I got to see a lot of people to willingly vote for some bad mofos, and then i got some $
Exceptions of strong beliefs that don't deal into the realms of a closed mind? like which ones?
Bamboo Shoots!
Age 35, Male
Poet/Designer/Etc
ACCOMPLISHED
Sweden
Joined on 1/17/04
- Rank:
- Sup. Commander
- Global Rank:
- 6
- Blams:
- 32,816
- Saves:
- 237,504
- B/P Bonus:
- 60%
- Whistle:
- Deity
- Trophies:
- 42
- Medals:
- 11,270
- Supporter:
- 11y 11m 4d
- Gear:
- 11
Slowly breaking you down huh. I see the cons.
I mean I like to believe that my own strong beliefs are exceptions to that statement, as I like to believe I am open-minded myself, contrary to those who's beliefs I claim to be against. As in how I strongly believe our society isn't working, though current leaders claim it is, and seem to believe in what they're saying. But if I believe so strongly they are wrong, who am I to say I'm right! That kind of exception.
Yeah if they want to pay you fairly they should give you enough money to go and make your own (functional) country.
... what about starting to admit those things that they are doing right? for example as much as i don't like the current president, which i voted for, i recognize that his way of approach the conflict of the country is an advancement towards a peaceful solution, and more than that this country somehow still exist afters decades and decades of inner war, so as bad as it is, something must be working.
But i got you, a call to consistency demands that a part of us should remain without change, it would be interesting if that part that is consistent actually refers to us being able to easily change our views.
Hah, I'm sure they're open for the suggestion! :P
Mmm, though I'm sure they must be doing something good, I'm not involved enough in politics to know what's being done in less controversial areas. All I know of is the change I don't like, which there's a lot of lately. Really though... first thing they do after re-election is acknowledge Palestine as a state. That's what they want to be remembered by. No asking the people, no public vote, not even a warning beforehand, and from day one it seems their cares are focused on the outside world more than this country itself. Stuff like that makes me ashamed to be Swedish. :/
Hmm, not sure I get what you're saying there though? I do want change, I just don't want to be as self-certain as the people who don't.
In a parallel universe maybe.
Well final fucking finally someone is acknowledging Palestine as a state which should be actually Britain's job since they are the ones that went and ruined that place then divided it, promised to make Palestine a state, and then helped form Israel by putting all the Jews back there after the Romans kicked them out and send them to Europe many, many years ago, how else would a bunch of people without a homeland actually go and get themselves a country of their own? of course with the help of the British empire, and of course soon enough Israel enters war with its neighbor Palestine and then expands by winning the war, and to this day the place is still a mess, is an important thing to see that at least one important country out there is trying to save face, but again that should be done by the British is the mess they made.
Well back to the decision of not asking the people, how many citizens know that the conflict is over land primarily and not over religion? is the public qualified to make that decision?
By a call to consistency, i refer to the preservation of the idea of a set of characteristics that help to define a "self", or at least a part of it, and that remains the same and never changes, to the point that it creates an illusion that helps to define a person, however if that part that remains consistent actually refers to us having a flexible out put on how we understand and view the world, then no contradiction is produced.
That'd be The One!
Maaaaan... looks out opinions really differ on this one! Palestine has never existed in the first place. I don't know about Israel, but they're the ones I feel sympathy for here, even if they are taking every opportunity they get to expand their kingdom and treat their neighbors unjustly. Maybe I feel this way because they don't respond to religious caricatures with terrorism hmm. Who started this war in the first place I wonder.
As for the public: acknowledging Palestine as a state without prior vote actually goes against our fundamental laws over here, but of course they're getting away with it without reprimands even - they do whatever they please. When Sweden acknowledges Palestine, you assume that's the country as a whole right? Not just certain leaders making rash decisions without regard to our democratic rights.
Ah, gotcha.
Israel is actually new.
