On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:11:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> But.. We can't have a real national ID, because it would like.. let the
> government screw us even more, or like be the, "mark of the beast", or
> something. Sigh...

Yeah, I know.  States' rights and all that - even though it's an 
*inconvenience* for the citizens to have to deal with that stuff.  We 
have freedom of movement inside the country, unless you can't afford to 
replace a driver's license or other documentation you have to have (photo 
ID of any sort, really).

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:57:16 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> True. But that is how we are distracted.
>>
>> It happens.  Squirrel! ;)
>>
>>
> You don't catch me like that again.

We'll see. :)

>> Yep.  As long as they're not affecting the lives of others around them
>> in a negative way, I generally don't care.  The problem is that a lot
>> of these nitwits *do* affect the lives of others around them in a
>> negative way - like insisting that science classes "teach the
>> controversy" of evolution vs. creationism - as if creationism is
>> anything like science.
>>
> Where?

Pick a state in the southeastern US.  Or Texas.  Seriously, the Texas 
Board of Education decides textbook standards for the entire country, 
because of the number of students they have.  So when they get a bunch of 
whackadoodle creationist types on their BoE who say that creationism is 
science and who won't approve textbooks that don't praise God, the entire 
country suffers with crap textbooks that teach non-science.

>> Or that anyone other than nitwits like Ken Ham think that creationism
>> *is* a valid theory of how the world works, especially young earth
>> creationism.
>>
>> If they want to believe that, fine.  But when they're people who sit on
>> the Texas Board of Education (which for reasons of scale ends up
>> deciding what's in science textbooks across the United States), then I
>> have a HUGE problem with them.
>>
>>
> I've given up reading about it.
> I sympathise but what can you do when you see militant fundamentalist
> "Christians" to the west and militant fundamentalist "Muslims" to the
> east. Even Buddhists are killing people.

Yeah, it makes things kinda difficult.  I'm glad K was able to get a real 
education and can recognise this kind of BS a mile away.

>>> On the other hand. The mythology opens up boundless opportunity for
>>> stories.
>>
>> True, and mythology recognized as mythology is a pretty cool thing. 
>> But I wouldn't dream of thinking that the Arthurian mythos are a basis
>> for defining a morality.
> 
> How about the Druids and Wiccan? Religions made up in Victorian times, I
> think.

I think the Druids go back farther, would have to check the books.  I 
passed through a Wiccan phase before going full Atheist, but I don't 
remember a lot of the specifics about when/where stuff happened.

>> They're pretty good, especially when retold by Monty Python (just came
>> back from watching that in the cinema, in fact). :)
>>
>>
> Bad memories that one for me. While listening to the album and "tuning
> in". A friend had a bad time. I had to talk them down for about six
> hours with insects crawling out of the walls. Bummer!
> On the bright side. It wasn't me. :-)

Good thing it wasn't you, but ... album?  OK, now I'm puzzled.

>>> Have you read any of Charles Stross's Laundry series?
>>
>> I haven't, but I think I might have to. :)
>>
>>
> Where?

If I can get a digital copy, on my eReader.

>>> Where his protagonist is not the BOFH but the Sysop fighting the
>>> forces from Hell. Quite funny and the Tech bits don't jar.
>>
>> *Definitely* have to check it out. :)
>>
>>
> You do. If you go to his website http://www.antipope.org/
> Fun name, what!
> There is some free stuff there. His early Hard SF is recommended.

Cool - will add it to my list.

>> You are?  It's not really coming through. ;)
>>
>>
> Good! I might get away with it for a few more years yet. ;-)

LOL

> Where! Tell Me! Tell Me. Where?

OK, now I'm confused again.  Probably because I've lost the thread - a 
week in Vancouver, BC will do that to you. :)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:32:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 28/07/2014 00:28, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> IMO That is what organised religion is all about. Keeping the masses
>>> in
>>> >their place.
>> Yep.
>>
>> Which is why my reaction these days to people who say they believe is
>> generally one of surprise, especially people whom I consider to be
>> intelligent.
> 
> 
> I don't think that you can equate intelligence with "not believing".
> Believing has to do with Faith. And Faith is not something you can
> instil or teach. It is not logical you either have it or you don't and I
> for one don't.

