1. My quest to get de-baptised

Comment #153040 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 31, 2008 at 11:35 pm

How or why would simply stretching the skin restore sensitivity? Also, can you really categorize it as restoring, if you haven't had the skin since you were a baby (and therefore not old enough to engage in the acts that would allow for a judgment about sensitivity to be made)? I would say that enhances would be a better word choice.

as i understand it...the head of the penis is by nature an internal organ(gland i should say), the removal of the foreskin makes it into an external gland/organ...the replacement of the skin allows for sensitivity to return to the head (perhaps by removing the everyday friction and rubbing of the nerve endings against your pants...kinda like how sen-dep increases the sensitivity of your skin)

i believe the claim of "restor[ing] sensitivity" comes from comparison of sensitivity to naturally uncircumcised penises in comparison to restored penises. though in the interest of nomenclature im willing to concede enhance sensitivity rather than restore, i think its something of a moot point though.

the point though was its possible to become UNcircumcised...and its less unpleasant to, as an adult, become uncircumcised than the inverse. (which if you realy wanted to give a kid then a choice you should have them circumcised by default and give them the choice of whether to restore it, since no one would opt to have surgery done to their penis as an adult. but thats an argument for some other time)

2. Christian Founders 3D Adventure Computer Game

Comment #153038 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 31, 2008 at 11:21 pm

i didnt ask for a reply from my congressman, but i think i should have...i dont know if he got it...

"who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present, controls the past"~george orwell, 1984.
another one that fits:
"othodoxy is not thinking, not needing to think; orthodoxy is unconsciousness"
or perhaps:
"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary."

if we say america was founded as a christian country, and history says otherwise...change history.

3. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153029 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 31, 2008 at 10:47 pm

"War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength"

- Orwell

i made a blog on that very topic (similarities between religion and 1984)

. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;

you wanna show deep concern for people identifying islam with terrorism, you wanna stop this identification STOP BLOWING SHIT UP!

i think its time the world stood up and said "FUCK YOU" to all these overly sensitive pricks claiming they have a right not to be offended, i think its time they realized they DONT have that right, and they dont have the right to react violently against it, nor should there be legislation with the intent to prevent violence by preventing speech.

and if these people want "States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;" then they must act against every person in the middle east dissiminating material against the jews, or against the christians, or any other religions.

the irony of the intolerant passing laws against intolerance...

i think this one is one of our bigger threats because its one no politician dare attack, its religion, if this was the communists it would be cold war al over again, but it isnt, islam is a religion, you cant attack a religion...that would just be wrong...unless you are another religion. its the big ass elephant in the room no one dares talk about "this isnt an issue of religion, its about terrorists" if you dont understand the enemy you can NEVER defeat them, and you wont defeat them through warfare, hell i dont think you can defeat them through diplomacy, but you certainly wont defeat them by ignoring them. i would say to those who are moderate muslims...they dont get to be called muslims, the fundamentalists are the ones following strict adherance to their holy book, they are the muslims...you guys are muslim lite...therefore if we insult muslims you can just ignore it. and if they wont stand up against them they may as well be with them, i hate to be so black and white on the subject or use the cliche "if you arent part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate"..er..wait...wrong cliche...
anyhow, i dont like to be so absolute on it but its true, while we are being tolerant of other religions we are tolerating other religions being intolerant of other religions, its asinine. the founding fathers got it right, the place of a governing body is NEUTRALITY!

true, honest, nutrality. so the UN's job should be to be neutral, if hate speech is going on...let it, if violence happens deal with the people involved in the violence.
and the UK, and countries of the EU need to take heed of this too, and our country as well. that the job of a govt is be neutral in all matters of religion. to make no law respecting or impeeding an individuals right to freedom of religion unless that right violates the rights of another person.
this is a good edict, do not promote nor impede, it would handle a lot of the problems in those other countries, so no law needs to be passed to allow muslims to, for instance, not have to handle alchohol. because the government wouldnt be allowed to act to allow you to express your religion, but it also couldnt act to impede it, unless its for a purely secular reason.
neutrality is the key.

4. My quest to get de-baptised

Comment #152700 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 31, 2008 at 11:23 am

i dont know how well the process works because i dont realy feel like bothering, i like my circumsized wanker.
but i have heard (mostly going from the first source i heard about ti from, penn and teller's bullshit...i just didnt quite care enough to follow up on the subject...so) that it does restore sensitivity. ive never liked the look of an uncircumsized penis myself, and it seems like the restored penis looks even worse.

as for the baptism, again...i think thats something unique to your side of ocean. around here they just get their entire congregation to write in or march to the capital or something. as scary as that is (more so if they all showed up with ak-47's...they are pretty much a small army.)

someone here mentioned the argumentum ad populum fallacy...well...that is the fallacy that democracy is founded on. the fact its fallacious has no bearing on the govt.

5. My quest to get de-baptised

Comment #152503 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 31, 2008 at 6:59 am

actually you can become de-circumcised, if you attach a weight to the skin it will stretch it, the skin will naturally grow back. the worse part is going the other dirrection. de-circumcision as an adult is painless...circumcision as an adult is painful...

but anyhow, about de-baptism...i was never baptised so i dont quite know much about this, my church was never one that dealt in baptisms...i dont quite know what they would use the record for.

if they are using it to say how many people were baptised in this year compared to this year in order to track the downward trend then i see no reason to have the record removed (maybe the catholic church wants people to remove their names so the downward trend looks less steep) its just a mater of history. if they use it to say how many people ascribe to this religion thats another thing (id say like someone else mentioned have an apostasy list but if they didnt use it who would know, they could have the list and never reference it, they could trump up their list and again...never say why....churches tend to be closed book deals...of course i live in america...so...it may be different in england)

6. In His Name We Pray, Ramen

Comment #151780 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 29, 2008 at 11:19 am

Brilliant! Now we just need to set-up a propoganda film mentioning how scientists have expelled(â„¢) FSMism from the classroom and ban PZ from the screening.

