Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mars on November 15, 2011, 06:30:25 pm
-
So, as has been noted, every discussion on HLP seems to turn into a religious discussion; scratch that - they all turn into a school-yard level hyperbole match in which everyone can feel righteously confident that indeed, THEY THEMSELVES are in the right. It's pretty normal really, and it's not like things have changed that much. I remember the days when every discussion ended up being about circumcision.
That said I think that the type of ridiculousness that we're seeing is preventable. What's standing in the way? The vast majority of us. Check it:
- Topic of interest, often in the scope of U.S. policy, the Middle East, or biology
- Someone on the atheist side of the scale posts a hypothesis of varying validity, suggesting that religion, and christianity in particular has caused the observed problem, obstructed the mentioned discovery, etc, etc.
- Numerous posts by theists declaring that they've suddenly lost interest in the topic
- Devolving argument about the merits or dearths of christianity and the lack of it
So how could this be resolved? First the more skeptical minded among us (and I am among your number) should carefully consider if it's worth it to post the Fundamentalist Failure Theory first; is there sufficient evidence for your claim. If so, post away, but perhaps limit your post to the scope of the context; certainly this will not be the last time you'll have the chance to decry the faults of religion on this board.
For the more faith based people, yes, as you probably suspect some people are trying to troll you. On the other hand, the vast majority of people here who would blame religious organizations for something or another have honestly considered the question; and certainly <SOME> religious <ORGANIZATIONS> have done some pretty heinous things over the years. It should not be hard to accept, for instance, that the Catholic Church has not always been the perfect instrument of God's love, I think everyone here can agree on that. Therefore, if the shirt doesn't fit, don't wear it, and take the comment which you may be tempted to take personally, objectively. Instead of posting "Thanks for ruining this with another religious discussion," perhaps come up with an alternate explanation, critique the text of the article (or whatever the source may be), or make some sort of intelligent comment.
If you're unhappy with the way that these discussions are going, always consider that you may be a part of the problem. I know I've played a part. If you want it to change, than spend some time self analyzing before you post <something ridiculous >
EDIT: Mind, this is obviously coming from my perspective, and is probably skewed toward my own opinion because of it.
-
Sticky?
-
no! im just gonna lock em as they devolve into drivel.
-
The problem is, the catholic Church (as well as other religions, to a lesser extent) has shaped our culture and our mindsets for so long, that very frequently a scientific analysis of a social issue or tendency is bound to be incomplete without considering influence of the religion. Therefore, it needs to be taken into account objectively and scientifically. Some people, when see that religion has been mentioned, decide to pick on that and start a very unscientific debate, which is understandable considering human psychology and the influence the Church has on it. I agree that before posting, one should analyze a post and make sure it's objective and, if possible, scientifically and logically correct. My posts are based on things that I've read in sources I consider trustworthy, things I observed, and my own logical conclusions from these things, in that order. No place for emotions, trolling or things I'm not really sure of. Also, when I sometimes post things I'm not certain about, but I make sure to note that the source may not be too trustworthy or that I'm not sure of an observation/logic leading to the conclusion).
Of course, my posts sometimes get rather long and perhaps a bit over-analyzed (including this one :)).
-
**** already?
-
The problem is, the catholic Church (as well as other religions, to a lesser extent) has shaped our culture and our mindsets for so long, that very frequently a scientific analysis of a social issue or tendency is bound to be incomplete without considering influence of the religion. Therefore, it needs to be taken into account objectively and scientifically. Some people, when see that religion has been mentioned, decide to pick on that and start a very unscientific debate, which is understandable considering human psychology and the influence the Church has on it.
I 100% agree with you that any debate on these subjects would be incomplete without a discussion of the religious aspect. What is getting tiresome though is people posting as if that is the only cause. It isn't true. It's just ridiculous axe grinding. For the moment I'm going to simply split and lock it when I see it but if it continues I'm going to start banning people from the discussion forums.
The forum exists for discussions, not for you to get up on your soapbox and rant about the same thing over and over.
-
Indeed, people seem to focus on a religious aspect a bit too much. This might be because religion is something they believe in, or are strongly (we could even say "religiously" to add to the irony) against. Thus, this attracts their attention and thus, other aspects are disregarded in favor of religious discussion. Since religious influence is so ubiquitous in our culture, this is bound to happen in many threads, especially those about social issues and tendencies, as a lot of them will touch on religion sooner or later. And of course, politics and religion are inseparable (when they cease to be, I'll throw a big party, possibly annually to celebrate that day :)), so when there's one, there's the other, and both cause emotions and heated discussion, sidetracking other (frequently more important) aspects. I guess that people should concentrate on these other more, rather than politics and religion.
-
The forum exists for discussions, not for you to get up on your soapbox and rant about the same thing over and over.
Emphasis mine. I don't mind the discussion. I don't even mind the occasional poop-flinging that occurs. I am extremely tired of the same drivel and pointless bickering three times a week. Grow up, agree to disagree, and shut up about it.
Then again, this is The Internet. What more do you expect?
-
Well, the thing is we all must hold extreme diametrically opposed opinions; moderate and middle ground view points are not allowed. So everyone on HLP is either super devout religious or super militant anti-religious. Because on HLP we can only have absolutes. Because HLP is entirely peopled with Sith. :p
-
Well, the thing is we all must hold extreme diametrically opposed opinions; moderate and middle ground view points are not allowed. So everyone on HLP is either super devout religious or super militant anti-religious. Because on HLP we can only have absolutes. Because HLP is entirely peopled with Sith. :p
Or due to their middle-ground view points not sparking raging discussion, they get swamped in the sea of absolutes. Anyways.
-
It can be difficult to have a middle-ground conversation on here about religion, we have achieved it, once or twice though. It is, after all, perfectly acceptable to have a discussion on the phsychological attraction of religion, regardless of religious belief, and still not offend anyone if you are respectful of the fact that their beliefs do not match your own.
I think the problem is in part is that 'religion is bad' is not really a breach of the rules, stating a specific religion is closer, but an opinion is an opinion and it would be dealt with on the basis of the entire post. The truth is that saying 'religion is bad' is like saying 'Capitalism is bad', almost a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are problems with both, certainly, but don't confuse the idea with the result of human interaction with it.
The vast majority of religious people in the world are perfectly nice, intelligent and tolerant individuals who just happen to believe in a God or Gods. Some of them have problems with things like Homosexuality, but I suspect a large majority of them are probably far too busy putting food on the table to really go all esoteric about the finer details.
The problem is, "Religious person is quite nice" is never going to make the headlines any more than "Model Student goes to school unarmed as usual", so our mental images of religion, among many other things, are the very worst the world has to offer of them.
When you combine that sort of imagery with the Greater Internet Dickwad theory, well, you can see the result ;)
-
An ancient thread about religion and evolution (maybe started by bob) helped send me on my path to Agnosticism/Atheism/IDGAFism.
I feel that a discussion about religion on HLP helped me discover who I am, and mature as a person. Just thought that would be something interesting to mention.
-
Mars, that was a good post. Thank you for blaming organizations and not individuals.
From the apposing side, I believe this is at least one reason why we're reacting the way we are to most of the posts: they are worded so that they do not differentiate in who is to blame.
(at least that I've seen, and I have honestly been avoiding most of them because I don't like to argue)
When "religion" is blamed and you do not clarify in blaming a specific organization, we feel like you blame us, all of us, individually, and we are saddled with their mistakes. And we know those mistakes just as well as you do, and we initially react the same way you do, with disgust. And we probably would think like you do, as well, except for what God has done for us.
I think one thing this board needs to understand about itself is that we are horrible communicators. We are excellent at programming, modding, mission design, modeling, texturing, etc. But because we are good at those things more than communicating, and because some (or maybe most) of us have English as a second language, we do horribly at communicating what we're really trying to say.
What we've tried to say to each other thinking that we are being helpful has been interpreted as demeaning or insulting -- and not just in the general discussion, but in many other places, too.
So therefore, we should be careful in every way to say what we mean to say.
