informal name.
I think it was monkeysphere, actually.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I've heard it called "monkey circle", but that's probably an informal name.
>
> I think it was monkeysphere, actually.
Now that you say it, I think you're right.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> No, FLDS is the Fundamentalist branch of the LDS church. Not mainstream
> at all. They've been disowned by the LDS church, left Utah for Texas,
> and their leader is being prosecuted for child abuse. They also still
> practice polygamy IIRC.
>
> Jim
I think we badly need a new word for that. Poly-patriarchgamy? Uh..
Well, something anyway, since what they practice bears more resemblance
to a pimp owning a brothel, and being its only customer, than multiple
marriage.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Btw, the more I hear about christianity and atheism in the USA, the less
I can relate to it. It's so different here.
In Finland, to put it bluntly, everybody is by default considered atheist.
I don't know how credible this sounds to an American (and to citizens of
some other christian countries, especially in southern Europe), but I can
assure you that it's more a surprise if someone confesses to be a believer.
In fact, many believers are not eager to tell anybody for the fear of
getting ridiculed. The most common reaction, though, is for people to ask
*why* they believe in such things.
The Finnish government and media take no stance on religion vs. atheism.
Politicians don't openly take a stance, unless directly asked (and they
seldom are). You won't see people in television professing atheism because,
frankly, it doesn't make sense. Atheism is basically the status quo. Someone
on TV declaring being an atheist is like a man declaring that he is a man.
"Yeah, so? What's your point?"
The Lutheran church as some kind of semi-official status in Finland, but
it's more a formalism than anything else. It weds and buries people, and
little else.
Thus I have hard time relating to the USA where, as far as I understand,
atheism is considered by many to be some kind of mental disease. People go
to TV and declare being atheists and cause controversy. That makes me just
scratch my head and be all like "wha... why... huh???" It just doesn't make
sense to me. It just feels hugely contradictory for what's supposed to be
the Land of Freedom, where everybody is equal.
Apparently in the USA it's a great shock when they announce on the news
that eg. in Sweden something like 80% of the population is atheist. I am
more like: "Really? So few? That's a surprise."
Maybe it really is different here, but atheism is really the rule, not
the exception. Being a believer is the exception.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Thus I have hard time relating to the USA where, as far as I understand,
> atheism is considered by many to be some kind of mental disease.
Yep.
> It just feels hugely contradictory for what's supposed to be
> the Land of Freedom, where everybody is equal.
Well, yeah. Remember, tho, that the whole "land of freedom" stuff was how it
started out. Because the USA tolerated the nut cases, maybe the nut cases
tended to come here from elsewhere. AFAIK, the USA was the first country
to be *officially* secular. Certainly the first modern westernized country -
at least that's the general sense children get taught in history class here.
I imagine there were some roman-era city-states perhaps that were secular,
or some east asian countries that don't count because, you know, they're
east asian. ;-)
It's still a whole lot more tolerant than countries where there *is* an
official religion - where declaring yourself an atheist gets you beheaded or
something.
> Apparently in the USA it's a great shock when they announce on the news
> that eg. in Sweden something like 80% of the population is atheist. I am
> more like: "Really? So few? That's a surprise."
Now maybe you understand better the outspoken-ness of atheists in the USA.
:-) Most atheists are just trying to get to equality, and keep the majority
of religious people from doing stupid stuff to them.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Now maybe you understand better the outspoken-ness of atheists in the USA.
I also understand why they are so prejudiced. They only see Christianity
as professed in the USA, not as it is professed eg. in northern Europe,
which is rather different. That's probably why I find most of their rants
so provocative and irritating. (It's really refreshing to see level-headed,
rational, non-aggressive and non-fanatic views on skepticism, like in the
video in my original post in this thread. Sadly, this kind of video seems
to be an extremely rare occurrence.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Now maybe you understand better the outspoken-ness of atheists in the USA.
>
> I also understand why they are so prejudiced.