Britain started the war when they went and ruined what was originally called Palestine, and controlled Palestine by a series of schemes against the Ottoman Empire which was the one ruling the place at the time back at WW1, the schemes worked and the British Empire came on top, and didn't fulfilled all of its promises, which were dividing the country to themselves and other parties including the natives.
As you can see no sight of Israel at all at this point, why? because years before, the Roman Empire had kicked them out of the place, and they became the nomads without land that all the Nazis know and hate.
The British Empire being the good they were, they facilitated the immigration of Jews from Europe into Palestine, and these immigrants are what will eventually become Israel.
Luckily for you there is a good video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wo2TLlMhiw
When i read that a state recognizes another, i assume they recognize the country and its people, and with that comes a series of privileges that have mostly to do with trade. As for the leaders they have too much to deal back at their country to go and do anything at Sweden.
Mmm, so it's their 'promised place' only according to scripture? Wait, you're saying there was an Israel before the Roman Empire kicked them out? Gotta read up a bit more on history. Googling Palestine, it looks like Isreal were in fact there way before the crash course even starts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_periods_in_the_Palestine_region
Video feels biased. Britain definitely didn't handle their cards too well, nor did all Zionists... but nor did the Palestinians. What about the holocaust and all that came after? I'm sure there's a lot of unfair landmass grabbing going on on Israel's part, but I can't stop feeling it's merited. They're making the most of the land they have. Jews and a seemingly rare fraction of Muslims already co-exist peacefully within their borders, and whereas Isreal apparently has no intent of completely eradicating the Arab empire, portions of the other side do want to exactly that - Isreal wiped clean off the face of the Earth. If they didn't have such scrutinous security detail they'd no doubt been disintegrated a long time ago. Acknowledging Palestine as a state (which it apparently never was) feels a strange move considering the relation between these people, and the nationalists that want to take over completely. What's the solution? How can the feud be solved? I don't know, but a so-called 'Palestinian' force uniting and marching against the original inhabitants of said area doesn't seem like the ideal solution.
The promised land of the scriptures was not only a land of the Jews, to being with there were bunch of other people living there already and was mostly under Egyptian rule, even if we take the Bible as a set of trustworthy historic books (lol, get it because it is not) the Jew kingdom lasted 100 years and then the Roman empire acted on them, and Jews are so good at not pissing people off that they were kicked by the Romans out of there, you can see this in the very link you gave me, after that the land known as Palestine is devoid of Jews for the most part until they start coming from Europe. So if someone is ever to make claims of ownership that should be Egypt, not some guys that ruled there only by 100 years and then were expatriated.
The holocaust has nothing to do with Jews going there to kill and steal land, since the states was formed before the holocaust even happened, meaning by the moment the Germans decided to go and kill all the Jews, Britain had already spend decades in the formation of Israel.
No it is not merited, the land was divided and as horrible as that distribution looked at the start they didn't had to go and start expanding like they did and still do, so to say that "They're making the most of the land they have", is a lie, if that was true they didn't had to go and steal a bunch of land beyond the one that was already being given to them by the UN.
Yeah Israel doesn't wants to eradicate the entirety of the Arab world, that would be nonsense since the Arab world is huge and goes beyond just Palestine, and they just want to get Palestine for themselves.
The key word there is portions, not everyone wants to wipe out the guys that came and started to steal the land for themselves.
Yeah they haven't been acknowledged as an independent state and if you watched the video by now you should know why, and the answer is not because there are Muslim nationalist on Palestine.
How to solve the conflict? What about recognizing that Israel stole and is still stealing a bunch of land from just years after it was formed, and even more that they are not the only "original" natives of the place, indeed the land they have now was from the natives that were never kicked from there by the Romans to begin with, and they were only natives from a small period of time, as for Jerusalem the place is as sacred to Jews, as it is to Christians and Muslims, but to make a conflict that is clearly about land into one of religion is just to be ignorant.