And if anyone purposely blames us, (Christians) individually, for the world's evils, then they absolutely, unequivocally need to stop, because there are many, many initiatives started by Christian individuals which do good in the world. And we will accept that men use God as an excuse to grab power and do evil. And if you see it and speak against it, we will speak against it, too, because we know that it is wrong.
But do not lump us with those who do those things because we haven't done those things.
Thank you again, Mars for trying to instill peace in the situation. This post is meant to show why we have reacted the way we have, as far as I can tell, and I hope it does not lead to this thread being locked as well.
That is all I have to say.
-
There see, it does work.
...
...and religion is objectivly the singular source of all problems in the world.
-
There see, it does work.
...
...and religion is objectivly the singular source of all problems in the world.
And this is why we can't have nice things discussions.
-
There see, it does work.
...
...and humans are objectivly the singular source of all problems in the world.
FTFY
Let's keep this discussion clean bro. Your views are a bit extreme at times.
I feel like I might be missing some sarcasm though.
-
In case anyone is confused, (many) Atheists claim that God is the reason for evil and (most of) Christianity believes that humanity is the reason for evil. Now that we know that difference, I don't think that there's anything else useful that can be said on the debate between them since these ideas come from different assumptions and deciding which is correct is out of the scope of our perception since God cannot be proved or disproved and the nature of humanity cannot be proved or disproved.
So, unless someone feels that there is a grievance that has not been addressed, we probably should not post in this thread anymore.
Edit:*clarification*
-
In case anyone is confused, (many) Atheists claim that God is the reason for evil and (most of) Christianity believes that humanity is the reason for evil. Now that we know that difference, I don't think that there's anything else useful that can be said on the debate between them since these ideas come from different assumptions and deciding which is correct is out of the scope of our perception since God cannot be proved or disproved and the nature of humanity cannot be proved or disproved.
So, unless someone feels that there is a grievance that has not been addressed, we probably should not post in this thread anymore.
Edit:*clarification*
Those are two very huge generalizations, that certainly do not cover all opinions of all christians or atheists. It is those generalizations that are the downfall of debate. Believing those is certainly understandable, but certainly try to realize that there are many more opinions in both ranks that exist.
-
In case anyone is confused, (many) Atheists claim that God is the reason for evil and (most of) Christianity believes that humanity is the reason for evil. Now that we know that difference, I don't think that there's anything else useful that can be said on the debate between them since these ideas come from different assumptions and deciding which is correct is out of the scope of our perception since God cannot be proved or disproved and the nature of humanity cannot be proved or disproved.
So, unless someone feels that there is a grievance that has not been addressed, we probably should not post in this thread anymore.
Edit:*clarification*
I feel that there's quite a bit wrong with that "clarification", but beyond that, I shall let it be.
-
You are right that they are generalizations. I do know and recognize them, which is why I added those qualifiers. Many, not most atheists, and most Christians (since it is a central tenant of the Christian faith, after all). I'm sorry if that did not represent you accurately, but that's how many feel and that is what is causing remarks in this case.
However, the point of which side is correct cannot be decided because the basis of both beliefs are untestable assumptions, making debate useless, anyway.
-
However, the point of which side is correct cannot be decided because the basis of both beliefs are untestable assumptions, making debate useless, anyway.
For the purposes of this discussion, I think it is best if we left it at: they are ultimately incompatible beliefs; a truism, but it works for the this discussion.
This is about reclaiming the debate tone on these forums. The moderators obviously help; but they can only do so much, and eventually you run out of people to ban.
-
The forum exists for discussions, not for you to get up on your soapbox and rant about the same thing over and over.
Emphasis mine. I don't mind the discussion. I don't even mind the occasional poop-flinging that occurs. I am extremely tired of the same drivel and pointless bickering three times a week. Grow up, agree to disagree, and shut up about it.
Then again, this is The Internet. What more do you expect?
Basically what I learned a long time ago. Amazing how much free time you find you have when you are not debating on a gaming forum. :p
-
In case anyone is confused, (many) Atheists claim that God is the reason for evil and (most of) Christianity believes that humanity is the reason for evil. Now that we know that difference, I don't think that there's anything else useful that can be said on the debate between them since these ideas come from different assumptions and deciding which is correct is out of the scope of our perception since God cannot be proved or disproved and the nature of humanity cannot be proved or disproved.
So, unless someone feels that there is a grievance that has not been addressed, we probably should not post in this thread anymore.
Edit:*clarification*
um... you are not an atheist are you?
atheists have one thing in common and that is that they do not believe there is a god, generally this also extends to supernatural in general as well, but strictly speaking it is just not accepting the existence of deities. one cannot blame a non-entity for anything. now if you wish to modify your statement to say 'theistic belief' then at least that is somewhat plausible. however I think it would be a wiser move to simply not try and put words into the mouths of people who you have no understanding of, you know, unless you are trolling or trying to insult them..
-
I think one thing this board needs to understand about itself is that we are horrible communicators. We are excellent at programming, modding, mission design, modeling, texturing, etc. But because we are good at those things more than communicating, and because some (or maybe most) of us have English as a second language, we do horribly at communicating what we're really trying to say.
What we've tried to say to each other thinking that we are being helpful has been interpreted as demeaning or insulting
It was an error in communication. I'm sorry. This is usually why I don't argue because I'm not good with words, even when I try my hardest.
-
You are right that they are generalizations. I do know and recognize them, which is why I added those qualifiers. Many, not most atheists, and most Christians (since it is a central tenant of the Christian faith, after all). I'm sorry if that did not represent you accurately, but that's how many feel and that is what is causing remarks in this case.
You posit a nebulous many that by no means exists here or anywhere else. Your qualifiers are insufficient in the face of the fact they qualify what can only be construed as falsehoods. All you manage to accomplish is making yourself look like a paranoid with a persecution complex.
I daresay I'm the only person on the forums who will go down the outright "god is evil" road if the subject comes up and actually mean it, and even then I only subscribe to that view if by some quirk a divine being or beings actually exist.
-
I just apologized. But I'm sorry again. I meant what Bobboau said.
now if you wish to modify your statement to say 'theistic belief' then at least that is somewhat plausible.
-
Honestly I don't know a single atheist who claims that God is responsible for evil (in fact it sounds somewhat contradictory to me). As an atheist myself, I believe that the existence of 'evil' requires neither human nor supernatural origins.
I'm not going to assume that all/most/many atheists share my opinion on the matter, but I do think it's a more accurate representation. :)
-
This turned out as expected.. it was a nice try though. Good points made in the first post.
Then Bob and Cyborg dropped in...
-
This turned out as expected.. it was a nice try though. Good points made in the first post.
Then Bob and Cyborg dropped in...
Let's lock it before it devolves, and maybe it can hold onto some of its dignity.
-
All the discussion about religion and atheism and such, it reminds me of something I saw some time ago... Albert Pike's (apparent) quotes from 1871.
"...We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."
Perhaps just the drivel of a madman and not based on any realities, but... my only point here, and the reason for quoting this guy is: Let's not get all divided as people over this issue by becoming opposite groups, as this could potentially be used against everyone. Instead of endlessly debating or trying to prove one's right, I hope we can focus on the more positive effects of both being religious and being an atheist, for instance, so that people on both sides can start to understand eachother on the issue.
That's all I wished to add.
-
This turned out as expected.. it was a nice try though. Good points made in the first post.
Then Bob and Cyborg dropped in...
Let's lock it before it devolves, and maybe it can hold onto some of its dignity.
No. Leave it open. I'm figuring out who is on the short list for banning. This thread has already turned up candidates.
-
This turned out as expected.. it was a nice try though. Good points made in the first post.
Then Bob and Cyborg dropped in...
Sheesh. I kind of like Cyborg's tone though. Bob, what's up yer arse? relax. :P Oh, right, I forgot. We are the cause of all the evil in the world. This won't do! You have figured out our secret Da Vinci Code!!
/me sneaks up behind Bob - :headz:
-
So, as has been noted, every discussion on HLP seems to turn into a religious discussion; scratch that - they all turn into a school-yard level hyperbole match in which everyone can feel righteously confident that indeed, THEY THEMSELVES are in the right.
