Brainteaserfan

perhaps to prevent

 

accumulating all posts,

 

in this section here.

 

 

 

 

maybe to increase

 

your rank you must have focus

 

on science posts, too?

Religion posts count

Politics and ethics too

Why shouldn't haiku?

thank god its friday

no need to work tomorrow

and all haiku'd out

Oh no it's Sunday

And I have school tomorrow

Better get to bed

Edit: Why doesn't this thread show up in "my content"?

Well, maybe this humane solution of rehabilitation reflects the mentality of the general population, which is why there are low murder rates in the first place.

Hmm, yes, and maybe the not-so-strict crime laws are a result of the low crime and murder rate. I hadn't thought of that.

and bullets are cheap.

Of course, here in the US, we manage to make it cost way more for death row inmates than lifetime ones.

According to this article, one year ago 35% of the incoming representatives had never held elective office before. This tells us that the current system can work with inexperienced legislators.

That doesn't mean, however, that the incoming reps didn't have significant qualifications for holding those offices.

I'm sort of inclined to think that if a random selection representation system were designed, you should have to take a test and be put on a list of "wanting to" candidates. This way, hopefully you would weed out those who didn't have basic qualifications and didn't want to, while at the same time maintaining the lower cost and most of the other benefits associated with random selection.

News has a shelf-life. And … Drudge report?

Yes, but you would think that the occasional link would be posted with something related -- at least, if I was in control of those websites it would be.

What's wrong with Drudge? (other than that it isn't really a science site)

(moved this post into existing thread)

 

You must be reading different news sources than I. It's been all over the science blogs I read, and it's hard not to trip over the people claiming to know what basic error the scientists made.

For sure, it is all over science blogs, but other sites such as google news and drudge report haven't linked to anything related for quite a while.

Perhaps hate is too strong a word, but certain official signs cause me to feel they don't really mean what they say. An example would be "Disabled Toilet". What is meant (and I do realise people understand) is that here is a fully enabled toilet suitable for disabled people.

Hate them? You don't enjoy being able to find them funny?

And the bigger it is, the more difficult some of that maintenance will be... Show me the dry dock that can accept a 5000 foot ship!

I would suppose though that some of the maintenance would be cheaper proportional to the cost of the ship, due to that you would be purchasing labor and supplies in bulk.

Brainteaserfan, are you prepared to accept there may not being a God?

Of course, but only if I believed that there was either too little reason to believe in Him, or too much evidence against Him.

Think of it from my point of view, everywhere I turn religion is shoved in my face, billboards, print ads, tv, radio, street corner preachers, aggressive asshole street corner preachers, and FAMILY but my personal favorite is door to door preachers... Oh yes, Saturday morning after Church the emerge, knocking on my door, confronting me in my yard, wanting to know if I've heard the good news... The other day, the thought flashed through my mind that the "real good news" (for them) is that I am prohibited by law from shooting trespassers on sight..

I'm sorry you feel that way, and in no way do I try to aggravate those who don't want to listen. In what way would you like for us to do our best to spread the Gospel without making others annoyed? Other than talking with others, I occasionally hand out pamphlets, or leave them around, but is there a "preferred" method that you would find less intrusive?

I will say though, that my dad (one day me too ) enjoys having door-to-door people come and discuss theological issues. So at least some like it I can see your frustration.

Sadly religion seems geared to produce unreasonable men when it is allowed too much power, religion, the main Abramhamic ones at least, are told to convert everyone, they don't just feel an obligation to convert you, they think it's their right to do so...

At least to me, not so much a duty to convert everyone as to spread the biblical truths (I know you disagree as to whether they are "truths")

That really bothered me, normally I am a no confrontation sort of person, i do my best to avoid confrontation as much as possible and violence rarely solves anything, generally it just shuffles the problem to the future. But that thought did make me smile, not because I wanted to do it but because in our country (in this day and time) knocking on my door is the worst they can do. Sadly as we know religion can inspire people to do much worse to anyone who refuses to convert. "No real Christian" would ever harm you for not converting? No real Scotsman? Religion breeds intolerance, bigotry, and arrogance. Aristarchus in Exile was a good example of this, his arrogance in his assumptions that the only reason I or we hadn't converted yet was because we weren't looking hard enough or we hadn't been looking long enough. This is yet another idea brought about by someone at least well known around the 16th or 17th century, i just can't remember the name, but in essence what he said was if you don't believe you need to pretend you do and eventually the belief will come. To me that idea is just intolerable..

I am still sort of deciding on the whole idea of "looking hard enough." I won't comment on AiE -- either way gets me into trouble.

