The thing I saw about Jim Jones being the best boxer because of how many people he knocked out with one punch kinda fits.
I always thought the Fresh Prince of Beautiful (Belle) Air was about this... and that Bel-Air kept it's good air...?The most funny myth about warming is that the air has a border control between countries and if you outsource "dirty" manufacturing to some other country it will magically not affect the environment.
So... do YOU believe your own quote? Do you? Do YOU believe the Pyra will be out in 2 months, or do you disbelieve that? ... I believe I need a drink...Anyone that believes, or disbelieves, anything is an idiot
I always thought the Fresh Prince of Beautiful (Belle) Air was about this... and that Bel-Air kept it's good air...?
Although today, the air quality today is not that bad... air quality index in Philly another air quality check in Philly
edit: What if the Unitedstates-Mexico wall was one giant HEPA filter?
You are basically saying "you are too stupid; here have a religion". I am sure that does injustice to many religious people.About the topic, I think that the religion is something like an operating system for working with people and with things too hard/illegal to explain
Sound? The mental gymnastics needed to make old-school religious claims work today indicate anything but soundness to me.these are definitely false, but logically sound in their own-created ecosystem ideologies
If this is true then it is pure oppression. How much to think on matters should come from within, not from without.to make people easier to govern and predict and make them think the proper amount of time on things they shouldn't think too much.
Personally I am more concerned with what is true instead of purely what "works" (and ideally both), but I suppose that is why I am not a theist.So in fact it doesn't matter is it atheism, agnosticism, believing in one God, many Gods, Great Old Ones until it works as designed and is not propagated in bad intentions.
I think you missed the point. It doesn't matter what I believe. Bring me a drink, too, please.So... do YOU believe your own quote? Do you? Do YOU believe the Pyra will be out in 2 months, or do you disbelieve that? ... I believe I need a drink...
I use a variety of OSs, sometimes at the same time.About the topic, I think that the religion is something like an operating system for working with people and with things too hard/illegal to explain - these are definitely false, but logically sound in their own-created ecosystem ideologies to make people easier to govern and predict and make them think the proper amount of time on things they shouldn't think too much. Some people can function with one, some with another, some without. So in fact it doesn't matter is it atheism, agnosticism, believing in one God, many Gods, Great Old Ones until it works as designed and is not propagated in bad intentions.
You might be looking at the wrong old-school religions, then. Some of the ones I am aware of are so flexible that it would be pointless to label them "religion", and it is difficult to pin down beliefs, as they varied by individual. With some of them, sure, there was the state religion, however that was merely what was state sanctioned. They generally left you alone and let you believe what you wanted unless your practices were becoming a problem. Sometimes the beliefs of conquered and enslaved peoples, or those that there was other close interaction with, would become significantly influential, and incorporated with state religion. Different regions generally had a certain set of...folklore, I shall call it, that may or may not have been seriously believed to some degree. At least some stuff from back then, in this limited area I am looking at, would seem fresh and new to many if the origins were not divulged, and it would likely satisfy many...I guess I will call them atheists (although there are other nontheistic religions, but I think it is understood what groups I am talking about).Sound? The mental gymnastics needed to make old-school religious claims work today indicate anything but soundness to me.
Nope. There are some things which just cannot be explained now, cannot be easily understood at all, or can be with probability so rough that they fit into "impossible" category. Some people may live not bothering about it, some people not. The second group may choose different ways to understand these things and religions are one of many. If it's an intentional choice to explain some phenomenon with religious method, it's definitely NOT a stupidity, it's a control I was writing about.You are basically saying "you are too stupid; here have a religion". I am sure that does injustice to many religious people.
Sound within boundaries of their logic. From modern perspective they may be totally illogical. By using their causality and dogmas - it's totally consistent.Sound? The mental gymnastics needed to make old-school religious claims work today indicate anything but soundness to me.
Not governing each other, (although unfortunately it is also done), but themselves.If this is true then it is pure oppression. How much to think on matters should come from within, not from without.
What is true, what works and what is shown by religions - these are 3 different thingsPersonally I am more concerned with what is true instead of purely what "works" (and ideally both), but I suppose that is why I am not a theist.
Wasn't there a "religion" with quickly adapting dogmas by believer? I bet I read about some ideology using believing as another utility, changing to needs (I like this level of abstraction).I use a variety of OSs, sometimes at the same time.
I don't know about a religion that does it. I don't really go for dogma. Many practitioners of chaos magic change beliefs for whatever they are working on (you can probably guess how I got into my approach to this sort of thing). It is sometimes a "fake it 'til you make it" approach. I kinda mix things up overall, with a particular "religion" dominant if I am dealing with such things. Generally I just say "I don't know" and play with the toys the way I want to. I do that with other things too. Like computers. Still, I generally am opposed to the biggest OS in my part of the world, although with one it is because it is made by a corporation that is only concerned with enslaving users and taking everything it can from them, and the other is full of security and privacy issues.Wasn't there a "religion" with quickly adapting dogmas by believer? I bet I read about some ideology using believing as another utility, changing to needs (I like this level of abstraction).