RAMEN!

7. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150637 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 27, 2008 at 7:46 am

im split on this, on the one hand...yes it will probably be good bad publicity (that is the publicity is SO bad that people go to watch it just to see if its REALY that bad) but how that will help them in the long run i dont know.
as the amount of people saying "this movie sucks" increases the amount of people willing to whim it will go down.

also the poor reviews will make movie theatres less likely to show it (it will probably NOT get shown here) which will hurt them.

so its just an issue of degrees, which one of those two mutualy exclusive things will be in greater force. to which i dont know.

8. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150247 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 26, 2008 at 3:55 pm

yIchId tlhInganpu' tu'lu'be' 'e' luSov SenwI' rIlwI' je

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

9. Gay scientists isolate Christian gene

Comment #150114 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 26, 2008 at 1:11 pm

is this like the onion or something?

if only there was a Christian gene we could filter out...sadly...its malicious meme that controls its hosts into acts of stupidity and self destructiveness.

10. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #150108 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 26, 2008 at 1:07 pm

criminal negligence plain and simple. and they still hold out hope of their child being RESSURECTED! these people need some bloody schooling.

"The girl's death remains under investigation and the findings will be forwarded to the district attorney to review for possible charges, the chief said. "

under investigation, they let their child die and did nothing, if they were standing around laughing instead of praying you wouldnt think twice about arresting them. isnt there some child protection law that you can take away someones children if the parent is too stupid to raise a child?

these parent lack the understanding of how to take care of a child, take the surviving children away and ask them to pray that they return.

11. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150091 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 26, 2008 at 12:56 pm

"I ask representatives of all the monotheistic religions to meet with their brothers in faith," Abdullah told delegates to a seminar on "Dialogue Among Civilizations between Japan and the Islamic World," according to the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA).

am i the only one who found this ironic?
japan? JAPAN? monotheistic? shinto? the religion that takes polytheism to the absurd. (seriously...they have an INFINITE number of gods...litteraly a god for everything that exists.) the majority of all japanese are shinto (usualy shinto/budhists since budhism has no qualms with dual classing, same for shinto...so you can be both) christian population in japan is less than 1%, japan has NO monotheistic religions, least none of any high population, on top of that in terms of importance of religion, japan was one of the least faithful of any country (according to pew data, japan had 12% who believed religion to be very important...us has 59)

so the fact that saudi arabia knows nothing about their target audience is laughable, you think they would at least know they ARENT monotheistic.

12. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150050 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 26, 2008 at 12:18 pm

happy birthday mr. dawkins (i dont know if i can still call you professor...and i dont know you well enough to call you richard...so i shall be formal ^_^)
67...i have to say...you dont look it at all. im always surprised to find out how old you actually are (is it a british thing or a science thing?)

anyhow, happy birthday, you have made the world a little safer for atheists everywhere, and hopefully educated a few people on evolution (myself included)

13. The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread

Comment #148798 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 24, 2008 at 12:22 am

i dont think the idea for group selection isnt apt here, because in this case you would be looking at group evolution, the evolution of societies (memetic evolution, not genetic) so a society that DOESNT survive well or isnt fit, will naturaly fall, religion does play a part in keeping the SOCIETY as a whole together. by this means the fitness isnt on the people but the society, while the people themselves (who are the vehicles for this meme) benefit by having the society survive. even if THEY die to continue this society, they usualy do it for their children and family.

taking a suicide bomber i think the fact that THEY go to heaven isnt always the most important thing, i think many times its that their FAMILY ALSO goes to heaven for their sacrifice that is the most important. (esspecialy in female suicide bombers)

the individual people get something for the survival of the meme, but the meme only survives if the society survives. it outlives individual people, but needs a group.
by this, group selection is apt, much like a drone that gives its life to protect a hive is more fit for doing it. most of the hive shares its genes, so its genes live on, since the society shares the memes of religion, the meme lives on even if one of the drones dies. (and this is true of any society i shouldnt say its unique to religion) whether this is anti-darwinian im not sure. since its a meme not a gene it can live on through people with totaly different genes, but then the darwinian influence lies with the differential survivability of societies in general. so if you have a fitness of being in a society to not, then you already have the means for this meme to come about, then survivability afterwords is less on the gene (since its true of any society) but on the meme (its ability to propigate for instance, prosteliziting seems ubiquitous to religions, because prostelitizing is more fit for the propogation of the meme and makes it less dependant on the survivability of the people (compared to just passing it from parrent to child))

or maybe im just terribly incurably confused...either way...interesting, if not confusing, article.

14. No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film

Comment #148017 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 21, 2008 at 7:37 pm

I'm afraid this is all mostly just free publicity for the film, but at least the NYT correctly refers to Expelled as a Creationist film, instead of going for some softerm more fundie-friendly term.

well according to kitzmiller vs dover you can legaly call intelegent design creationism as much as you want, wherever you want, and they cant do anything about it. (previously they may have had a case for slander, but the dover case ruled officialy intelegent design = creationism. which makes one of his points moot anyways (that ID isnt creationism, few years too late on that one))

this movie is a relic, ID has sunk, it doesnt have a chance to win any court cases, it doesnt have a chance to make it into schools (unless that one last sane judge on the supreme court thats protecting us from a fundie majority retires...and bush assigns a new one) the old ID people have jumped ship, like they did when creationism sunk, now its critical analysis of evolution (how is that for your irony metre, the people most lacking any critical analysis of their dogma asking critical analysis of evolution, though the irony is just as thick with INTELEGENT design)

15. I suppose it's due ('Expelled' review)

Comment #147973 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 21, 2008 at 5:11 pm

creationists already find all supporters of evolution to be riddiculous, and atheists more so, so even the slightest insult thereof is funny to them. -_-

anyhow...