Certainly. The basic assumption most atheists make is that they're either
talking to the wingnuts here, or they have an audience who understands that
there are wingnuts here.
> so provocative and irritating.
Sure. If you're from a reasonable place and you listen to rants against "all
christians" or whatever, you're certainly going to be more offended than
intended.
> (It's really refreshing to see level-headed,
> rational, non-aggressive and non-fanatic views on skepticism, like in the
> video in my original post in this thread. Sadly, this kind of video seems
> to be an extremely rare occurrence.)
Probably because it works so poorly. :-) If it worked well, you'd really
only need one. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Sadly, this kind of video seems
> to be an extremely rare occurrence.)
Actually, it's very common. Just not in atheist vs theist debates. But go to
any (say) philosophy textbook, college science class, or even science blog,
etc, and you'll find lots of good discussions of such things. Producing
something like that and putting it up on youtube targeting people who
generally won't listen anyway is a lot of work for little reward.
For example, posts from that same blog I mentioned:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/rationally_speaking/null_hypothesis_and_logic_skepticism
http://www.scientificblogging.com/rationally_speaking/definitions_definitions_what_they_mean_science
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Now maybe you understand better the outspoken-ness of atheists in the USA.
>
> I also understand why they are so prejudiced. They only see Christianity
> as professed in the USA, not as it is professed eg. in northern Europe,
> which is rather different. That's probably why I find most of their rants
> so provocative and irritating. (It's really refreshing to see level-headed,
> rational, non-aggressive and non-fanatic views on skepticism, like in the
> video in my original post in this thread. Sadly, this kind of video seems
> to be an extremely rare occurrence.)
>
Nut not at all surprising. When thousands of brainwashed people insist
that the guy who thought long and hard about an issue, and concluded it
was absurd, is mentally ill, because he didn't just "accept the truth",
never mind that not one of them did either, but had to be force fed it
for the first 10 years of their lives, before they started accepting it
as fact, the reaction to such over the top accusations of defects isn't
going to be, "Ah, well.. That's your opinion. Lets just go see a movie."
This is especially true if the same brainwashed legions are trying
everything they can to undermine everything from whether you are allowed
to hold office without being properly brainwashed, to what, if any,
movies get shown, because they might not conform to proper brainwashing
dogma. The problem is not of course so much religion as blind ideology
and a refusal to see the end negative results of following it. The UN
and, to some extent, some European countries, are making similar
mistakes in their willingness to either try to ban, or blindly accept,
certain things, which, ironically, we are all too aware tend to be the
first step in creating a closed door, delusional, and potentially
dangerous cult in the first place. I.e., forcing the people who believe
certain symbols out of the public eye, by banning the symbols, like
Germany has done with certain old WWII garbage. Some guy publishing a
book about UFOs is an annoyance, some guy **secretly** publishing tracts
on how unfair it was that the master race lost, is dangerous. By the
same token, someone secretly publishing total nonsense about space
aliens, and having the law back them while trying to hide it gets you..
Scientology, while some wacko talking about white power in public nets
them derision and entirely the *wrong* sort of interest, if you want
people to take you seriously, in large numbers.
The only major problem the US has is that it absolutely ***refuses*** to
treat faith, no matter which of the tens of thousands of version we are
talking about, the same way as some moron babbling about white power on
the street corner. Some of us are. We spent over 150 years losing by
being nice, while they used every form or rhetoric and hate speech they
could against us. Its our turn to present the truth in a way that is
sufficiently aggressive that people will notice, over top all the loud
mouth lunatics ***still*** yelling about how unfair the world is being
to their 90% of the population and 99% of all the political power,
because they, "wah! wah!", don't have 100% believers in the US and 100%
of the political power, so must, logically, be "persecuted".