I'm not sure if religious discussions are really possible when people with opposite views are present? It's like an attempt to keep a room lit by moderately burning gunpowder in a vial; always a raging debate, never a discussion. What else can it be, when the only incentive for both sides to keep on writing is the (more or less imaginary) possibility to prove the other side "wrong" (except the odd humorous remark).
-
Sheesh. I kind of like Cyborg's tone though.
What exactly would you call his tone, though that you'd like it? It comes off as accusatory: my opponents believe this thing and because they do we cannot have a discussion.
Then we draw in on the idea that you cannot discuss the merits of diametrically opposed ideas, which is a terrible statement. Of course we can discuss them. It might even be possible to do so objectively. In fact let's kill that thread of narrative right now. It is entirely possible for people to hold opposite views and behave in civil fashion discussing them. The problem is the bunch of yahoos here who aren't willing or able to try.
-
I believe the term is 'polite' vs perhaps.. 'hostile'.
Of course, I'm sure that's just my take on it. It could just as easily be seen as 'sinister' vs 'honest' by someone on the other side of the fence, I suppose...
-
I'm not sure if religious discussions are really possible when people with opposite views are present?
You can only discuss when there is someone with an opposing (or opposite) view. Otherwise what you have is not a discussion, it's an echo chamber.
sry if troll, was suppressing instinct to flame
-
Opposite views debate; the only reason that religious debates get out of hand is because so many people take them so personally, and both atheists and theists tend to like pretending that the other side ALL BELIEVES THE SAME THING; which is not the case, you can have a nihilistic angry atheist and a dogmatic, self righteous theists and they end up being just as nasty in a debate.
I guess the tl;dr version of the first post is: don't make things personal, and don't take things personally.
EDIT:
Discussions on HLP actually played a surprisingly big role in my self-discovery over my adolescence. I am atheist and rational based (note, I'm not saying that the two are the same thing) because of points brought up on here; but I'd have to say, the tone of the points made it terrifying.
-
a nihilistic angry atheist
NUUUUUUUUKE!
-
Nuke's usually the best thing to happen to the sorts of threads we're talking about. :p
-
it seems HLP is an atheist factory.
:)
if ever I needed encouragement to keep doing things they way I have been.
-
it seems HLP is an atheist factory.
:)
if ever I needed encouragement to keep doing things they way I have been.
:rolleyes:
I'm glad not everyone is going to respond like you are... (at least I hope the rest of us can see past our own personal agendas.)
-
it seems HLP is an atheist factory.
:)
if ever I needed encouragement to keep doing things they way I have been.
Evangelical atheism ftw. :yes: :rolleyes:
-
Evangelical atheists are the worst kind of atheists. Just like evangelical Christians are the worst kind of Christians.
-
it seems HLP is an atheist factory.
:)
if ever I needed encouragement to keep doing things they way I have been.
If you noticed, it was the one civil discussion they all mentioned too. So no, the way things have been going recently is NOT going to help.
-
Discussions on HLP actually played a surprisingly big role in my self-discovery over my adolescence. I am atheist and rational based (note, I'm not saying that the two are the same thing) because of points brought up on here; but I'd have to say, the tone of the points made it terrifying.
The religious flamefests won't ever change the opinions of the hardliners, true, but they sure can be engaging for the fence-sitters, the open minded, and so forth. I wouldn't say "omg HLP changed my life!" or anything so sensational, but some of the better discussions on here have influenced my world view and stuff. Although it was the level-headed, informative posts from people like Battuta, MP-Ryan, Herra, et al that did it more than the trolls and assholes. :D
-
it seems HLP is an atheist factory.
:)
if ever I needed encouragement to keep doing things they way I have been.
If you noticed, it was the one civil discussion they all mentioned too. So no, the way things have been going recently is NOT going to help.
which one was that?
-
Opposite views debate; the only reason that religious debates get out of hand is because so many people take them so personally, and both atheists and theists tend to like pretending that the other side ALL BELIEVES THE SAME THING; which is not the case, you can have a nihilistic angry atheist and a dogmatic, self righteous theists and they end up being just as nasty in a debate.
The problem is the debate quickly degenerates from the actual dis-agreement on beliefs to an emotionally charged debate on your beliefs to an all out debate to be right. Thinking back on the many debates I helped fuel, I realize that many times I was found fault in that as well. That is wrong of me. In the years since that I have wised up, I've realized that going tooth and nail out to prove myself right in the eyes of others is not needed or required of me, and just wastes time and energy. Whether you agree or dis-agree with my stance on God or not, that is really something you have to deal with. As long as where I stand on issues is solidly known, that is all I need to say.
I have to say the debates on HLP has helped me as well, I'm much more solid on my beliefs than I were then. :p
-
It's very difficult to engage in sound reasoning while emotionally charged, regardless of how rational you think you are.
-
I blame hierarchical command structures. Every leader who has ever authorised an atroctiy has been part of one, every soldier who has ever participated has been a part of one, and every citizen who ever ignored an abuse was part of one.
BAN HIERARCHICAL COMMAND STRUCTURES!!
-
You can only discuss when there is someone with an opposing (or opposite) view. Otherwise what you have is not a discussion, it's an echo chamber.
That is a given only if the chamber is filled with people who somehow miss they're not omniscient.
-
it seems HLP is an atheist factory.
:)
if ever I needed encouragement to keep doing things they way I have been.
HLP changed me into an agnostic. :)
-
If you noticed, it was the one civil discussion they all mentioned too. So no, the way things have been going recently is NOT going to help.
The discussion I was talking about was close to a decade ago, but many coherent points were made.
Talking about how evil religion is, or just trolling religious people: you are right, it only made it harder to accept the good points made as the truth they were. It is one thing to talk about teapots and invisible unicorns, it's another to make inflammatory posts only semi-related to the discussion. Even the direct truth, when used in the wrong context, is ineffectual.
-
I blame hierarchical command structures. Every leader who has ever authorised an atroctiy has been part of one, every soldier who has ever participated has been a part of one, and every citizen who ever ignored an abuse was part of one.
BAN HIERARCHICAL COMMAND STRUCTURES!!
Read some modern organisation and management literature and you might be surprised about the core of truth in your broadly generalized statement. ;)
-
It's very difficult to engage in sound reasoning while emotionally charged, regardless of how rational you think you are.
I agree with this sentiment. It's very hard for me, and that's perhaps why I am somewhat attracted to these discussions (will I be able to maintain composture?). I have to thank HLP for teaching me some manners, although I'm still probably too trollish.
I'll try and refrain from deviating themes towards religion, although I won't stop referring to the subject if it is connected with the OP...
-
No one is saying you can't refer to it or even blame it when it is the cause. The problem is people trying to say that banning religion would solve the problem of the day.
-
No one is saying you can't refer to it or even blame it when it is the cause. The problem is people trying to say that banning religion would solve the problem of the day.
Banning religion is a very ludicrous suggestion anyway. It seems pretty clear that prosperity, education, and the ability to think freely™ are the most valid solutions to extremist religious belief.
-
I blame hierarchical command structures. Every leader who has ever authorised an atroctiy has been part of one, every soldier who has ever participated has been a part of one, and every citizen who ever ignored an abuse was part of one.
BAN HIERARCHICAL COMMAND STRUCTURES!!
Read some modern organisation and management literature and you might be surprised about the core of truth in your broadly generalized statement. ;)
:lol: Well, to be honest, I wasn't entirely picking a subject at random, there were times I would have happily fed my manager into a grinder, and that's violence generated by the command structure ;)
The thing about Hierarchical command structures is that, like religion, they have both also had massive positive effects on the world we live in and are, for the main part, harmless. It's a problem that is encountered by Researchers a lot, the fact that you have to differentiate between 'A contains B' and 'B is a part of A'. Or, for a more interesting perspective, if you destroy A, would B cease to happen and vice versa? Since the answer, to me, seems to be 'No', I think that whilst we should be concerned about the Meme-transmitting ability of religion, and the kind of memes it is getting into the habit of transmitting, going on a seek and destroy mission is really picking the wrong target just as blaming Earthquakes on Gays is.