Big Science has put up this wall to destroy freedom and keep out ideas, y'know?

not entirely untrue, science has peer review which is a big wall to keep out BAD SCIENCE. and PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC BS like intelegent design.

so yes, in that way science has a pretty big wall you gotta jump, and whether you make it or not depends on your evidence, this is science, not philosophy. and just because your bible doesnt magick you over that wall doesnt mean you can sit and cry and call foul and suddenly we will let you in, every other scientist has to do it, so do you. occupational hazzard.

16. Report: 32% Of Prayers Deflected Off Passing Satellites

Comment #147056 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 19, 2008 at 6:05 pm

haha 256.256.256.256 ^_^

I wondered if this was some kind of Arthur C Clarke reference... but geosynchronous satellites don't "pass", they appear to be stationary overhead. 8)

not quite true, thats a geostationary orbit, a geosynchronous orbit returns to the same spot once per solar day but will change latitude/longitude in orbit.
a geostationary orbit, like communication satilites use..the so-called clark orbit, will remain stable over one place, though a geostationary orbit IS a geosynchronous orbit, a geosynchronous orbit is NOT NECESSARILY a geostationary orbit (like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle may not be a square.)

that being said, this was a very funny article.

17. Sci-fi guru Clarke to have secular funeral

Comment #147048 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 19, 2008 at 5:50 pm

i find funerals to be generaly useless, what i would want is just for them to leave my body in a woods uncovered for animals...is that legal? i know it is in tibet...thats the standard practice there.

for a funeral, just invite people over to the house. since i know the funeral has less to do with me and more to do with the survivors i wouldnt say "dont hold a funeral" that would be selfish...but i would say "dont book a funeral home" i dont want a casket, i dont want some expensive funeral, i dont want them to spend any more money than is legaly required. (hate the funeral business, bunch of parasites preying on the weak)

that donation to science sounds nice (though i'd be missing organs since im a full organ donar)

18. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #147016 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 19, 2008 at 5:15 pm

i think those who are upset are upset at the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.

the company didnt put up the message because they are avoiding controversial messages. so any controversial message reguardless of the message would be rejected.

the key here isnt attacking the company, its going out and collecting signatures from the people, proving to the company that the controversy would NOT be that bad, or that it may even be beneficial. (for instance, a controversial billboard draws more people to that area, this increaes the amount of people in that area who see other billboards and thus increases the effectiveness of those billboards, cover over with them a way of making sure that companies and individuals know the opinions of organizations that advertise with them in no way reflect their own opinions, and you can actualy turn this from a possible bane to buisness into a boon.)

the key here is business, and proper business doesnt depend on stamping your feet and calling foul. it depends on tact, it depends on convincing them that not only would it not be bad for them but they would be stupid not to, make em offer they cant refuse.

19. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146541 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 19, 2008 at 7:19 am

thats the thing, it doesnt..it says specifically man with another man, nothing for woman with another woman, they infered that god doesnt like lesbians because he doesnt like gays
which if he is indeed a guy i dont think this lack of commandment was an oversight.

there is a banner for ya "god loves lesbians" (though i dont think we need to give them ideas...that could single handedly destroy the atheist movement ^_^)

though i was not the least surprised when i heard it was against lesbianism and then read it was a woman talking. i just knew it, probably an "ex-gay" herself, this is such an obvious case of overcompensation if ever i seen it.

the girls there arent even there because they are lesbians, they are just girls who are so unfortunate as to be there. and because of this closet case trying to deny her sexuality she is forcing this on all the other girls, its unhealthy.

this is what repression gets you people...it doesnt work, it hasnt worked for the past couple thousand years and it wont work in the future, shame and repression are not healthy ways of dealing with impulses.

20. 'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets

Comment #146481 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 19, 2008 at 6:06 am

i have no doubt he was an atheist, since he clearly doesnt believe in any other religion, and fairly sure he doesnt believe the bullshit he teaches.

but an atheist can be a charlatan just as much as a theist.

the order setup of the church of scientology, the quote (i will admit to not having confirmed it authenticity, it may just be a rumour circulated by people like me who dislike the church of scientology. and heard it from someone else. though..it seems probable in the least.), the testimonial and records of people sucked dry by the church all speak to the true goal of this organization: to suck as much money from its believers as it can. its systematic, its methodical, and you can not point to a single thing in all the church without this intent.

the "free" personality tests (which are just a nice way for them to tell you that you are horribly fucked up and need auditing) the auditing which run in the hundreds to thousands of dollars, which themselves seem little more than hypnosis sessions, seem like something you would employ to a prisoner of war to get information (except...without the PHYSICAL tourture..)
there are many different audits the person is required to take, each costing a different amount of money, the actual BS of course is never told to you on signing up, not til you have given a LOT of money for audits and get to the OT level, then they start easing you into the BS one nugget at a time. all the while claiming you will be able to gain amazing powers with more audits.

CoS is amongst the most destructive cult active today in terms of its long term effects on the psyche of people taken out of the church, it is destructive, and in many cases deadly (such as their insistance that pharmiceuticals are evil and no member should take them...worth noting once again this BS is wrapped in bills. you see when they are taken OFF the medication they have problems, depressions, violence, delusions, whatever its for. and the church has the sollution!...more audits! they will charge you an extraordinary amount of money to "fix" a problem THEY MADE. now i know all religions have this way of cutting you to sell you a bandaid but this takes it to new levels. )

compared to other religions where at least you can tell they MEANT well (sure it HAS its charlatans and may have been founded by one, but it means well) this one is obviously just to suck them dry of money. no attempts at philosophy, no mention of ways of life...you dont even know about xenu til higher levels. just one big bait and switch after another.

