On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 01:51:53 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It's a question of making beliefs be private or "none" becoming the
>> norm.  That's something that's going to take some time over here.
> 
> That reminded me of this. It's not completely inaccurate.
> 
> http://satwcomic.com/the-easy-way

I wish it were that way here.  I don't have a problem with people who 
feel the need to be religious in their personal lives.  They don't need 
to share it with the world - and in fact, they shouldn't.  What we 
believe does drive our behaviour, but if people here in the US would stop 
trying to be "more godly" and just tried to be decent to each other, I 
think we'd find the country a far better place for everyone.

The point at which it's a problem for me is when someone's imposing their 
beliefs on someone else.  I despise SCOTUS' recent decision allowing a 
corporation to hold religious beliefs (say what?) and to impose those 
beliefs on their employees (in the form of not allowing their corporate-
provided health care plan to cover certain forms of contraception, 
because the 'corporation' believes - inaccurately, I might add - that 
those drugs are 'sinful' because they cause abortions (which they don't)).

That a religious belief that's *scientifically* and *medically* 
inaccurate can trump an employee's need for the drug (which may or may 
not have anything to do with its contraceptive uses, I might add) is just 
insane.  But 5 Catholic guys on SCOTUS said that was the case.

Now we just need an Islamic closely-held corporation to decide to impose 
its religious beliefs on its female employees.  Say, for example, they 
have to wear hijab rather than dress "like harlots".  I'm sure SCOTUS 
would not have said THAT was OK - which means they're endorsing a 
religion - something that the first amendment prohibits.

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 Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:44:04 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> They are the same party now. Well, ok.. maybe there are "some"
> differences still, but, sadly most of those are in the fringes, it
> seems.

No, I think there are some fundamental differences between the parties, 
but they both have things they're doing that make it difficult to vote 
for them.

The problem ultimately is that we don't have more choices - and we end up 
voting against someone more often than we are voting for someone.

The democrats will continue to generally get my votes for now, because 
they're the lesser of two evils.  I could vote third party, but if I did 
that, I might well end up with the worse of the two evils in office, if 
enough other people did that but didn't get enough votes for the third 
party.

The thing that's particularly disturbing, though, is that in our 
"representative democracy," when you disagree with your elected official 
on something and take the time to write them, they generally *don't* say 
"thank you for sending me your thoughts - there were things you said that 
I hadn't considered, and I will take your feedback and incorporate it 
into my thinking."  They might not change their mind, but you might feel 
that they were actually listening.

Instead, what you get (well, what *I* got pretty consistently) is a 
letter that explains why they're right and you're wrong, and why even 
though you disagree with them, they're going to vote the way they had 
already decided to vote - and your input doesn't matter at all.

So why the f--- did I even bother to write?

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 26/07/2014 23:39, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:11:04 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>   It is a form of Juju that gives them a righteous feeling.
>
> What's more, it's a form of Juju that gives them power.
>

That is the name of the game.
IMO That is what organised religion is all about. Keeping the masses in 
their place.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26-7-2014 16:56, Stephen wrote:
> On 26/07/2014 15:25, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Not Robert Burns imho.
>
> Correct.
>
>> I go for Walter Scott.
>
> Whatever. It is a free world. ;-)
>
>


Now you have lost me. But not to worry :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 26/07/2014 23:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 07:13:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 26/07/2014 00:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 01:19:55 +0200, clipka wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, reading Stephen's posting more carefully: Maybe no. Germany
>>>> /has/ more churches than hospitals, but whether more /new/
>>>> churches are being built than hospitals is difficult to tell.
>>>
>>> Hmm, fair point.
>>>
>>> I think right now in the Seattle area, though, there aren't any new
>>> hospitals being built, but I'd be surprised if there weren't any new
>>> churches being built.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>> As you know it was also a metaphor.
>> Churches, hospitals. Apples, oranges.
>
> Well, yeah, but it's an interesting question as a non-metaphor.

True. But that is how we are distracted.

>
>
> I've reached the point of being an atheist with the point of view that
> "if there is a supernatural world, and a deity that judges you when you
> die, then if that deity's judgment is based not on you being a good
> person but based on how much you worshiped the deity without evidence -
> well, fuck 'em."
>

How childish and trivial for a supernatural being to put worship of them 
self above everything else. (Gives you real confidence in the afterlife.)

> I'd rather be a good person than waste my life worshiping something just
> to have a shot at beating Pascal's Wager.
>

Yes, I'll live by my conscience and let others play with those who have 
nothing else to do but think about the number of angels that can dance 
on the head of a needle.


On the other hand. The mythology opens up boundless opportunity for stories.

Have you read any of Charles Stross's Laundry series?

Where his protagonist is not the BOFH but the Sysop fighting the forces 
from Hell. Quite funny and the Tech bits don't jar.