I don't think it's an equation of belief and intelligence - but belief 
implies a willingness (or even a desire) to not think of something 
rationally and to not examine it too closely.

That's not a trait I associate with people who are intelligent.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 23/07/2014 12:37, James Holsenback wrote:
> Sad state of affairs ... don't you think?

You are not alone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28616115


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 08/04/2014 05:55 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/07/2014 12:37, James Holsenback wrote:
>> Sad state of affairs ... don't you think?
>
> You are not alone.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28616115
>
>

Hmmmm ... lord have mercy on /their/ souls (pun intended)

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28616115

"She said many were worried about being ostracised or were even scared
of violence if they revealed they did not believe in God."

Ah, the peaceful, tolerant, loving American Christians...

I think they have misunderstood what "turn the other cheek" means.
It doesn't mean "hit the unbeliever in the cheek, then turn their
other cheek and hit it as well".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 04/08/2014 17:27, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28616115
>
> "She said many were worried about being ostracised or were even scared
> of violence if they revealed they did not believe in God."
>
> Ah, the peaceful, tolerant, loving American Christians...
>

We must remember that the Founding Fathers did not leave Europe fleeing 
religious intolerance. But to practice it.
Then the south had a lot of Scottish protestants settling it and a more 
intolerant lot you would not meet in a month of Sundays.

> I think they have misunderstood what "turn the other cheek" means.
> It doesn't mean "hit the unbeliever in the cheek, then turn their
> other cheek and hit it as well".
>

That does seem to be the favoured interpretation. Run a close second by:
Do unto others what the would do unto you. But first.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/08/2014 23:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >I don't think that you can equate intelligence with "not believing".
>> >Believing has to do with Faith. And Faith is not something you can
>> >instil or teach. It is not logical you either have it or you don't and I
>> >for one don't.
> I don't think it's an equation of belief and intelligence - but belief
> implies a willingness (or even a desire) to not think of something
> rationally and to not examine it too closely.
>

There is a scale of belief IMO.
A difference in intensity between "I believe the weather will clear 
up.", I believe that it it daylight, just now."  and "I believe in God 
the Father, God the..."

I would call the latter usage Faith.

> That's not a trait I associate with people who are intelligent.

 From what I can gather. Faith is something that can and does fly in the 
face of logic.

You can no more stop some one from throwing salt over their shoulder to 
bring luck. Than you can make someone believe there is a god by telling 
them. (Unless you are holding a sword.)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/4/2014 10:11 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> That's not a trait I associate with people who are intelligent.
>
>  From what I can gather. Faith is something that can and does fly in the
> face of logic.
>

Just had a post I replied to on a blog with the usual "Science and 
religion are compatible, just look at all the religious people who 
did/do good science!" I gave an example of one physicist going so far 
off the rails it was flat nuts, because he "believed" in telepathy and 
psychic powers, and decided to test if the incidental flashes of light, 
produced by the body's own chemical reactions in cells, would provide a, 
"means to explain how some people could detect other people's thoughts."

My argument on the subject is, simply, "Sure, they can be compatible, 
right up until the person with that rift in their perceptions stops 
doing science, and starts doing something else entirely." That, in a nut 
shell, its like enjoying scifi flicks, involving aliens, while not 
believing in UFOs, vs. someone that hates scifi shows, because they 
"depict aliens wrong", based on their belief in UFOs. The one is 
"compatible", the other.. not so much.

And, more to the point, maybe "compatible" isn't the word they need to 
be using to describe the phenomena...

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 15:12:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>  "Science and
> religion are compatible, just look at all the religious people who
> did/do good science!"

It only works if the person doing the science doesn't let their religious 
beliefs colour their results, or when they get results that conflict with 
their religious beliefs don't immediately say "well, that can't be right, 
because $DEITY!"

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message