Other things than religion have caused people to do terrible things, and not much is done about them, but I guess that is rather irrelevant. Man's desire to learn about something that can keep him alive forever seems to be almost as strong as the desire to reproduce, and so it is rather pointless to spend too much effort trying to control it. Personally, if I was an atheist, I think I might tend to be pro-Christian, because if someone is going to be "fanatical" I would usually tend to want a Christian missionary trying to convert others instead of say a Muslim militant, or something. But then again, I am not an atheist, and I never really was.

Then you get to the actual creationists, they actually ascribe to the belief that no matter how obvious the disconnect between reality and religion is, religion always trumps reality (and it's ok to lie to support your religion). While this is disturbing I honestly feel they do indeed have the right to believe what ever they want but that's not enough for them, they want their religious belief and it's written word to be taught as science, not just to their children (which is a problem) but to everyone else's, this is unacceptable, but more disturbing is the lengths they will go to support their religion, half truths, misrepresentation, out right fabrications, anything to further their world view and to make sure it is the only world view. They believe their holy book must be 100% literally true, ever read it? If actually reading the bible doesn't give you pause to assume it is literally 100% true then you are probably part of the problem.

I actually ascribe to it! But, I don't think that it would go against the Bible to say that before the sun was created at least, that days were just stages in time. Certainly God could have done it many ways though. I decided to try not to spend to much time this year debating it until I have more knowledge on the subject because this year I am taking an AP bio course, so I hope to see the evidence for evolution, and I am also taking a creation biology book, so hopefully I will get the input of both sides. I have found both POV's quite fascinating so far.

Yes, though, I do/have read the bible, and I do believe that it is "100% true." :?

This is blackmail in it's most basic form, believe what I do or suffer eternal torment, science only offers evidence for reality... and requires no worship, no money to build more and grander churches so that more people can be converted. Religion uses it's money to help people you say? Yes, after the expenses of the Church is met, after multi-million dollar mega churches are built, after the evangelical preachers get their grand estates and yachts, incredibly expensive cars, yes some of the money get to the poor and needy but no one knows how much....

I realize this is the "my way is right" attitude, but at my church, the preachers get paid extraordinarily small sums, and our building is a unused old small Methodist church.

I recently saw an email that was showing what percent of different charities actually went to the poor and needy. Those such as the salvation army had by far the highest percentage going to actual (claimed) needy people. Idk if the email was accurate or not, but if so, it was interesting.

Nothing, it would have a lightning rod like any other ship.

Wouldn't it need quite a few of them? But, I think you are right that lightning wouldn't pose a threat (+1). Are there any dangers that people (in the general public) don't commonly think about when they see a large luxury ship?

What would happen if it got struck by lightning? I mean, what kind of damage might occur?

Here are our raw results, if anyone is interested. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q-IO8-6erwt24J5Dtz_aN-Il8jTRFN5BpWZ-WSOjbLM/edit?hl=en_US

It's the harmful and prevalent consequences of religion that need to be eradicated and it's perfectly reasonable to suppose, the only way of doing that is by eliminating religions as recognised, authoritative global organisations – organisations that people are willing to die for no less.

Would you die for a scientific belief if you were told that you needed to publically deny its truth?? If not, then you are like those religious people who wouldn't die for their beliefs, because they believe that God shouldn't have put them in that position. If yes, then IMO, it isn't much different from being willing to die for your religion, because we see our religion as infallible, and as having immense evidence. Of course, that isn't to say I endorse those who harm others with their beliefs that they would die for like those on 9/11.

If it were just old ladies gathering at the local village church on a Sunday, nobody would have a problem. Unfortunately, in the west that's what many people associate with religion – yet it's that damning effect religion has far from our doorstep, that is the genuine source of anti-religious sentiment, or more specifically militant atheism.

I am NOT an old lady. What do you mean by this section though? I don't think I understand.

Sorry for saying I wanted to swear at you, it was tongue in cheek but it's still a little unnecessary and rude.

Thanks.

Wow. I really want to swear at you.

 

http://www.guardian....003/oct/09/aids

 

As if a reference is required.

I had no clue they were saying that. Thanks (and I am 100% serious -- hence the +1.)

Does that mean, however, that all religion should be eradicated? I don't believe that I hold any views that would kill anyone, in fact, my religion leads me to be quite interested in becoming a doctor, or some other profession that could serve humanity well. This leads me to try to do well in school to achieve that goal.

Can you point us to where the miracle is? The page is mostly about his work.

I can understand the other reactions... but you can't find the alleged miracles?? Really? I'll copy and paste a few then.