>> Bitter! Moi?
>
> Nah, I'm not seeing you being bitter *at all* about it. ;)
>

But I am Jim. I am.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 27/07/2014 08:18, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 26-7-2014 16:56, Stephen wrote:
>> On 26/07/2014 15:25, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Not Robert Burns imho.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> I go for Walter Scott.
>>
>> Whatever. It is a free world. ;-)
>>
>>
>
>
> Now you have lost me. But not to worry :-)
>

I don't. It was a sexual innuendo and you passed the test. :-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.07.2014 07:51, schrieb Warp:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It's a question of making beliefs be private or "none" becoming the
>> norm.  That's something that's going to take some time over here.
>
> That reminded me of this. It's not completely inaccurate.
>
> http://satwcomic.com/the-easy-way

Damn - of all people, _you_ shouldn't have posted that link... not only 
have I spent hours already browsing those comics, but now I just can't 
help but associate you with that green tassled knit cap, and knife in 
hand... >_<

http://satwcomic.com/art/nordic-morning.jpg

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:07:48 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 26/07/2014 23:39, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:11:04 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>   It is a form of Juju that gives them a righteous feeling.
>>
>> What's more, it's a form of Juju that gives them power.
>>
>>
> That is the name of the game.
> 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.

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 Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:26:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> As you know it was also a metaphor. Churches, hospitals. Apples,
>>> oranges.
>>
>> Well, yeah, but it's an interesting question as a non-metaphor.
> 
> True. But that is how we are distracted.

It happens.  Squirrel! ;)

>> I've reached the point of being an atheist with the point of view that
>> "if there is a supernatural world, and a deity that judges you when you
>> die, then if that deity's judgment is based not on you being a good
>> person but based on how much you worshiped the deity without evidence -
>> well, fuck 'em."
>>
> How childish and trivial for a supernatural being to put worship of them
> self above everything else. (Gives you real confidence in the
> afterlife.)

Bingo. :)

>> I'd rather be a good person than waste my life worshiping something
>> just to have a shot at beating Pascal's Wager.
>>
> Yes, I'll live by my conscience and let others play with those who have
> nothing else to do but think about the number of angels that can dance
> on the head of a needle.

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.

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.

> 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.  They're pretty good, especially when retold by 
Monty Python (just came back from watching that in the cinema, in 
fact). :)

> Have you read any of Charles Stross's Laundry series?

I haven't, but I think I might have to. :)

> 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. :)

>>> Bitter! Moi?
>>
>> Nah, I'm not seeing you being bitter *at all* about it. ;)
>>
>>
> But I am Jim. I am.

You are?  It's not really coming through. ;)

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 7/26/2014 11:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The thing that's particularly disturbing, though, is that in our
> "representative democracy," when you disagree with your elected official
> on something and take the time to write them, they generally *don't* say
> "thank you for sending me your thoughts - there were things you said that
> I hadn't considered, and I will take your feedback and incorporate it
> into my thinking."  They might not change their mind, but you might feel
> that they were actually listening.
>

Yeah, been there, done that, told them when one of their pushers (i.e., 
telephone BS spreaders) called up later the same week that there was no 
way in hell I would listen to, never mind support, liars and never to 
call me again. But, you nailed the real issue straight on. The only time 
they change their opinions, only, not really, is if they think it might 
somehow damage their chances of being reelected. Ironically, the right, 
at the moment, seem to have either convinced themselves, or are trying 
really hard to do so, that **we** the voters just need to see their side 
of things, and stop listening to bad advice, and its thus entirely our 
confusion and misunderstanding about how much more reasonable they are, 
which is hurting their chances to get votes.

In other words, not only are they 100% right, we 100% wrong, but this is 
solvable only by making us all, somehow, change our minds, not by them 
getting their heads out of their asses and recognizing that its 2014, 
not like.. 1714 (or, in their case.. maybe 1614).

But, the fact is that the differences are not enough any more imho. The 
Democrats have let the right drag the overton window so far at this 
point that if we where discussing the best thing to have for breakfast, 
for example, they would both be stuck on whether or not Bran Flakes, or 
Coco Puffs where the best selection, while most of the damn public was 
busy either crying about the artificial colorings in both (the crazy 
left), or asking why the hell we can't just go to Ihop and forget the 
damn cereal. The arguments have, in short, devolved into a state where 
actual progress is nearly impossible, because every discussion is, 
almost always, about how to either return us to some imaginary state, 
which never existed, or to preserve some prior state that wasn't 
working, instead of actually bloody fixing anything. I would, for 
example, give Obama much greater credit, if the only damn thing he did 
manage to do, i.e. health care, wasn't a) a Faustian deal and b) 
something that both parties have been saying we need, since the bloody 
Nixon administration (or around there). We are supposed to praise the 
Democrats for, on one hand, managing to finally do one thing, which 
people have talked about, but never gotten done, for decades, while 
shrugging at stupidity like the internet de-neutrality disaster, extra 
domestic spying, and a dozen other things, which they didn't just not 
appose, but actually, in many cases, helped along, all of them things 
that it would have, in the past being "Republican" ideas?

How far do they have to drag the terms "liberal" and "progressive" up 
onto the rocks, before we call them on the claim that they are 
**either** of those things?

-- 
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