-
No one is saying you can't refer to it or even blame it when it is the cause. The problem is people trying to say that banning religion would solve the problem of the day.
I never said such a thing, the problem that I've been dealing with is people assuming that I am saying exactly that, when I am not.
-
No one is saying you can't refer to it or even blame it when it is the cause. The problem is people trying to say that banning religion would solve the problem of the day.
Banning religion is a very ludicrous suggestion anyway. It seems pretty clear that prosperity, education, and the ability to think freely™ are the most valid solutions to extremist religious belief.
This is the most ideal solution, and although I'm aware I'm posting in this thread because my attention was brought back to it because Luis Dias mega-bumped it (and I find posting in a half dead thread better than starting a new one on a topic I don't really want to follow but am really just posting to vent outrage(seelink)), but your point is perhaps one of the best.
Were it not for free-thought and free-speech, we would not be anywhere near as enlightened as we are now.
It is however very hard as a strong minded Atheist with a great awareness of the human condition to market that wonderful and hoped for goal, when things like this;
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=689560&vId=2875426&cId=World
Happen.
It does tend to charge you emotionally to see people, literally, dying of ignorance.
Not even a religious war or some similar insanity, but just actual out-and-out ignorance.
I mean honestly, if a scientist were to be faith healed they would at least get a test to see if it worked rather than just going 'hooray, I'm cured!' and never bothering to check.
I mean, really?
-
HLP changed me into an agnostic. :)
meh, close enough.
-
It is however very hard as a strong minded Atheist with a great awareness of the human condition to market that wonderful and hoped for goal, when things like this;
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=689560&vId=2875426&cId=World
Happen.
It does tend to charge you emotionally to see people, literally, dying of ignorance.
Not even a religious war or some similar insanity, but just actual out-and-out ignorance.
I mean honestly, if a scientist were to be faith healed they would at least get a test to see if it worked rather than just going 'hooray, I'm cured!' and never bothering to check.
I mean, really?
Indeed.
IMHO, this should count as murder and this priest should be thrown into jail for lifetime (I don't think death penalty is still used in Britain, but I wouldn't be against using it in such case), just like every other person who murdered 6 people.
Yet, it seems that he got off scot-free. And you wonder why people get angry about religion and churches.
-
It's not murder because ultimately it was the victim who was stupid enough to believe the priest. I can see a fraud prosecution succeeding though if they have ever attempted to solicit donations. In fact fraud prosecutions might be a way to deal with any religion that claims to be able to successfully resolve real world problems through prayer etc.
-
Still, 6 people are dead because of what a priest said to them, therefore he indirectly caused their deaths. This is could be considered (at least) manslaughter (3rd degree murder, in other words), at least IIRC.
-
Wouldn't abusing a position of authority and trust also apply to make it more significant a charge than simple manslaughter?
-
It's not murder because ultimately it was the victim who was stupid enough to believe the priest.
Caveat Emptor.
I am surprised to see you taking a position opposing consumer protection.
-
It's not murder because ultimately it was the victim who was stupid enough to believe the priest. I can see a fraud prosecution succeeding though if they have ever attempted to solicit donations. In fact fraud prosecutions might be a way to deal with any religion that claims to be able to successfully resolve real world problems through prayer etc.
Helping someone commit suicide is also a major crime, so?
And now this... this isn't even helping, as these people do not want to die (lol) but are literally defrauded into suicide so WTF!?!
Worse... they are actually not just telling them they are healed... they are actually (according to the article) encouraging them to start a family... meaning that this priest deliberately encourages people with HIV to infect other people.
The ironic part is that - at least in the US - you could propably - at least in some states - find a jury that acquits the priest of all charges because clearly, if only the victim had believed more strongly in god he would certainly have been cured.
Anyways, hope he at least gets hit with a lawsuit from hell ;)
-
For those of you who replied, you'd have to prove intent in order to secure that kind of conviction. There aren't that many juries that would convict. It would be a waste of money.
Fraud would have a better chance of success, while it is hard to argue that the priest showed depraved indifference to those he helped die it's much easier to prove that he defrauded them by claiming that he knew the will of God. Hell, you could probably get several religious experts to testify for the prosecution that claiming to know the mind of God amounts to fraud. So yeah, you could possibly succeed with a fraud conviction.
-
I think the bigger issue here, and the reason I do consider religion the source of every evil in the universe is that religion trains you to reject reality, and live in a world of "faith". So in this case you have faith that god cured you of your cancer, and then you die from it. the problem is it is quite probable that the priest who told you you were cured actually believed it, because he too is living in a world of faith. that is why I place the blame squarely upon the religion, not the people practicing it, now some individuals may attract some specific ire from me, but in general I blame religion. when you live in a world of faith you can believe anything, it doesn't have to have any bearing on reality (in fact usually that is encouraged), and when you can believe anything, you don't even have to justify anything. if you think that some country is nothing more than a great temptation away from the grace of god, you can gleefuly kill thousands knowing that they will get the justice they deserve in the next life.
and the best part because your worldview is not based on reality, there is nothing to justify, this was the will of god. based off of what you 'know' this was totally the right thing to do.
-
I think when it comes down to it, we're all capable of rejecting reality whether religious or not. Many people erroneously blame atheism for several atrocities during human history but I doubt you can blame religion for them either. Would the world be better off without religion? I happen to think it would. Would it cure all the ideological problems in the world? Absolutely not.
-
Get rid of borders, religion, and **** with everyone's skin pigmentation so they're all the same colour, then allow people to get jobs based on their aptitude and not background.
Yes? No? Maybe?
Or we could just wait a few thousand years.
Q.Q
-
keep in mind I almost always insert at least some amount of hyperbole into what I say.
while there may well be many other things that could cause one to do bad things, religion is pretty unique in it's ability to easily lube the gears. we might all be capable of rejecting reality, but religion is the act of practicing, venerating, and promoting such a behavior.
-
For those of you who replied, you'd have to prove intent in order to secure that kind of conviction. There aren't that many juries that would convict. It would be a waste of money.
Still, I think that by telling people to stop taking their medicines and start a family, the priest showed at least criminal negligence. From what we know, he did not made any tests nor even had formal education in medicine. Yet, he told at least 6 people that they're safe, and even when one of them came to complain, he reassured him that it's nothing. 6 people are dead as a result. This was either complete idiocy, completely blind, irrational faith (which I find hard to believe) or actual criminal intent. If this isn't enough to charge him at least with manslaughter, than the law should be changed to account for such things. Abusing position of authority should also be taken into account. These people were always told to thrust priests, and he knew that. He also should have known how deadly HIV is and that it shouldn't be taken lightly. And despite all this, he acted like he did.
Of course, I'd also charge him with fraud, while we're at it. But while most churches rip money off us, not all of them actually kill people (well, not anymore, at least).
-
Like I said, I doubt you'd get a conviction even with a change of the law (assuming one is even needed). A civil suit on the other hand would probably be very successful. You could probably sue this church into oblivion.
keep in mind I almost always insert at least some amount of hyperbole into what I say.
while there may well be many other things that could cause one to do bad things, religion is pretty unique in it's ability to easily lube the gears. we might all be capable of rejecting reality, but religion is the act of practicing, venerating, and promoting such a behavior.
Maybe but as this thread has made clear, the hyperbole has become annoying enough that it has lead to the closure of several interesting threads. That's the point at which it has to be curbed.
-
anyone who doesn't pickup any hint of dramatic overstatement from the phrase "the source of every evil in the universe" deserves to live a life of never ending mystery.
please tell me you did not take "deserves to live a life of never ending mystery" literally... :|
-
I don't mean on this topic. I mean in general. The constant complaining about ending religion is causing needless problems. Next time it drags an interesting topic into the ground there will be repercussions.
-
Well, if some people cannot understand that 'religion should be banned' is code for 'religion is the source of a lot of problems', I think THAT is the problem that should be addressed. Clearly these people need to be rounded up and put into some sort of camp where they can be used for manual labor.