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The only major problem the US has is that it absolutely ***refuses*** to
> treat faith, no matter which of the tens of thousands of version we are
> talking about, the same way as some moron babbling about white power on
> the street corner. Some of us are. We spent over 150 years losing by
> being nice, while they used every form or rhetoric and hate speech they
> could against us. Its our turn to present the truth in a way that is
> sufficiently aggressive that people will notice, over top all the loud
> mouth lunatics ***still*** yelling about how unfair the world is being
> to their 90% of the population and 99% of all the political power,
> because they, "wah! wah!", don't have 100% believers in the US and 100%
> of the political power, so must, logically, be "persecuted".
The first sentence is false--witness David Koresh. An example of faith
that was sanctioned with extreme prejudice. Or do you mean that you
feel *any* tolerance of *any* faith is unacceptable? That is just as
blind a view as the other way 'round. "We spent x years losing by being
nice, so now we're not going to be nice any more", while pragmatic,
places you neatly in the same general category as 'fair-weather
pacifists', abandoning a basic tenet in the face of adversity (at least,
if 'being nice' is in any way fundamental to your belief, which if it
weren't, why be nice to begin with?). When you use the enemy's methods,
you become the enemy. "Our turn to present the truth in a way that is
sufficiently aggressive"? That's poor form, indeed.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> if 'being nice' is in any way fundamental to your belief,
I like the story about the Quaker wrestler in the time leading up to the
second world war. He runs across a group of youths talking about how they
should bomb the crap out of Germany, and he points out that violence never
changed anyone's mind. The leader of the group is adamant, so he offers to
wrestle the leader. After soundly trouncing the leader, the Quaker says
"See? *Now* do you believe force doesn't change anyone's mind?" The leader
says "No way." The Quaker says "See?" and walks off.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:53:09 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>I like the story about the Quaker wrestler
Has the "Society of Friends" been elevated to the status of a Mystical Eastern
religion?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:53:09 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>> I like the story about the Quaker wrestler
>
> Has the "Society of Friends" been elevated to the status of a Mystical Eastern
> religion?
I don't believe so. Did something I say imply that?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The only major problem the US has is that it absolutely ***refuses***
>> to treat faith, no matter which of the tens of thousands of version we
>> are talking about, the same way as some moron babbling about white
>> power on the street corner. Some of us are. We spent over 150 years
>> losing by being nice, while they used every form or rhetoric and hate
>> speech they could against us. Its our turn to present the truth in a
>> way that is sufficiently aggressive that people will notice, over top
>> all the loud mouth lunatics ***still*** yelling about how unfair the
>> world is being to their 90% of the population and 99% of all the
>> political power, because they, "wah! wah!", don't have 100% believers
>> in the US and 100% of the political power, so must, logically, be
>> "persecuted".
>
> The first sentence is false--witness David Koresh. An example of faith
> that was sanctioned with extreme prejudice.
Yes, and 50 other like him, but who can't be proven to have broken any
*direct* laws, are on religious channels telling most other Christians
they are not real Christians, calling for the assassination of foreign
leaders, advocating wars, suggesting to people that they should show
their faith with willful intolerance of everyone and everything else,
and even, in some cases, suggesting that someone should shoot the
President, or everyone that doesn't own a Bible, or both. None of which
is "illegal" per say, until someone acts on it, but then, but such
standards, neither is what dozens of Moslem Mullahs do every day, if
they where here, since they don't bomb, kill, murder, or stone people to
death themselves, they merely suggest that, "Perhaps someone else
should, if they really believed."
But that is all beside the point, which is that, in certain categories,
like biology, and even some social matters, we have appeased, pleaded
with, tried to explain, etc. **forever** and what we got for the trouble
of trying to make allies was allies that stab us in the back when it
looks like faith itself is being threatened (even when it isn't), and
radicals that differ from the worst madmen throughout the world's
history of religions, from Tokamata (or how ever its spelled) to Osama
Bin Laden, only in that they can't legally kill you for disagreeing in
the US, while in the ME, they still can, and.. in places without our
laws, even Christians where still doing that, right up until the
countries they ran into the ground went Moslem, and continued to be ran
into the ground with all new implausible promises.