Once, whilst crossing the Atlantic on the SS Sardinian in August 1877, his ship ran into thick fog. He explained to the captain that he needed to be in Quebec by the following afternoon, but Captain Joseph E Dutton (later known as "Holy Joe") said that he was slowing the ship down for safety and Müller's appointment would have to be missed. Müller asked to use the chartroom to pray for the lifting of the fog. The captain followed him down, claiming it would be a waste of time. After Müller prayed, the captain started to pray, but Müller stopped him; partly because of the captain's unbelief, but mainly because he believed the prayer had already been answered. When the two men went back to the bridge, they found the fog had lifted. The captain became a Christian shortly afterwards.

Through all this, Müller never made requests for financial support, nor did he go into debt, even though the five homes cost over £100,000 to build. Many times, he received unsolicited food donations only hours before they were needed to feed the children, further strengthening his faith in God. For example, on one well-documented occasion, they gave thanks for breakfast when all the children were sitting at the table, even though there was nothing to eat in the house. As they finished praying, the baker knocked on the door with sufficient fresh bread to feed everyone, and the milkman gave them plenty of fresh milk because his cart broke down in front of the orphanage.

There are quite literally, lives at stake.

Reference??

There are eternal lives at stake, but something tells me that isn't what you meant.

show me a real miracle, not some obvious coincidence dressed up as an act of god....

Miracles in my life probably mean nothing to you. So, here are modern documented miracles in this guy's life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Müller It isn't the best wiki page I ever saw -- it sure needs some cleaning up, but it's understandable.

he carefully evades any test that you can come up with for testing his existence. In spite of thet they have an edict saying that you shouldn't try to test him anyway.

Hmm. I don't doubt what you are saying, but I would like to have a reference to look at.

The Earth is quite clearly square.

 

http://members.dslex...uare_earth.html

Well, I admit that it isn't really related, but I have found the possibility of God and heaven existing in a higher dimension intriguing, where perhaps this stuff would make more sense? I did find that link fascinating.

Oh. You represent THE TRUE CHURCH. I didn't realize that. My bad.

So... the largest Christian sect isn't really Christian at all. Now that I know you represent THE TRUE CHURCH, and that your translations are THE ONLY ACCURATE ONES, I'll pay closer attention to everything you say. That's a pretty sweet deal you've got going there.

The Jestapo?

Actually, there are tons of Yellow Page listing for "true" churches. In fact, most of them claim to have "the truth". Some even claim to have "the only true church". You guys should get a lawyer and see about that copyright infringement. You could be as rich as those Catholic un-Christians.

Well, keep your eyes peeled, we wouldn't want you to get hurt through a misunderstanding.

If we follow the Douay bible, don't some parts encourage us to make war against unbelievers (Numbers 31:7-18)? And if we capture them, can we still kill the helpless prisoners? What about the wives and male children? Can we still keep the virgins for ourselves? I'm not really comfortable with all of that, but if the bible is perfect....

Perfect in every word, as long as you're the one interpreting it, right?

Well, except for the death of Jesus, or his crucifixion.

Please, Phi, your post had wonderful points, but the tone ruined it.

I'll vote for one.

noow picture a world without religion.. we would already have a base on mars

I admit to not having read the entire thread. But that is a pretty big jump.

Mathematics has all kinds of problems with zero. Multiply anything by zero gives zero. What happens when you multiply zero by infinity? Even worse, division by zero is taboo, period. So what happens when numbers get really small? Do they become zero? Again, mathematics fails in the micro world. Using mathematics as the sole source of information has led the scientist to follow a merry dance into illusion

I have none of everything. Does it not make sense that I still have nothing?

AFAIK it's illegal to discriminate on that basis.

Yes, but I wouldn't say that that prevents it from happening. Still, why do females not get paid as much if they are equally capable?

Wait, what? A pay disparity exists after you account for education, experience etc. How does that show that women can't do the jobs? It shows they aren't being paid the same, but it does not show that they lack the ability. This is a non-sequitur.

 

And BTW, in the military, men and women do get equal pay for equal rank/rate.

But maybe they wouldn't be put into the same rank...

Secondly, are you saying women aren't being paid what they are worth? Why would an employer choose a male over an equally suited female? If you say because the employer is scared she will get pregnant or something, than she isn't equally suited for the job, is she?

Yes, we should draft capable people. It would be nice if you admitted that there are women who are very capable and would excel at military service. That some of them would not be fit is not an excuse to not consider them, because some men aren't fit for military duty, either. What I'm saying is they should be treated equally in terms of consideration of their fitness for service, i.e. you make them all eligible for the draft and accept those that are fit for duty.

They would also probably be very capable of bearing children, though.

Should I retake the survey given the changes?

no, thanks for offering though!