I'm helping here, right?
-
I still think you should use the sewer method for these sorts of threads, have a forum where anyone can say anything they want (short of posting clearly illegal material) and as soon as a conversation falls below a threshold of civility, flush it into the sewer. locking a thread/banning people only serves to piss people off. next time the topic comes up they will still be blue balled from the last time.
-
Well, if some people cannot understand that 'religion should be banned' is code for 'religion is the source of a lot of problems', I think THAT is the problem that should be addressed. Clearly these people need to be rounded up and put into some sort of camp where they can be used for manual labor.
Nope, cause the people posting that sort of crap aren't even involved in anything that has any business being in the discussion anyway. A proper discussion should have a scope. Such posts are usually way beyond the scope of the discussion as as such pointless to it. While I'm willing to accept a certain level of signal to noise if that noise is causing echoes that drown out the signal, it has to go.
I still think you should use the sewer method for these sorts of threads, have a forum where anyone can say anything they want (short of posting clearly illegal material) and as soon as a conversation falls below a threshold of civility, flush it into the sewer. locking a thread/banning people only serves to piss people off. next time the topic comes up they will still be blue balled from the last time.
I see no point in having a sewer, it would just cause more ill feeling than locking the thread or banning someone. Not to mention that certain trollish members could easily decide that every single interesting conversation ends up there. Banning/locking forces people to raise their game and at least attempt to stay civil and on topic. Do you really think HLP discussions should pander to the lowest common denominator? Imagine what will happen to Gen Disc the second someone like High Max turns up. I'd rather have that sort of person blue-balled than have to deal with them feeling free to spunk all over the entire forum, safe in the knowledge that they expect the admin staff to be their jizz-moppers.
-
For those of you who replied, you'd have to prove intent in order to secure that kind of conviction.
It's probably true you could get manslaughter or murder charges filed, but it would depend on the jurisdiction. A number of US states have reckless disregard clauses this could fall under, but I don't think British law does.
keep in mind I almost always insert at least some amount of hyperbole into what I say.
The reason this thread exists is to tell you to stop. We have arrived at this lamentable state of discussion because of hyperbole. Interpretation or lack thereof is no longer relevant; it is a part of the problem.
-
It's probably true you could get manslaughter or murder charges filed, but it would depend on the jurisdiction. A number of US states have reckless disregard clauses this could fall under, but I don't think British law does.
We do have that definition AFAIK. I'm pretty sure you could file charges. What I doubt is that the CPS would bother or that even if they did, if you'd get a conviction.
-
Re: On Religious Discussion in HLP
Hi thread title! How are you?
I am doing fine, thank you for asking. It's nice running into you again. Sounded like you barely made it out alive last time buddy. Glad you're okay.
I just wanted to let you know that you should be careful. People are so passionate, easy to piss, rooted in their beliefs and faiths, ridiculous and non-ridiculous alike, never ending, every damn time. Well, it's almost as if one could say people sure are religious about it; discussing religion in here that is. That and tutta believing that god is out to get you.
It's wierd world thread title. Be careful out there and stay safe.
Sincerely, S-99
PS: A calming moment of reflection. Because last time, like all of the other times, it usually gets pretty bloody since you constantly get caught in fire fights thread title.
-
Get rid of borders, religion, and **** with everyone's skin pigmentation so they're all the same colour, then allow people to get jobs based on their aptitude and not background.
Yes? No? Maybe?
No, because then we'd just find some other stupid reason to be at each other's throats. Like whether we butter our bread on the top or bottom, for instance. :p
-
I prefer putting a cat on one side opposite to the butter, thus ensuring the bread never hits the floor if dropped. The down side to this is that one side is now hairy...
...AND THEN SOMEONE will say I'm an idiot for putting a cat on my toast, and that I'm bad and wrong, and the source of all the world's problems.
-
The problem is you forgot to attach a generator to the toastcat and connect the output to the grid. Had you done that you would have solved all the worlds problems.
-
Do note that the toastcat generator is only practical in space, due to freefall conditions. In normal gravity, the fall will eventually end, thus forcing the operator of the generator to reset the system, a process which is not energy efficient.
-
Not so! The founding physics of the toastcat are that the toast must land butter-side down, and the cat must land on its feet. By the Butterfeet Exclusion Principle, the butter and the feet cannot both occupy the ground state, therefore an antigravity field is produced and the toastcat levitates indefinitely!
Edit: EXTREMELY COMPLICATED DIAGRAM
(http://i.imgur.com/Ly33A.gif)
-
Heh, I have a .gif version of a toastcat floating around somewhere.
-
Not so! The founding physics of the toastcat are that the toast must land butter-side down, and the cat must land on its feet. By the Butterfeet Exclusion Principle, the butter and the feet cannot both occupy the ground state, therefore an antigravity field is produced and the toastcat levitates indefinitely!
Which raises the question: Would the toastcat device rotate while in an orbit such that neither the butter nor the feet could eventually occupy the ground state??
-
Which raises the question: Would the toastcat device rotate while in an orbit such that neither the butter nor the feet could eventually occupy the ground state??
If god would want it to spin then surely it would.
-
Could I get a split-lock? This thread has, to my mind, accomplished whatever good it ever will.
-
Which raises the question: Would the toastcat device rotate while in an orbit such that neither the butter nor the feet could eventually occupy the ground state??
If god would want it to spin then surely it would.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_I2uQkGxIykM/TBMXxF_sbkI/AAAAAAAALM4/peLtvlYSdDg/s1600/toast+fyft.jpg)
Raptors will cover some part of this philosophically.
-
See, that's inaccurate though.
Toasters don't toast BREAD. BREAD toasts BREAD
Afterall, you don't put toast in a toaster. That's just silly
-
See, that's inaccurate though.
Toasters don't toast BREAD. BREAD toasts BREAD
Afterall, you don't put toast in a toaster. That's just silly
Bah, that's untoasted toast and it's very different from bread!
-
The last few replies are the most fun posts I have ever read in any thread about religion.
-
See, that's inaccurate though.
Toasters don't toast BREAD. BREAD toasts BREAD
Afterall, you don't put toast in a toaster. That's just silly
Bah, that's untoasted toast and it's very different from bread!
Bread bread bread?
-
See, that's inaccurate though.
Toasters don't toast BREAD. BREAD toasts BREAD
Afterall, you don't put toast in a toaster. That's just silly
Bah, that's untoasted toast and it's very different from bread!
Bread bread bread?
♫♪ Bread-bread-bread-bread (bread, bread) Bread-bread (bread, bread) Bread-bread (bread, bread) Bread-bread, bread-bread-bread-bread-bread... ♫♪
-
See, that's inaccurate though.
Toasters don't toast BREAD. BREAD toasts BREAD
Afterall, you don't put toast in a toaster. That's just silly
Bah, that's untoasted toast and it's very different from bread!
Bread bread bread?
♫♪ Bread-bread-bread-bread (bread, bread) Bread-bread (bread, bread) Bread-bread (bread, bread) Bread-bread, bread-bread-bread-bread-bread... ♫♪
Unce unce unce unce
-
Not so! The founding physics of the toastcat are that the toast must land butter-side down, and the cat must land on its feet. By the Butterfeet Exclusion Principle, the butter and the feet cannot both occupy the ground state, therefore an antigravity field is produced and the toastcat levitates indefinitely!
Edit: EXTREMELY COMPLICATED DIAGRAM
(http://i.imgur.com/Ly33A.gif)
why dont you just butter both sides of the toast? it uses more butter but frees up the cat for other uses, such as crotch warmer.
-
Not so! The founding physics of the toastcat are that the toast must land butter-side down, and the cat must land on its feet. By the Butterfeet Exclusion Principle, the butter and the feet cannot both occupy the ground state, therefore an antigravity field is produced and the toastcat levitates indefinitely!
Edit: EXTREMELY COMPLICATED DIAGRAM
(http://i.imgur.com/Ly33A.gif)
why dont you just butter both sides of the toast? it uses more butter but frees up the cat for other uses, such as crotch warmer.