> Or do you mean that you
> feel *any* tolerance of *any* faith is unacceptable? That is just as
> blind a view as the other way 'round. "We spent x years losing by being
> nice, so now we're not going to be nice any more", while pragmatic,
> places you neatly in the same general category as 'fair-weather
> pacifists', abandoning a basic tenet in the face of adversity (at least,
> if 'being nice' is in any way fundamental to your belief, which if it
> weren't, why be nice to begin with?). When you use the enemy's methods,
> you become the enemy. "Our turn to present the truth in a way that is
> sufficiently aggressive"? That's poor form, indeed.
>
Sigh.. No movement has "ever" worked without both assholes and middle
grounders. The assholes keep people from becoming complacent and giving
up things they shouldn't, or more than is rational, while trying to push
matters the other direction. Its called the Overton Window. And poor
form or not, the window has been pushed by the other side in the US,
more, and more, and more, and more towards, "Of course religions is
always useful, always positive, unless its false, and always deserves
respect, even if its is false, because, well, at least it is still
religion, and after all, all religion are Christian, somehow." Its
gotten so damn bad that people will cheer idiots suggesting
non-believers have their citizenship revoked, half of an entire bloody
generation of children don't know US history, but have been handed a
revisionist version, in which the founders all but sat praying over
Bibles, until god dictated the constitution to them as holy writ, and
almost anything is justified, as long as its "for Jesus", including
lying (which they do all the time), inhuman and abusive legislation,
spying on our own citizens, hiring bloody Christian Crusaders, intent on
shooting people for being Moslem, to help the military in Iraq, etc. All
is acceptable to "some" of the religious people in this country, and
those people have spent the last 50 years lying, distorting, whining,
and preaching to anyone dumb enough to listen, to get themselves elected
into the Republican party. Even their own members have, in recent years,
started to look around and realize their are surrounded by crazy people.
I am not saying that every person should feel like lowering themselves
to these people's level. On the contrary, the most acidic, semi-abusive,
and questionable rant I have ever seen against them has ***failed*** to
fall to the level of these people, for one very important reason, it
might have been nasty, but it didn't **lie** to get the point across.
The other side does, all the time, and they get by with it because
religious speech isn't just protected by the law, its protected by an
emotional reaction from even people that *know* the wacko is lying, that
lends itself to them circling the the wagons in defense of the trolls
words, and chastising the person questioning them for attacking
religion, even if the words used are *not* negative, are *not*
offensive, and are presented by someone with a personality similar to
Ben Stein's, so can't even be claimed to have been given "loudly", or,
"over emotionally".
No, the window has been dragged so far over, compared to just about
every place other than say.. the Vatican, that Dawkins is often accused
of *attacking* religion using *vile lies and misrepresentations*, as
though he where George Carlin, or something, when the man never raising
is voice publicly, never gets overly emotional, and never lies about
what the other side thinks (or at least some of the more crazy ones).
Seriously, why shouldn't people be damn fed up with this, and why should
they all be Dawkins, when ***no one among them frakking listens to
Dawkins***, and they all call him over the top, aggressive and hateful
anyway?
We here this all the time. Ah, well. I understand you have a message,
but.. why do you have to be so mean about it? Maybe because no one
listens to the quiet guy in the corner, when there are three total
idiots in the middle of the room shooting and speaking in tongues? Or,
maybe, because actually knowing people do challenge this foolishness,
and they *are not afraid* of doing so in a way that can piss someone
off, encourages people in the side lines to recognize they are not alone
in questioning any, or even all, of it? We need both. And the one thing
we don't need is more people trying to kiss the ass of middle grounders,
even while those middle grounders side ***every single time*** with the
complete wackos, the moment someone glues "attack" and "religion"
together, when talking about something like, "don't force my kid to
pray.", and points at some random passerby as the "source" of the
supposed problem.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As I said. Been covered before. This is the people that are trying to be
"nice" about it:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/nisbet_and_mooney_in_the_wapo.php
But, given that I haven't necessarily seen some of the videos you are
whining about:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/09/atheism-and-patience.html
There is nice, there is aggressive, but clear, and there is "impatient
and rude". I will admit that the later I don't necessarily find
productive when talking "to" believers, but if you are one, such content
is no more for you than if you where a right wing, anti-abortionist,
homophobe, at a lesbian, pro-choice, liberal, comedy club. But, maybe if
you where, realizing that a **lot** more than a few disagree with you
might, in some cases, make you think, instead of just running to the
nearest priest to tell you how it will all be better tomorrow. You are
assuming the audience is either a) who you think, or b) who they should
have been aiming at, given the content.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:19:30 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:53:09 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
>>> I like the story about the Quaker wrestler
>>
>> Has the "Society of Friends" been elevated to the status of a Mystical Eastern
>> religion?