Mmm it's a complicated history, but there was that 'United Kingdom of Israel' back in the day at least. So it's not a fictive claim. Assuming of course Wikipedia (and its' sources) are a reliable source. Egypt did come first, but then our main three religions came along and since then it looks like just one big mess of colonization and waring states...
No, but after the holocaust a Jewish nation was all the more relevant a matter right? They got one. Not everyone liked it. Greed; negativity started brewing on both sides, war erupted, they became a fortified bastion of faith amidst a desolate desert. Now how do we solve the issue? Regardless of if they have the rights to the area they live in, that's where they've settled. I can't see them packing their bags and leaving. After all, the mass of land called Earth is a very limited area.
Looking at pictures, it seems to me like they are making the most of the land they have. And they're surrounded by desert, I don't see most if it being developed in any way. If any one culture/religion/race is spreading, it's Islam. That's their main goal after all, inscribed in the The Qur'an: to take over the world as a united race and religion. Personally I'm not too fond of that ideal.
Well they just were acknowledged as an independent state, and I still don't think it's right. I watched the video.
That'd be a start, but what then? Give the land back? I don't see that happening either. But it could give certain parties all the more reason for enmity; further spur the war. Doesn't seem like the Egyptians were taking better care of the place before Israel came along though. Whether it started out a feud for land or not, religion is certainly involved now.
Yeah there has always been people living in the extremely strategic land that is Palestine, so everyone set on world domination would go and try to get its hands on it, the reason why i called it Palestine and not Israel, is because the Jewish Kingdom was short-lived, and the place has been inhabited for the most part by all the other people that was not kicked out of the place, until recently.
Of course like the video says, Jews need to live somewhere, and with the holocaust that became even more needed, however that doesn't justifies them to go and start getting more than what the UN was already giving them which was half of the territory, giving them half of a country is a lot, specially when they don't recognize the other half an autonomous state, that alone was already quite insulting to the ones already living there which have passed their lives under the rule of empires after empires, and sadly for everyone things didn't stop there, war broke out and Israel started to expand.
If you ask me i am fine with the Jews having their state of Israel, and i recognize that they need their own country, but it can't be the mass of land inequality that it is today, and it would be great if Palestine could unify accounting also for Israel as it once was before the Romans expelled the Jews, but as it stands now they need to go back to an state of equality between 2 countries, and for that to happen 3 things need to happen first:
1 a cease of hostilities.
2 an acknowledgement of the 2 parts involved in the conflict, this probably needs to come first actually, and this is also why it is important for Palestine to be recognized as an estate, without this you cant engage in a peaceful diplomatic discussion among equals.
3 recognition of the damages caused by the 2 parties, which include damages to civilians, the distribution of land, etc. But for this to happen we need to know what the actors of the conflict are so that responsibility can be handed, if Palestine is not recognized as a state this can't be done, also as Palestine is composed of a multitude of parts not all of them would be responsible for the same damages, so recognizing who was responsible of what is also an imperative for reparations, and as you may guess, for this to happen #2 needs to happen first.
Of course even with all this, this is no guarantee for the conflict to stop.
Here's the thing Islam is a religion not a country, it spreads by ideology, Israel spreads by territory, and you are free to go and check the maps and see how it has grown since the day that it was formed.
You know there's another way to end the conflict, you let Israel take total control of the place and end Palestine. Of course what may come from that is none of my business.
The Egyptians ruled the place first, then it was a free state for a few years, then the Jews ruled the place by majority, then the Babylonians, then the Persians, then Greece, then Rome, then the Byzantines, then the crusades happened, then the Arabs, then the British, then the UN was formed and divided the place into the mess that it is today.
As you can see everyone and their grandma has had a hand on that cake, cake that is crucial for trade, and military strategy its place in the world is great, take a global map, situate Palestine, you can see why all the empires drooled over it, anyway for similar reasons i can see why the Jews want the whole place.