21. First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

Comment #146464 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 19, 2008 at 5:45 am

oh i saw the part about it being a simplification and took it into account, i only quoted the other part because it was all i was concerned with.

perhaps it was more for my sake to get a "yes" or "no" or if im vastly mistaken, and explanation of why than realy any attempt at refutation.

i may have phrased it wrong, as i often do...i wasnt meaning to misquote you, i was more seeking elaboration.

22. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146238 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 18, 2008 at 7:56 pm

most telling i think is this part about religious people being more able to deal with shock such as loss of a job, wife, or loved one...that kinda interests me. it makes me wonder if they ARE dealing with it at ALL, what those horrible atheist psychologists would call "repression" which would then lead of course to the natural conclusion that religion is unhealthy. if indeed they deal with shocks easier, id like a study to see if they DO deal with them or if they repress it.
i would suspect from much of the unhealthy behaviour of the religious, and from other evidence of repression being caused by religious doctrine, that in fact it is repression.

(one known form of repression for instance is sexual repression, this is esspecialy true with the catholics and is one reason for the sexual issues of some catholic priests. they never deal with their sexuality they depend on their god, they repress it, the result of course is that it affects them without their knowing it. if you see areas which are higher in religion teen pregnancy, abortion rates, violence and such tend to be higher, and part of that is the represion that religion does, they put dealing with their issues in GOD and as such never deal with them, they get pushed into the subconscious and affect their actions without their knowing it. the only effect of repression is an amplification of that which you have repressed, it seems like its helping you now, but it will hurt you in the long run)

this entire article just disturbed me...when i clicked i was thinking something witty like "article summery: 'ignorance is bliss'" but reading realy kinda just showed the repressive and psychologically unhealthy effects of religion.

23. The Atheist Apocalypse

Comment #146224 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 18, 2008 at 7:39 pm

yeah its an obvious reference to the four horsemen discussion between haris, dawkins, hitchens, and denett.

now why they chose equality for hitchens the world may never know.

funny comic though, if not too utopian.

24. Religious groups want Russian cartoon channel shut down

Comment #146220 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 18, 2008 at 7:34 pm

its comedy, you have to expect a level of over simplification and characture...sometimes they have a nice point sometimes its just humerous nonesense that only an idiot would try to impose a point on. its part and parcel with the series.

also to the person who said without religion the wars would be less frequent i dont even think thats true, but i dont think religion will go away either, i think if you got rid of all existing religions new ones would take their place, its the human condition to want something to unconditionaly accept and believe, the human brain has a tendancy to be lazy and it likes things to be as fixed as possible, the brain always seeks the area of least resistance and does not like changing regularly, this is more true the older you get (as the brain become more rigid and specialized, one reason learning decreases with age)
some set of ideals set in stone and unchanging, some point of reference is needed for people and they want to pass that to their child.

for that and many other reasons, religion will never go away, it can only be transfered to some other superstition.

(though i may be wrong...im not sure how superstitious switzerland is, though they mark as being low in religion, most dont count other superstitions)

25. First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

Comment #146153 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 18, 2008 at 5:28 pm

changes result from either changing a gene, adding a gene, or subtracting a gene. Since in general you will only have added genes that were advantageous, removing them will not be as likely as adding others.

im not sure that is true.
for instance the removal...not exactly of a gene...but of a base pair will result in a change to that gene, you can get profound amount of change in a genome by multiple deletions of basepairs.
also since metabolism and genome size are proportional (creatures with larger genome have slower metabolism as it takes longer to copy the genome for mitosis.) if nature selects for higher metabolism extraneous bases, junk dna, etc would be likely to be deleted.
complexity is only prefered in so much as its affordable, nature has this kind of economy about it on energy, so if it takes x energy to do something, nature selects for something that takes x/y energy instead. there is a natural tradeoff.
efficiency i imagine is probably selected more than complexity. so the number of base pairs for instance is less important than the effectiveness of those base pairs, esspecialy if metabolism is important (as it is in creatures that need to run for, or from, their food. this too is a tradeoff, slower metabolism means you need to eat less, but you tend to be slower and if you need to catch something fast...)

equally such there is no exact corelation between size of brain and the ability of that brain, what matters is the efficiency of that brain. so if you need a realy good brain, nature will select for a more efficient or larger brain. (if efficiency is constant brain size and capacity will be dirrectly proportional, if size is contant then efficiency and capacity will be dirrectly proportional. if there is a selective pressure for both a small head and a powerful brain efficiency would be the only option. of course cranial capacity and thickness of skull tend to be proportional too. so lots of trade offs involved.)

there is no real way to rate the complexity of a genome so i think looking at it on a genotypical way would be inappropriate. more base pairs does not more complex make.

but yeah, this is an interesting article, i always thought simplification was possible, but perhaps that was forcing design onto biology..of course if something becoming more efficient counts as more simple i think there are example of that.

26. 'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets

Comment #145618 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 17, 2008 at 7:51 pm

I had an interesting thought the other day- imagine if this guy Hubbard was a secret atheist and just created scientology to show that it is possible to make up a load of crap and brainwash people into believing it as truth, thereby showing the farce of organised religion. This agenda would only be revealed to the top ranks, and when they hit say 100 million members or something, they will break their silence and come out to the world- 'ha ha - we made this shit up and people BELIEVED it!!'

Probably wishful thinking, but seriously, how stupid are people?