>
>I don't believe so. Did something I say imply that?
No, but the last time I heard that story, it was about a fighting monk/Chinese
boxer/generic Eastern wiseacre. :)
It is the first time I've heard a Quaker being the subject.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> It is the first time I've heard a Quaker being the subject.
Funny. I never heard it as a chinese person. But then, I grew up in
Philadelphia.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:28:18 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> It is the first time I've heard a Quaker being the subject.
>
>Funny. I never heard it as a chinese person. But then, I grew up in
>Philadelphia.
I don't see the relevance of being brought up in Philadelphia. (City of
brotherly love?)
My understanding is that it is an uncommon philosophy and what is more uncommon
than Asian philosophy. Also it is traditional to set parables in far off places.
Quaker's are renowned for their good works and pacifism so a Quaker wrestler
sounds incongruous. But a martial arts master denouncing violence sounds right.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I don't see the relevance of being brought up in Philadelphia. (City of
> brotherly love?)
Philadelphia is the traditional home stomping grounds for quakers back in
colonial days. Franklin, being both a quaker and the founder of
Philadelphia, probably had something to do with that.
Not quite Mormon/Utah or Pensylvania Dutch/Lancaster County level, but you
get the idea.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:03:45 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> I don't see the relevance of being brought up in Philadelphia. (City of
>> brotherly love?)
>
>Philadelphia is the traditional home stomping grounds for quakers back in
>colonial days. Franklin, being both a quaker and the founder of
>Philadelphia, probably had something to do with that.
>
You refreshed my memory. :)
>Not quite Mormon/Utah or Pensylvania Dutch/Lancaster County level, but you
>get the idea.
Hmm! There might be a difference of perception here. In Britain Quakers are seen
as mild, non-violent and goodly. I would not put them in the same basket as
Lutherans or Mormans.
BTW Dame Judi Dench is a Quaker, I believe.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Hmm! There might be a difference of perception here. In Britain Quakers are seen
> as mild, non-violent and goodly.
Yes, yes, of course.
> I would not put them in the same basket as Lutherans or Mormans.
Not in that sense. I meant that there's just a "traditional" area of the
world where Quakers are more common. Nothing to do with *behavior*.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:03:09 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> Hmm! There might be a difference of perception here. In Britain Quakers are seen
>> as mild, non-violent and goodly.
>
>Yes, yes, of course.
>
:-)
>> I would not put them in the same basket as Lutherans or Mormans.
>
>Not in that sense. I meant that there's just a "traditional" area of the
>world where Quakers are more common. Nothing to do with *behavior*.
OK good
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I have always promoted healthy skeptic approach to everything regardless
> of what your view of the world is (religious, atheist or whatever). If
> nothing else, healthy skepticism helps you avoid being conned out of your
> money. Also I'm 100% pro scientifical thinking and the scientific method.
>
> I think this video explains clearly and concisely the concept of healthy
> skepticism. I found it unusually straight-to-the-point, clear and without
> fanaticism.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
>
> --
> - Warp
1. I enjoyed this immensely... Thanks!
2. There is probably limited utility in attempting to explain such things to
people who actually need yo have them explained... Oh well.
3. The tone and style reminded me of this bit of fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