I agree if the UN gives me half a country, and then i use it to wage an expansionist war and conquer the rest of the place as i please, and then little by little i start grabbing more land as i bomb the opposite side, of course that i am entitled to keep it, i killed for it, those are my war spoils the international community has my back, even if everyone knows what i did they support my entitlement to keep it, plus the other side is just a bunch of terrorist and religious nut-jobs that think that MY sacred place is also theirs, Pff i am doing the world a favor by each hospital and school i bomb, when i do it is different it is self defense, similarly if Russia decides to raid Ukraine and win, they should keep the place; the Boko Haram kills 2000 people in Nigeria and is planning to go to the Cameroon next? is ok, as long as you have the weapons armed territorial expansion is fine, you can find an excuse for that later.
Mmm.
It'd be a dream world if they did get along, but that'd require they both recognize and respect each other, and right now... that'd be a miracle! :O As for Islam, according to demographics 93% of Palestinians are Muslim so... you know what I'm getting at.
You're really raging against the machine of Israel huh...
Yeah but not all Muslims are into Jihad, you see what i am getting at.
Deep inside i don't care, just like i don't really care for Ukraine or Nigeria, however even with this superficiality i have enough information to recognize that Israel is far away from being a victim, has actually victimized its neighbors.
True, but while Isreal is slowly expanding in territory, Islam is rapidly expanding in race. If we disregard geographical limits we might get a different perspective of who's really taking over.
Mmm, I can't argue with that!
1st Islam is not a race it is a religion; 2nd not all Islamist are bath shit crazy; 3rd i agree Jude-Christian-Muslim ideology should end its historical efforts at world domination and disappear, in the end they are all part of the same family, same god different name, some times different prophet, with the less crazy being Jesus, and Christians are quite crazy themselves all things considered.
True and true. I have a few great friends that just so happen to be Muslim too, so of course it doesn't apply to all. However, as I see it the one big difference between Islam and other major religions is that Islam at it's core does not respect other ideologies. Whereas at least Christianity and Judaism (don't know about others) do have some shameful; violent pasts, the one that has the most potential for a violent present is Islam. If you go by the Quran (and I assume many do):
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah" 9:29
"Allah won't allow Jews & Christians to spread their false believes through preaching" 9:32
"Allah curse be on them (Jews & Christians)" 9:30
"When Allah dominates the world then there will be peace" 2:193, 8:39, 9:33
Seems kinda... menacing...
Yeah the crusades were ugly, and the Muslims never got over them, after all they loss those "holy" wars.
Indeed at present the more violents are them, but have you looked at all those new independent sects of Christians that are appearing out of nowhere lately? i am calling it that's a new cancer waiting to explode.
It does, because those verses are known as the sword verses, they are verses on war legislation stipulated by the prophet at a time were his people were at war, without context they just mean that it is ok to go and kill all who disagree
http://muslimmatters.org/2010/02/21/is-islam-a-violent-religion/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence
of course since religion is up to interpretation there's a lot of idiots that would go with what is convenient, even if suicide is a sin on their religion, yet they have suicide bombers.
The crusades were long after the Quran was written weren't they? Islam seem to have had this built-in enmity to other religions from the start, and those quotes aren't from the sword verse if you go by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_Verse . Is there more than the one? Haven't heard about those Christian sects no... any links/names?
If these quotes are without context that'd be reassuring! But, even outside context, do any of the other religions even have segments of script bashing other ideologies? I never got far with either the Bible or Quran so I can't say myself, they're heavy reading.
Some say the crusades started as a purely defensive war against the Islamic conquest btw. It didn't turn out well when the Pope got involved, but if that's true: Islam were on the route for domination first.
Yeah the crusades were long after the Quran was written, the Muslims have been involved in other wars, and holy wars before the crusades, the same goes for the Jews, and the same goes for the Christians, for example when the Christians arrived to america they waged a holy war, and they got away with it.
Pretty much the whole chapter 9 is composed by a bunch of sword verses.