"The beliefs of Scientologists are no more irrational than those of Christians or Muslims"

I third that

"the best way to make a large amount of money is to found a religion" ~L ron Hubbard shortly before founding the church of scientology.

the reason he founded it is OBVIOUS...not as an experiment, not as a practical joke, as a scam, as a con, to suck as many people out of their money as he could.
"We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end"~george orwell, nineteen eighty four.

perhaps that is the biggest difference between the founding of the COS and of other major religions. they were founded, perhaps, with the intent of unifying people, of helping, they had the delusions of paradise...COS isnt like that, it was founded explicitly with the intent to gain power and wealth, its a means to make the hubbard family very very wealthy.and their methodology realy shows this, they are different entirely in that they know what they are doing, they are not duluded, they do not believe this crap, and they know no one else would either unless thoroughly indoctrinated, which is why they obscure what they believe.

the ideals are crazy, like any religion, but its not the ideals that make them dangerous, in fact few of them even know what they are...its the methodology, its the purpose, its the intent that makes them dangerous.

27. The Great Tantra Challenge

Comment #145615 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 17, 2008 at 7:38 pm

probably something like "it only works if they believe in it" so because sanal didnt believe in it, it couldnt work..but if he DID...
or they will just say that ONE shamaan wasnt able to, but hold on to the idea that others CAN.

or they will seek some OTHER kind of witchdoctor...

people like a comforting lie to cold truth.

28. Immune system differences found

Comment #145609 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 17, 2008 at 7:27 pm

no more meaningless than many of the other taxonomic sepperation it seems. (see the ancestor tale perhaps for some of the blurring of line in what realy makes a species...)
taxonomy is just becoming more difficult...esspecialy when you go to the genetic level.

as for race, or perhaps more keenly ethnicity, it is important to be aware of physiological differeces...medicine depends on knowing a lot about the physiology of the patent and cant afford to be PC at the expense of the patient. as someone above mentioned, different people, in different points of the world exposed to different organisms for different periods of time are neccesaraly going to be different...the key to understanding to what degree to best handle drug and health regiments for them.

29. The Great Tantra Challenge

Comment #144879 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 17, 2008 at 12:30 am

I just can't believe the Shamen guy kept up the charade. Was he hoping that Sanal might die from old age in the mean time?

im afraid its worse than that...he actualy BELIEVES it.

i think he had no doubt in his mind that sanal would die.

you see this rather often in religions with dirrect magic rituals. for instance wicca:

one of the main tennants is the idea that everything happens for a reason, also when you perform a spell it might not happen the way you expected it to, but it will always happen.

now you can probably begin to see the falacy here.
it says "if you try a spell and it didnt work, it realy DID work you just need to look harder to find out how" and this goes with the first tennate that everything happens for a reason, that there is no coincidence and nothing is random. this gives even MORE wiggle room to look for a way it worked.

i imagine, this is a prediction since i dont know about tantra except they invented a rather nice was of doing it, that somewhere in their sutras and such there is a similar contengency whereby they can fool themselves into believing they have super powers.

thing is with things like this...they can be proven to be bullocks just like that guy did...if only the other religions could be done like that. the scientologists claim their thetan opporators have special powers but they deny it in public so such a thing wouldnt work on them.

i think this is very much an evolutive thing, those religions who have things like this which make testable claims...actually get hurt from failing...those who make none, like christianity, can survive a wrong prediction or whatever. so only those who are the most nebulus survive...

shame i kinda like the song and dance and chanting of mantra...they dont do anything...but they are entertaining. and there is no harm in it if you dont take it seriously.

also, i kinda expected some concoction he threw into the fire would make something like mustard gas or something and kill him. or that hed hide a poison dart or something. (though i suppose the autopsy would prove the COD..but the dying on TV would stick out more than the autopsy findings.)

you never know which ones are deluded and which ones are just chalatains. lucky for him he got one that was deluded.

30. 'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets

Comment #144863 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 16, 2008 at 10:14 pm

well im kinda on the side of dan dennette on this, you will never irradicate religion...but you can eradicate the most harmful strains so only the most benign strains are allowed to prosper.

scientology is a toxic strain and should be removed, fundamentalism is a toxic strain and should be removed. the amish are a nice strain...they keep to themselves...all the religious fervor of the fundies but none of the evangelizing.

so i count the toxicity more on the damage it does to society as a whole, rather than the people who believe in it. the virilance with which it spreads.
scientology has spread quickly and has heavy influences, including some realy good lawyers. (good obviously not in an ethical sense) there own private army both of devotees and of lawyers. and compared even to the fundies, scientologists are well organized, the church runs in a business like manner and is very methodical in its brainwashing (while fundamentalism depends largely on early indoctrination, scientology breaks down an already developed psyche methodically and with alarming precision)

l ron hubberd said, before founding the church of scientology, "the best way to make a lot of money is to start a religion" and he did, and it was good (for him at least)

the more you read about it the more you have to at least respect the level of methodology the church follows, how well designed it is, designed with the intent to drain dry of all your money and leave you perminately indebted and dependant on the church (sicne you wont have a house to go back to...they will have been so nice as to mortgage it for you) while other churches take a small cut of your worth, scientology takes over 100%

its like that high pressure salesman who manages to get you to buy this realy expensive car you have no way of affording...except worse...because you live with him and he is always trying to sell you something.

31. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144854 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 16, 2008 at 9:16 pm

so how goes measures to revok tax exempt status to churches?

wanna put these asshole to the fire, make them pay taxes, they will funnel more money to the government to fight their asses..and whats more they will only get THREE million USD every 5 minutes instead of 5. that'll show em...

*sigh* they have near unlimited funds and nothing good to spend it on. the evangelical churches arent even the ones who run the soup kitchens or nursury homes or anything like that...not that those make a very big difference...but at least its better than spending it all on warehouses full of DVDs, books, pamplets, and giant gold and ivory (exgageration) churches.

the most toxic breed of religion....and its spreading...

32. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144330 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 15, 2008 at 4:03 pm

i kinda agree on this...personaly im a person who picked B...but i realize most people science goes right over their head...i know because they are everyone else in my family and most of my close personal friends. like they said up there i dont even talk to them about science...they wont get it.

but if you point to something in mythbusters...they will get that.

and i think that would have been a better explanation:
which of these two programs you think the average person would be more familiar with:
A: nova
B: mythbusters.

now im not saying anything is wrong with mythbusters..i happen to quite like that show, i state it because it popularizes science..and thats always a good thing. (sadly for the lay-person..if you want to get across science...you about need something like bill nye..children level..)

33. The business of natural selection

Comment #144325 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 15, 2008 at 3:49 pm

considering we cant use natural selection to guess the evolutionary change of a certain species (due in large part to not knowing what the environment will hold in the future) i dont see how we could predict the evolutionary change in the market using the same measure.

too many variables need to be followed..and of course there is the impact that this technology would have on the market anyways. im reminded a bit of heisenbergs uncertainty principal (another scientific principal we shouldnt apply to business) the very act of trying to measure this will invariably cause a change in what we are measuring. so if all these machines spit out this stock, people buy that stock, money goes into that stock, they make some success and it confirms itself, if it says this will do bad, everyone pulls out, money goes away from this company, they lose money and return poor profits...it confirms itself again.

34. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #143125 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Rational_G:
i think the skepticism is greater towards religion than science entirely because science always manages to impress the fuck out of you on a regular basis, because 90% of the things we enjoy today were just invented in the last 100 years, because medical and scientific breakthroughs are so frequent and so amazing that without a very high degree of understanding of the topic you cant even begin to imagine if its real or just over hyped. because science continues to amaze me, and hopefuly many others, every day.

and religion just spews the same garbage for centuries. while science give you reasons to be impressed every day, religion gives you reasons to be digusted every day.

just stop and think about how much our knowlege of the world, of the universe, of the atom has grown in 100 years, think about how fast our technology has grown...compare that to any previous "golden age" in human history (what was the last one...10...20 inventions?)

science just holds more credibility.

not to say skepticism isnt warented...you can get some realy bad science polluting the area, but in a best fit, science as a whole has given us a lot more than all the religions combines.

35. Crossing the Divide

Comment #140703 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 8, 2008 at 11:49 am

Teratornis:
afraid that doesnt work in all places.
for instance, i live in a very small town, the nearest town is 30 miles away (actually the nearest 3 town, one is 30 minutes away but its at 75 mph on highway...and its slightly closer to 45 minutes) most of the jobs are in other towns, there are two gas stations, both run family owned, and a 2 factories (the only jobs in this town...no surprise they have no shortage of employees...) if you want groceries you can buy them at the local gas stations for rather high prices or at the wal-mart in the next town for much lower prices.

you cannot ride a bike there...

there are no taxis, no buses, no trains (save freight trains) no public transit of any sort...

in other words if you dont have a car you are very much SOL...

also in most areas with public transit, the transit stops after a certain time, so if you need to go somewhere at night...you are left walking...

part of the reason automobiles are so popular here may have something to do with how big this country is. compare the US with any european country or the UK and there is a notable difference in the distance people actually have to go, and when you are in more rural areas this goes up considerably.

on the issue of breaking the spell...

i was thankfully raised in a family with lower religiosity, my mother is a deep believer but my father never was, he was perticularly unfond of church (perhaps in part because he had always been unfond of the neighbors) but he did attend with us for a while, eventually he stopped going, and mother stopped going and we stopped going and everyone just stopped going...
i started going again at one point, the concept of hell perticularly vivid in my imagination, but my many questions made the ministors uneasy (plus my tendancy to fall asleep durring sermons...and onetime i showed up still wet from swimming...in my swimtrunks...) and so before they could kick me out (and they had threatened just that) i left.

i havent addressed evolution with my mother, i see no point in it. it would just be a very long..probably one sided...debate and ultimately nothing would be gained. if she accepted evolution she isnt likely to make any contributions to the theory, she hasnt a very large sphere of influence by which to spread the ideas to other afflicted so there is no tactical usage in it, and i feel no strong desire to discuss evolutionary theory with her (as it would likely go over her head) so...much like computer science, linux, anime, and my many other passions...i dont bother..

as for jovies...
i once had a long discussion with a jovie (i didnt think to invite her in...i just discussed it at the doorway...it was winter...i probably woulda been less cold if i invited her in...what posseses someone to go door to door in -5 degree F weather i have no idea.

anyhow she came at a good time since i had been reading on religion earlier and also on the origin of various holidays, so i was well up on ammunition.

of course it was a jovie, so it didnt realy matter what i said...nothing i said would have possibly gotten through to her. but it was fun while it lasted.

jovie main tactic isnt to engage a subject for too long, they jump from one point to another in hopes to get a hit, with each point she jumped to i countered, when she ran out of points to jump to she wished me a good day, i said the same, and it ended nice and politely.

though her points seemed to be more of a clicking kinda thing, that is taking one point from what i had said and moving on that, usualy ignoring the rest.

was kinda like a game of go...was almost fun.

36. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140655 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 8, 2008 at 8:32 am

wait...who elects the members of the supreme court then?

anyhow, good to see you guys have your blasphemy laws off the books...i think a few states here still have them (few others still have sodomy laws...perhaps a downside to have 50 different sovereign states each with their own laws...less uniformity...)

i think they should just have a day where they go through all the laws and remove the vestigial ones...

also im not sure if there is any proper way of dealing with religion, you cant outlaw it, you cant make it one the dominate religion, you cant just avoid it. there is no way to properly handle religion.

when you have a state religion you do get a milder strain of religion, as seen in the uk, but you also get a lot of pussy-footing pandering to all demenors of religions, equality and a state sponsored religion dont mix, you have to either tell them their religion is inferior or give them the same level of support.

when you have a sepperation of church and state you create a competitive market place where only the most toxic strains are able to survive, and while its possible to insist on strict sepperation and keep them from getting special treatment, they do make a dangerous element, esspecialy when you mix it with a government run by the populace...many of whom are infected...

when you outlaw it alltogether you force the religion underground, you make criminals of the faithful and legislate what ammounts to thought crimes. you do reduce the numbers and institute a slightly milder strain...all-be-it a much stronger strain...

there is just no proper way to deal with this nutsos.