BLASPHEMER!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qkqzdgL3wo
We must always proceed in a butter-side-down fashion!
-
why dont you just butter both sides of the toast? it uses more butter but frees up the cat for other uses, such as crotch warmer.
You shall be outcast for thinking too much. Are you thinking you could feed, pet, and scan this cat too?
(http://www.damncat.com/images/cat_scan_example.jpg)
The exit sign is over there.
-
why dont you just butter both sides of the toast? it uses more butter but frees up the cat for other uses, such as crotch warmer.
See, if the same piece of toast were to be buttered on both sides, it would simply just land. Afterall, it'd be fulfilling the requirement of buttersidedown. And, since it's the same entity and same applicable law, it takes away the need for both sides to hit the ground buttersidedown. In order to properly create a generator, you require two entities that have two different laws about them. Had I taken two pieces of toast and put them together, it'd still land buttersidedown, without breaking any rules. Now, if a cat landed on his feet with the buttered bread on top, it'd be breaking the law of the buttersidedown (and vice versa). Therefore, you cannot butter two sides of the bread and expect it to work since it'd be adhering to the law
Good day sir
-
Perhaps then you would have bread that would land on any of the sides with crust.
-
why dont you just butter both sides of the toast? it uses more butter but frees up the cat for other uses, such as crotch warmer.
See, if the same piece of toast were to be buttered on both sides, it would simply just land. Afterall, it'd be fulfilling the requirement of buttersidedown. And, since it's the same entity and same applicable law, it takes away the need for both sides to hit the ground buttersidedown. In order to properly create a generator, you require two entities that have two different laws about them. Had I taken two pieces of toast and put them together, it'd still land buttersidedown, without breaking any rules. Now, if a cat landed on his feet with the buttered bread on top, it'd be breaking the law of the buttersidedown (and vice versa). Therefore, you cannot butter two sides of the bread and expect it to work since it'd be adhering to the law
Good day sir
still seems like a waste of a perfectluy good crotch warmer cat
-
Butter it, fold in half with butter in middle.
Problem solved.
-
why dont you just butter both sides of the toast? it uses more butter but frees up the cat for other uses, such as crotch warmer.
See, if the same piece of toast were to be buttered on both sides, it would simply just land. Afterall, it'd be fulfilling the requirement of buttersidedown. And, since it's the same entity and same applicable law, it takes away the need for both sides to hit the ground buttersidedown. In order to properly create a generator, you require two entities that have two different laws about them. Had I taken two pieces of toast and put them together, it'd still land buttersidedown, without breaking any rules. Now, if a cat landed on his feet with the buttered bread on top, it'd be breaking the law of the buttersidedown (and vice versa). Therefore, you cannot butter two sides of the bread and expect it to work since it'd be adhering to the law
Good day sir
I'm very much afraid you're mistaken. Experimental attempts have disproven the validity of this theoretical energy source, due to vagaries in string theory pertaining to the need to fasten the feline to the bread. The act of tying string around the cat to attach it to the bread seems to negate the separateness of the two entities, leading to a superposition of both states as the cat maneuvers within the string's confines.
This study also led to some interesting, though inconclusive, results in the field of bandage preference among scientific experimenters, with flexible fabric band-aid-brand bandages winning out handily over both other name brands and generic fabric bandages. Bactine, similarly, showed a strong presence in researcher preference.
-
why dont you just butter both sides of the toast? it uses more butter but frees up the cat for other uses, such as crotch warmer.
See, if the same piece of toast were to be buttered on both sides, it would simply just land. Afterall, it'd be fulfilling the requirement of buttersidedown. And, since it's the same entity and same applicable law, it takes away the need for both sides to hit the ground buttersidedown. In order to properly create a generator, you require two entities that have two different laws about them. Had I taken two pieces of toast and put them together, it'd still land buttersidedown, without breaking any rules. Now, if a cat landed on his feet with the buttered bread on top, it'd be breaking the law of the buttersidedown (and vice versa). Therefore, you cannot butter two sides of the bread and expect it to work since it'd be adhering to the law
Good day sir
I'm very much afraid you're mistaken. Experimental attempts have disproven the validity of this theoretical energy source, due to vagaries in string theory pertaining to the need to fasten the feline to the bread. The act of tying string around the cat to attach it to the bread seems to negate the separateness of the two entities, leading to a superposition of both states as the cat maneuvers within the string's confines.
This study also led to some interesting, though inconclusive, results in the field of bandage preference among scientific experimenters, with flexible fabric band-aid-brand bandages winning out handily over both other name brands and generic fabric bandages. Bactine, similarly, showed a strong presence in researcher preference.
Indeed you are correct about it becoming a single entity, however two different laws still apply to said entity. You cannot fulfill the two different laws, therefore it maintains validity. When I said two different entities, I was meaning exactly that. You have a cat, which has his own law, and buttered bread, which has his own law. Two entities becoming one entity, but with an impossibility to fulfill both laws
-
why dont you just butter both sides of the toast? it uses more butter but frees up the cat for other uses, such as crotch warmer.
See, if the same piece of toast were to be buttered on both sides, it would simply just land. Afterall, it'd be fulfilling the requirement of buttersidedown. And, since it's the same entity and same applicable law, it takes away the need for both sides to hit the ground buttersidedown. In order to properly create a generator, you require two entities that have two different laws about them. Had I taken two pieces of toast and put them together, it'd still land buttersidedown, without breaking any rules. Now, if a cat landed on his feet with the buttered bread on top, it'd be breaking the law of the buttersidedown (and vice versa). Therefore, you cannot butter two sides of the bread and expect it to work since it'd be adhering to the law
Good day sir
I'm very much afraid you're mistaken. Experimental attempts have disproven the validity of this theoretical energy source, due to vagaries in string theory pertaining to the need to fasten the feline to the bread. The act of tying string around the cat to attach it to the bread seems to negate the separateness of the two entities, leading to a superposition of both states as the cat maneuvers within the string's confines.
This study also led to some interesting, though inconclusive, results in the field of bandage preference among scientific experimenters, with flexible fabric band-aid-brand bandages winning out handily over both other name brands and generic fabric bandages. Bactine, similarly, showed a strong presence in researcher preference.
Indeed you are correct about it becoming a single entity, however two different laws still apply to said entity. You cannot fulfill the two different laws, therefore it maintains validity. When I said two different entities, I was meaning exactly that. You have a cat, which has his own law, and buttered bread, which has his own law. Two entities becoming one entity, but with an impossibility to fulfill both laws
Your interpretation is, indeed, valid under the traditional post-Newtonian Murphy-Heisenberg physics model. However, if you apply cutting edge pseudo-quantum analysis to this you'll find that, in light of the obvious applications of string theory, the two are combined into what I will, for lack of a better term, call a poly-brane, at which point the hyper-quantum nature of the string, regrettably, surmounts the obvious neo-murphyonic nature of the cat-bread duality, resulting in scratches all over my freaking arms and face. Q.E.D.
-
why dont you just butter both sides of the toast? it uses more butter but frees up the cat for other uses, such as crotch warmer.
See, if the same piece of toast were to be buttered on both sides, it would simply just land. Afterall, it'd be fulfilling the requirement of buttersidedown. And, since it's the same entity and same applicable law, it takes away the need for both sides to hit the ground buttersidedown. In order to properly create a generator, you require two entities that have two different laws about them. Had I taken two pieces of toast and put them together, it'd still land buttersidedown, without breaking any rules. Now, if a cat landed on his feet with the buttered bread on top, it'd be breaking the law of the buttersidedown (and vice versa). Therefore, you cannot butter two sides of the bread and expect it to work since it'd be adhering to the law
Good day sir
I'm very much afraid you're mistaken. Experimental attempts have disproven the validity of this theoretical energy source, due to vagaries in string theory pertaining to the need to fasten the feline to the bread. The act of tying string around the cat to attach it to the bread seems to negate the separateness of the two entities, leading to a superposition of both states as the cat maneuvers within the string's confines.