They are sectarian religions that appear out of nowhere and indoctrinate people out of their money and health, the interesting thing is that they use the bible for this, they are mere cults, mostly small, but since they operate at local levels, they are more relevant than crazy Muslim in the middle east:
http://www.spiritual-research-network.com/pseudochristiancults.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements
http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-top10cults.html
Now if you ask me which ones are more dangerous, it depends of where you live, but over all i do think the Jihadis are more dangerous in the grand picture, since they are extremist, but since none of us are citizens of the world then the plague of new cults are more dangerous as of now.
Yeah Christianity, Judaism, both also claim to be the one true religion, why do you thing holy wars happen? why do you think in the name of god people are killed, and i am not talking about the middle east? the Jihads are getting way too much credit seeing that all of them come from the same scummy book.
Oh yeah, that America thing. So many native tribes have been eradicated by modern 'faith'. And all for the sake of making the world a better place, dark times...
Aha.
Gets me thinking of Scientology (which is apparently included! And the only non-Christian cult on the Top 10 Cults list)... Church of Religious Science hmm, what an odd combination. Jesus Army sounded menacing, but apparently wasn't. Surprised to see Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism on that first list though, and on the Top 10 Cults, I wouldn't have considered either of those a particular menace... probably because they seem so common. The article on what defines a cult brings up the question of 'how consistent the group's beliefs are with the basic tenets of the historic Christian faith', but from a non-religious standpoint, that seems pretty irrelevant. I believe all religions have an equal right to exist, regardless of how they adhere to religions of the past, so long as they don't somehow hurt other people. Course, the second consideration, how power, authority, and control are exercised in the group, take care of that matter... but how power, authority, and control are exercised in the group seems like a very subjective thing when judged by a religious person or group. Do they take that into consideration with their own religion? How much bad influence don't the main three religions have already! Though, hopefully exceptions.
I can't find Jihadism on the list of new religions btw, which btw, lists a whole not more than Christian cults in particular, would be interesting to know to which older/larger religion the most individual new cults somehow adhere to. Yeah, strong beliefs feed the strongest griefs, and in times of need it seems belief is the one thing people turn to. They better not choose the wrong one...
But on a more positive topic: Jediism man, it's a thing! :D I just tried to lift a cup of tea with my mind right now. Just cause... you know. It's not working though.
Oh some Jehovah's Witnesses are crazy, they are like one step behind kidnapping people to brainwash them into their ways.
I don't, it is 2015 we are long overdue to stop still holding onto religious thinking, let it end already, the world doesn't needs that nonsense, if people really need to believe in something with such desperation they should believe in their own power, that's better than to expect some miracle to happen, or to go around feeling entitled to the promises of some god that their ancestors invented.
Jihadism is not a religion, is an estate of mind, translated to English it would mean the struggle, being at war against an oppressor, so people that are designated as Jihads are just Muslims that think they are at war, they are extremist, and under those extremes of being at war, they will interpret things to make it be convenient for themselves, is closer to politics than to religion, even if Jihad were to somehow, for some weird twisted reason and misinformation were to be considered a cult, it wont be a new one since Muslims had had various wars before.
For me it is not positive at all, it just means there are some crazy people out there that think that the force is real, is things like that that keep me at bay from social psychology.
Aren't most religions? Have they actually done stuff like that? Maybe we just have a much milder version of Jehovah's Witnesses over here though. They've knocked on our door just once the past decade, a pair of what seemed like really nice people, offered me a brochure which I humbly accepted and promised to read later on. It didn't take long to skim through and see so many flaws in their formula it was hard to keep an open mind though.