Yes, that could be it, so not a religion.I don't know about a religion that does it. I don't really go for dogma. Many practitioners of chaos magic change beliefs for whatever they are working on (you can probably guess how I got into my approach to this sort of thing). It is sometimes a "fake it 'til you make it" approach.
Generally computers are going to the state in which user has no control on the machine. The goal is to be like a cooker or washing machine, but with built-in surveillance system. The same thing was with radio, the same thing went with TV. The exceptions in computer world are fortunately present, but they are small and... how many people are concerned about it? How many people are concerned about modern x86 "additions" like Intel ME or PSP? About the fact that they can't pull some chip's leg by assembly code? Most people I asked even want no net neutrality. And they were not new Internet users after elementary school, they were scientists who know Internet since 1990s. It was only needed to ask properly: Not "Do you want net neutrality?", but "Do you want to have unlimited data transfer for one site (YT/FB/Wiki/Pyra forum/insert here) in your mobile Internet plan?"Like computers. Still, I generally am opposed to the biggest OS in my part of the world, although with one it is because it is made by a corporation that is only concerned with enslaving users and taking everything it can from them, and the other is full of security and privacy issues.
That also sounds familiar. I quit playing their game fairly early on in life, and when it comes to political things I am very much an outsider. When I propose things that I openly admit are rather extreme to the delicate views of my countrymen, individuals get stuck on those things instead of trying to understand that I am merely offering alternatives to start discussion instead of holding on to things that are obviously not working out, or the bigger problem of adding more to the things that don't work to "fix" these deficiencies. But that is all stuff that should be discussed elsewhere. Funny thing is that, on the surface, my proposals would work out better for everyone, and we never get to the point of discussing ways in which they could fail, and trying to modify them so that they can be taken to the politicians with a chance of it being taken seriously.Yes, that could be it, so not a religion.
In my case it was not caused by attacking anyone that doesn't meet standards, but anyone who doesn't fit in any standard - this goes with political ideologies - you try to mix between groups, you become enemy of all and not many people want to try combining ideas there (as well as see that in fact some combinations are used, but that's for another topic).
See, that won't work for my use since most of what I do isn't online, and much of it isn't on connected computers. Sure, I could, for example, put all the variations of the stuff I type up online, but at this point that would require digging through all the things I have it stored on (sometimes I start from scratch with the same project to see where that goes, and maybe combine it all), plus a pile of notebooks that I have no interest in typing up. With those things the notebooks contain the more important stuff, and when I discuss it online, or have a more permanent form that I would share, it is very condensed, and would require lots of research on the part of others, or my notebooks. With some of that I know that the people I discuss it with have read, or are aware, of many of the sources for some ideas (in case anyone is wondering, some of what I am talking about here are things that might fit into the religious or spiritual category, either from an academic view of better understanding the evolution and development of different strands of certain beliefs or ideas, or from a more practical approach). For the rest, if I need to show where I am seeing things, I can go back to my notes and usually tell precisely where to look (although variations in translations man that my interpretations could be off, not that I have seen that as a major issue so far, however I have found others come up with completely different understandings of things that they, as native English speakers, have read from one of the same English translations I use, and I and others, including non-native English types, don't see where confusion comes from...maybe we read more carefully or are all peaking at the sources used for the translations since that info was provided). Of course we also make use of or own experiences, so eventually, with this particular set of topics, books and writings only get you part of the way there. And despite our different discoveries we accept that what others find or use are probably just as valid, at least for them, rather than tell them they are wrong, or argue about these differences. Kinda like what you find in Discordianism. It's a shame the big religions can't be like that, and instead need to make everyone believe the "right way", and would sometimes prefer then dead than to believe the wrong thing...Generally computers are going to the state in which user has no control on the machine. The goal is to be like a cooker or washing machine, but with built-in surveillance system. The same thing was with radio, the same thing went with TV. The exceptions in computer world are fortunately present, but they are small and... how many people are concerned about it? How many people are concerned about modern x86 "additions" like Intel ME or PSP? About the fact that they can't pull some chip's leg by assembly code? Most people I asked even want no net neutrality. And they were not new Internet users after elementary school, they were scientists who know Internet since 1990s. It was only needed to ask properly: Not "Do you want net neutrality?", but "Do you want to have unlimited data transfer for one site (YT/FB/Wiki/Pyra forum/insert here) in your mobile Internet plan?".
And now You entered a nice paradox. This will slow things down only if we talk about blind transfer of data. The "knowledge density" of such media is relatively high, comparing to modern Internet.I still rely heavily on books, and would be willing to return to using letters, 'zines, libraries and museums, even if that would drastically slow things down.
Quite literally. Isn't he making way more money by bashing religions than with actual science?I think Richard Dawkins is on the money!