This study also led to some interesting, though inconclusive, results in the field of bandage preference among scientific experimenters, with flexible fabric band-aid-brand bandages winning out handily over both other name brands and generic fabric bandages. Bactine, similarly, showed a strong presence in researcher preference.
Indeed you are correct about it becoming a single entity, however two different laws still apply to said entity. You cannot fulfill the two different laws, therefore it maintains validity. When I said two different entities, I was meaning exactly that. You have a cat, which has his own law, and buttered bread, which has his own law. Two entities becoming one entity, but with an impossibility to fulfill both laws
Your interpretation is, indeed, valid under the traditional post-Newtonian Murphy-Heisenberg physics model. However, if you apply cutting edge pseudo-quantum analysis to this you'll find that, in light of the obvious applications of string theory, the two are combined into what I will, for lack of a better term, call a poly-brane, at which point the hyper-quantum nature of the string, regrettably, surmounts the obvious neo-murphyonic nature of the cat-bread duality, resulting in scratches all over my freaking arms and face. Q.E.D.
The problem with that, is that you're basing heavily off of theory. However, you have indeed mentioned a distinct factual part. Scratches are sure to come thus rendering the cost benefit of having a murderous feline plotting against you not being worth having a generator that when it breaks down... you'll have to deal with the cat.
-
i just taped a slice of buttered toast to my cat and all it did is make him not like me anymore. your all a bunch of ****ing trolls :P
-
Taping buttered bread to a cat will certainly make it float. But, you can achieve this with just the bread if you dip the whole slice in butter. This will 100% cover the surface area of the bread with butter.
1. Drop the bread from any height.
2. Bread will have a mental break down mid fall on which side should hit the ground.
3. It floats.
-
Guys you are missing something important here.
Homogenous force fields can't be used to generate energy, only to store it (and get it back when convenient).
In other words even if you can make the cat/bread combination float (or just the bread although I would like to point out obvious handling and maintenance difficulties with entirely buttered bread - it would require magnetic confinement so as to not disturb the butter coating), this would not be sufficient to generate kinetic energy.
There are other examples where the same thing happens, namely superconducting levitation, vacuum-generated attracting force on plates at close proximity due to Casimir effect, gravitational potential energy, springs, and rubber bands.
In all these cases, a force is present, but does not do work. To make the force do work, a deflection from balance state is required - which means you're putting energy into the system.
In other words, no free energy from cats and buttered bread. Both examples would, when dropped, fall to close proximity with the nearest surface in the direction of positive gravitational gradient, at which point the effects of buttered bread and cat would kick in and result in stabilized levitation, at which point it would be of no use to anyone but science fair organizers and the Nobel committee.
There is also a competing hypothesis that the cat would simply ignore the bread and butter, and an entirely buttered bread would simply fall any side down. Also if bread is really light and there's a thick coating of butter, that makes butter side heavier but doesn't significantly move the centre of aerodynamic pressure, and when centre of gravity and centre of pressure are misaligned you end up with a stable projectile that tends to align itself so that centre of pressure is behind the centre of gravity.
Ie. a buttered bread, falling a great distance, would tend to stabilize itself to fall butter-side first.
This view has never gained much foothold, though, and should be considered a marginal possibility only until it has been experimentally confirmed.
By the way, the clever ideas playing around with bread-butter topology are NOT A GOOD IDEA. At best, you'll rip a hole in the bread-butter continuum. At worst, butter and bread crumbs will be everywhere like an Eldritch Abomination.
Also, I have always wondered how buttered breads behave in microgravity, such as onboard a space station. Is the tendency to "fall" butter side down related to gravity, or more of an attractive force between the butter and nearby surfaces, and gravity gradient direction only explains why the bread most often contacts the floor as opposed to walls or the ceiling?
It could be some sort of timeline effect where the adhesive effect of butter acting between surface and bread, from the future, affect the present!
This warrants experimentation.
-
:wtf: this thread has gone nuts! :lol:
-
Personally, I am of the opinion that it went sane.
-
THAT'S IT!!! I'm building an asylum to put the world in........Where have all the dolphins gone? And why is this fish bowl engraved with the words "So long and thanks for all the fish"?
:confused: :banghead:
-
This must be a Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
-
This must be a Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
That's because you're a closed-minded Christofascist hurr durr
-
Toast-cat advocates also tend to neglect the amount of work required to construct a toast-cat device. I'm sure everyone understands the cat's natural propensity to land on its feet, but the cat also possesses an equal quantity of toastophobicity. Ie, a cat that would give up trying to right itself during fall for some amount of time would also resist toast attachment for an equal amount of time. In addition to those poor, at best, energy gains the wounds sustained from toast attachment mean that the toast-cat device will remain little more than a novelty.
-
I have a question. Will the toast cat generator still float if you do not feed it?
-
Personally, I am of the opinion that it went sane.
Glad I'm not the only one of this opinion.
-
Toast-cat advocates also tend to neglect the amount of work required to construct a toast-cat device. I'm sure everyone understands the cat's natural propensity to land on its feet, but the cat also possesses an equal quantity of toastophobicity. Ie, a cat that would give up trying to right itself during fall for some amount of time would also resist toast attachment for an equal amount of time. In addition to those poor, at best, energy gains the wounds sustained from toast attachment mean that the toast-cat device will remain little more than a novelty.
The answer is of course as simple as it is self-evident: Merely by injecting the toast into the cats genetic code we could solve the world's energy problems forever.
-
Guys you are missing something important here.
Homogenous force fields can't be used to generate energy, only to store it (and get it back when convenient).
In other words even if you can make the cat/bread combination float (or just the bread although I would like to point out obvious handling and maintenance difficulties with entirely buttered bread - it would require magnetic confinement so as to not disturb the butter coating), this would not be sufficient to generate kinetic energy.
There are other examples where the same thing happens, namely superconducting levitation, vacuum-generated attracting force on plates at close proximity due to Casimir effect, gravitational potential energy, springs, and rubber bands.
In all these cases, a force is present, but does not do work. To make the force do work, a deflection from balance state is required - which means you're putting energy into the system.
In other words, no free energy from cats and buttered bread. Both examples would, when dropped, fall to close proximity with the nearest surface in the direction of positive gravitational gradient, at which point the effects of buttered bread and cat would kick in and result in stabilized levitation, at which point it would be of no use to anyone but science fair organizers and the Nobel committee.
There is also a competing hypothesis that the cat would simply ignore the bread and butter, and an entirely buttered bread would simply fall any side down. Also if bread is really light and there's a thick coating of butter, that makes butter side heavier but doesn't significantly move the centre of aerodynamic pressure, and when centre of gravity and centre of pressure are misaligned you end up with a stable projectile that tends to align itself so that centre of pressure is behind the centre of gravity.
Ie. a buttered bread, falling a great distance, would tend to stabilize itself to fall butter-side first.
This view has never gained much foothold, though, and should be considered a marginal possibility only until it has been experimentally confirmed.
By the way, the clever ideas playing around with bread-butter topology are NOT A GOOD IDEA. At best, you'll rip a hole in the bread-butter continuum. At worst, butter and bread crumbs will be everywhere like an Eldritch Abomination.
Also, I have always wondered how buttered breads behave in microgravity, such as onboard a space station. Is the tendency to "fall" butter side down related to gravity, or more of an attractive force between the butter and nearby surfaces, and gravity gradient direction only explains why the bread most often contacts the floor as opposed to walls or the ceiling?
It could be some sort of timeline effect where the adhesive effect of butter acting between surface and bread, from the future, affect the present!
This warrants experimentation.
You are indeed correct that it simply floating would do nothing. However, if you spin it, it will act as though it was in a vacuum causing it to spin indefinitely as it acts differently to a floating plate. The field generated by the cat-butter is based off of two different laws trying to achieve the same true value. If it were to obtain equilibrium, that would mean a bias towards one of the particular laws either the bread, or the cat.
-
You are indeed correct that it simply floating would do nothing. However, if you spin it, it will act as though it was in a vacuum causing it to spin indefinitely as it acts differently to a floating plate. The field generated by the cat-butter is based off of two different laws trying to achieve the same true value. If it were to obtain equilibrium, that would mean a bias towards one of the particular laws either the bread, or the cat.