Forcing others to not believe what they do would be like others forcing you to believe in their own religion. If they believe it with such conviction, who can say they're wrong, or wrong to believe it? Only if they do wrong in the wake of their belief would they have to be stopped. Social order can't exist with conflicting laws, and I suppose one reason there isn't a bigger conflict in this matter is because laws are largely based on those of the larger religions, to the point where religious conflict becomes social conflict. I like some religions betters though, particularly ones based on karma rather than repentance, because they tend to place focus on what you do rather than what you believe. You do something bad and you believe in karma, you'll want to repent by doing something good. In these other religions you just need to ask for forgiveness, and it's all up to that divine entity which supposedly knows all. Regardless of if there is a life after this or not, that's the easy way out. Rather than solving problems; making the world a better place, it creates them, it gives people a reason to not care about others or society as a whole. If there's any reason for religious thinking to end, that'd be it, but I'd rather it could be solved without interfering with people's personal theological views. Just wish they could all be kept separate and not interfere so much with reason.
Ah. Definitely a problem.
Isn't it awesome though, the notion that you may be able to move things with your mind? And in theory, the only thing that keeps you from being able to do so is that you don't truly believe in it, and since nobody can, it basically means it's a religion that doesn't exist. ;) Seems more like an interest than religion to me. Though I wouldn't want to say that to the face of any of the people involved in such practice.
Oh over here they not only give you a brochure, they stay there to argue with you, but since i am me i usually end them driving them out by mere rhetoric, they have been ignoring my block lately XD, but one of my neighbors once made the horrible mistake of opening the door and let them in, they stood the whole day preaching, if people are not prepared they will end being dragged in, they are some intense mofos over here, and they like to prey on people's low esteem, they start with "look at the world it is coming to the end, the situation is horrible and this is the only salvation!", of course first thing i told them was "But now we have technology...".
So you are of the mind that as long as they only end screwing themselves it is ok? you know people don't work that way, if they were able to keep their nonsense to themselves there wont be an anti-vaccination movement. Then there's the next problem, and is that their believes specially if they are strong ones, are then passed as objective things, and not as the subjective things that they are, if the romantics have gotten away with their claims we would have never passed from 1700.
Such shameless, in the end you are only doing "good" things because you fear karma retribution, that's just as selfish as fearing that the almighty god wont go around forgiving you, if someone really cares for their society and others they should do good for the sake of society and others, not for the sake of some karma points, so which is it? do you want the "good Karma" or make a good society?
My professor says that we live on a post-Kantian society but each time that someone tries to justify their morality using religious premises i tell him "Sorry prof, but you are full of it".
Yeah war is problematic.
They are basing their cult on a fictitious story that become popular out of movies! they are batshit crazy, i don't give a damn i would tell it to their faces, along with all the "by the moment already known" physics that their movies got wrong, for shame! all the more inexcusable since Star Trek which was from the same time actually got it right, but then again they are making a religion out of it, clearly something is not working well in that head of them.
Hah, nice work driving them off! If they're that intrusive I can see how it'd be a problem! Wonder how they responded to that technology remark?
Right. Yeah, that's a problem, but would outlawing religion be the right solution? I think it'd be like when they outlawed alcohol in the US in the 30's, and unintentionally paved way for an era of criminal syndicates and social insecurity. The movement would just go underground, people would hide their views rather than be open about them, and theology would thrive even more strongly within closed circuits, or maybe they wouldn't stay enclosed, maybe they'd end up overthrowing societies in order to make the world how they believe it should be. Belief's a strong force!
Whatever the reason, it's better than doing no good at all right? The best alternative would indeed be a world where people care for society regardless of belief, but in that regard karma's a better concept than a God, if it has to be one or the other, making you personally responsible for righting your wrongs, or not doing wrongs in the first place: not hurting other people, rather than shouldering all sins to the life after. It'd make you feel better too. Seems like a richer form of momentary compensation than our current currencies, immaterial and unabusable, and it's a concept that can be used regardless of belief. Good karma's good karma, regardless of potential afterlife effect.
No sense of awesomeness at all? :/ Would be difficult to make a religion out of Star Trek considering they don't have any specific 'power' schooled in. Seems there's more focus on technology there. Maybe theologists fall for Star Wars and scientists for Star Trek hmm...