Ah, but are the cat-force and butter-force separate forces, or manifestations of the same natural phenomenon?*
You would be well advised to not think of "laws" of physics as synonymous to forces of nature. They are merely our descriptions of the nature.
Also, multiple forces can reach an equilibrium quite fine, otherwise matter would not exist in stable configuration. Repulsing and attracting Coulomb forces, strong nuclear force, gravity, inertia... equilibriums exist everywhere in the nature, and just as abundantly there is a presence of naturally oscillating systems that demonstrate a fine byplay of energy exchanges through the forces of nature.
*Superficially both would seem to be related to gravity, but in deeper inspection gravity proves to only be the defining force for direction of general movement (gravitational acceleration). In case of bread-butter force, the main phenomenon would be possibly air resistance providing stabilizing tendency to settle on a butter-first flight state, and the tendency of human mind to statistically favour negative events in perceptive memorization. Cat-force is mainly just cat's remarkable skill in controlling its position while falling, utilizing its limbs, tail, and body to flail around to achieve desired attitude before impact.
Yes. I just suggested that both cat-force and bread-butter-force are apparent forces rather than real forces.
Just like gravity, coriolis-force, and centrifugal force... their existence depends on choice of some very specific reference frame (of mind). If we exit such reference frame, said forces disappear...
-
I have a question. Will the toast cat generator still float if you do not feed it?
no, while a live cat lands on its feet, a dead cat will land in any orientation. so you must constantly feed energy (in the form of cat food) into the system to sustain power generation.
-
I have a question. Will the toast cat generator still float if you do not feed it?
no, while a live cat lands on its feet, a dead cat will land in any orientation. so you must constantly feed energy (in the form of cat food) into the system to sustain power generation.
But what if cat is in a sealed box with a clever setup involving neurotoxin released by possible decay of a radioactive particle?
Without opening the box and finding out, the cat could be either dead, or alive... would this affect the bread-butter-cat-surface interaction (or simulation of) in any meaningful manner?
-
The universal laws of the cat-feet and bread-butter phenomenon are simple unfathomable
Also, love the Schrodinger reference
-
I have a question. Will the toast cat generator still float if you do not feed it?
no, while a live cat lands on its feet, a dead cat will land in any orientation. so you must constantly feed energy (in the form of cat food) into the system to sustain power generation.
But what if cat is in a sealed box with a clever setup involving neurotoxin released by possible decay of a radioactive particle?
Without opening the box and finding out, the cat could be either dead, or alive... would this affect the bread-butter-cat-surface interaction (or simulation of) in any meaningful manner?
You'd need to put whatever device you want to power into other sealed boxes so as not to indirectly observe the state of the cat.
-
The cat will also still die if not fed regardless of the possible decay of the particle. :P
-
The cat will also still die if not fed regardless of the possible decay of the particle. :P
All this dead cat talk has got me hungry
What the hell is wrong with me
-
The cat will also still die if not fed regardless of the possible decay of the particle. :P
All this dead cat talk has got me hungry
What the hell is wrong with me
For starters, you're in this thread. Beyond that... well, really what else would it take?
-
The cat will also still die if not fed regardless of the possible decay of the particle. :P
All this dead cat talk has got me hungry
What the hell is wrong with me
For starters, you're in this thread. Beyond that... well, really what else would it take?
Are you trying to get into my pants? D:
As for being in this thread... well I just couldn't let the toaster thing slide. Just couldn't...
-
The cat will also still die if not fed regardless of the possible decay of the particle. :P
All this dead cat talk has got me hungry
What the hell is wrong with me
For starters, you're in this thread. Beyond that... well, really what else would it take?
Are you trying to get into my pants? D:
As for being in this thread... well I just couldn't let the toaster thing slide. Just couldn't...
No thanks, I've got my own pants. They're corduroy!
-
The cat will also still die if not fed regardless of the possible decay of the particle. :P
Use a zombie cat.
-
The cat will also still die if not fed regardless of the possible decay of the particle. :P
All this dead cat talk has got me hungry
What the hell is wrong with me
For starters, you're in this thread. Beyond that... well, really what else would it take?
Are you trying to get into my pants? D:
As for being in this thread... well I just couldn't let the toaster thing slide. Just couldn't...
No thanks, I've got my own pants. They're corduroy!
YOU GOT SOMETHING AGAINST KHAKIS? WHORE!
-
I can always count on coming back here every 8 months and see a religion thread on the front page of here. Maybe I have good timing or maybe we take the whole thing way too serious. Can't we all just get along. :p
-1 for not adding to the topic. :nervous:
Anyway, just popping in and saying hey.
-
I can always count on coming back here every 8 months and see a religion thread on the front page of here. Maybe I have good timing or maybe we take the whole thing way too serious. Can't we all just get along. :p
-1 for not adding to the topic. :nervous:
Anyway, just popping in and saying hey.
+1 to counter the fact you haven't noticed that well...
These past couple pages have had nothing to do with religion
-
I can always count on coming back here every 8 months and see a religion thread on the front page of here. Maybe I have good timing or maybe we take the whole thing way too serious. Can't we all just get along. :p
-1 for not adding to the topic. :nervous:
Anyway, just popping in and saying hey.
+1 to counter the fact you haven't noticed that well...
These past couple pages have had nothing to do with religion
To be honest didn't read past the first page, just enjoyed the original post. Brings me back. lol
Man, it's hard to think I was just a kid when I started going here, I've done a lot of growing up since then.
-
I can always count on coming back here every 8 months and see a religion thread on the front page of here. Maybe I have good timing or maybe we take the whole thing way too serious. Can't we all just get along. :p
-1 for not adding to the topic. :nervous:
Anyway, just popping in and saying hey.
+1 to counter the fact you haven't noticed that well...
These past couple pages have had nothing to do with religion
To be honest didn't read past the first page, just enjoyed the original post. Brings me back. lol
Man, it's hard to think I was just a kid when I started going here, I've done a lot of growing up since then.
Haha, I know the feeling, albeit different forum. As for reading, read this page, page six, and page five
-
I can always count on coming back here every 8 months and see a religion thread on the front page of here. Maybe I have good timing or maybe we take the whole thing way too serious. Can't we all just get along. :p
-1 for not adding to the topic. :nervous:
Anyway, just popping in and saying hey.
+1 to counter the fact you haven't noticed that well...
These past couple pages have had nothing to do with religion
To be honest didn't read past the first page, just enjoyed the original post. Brings me back. lol
Man, it's hard to think I was just a kid when I started going here, I've done a lot of growing up since then.
Haha, I know the feeling, albeit different forum. As for reading, read this page, page six, and page five
Is this turning into one of those long quote trees? I know some people really don't like them.
-
I can always count on coming back here every 8 months and see a religion thread on the front page of here. Maybe I have good timing or maybe we take the whole thing way too serious. Can't we all just get along. :p
-1 for not adding to the topic. :nervous:
Anyway, just popping in and saying hey.
+1 to counter the fact you haven't noticed that well...
These past couple pages have had nothing to do with religion
To be honest didn't read past the first page, just enjoyed the original post. Brings me back. lol
Man, it's hard to think I was just a kid when I started going here, I've done a lot of growing up since then.
Haha, I know the feeling, albeit different forum. As for reading, read this page, page six, and page five
Is this turning into one of those long quote trees? I know some people really don't like them.
I don't know. How about I quote you and maybe we can find out? :P
-
It kind of pisses me off that a thread about cessation of trolling has become one of the longest running troll threads.
-
It kind of pisses me off that a thread about cessation of trolling has become one of the longest running troll threads.
And I thought I was the only one.
-
Would you like a kitten picture?
(http://www.webdesign.org/img_articles/7072/BW-kitten.jpg)
* Courtesy of the Ubuntu Bureau of Cognitive and Mental Well Being
-
That's not a kitten picture.
You done got dekker'd.
-
I managed to flirt my way into having three different coworkers ask me out to the same holiday party?
-
I see a lock in this threads' present.