Oh they went on like this:
"That only separates people from god and nature blinding them from what is important"
"Oh yeah? can god an nature give me a livelihood, health, a house, and protection? are you aware that not all technology is reduced to electronics?"
"If those advancements are so good, then why is the world in such poor state?"
"Well clearly if people listened more to the continuous warnings on how to use technology right, instead of assuming that there's nothing we can do other than calling it a day and start praying..."
"Brother don't look down on the power of god"
"If your god is so powerful why is he not saving you now, instead of after he lets the world end?"
"Because he gave us the world for us to work and thrive on it"
"Then what about doing some beneficial work on trying to fix it instead of already assuming that it is going to end without even trying? "
At that moment they gave me a brochure and went on their way.
The "communist" (soviets) already outlawed religion when they were on power, and it didn't work, the churches that they demolished were rebuild in the end.
Religion if it is to be ended has to be erased from people's minds not using the power of the law but by using education and culture, and it is a slow process, specially because the big religions have a story of extremism and violence, so the punch has to be a sneaky one, a sucker-punch.
I agree karma is better than an angry god, and definitively better than nothing, but at this point of life i don't see why people are still holding onto karma to guide their morality, even more if someone really, really, believes into karma it would do good deeds without thinking of gaining good karma, and then there's the elephant in the room, and is that what we consider good changes with time and place.
I do get a little bit awed, in the bad sense of the word, making a religion out of a movie is a little bit too much.
Flawless victory. :)
Hmm, all those grand architectural monuments laid to waste too... true, education's the long-term change, and in that regard society's working pretty well. As long as we thrive on technology, science benefits the people, and we find purpose and social harmony without exterior motive, there'd be no need for religion. Let's hope the world changes for the better.
Well good is a hard concept to define, but the social norm on what's good and bad would work for karma in all times, it's not a term bound by scriptures, like 'you should do this' or 'not do that', but rather 'do what is morally justifiable and helpful at this time and age'. I don't see these karma-based religions as a problem at all, in a way they're like a complement to regular social function, in how they give people a reward for helpful activity. Our monetary system easily gets fueled by greed instead.
Haha, alright. IMHO crazy stuff like this is what makes the world fun!
Indeed so each time a scientist decides to sell out to a company, or to publish a fake research, and each time society fails to someone and/or excludes them, religion gets an excuse to gain new followers.
Yeah it is like a bonus that encourages people to be nice to others, the problem is when people start making balances, like in My Name is Earl, they was doing bad things then trying to fix it by doing good things elsewhere, in the end he keep being an asshole for the most part of the series.
It makes it fun, yes, but remember that in democracies those people's vote has the same strength as yours, and just taking the US as an example they have been trying to outlaw evolution being taught at schools in favor of creationism, now what would happen if these jedis weren't a minority? i am not willing to pay the price.
Mmm, too much of that lately.
Well Earl probably isn't the smartest Samaritan and greatest example of working karma, but he did try! Even tried to do good by the people he'd wronged, rather than random strangers, though I can't actually remember any of the deeds he did or how they turned out. Assuming they never really turned out as planned for added comedic effect. Though, big question: without karma, would he have been a better person?
Ehh well, in this particular example I can't see them being of harm to anyone. Assuming they abide by Jedi philosophy, they shouldn't be that different from regular people. They don't have a God. They don't disbelieve in any of the things we do. They have a strong moral codex and they might believe they can use the 'force' to move things with their mind, amongst other things. Unless they actually manage to do so, and decide to abuse their newly gained power, it doesn't seem like much of a threat.
Yeah.
Earl had to indoctrinate himself on something in order to stop being a scumbag, a sad thing really, just like people have to enter a new Jesus cult in order to stop their addictions.
And then the Sith appeared... na but seriously believing on unproven things facilitates a denial on reality and a promiscuity to esoteric thinking.
Yeah, people need to find some way out of the lows they somehow get into, and some alternatives seem to be much easier than others. I suppose because: religious alternatives promote themselves, whereas the lack of a descript purposeful alternative requires coming to your own conclusions.
I believe there's life on other planets. :P
They also promise rewards for the afterlife.
Seeing how vast the universe is, it is highly probable for life to exist in other planets.
Mmm, if we only could provide a functional cryogenic alternative or immortality serum to appease the masses!
Indeed, though point being: it's unproven. Further examples could be the metaphorical and slightly egocentric: I believe in myself, or how about... I believe in homeopathy. :P IMHO believing only in proven things could cause dangerously stagnant social order and a lack of creative thinking.
Maybe one day, cryogenic seems more plausible as of now.
Well just because it is probable doesn't means that you can go around saying that it is definitively there, there's a thing called prudence, and with homeopathy it should hold twice since it plays with life, and apparently life is supposed to be important or some shit like that.
Seems physically plausible, but freezing the brain itself, the very essence of personality and understanding within said body, that still sounds a bit science fiction to me! Who knows what the future'll make possible though.
Thus the common pretense: I believe.
No problem at all we are just a bunch of cell-synapses, the secret is all on the thawing.
Yeah that prudence was mean to believes, that's no excuse to go and jump behind whatever thing sounds appealing, skepticism on all.
Hmm, a brain can survive without oxygen? Cells don't die when exposed to extremely low temperatures? Or, when the host is dead? Seems we need to figure out the freezing process before the thawing, I somehow doubt all the people already cryogenically frozen will be possible to revive no matter how great thawing techniques we develop.
Well, if you say you believe, you're not saying it's definitely there. Isn't that prudence? And how about disproving of things that could be potentially proven, is that prudence? Belief isn't an excuse, it's an explanation. It's a word you resort to when you don't know.
Since all the process are frozen, they are near death, of practically dead, but yet not dead, if they are warmed the right way, no complications should appear.
As for the people that are currently frozen, who knows which technique they used on them, there are some ways of freezing, that damage the very structures of molecules, but we already solved that.
There's indeed no merit on disproving something that could be proven in a future, however there's a lot of merit to disprove something that has already been proven (Einstein VS Newton), on the first case, it is just a waste of time, is better to wait until someone proves it, otherwise you are just arguing about Santa Claus existing or not outside culture.
Belief doesn't explains anything, it is just an excuse behind a plea that ask for the respect of an opinion regardless of how little bases it has to sustain itself, hence the "i don't know but i believe on it".
Ah, so there are ways. Gotta read up more on the topic. Even food in the freezer slowly decays, they must be using some very low temperatures for perfect preservation.
If someone claims to know something they don't know anything about, I can see how that could be disrespectful. If they state their belief, it's an acknowledgment that there may be other possibilities, that they may not be right, etcetc. It seems to me a very humble way of bringing up your views, rather than upholding your claim as if it's an absolute truth, backed by what you consider irrefutable logic. Belief, facts... what's the difference really? If you don't believe in the facts, you have little more than your beliefs to abide by. Considering all the different ways your opinions could be phrased, I can't think of a more tactful approach than this one.
Doomroar
Not really worth it.
You can use other mediums apart from the internet, like pamphlets, public events, protest, etc.
Well you can use counter-propaganda to spread your own message, justice doesn't exist it is a human invention and the definition of what is "just" is constantly updated under the impression of fairness and what/who deserves it, what i want to say is that you can also angle and spread your own message of what is supposed to be just, now if that is right or wrong is up to you.
Cyberdevil (Updated )
But you were able to gain valuable insight in an important social process! AND $$$! :P
True true. And true again, all our beliefs are angled. In a way, the more strongly I believe in my own belief, the less entitled I feel I am towards it. Usually I consider a strong belief = a closed mind. But I like to think there are exceptions...