37. The coming religious peace

Comment #132843 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 25, 2008 at 9:22 am

most currious, its possible for secularism to make itself dominant but i dont rule out the possibility of a virilant form of religion to sweep through and reduce its people to an earlier form of life, one need only look at the roman empire and the massive loss of knowlege from the "pegan" philosophers and much of science that was known at the time.

though, the possibility of this occuring on a global scale seems remote, and with global travel being what it is now, it does seem almost inconcievable for a global epidemic of some toxic strain of religion..

38. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132821 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 25, 2008 at 8:36 am

In the end, bad ideas will not survive. If you have a good, clean idea that's elegant and precise and agrees with observations, it'll get through.

Wired: speaking of bad ideas, The Catholic Church hasn't been very receptive to your ideas, either.

they may not have said it, but they were thinking it.

39. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132812 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 25, 2008 at 8:21 am

this was total rubbish.

i cant speak for dawkins, for i am not him, i am however a rational person, as i know dawkins to be. so if an angel appeared, he would have to appear to EVERYONE to be considered real.

so if an angel appeared, was willing to show up on camera, made a testable prediction or defied the laws of physics (like switching mars with pluto, if just for a day) i think that would qualify evidence, at least of a very powerful creature. more study would be needed to definitavely say this person is a messenger of any perticular god (and he would of course have to say which...)

scientists do not judge data on their preconcieved notions, if there is data they draw the conclusions they can from them. the same rigors apply to ALL data, not just the ones we want them to.

40. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #132730 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 25, 2008 at 7:03 am

the matter of gene flow is quite interesting, something i think many people would benefit from. most people arent used to thinking in a gene centred world, they think of animals as being distinctly sepperate, they dont think of the genes as being notably important.
the idea of a ring of genes flowing from one animal into another across space would certainly be eye opening.

hell im still adjusting myself to a genocentric world view. where the animal itself is more of a side effect of the flowing of genes, the chemistry that makes up the body, even breaking down to the gene level you can go further to the chemical level or the atomic level.

the world is most certainly a fascinating thing..

41. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #132153 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 24, 2008 at 10:59 am

actually one thing about lateral gene transfer, it works well in genetic taxonomy, when a virus puts its genetic code in a hosts dna, the children of that host inherit that dna, so for instance many viral dna strands found in humans are also found in chimps, so excluding of course cross species infection (such as the case with HIV) then its logical to assume that the virus infected a shared ancestor between humans and chimps.

we know some viruses DO cross species, but generaly if all memebers of that species share that viral DNA, you can say it was inheritance, equaly such if you trace back to a certain point and find some who do not share it you can determine where in the past that infection occured, finding it in other non-related species would give an indication of cross species lateral transfer.

i dont think lateral transfer would invalidate genetic taxonomy, just impede it...makes an interesting thing to overcome, and an interesting place to mine for more understanding (such as how has lateral gene transfer effected evolution, what genes are contributing and what genes are just junk dna along for the ride)

42. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #131353 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 22, 2008 at 10:07 am

richard dawkins covered designed and designoid objects in his "awaking in the universe" (or something similar) lecture.
if its actually made by an intelegence it is designed...including birds nests and beavers dams.

dna made by the fruits of human knowlege is designed, its purposeful and intended.

now if (when?) we hand the process over to evolution we reliquish our ability to predict the outcome, we let the blind process of evolution come up with the best sollution. (i imagine such a thing would be done virtualy with a simulated genome, then the results printed out and booted up into a cell. a concept that makes me somewhat giddy, both as a science nerd and a computer nerd ^_^)

Especially intriguing was the bit about possible contemporary lateral gene transfer via viruses -- anyone know what kinds of virus might be doing this ?

probably a retrovirus
(hopefully that link works...where did the preview button go?)

43. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131188 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 22, 2008 at 3:36 am

a wonderful narative, and the lizards are, as always, very cute ^_^ (im a big fan of lizards)

44. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #130805 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 21, 2008 at 10:02 am

the_ultimate_samurai,
You just don't know what you're talking about. Some homeschoolers do not earn a traditional diploma, but many DO earn one through the numerous correspondence high school programs available, as I did, or though public school programs like Florida Virtual School as I mentioned before. Homeschool for many people is just distance learning.

I apologize for this off topic tangent, but it would be nice if people did just a little research before making incorrect, generalized statements on here.

By the way, talking about homeschoolers as if they are all religious is kind of like talking about Americans as if they are all religious. Only the percentage of non-religiously motivated homeschoolers seems to be larger (28%) than the percentage of non-religious Americans (10 - 20%)

i think i did mention i was IN home school for 6 years, and i did of course mean that to be from personal experiecne, homeschool is as different as..well...homes. there isnt a way to say definitively about all homeschools. so i spoke of course from my experience, me and both my brothers were homeschooled and were told our only option was a GED, i went to high school because i wanted a real diploma (though i still ended up with a GED...hit a big wall with my math...and lack of focus...or effort...^_^)

to L.Minnik:
most of those seemed to just be personal accounts of people or rhetorical works, less in the scientific, those that i did weed out which were studies were pretty much what i had already heard to begin with.
though my mentions was mostly rhetorical..i dont actually intend to have any children but i do think, and maybe thats just because it wholly normal to me, that many blow it out of proportion. and while some do take corporal punishment too far, a belt across the rear isnt likely to cause too great of damage, unless you do it for no good reason, or too frequently, or you dont let them know why they are being punished in the first place.

those people in the video were using it for no good reason, talking back is not a good reason to spank a child.

and to the person who mentioned about religion reforming some people and giving them a better life...do you realy think they are better? they are just as mentaly damaged as they were and will continue to be as long as they run away from the issue they had (such as alchol addiction) by replacing it with another issue (such as bible addiction) it isnt helping people, it hiding unacceptable things with something people accept for no good reason.

45. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #130782 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 21, 2008 at 9:23 am

i shall have to play god's advocate on this one,
the issue on questioning atheists beliefs have something of a different connotation to questioning christian beliefs, because on the later you are questioning the will of god, who in their vies is an all knowing, all powerful being, they are so conditioned to accept what he says (or what they are told he says) without question, thus questioning the bible is questioning him, thus you can only question him if you are BETTER or more KNOWING than he.
again christians bring the idea of gods existance as accepted ahead of time, so any logic they tend to follow automatically follows from the supposition that god exists, which makes questioning his existance harder, because its already assumed. (in other words they use the thing they wish to prove to prove that very thing, definition of circular)

questioning atheism holds different for them, because god isnt presupposed for the atheists side, so its only questioning the wisdom of a human, but it is presupposed on their side, so they are shielded from inquiry..

funny how that works out eh?

46. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130776 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 21, 2008 at 9:15 am

i too would like to hear how that discussion with venter turned out.

this discussion was quite interesting i must say, i do wonder the extend of the lateral movement of genes between species and what effects they have on that species.

the gene centric view is quite interesting, but i think even more is the chemical centric view, how all life breaks down to very complex chemistry, it kinda blurs the line between what is alive and what isnt, one that he mentioned that resonated with me on this was the matter that genes arent exactly alive, that is they cant die, they can break down and the information would be lost, but the information is just that, it can be replicated, synthesized, and translated into other things. its information, and its information made of chemicals, those chemicals, as long as they arent bombarded with radiation, can realy survive for insane lengths of time (i dont want to say indefinately, just about everything breaks down given the right amount of time)

but back to the chemical centred view you see realy how mechanistic life is, that the combination of many different chemicals which alow for life tend to just come from the energy of the sun. genes get shuffled, reconnected, flow in flow out, move around in just large complexes of individual chemicals so long as there is energy to supply it.

also there is the possibility of life so vastly different from us, made of different chemicals, or not even chemicals at all. life is but information, and information can come in countless different forms, so the possibility of life unlike anything we know...its a scientifically facinating concept...at least to me.

and of course the creation of life forms to serve us, from the nano technology to the macro biomachines...posibilities are great. also i would like to see some advances made in using artificial organisms to fight deadly organisms. so cells made to target and eliminate cancer cells for instance or bacteria or viruses..

47. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129644 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 19, 2008 at 12:10 pm

i would like to clear the record on home schooling...its not just for evangelicals...its also for deliquents to keep their record clean (such as...me)
though it seems all the books are still for evangelicals...i dont think any place SELLS real homeschool textbooks. and i dont think my mother knew to just buy normal SCHOOL textbooks (plus she was a christian, not as bad as these people, but im sure the little "in christian perspective" bit was attractive to her)
basically there is no homeschool diploma...you take the GED...thats your diploma...from there you can go to any colege that accepts a GED...thankfully i only had homeschool for 6 years and went to a REAL high school...

i would NOT recomend homeschooling your children though...i still have terrible interpersonal skills from it (they werent too good before, but spending 6th grade to 11th grade essentialy cut off from all human contact, save the internet, is not good for developing social skills)

i cant speak for the effectiveness of spanking, i was spanked as a child and of course hated it, im generaly well mannered now but dont know if the spanking had anything to do with it...the idea of being spanked only ever seemed to cross my mind after i was caught and the idea of punishment occured to me (odd how it occurs AFTER and not BEFORE..) but then i cant say any punishment EVER worked. grounding was annoying, as was spanking, and yelling, and realy all the different punishments (i did mention i got into a lot of trouble..) but ultimately...they never realy did anything, sometimes i would do it again BECAUSE i was punished for it, just to spite em.

so i cant speak for its effectiveness, but i would probably use it. (i know there was some times you knew not to do anything wrong...when you are outside they would use a switch from whatever is nearby...its just a small thin branch..its not like a thick club or anything...but it does hurt...and even though it was never used...the mear idea of being near the rose bush and him using that for a switch...needless to say made sure you didnt do anything then.)

but i think many people just blow it out of proportion, there is a notable difference between a belt, flyswatter, or switch across the rear end and actually BEATING your child with your fists or kicking them or shaking them.

of course any punishment is only as effective as it is just, so punishment for no good reason, corporal or not, will be notably ineffective and will make you seem unreasonable. and of course if the punishment is corporal AND unneccesary then it could cause problems.
that girl had no reason to punish that child, you dont punish them for talking back, that IS child abuse.

48. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #127228 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 15, 2008 at 4:20 am

i do not have a problem with male circumcision, in part because i myself am circumcized. i think the child should be able to chose, and they can, they can chose to have it restored.

given the choice between being cut and having the choice to have it restored or being uncut and having the choice to cut it, i think few would disagree the former is better. (i like mine the way it is, sex lasts longer, though is somewhat less pleasurable...its a tradeoff. if i ever decided i wanted the foreskin i could grow the skin out over it with a weight.)

i do notice i tend to be less driven by lust to make dumb decisions too, which is both a good and a bad thing. though it may have less to do with circumcision and more to do with me, since this doesnt hold true of my brothers.

personaly, if i had a male child, i would probably have him circumsized, and when he got old enough id tell him if he wants to restore it, how. its better than having to chose to go under the knife on your penis as an adult...

female genital mutilation (i wont even call it circumcision...partly because it doesnt make a circular incision) is different, the clitoris will never grow back, its totaly irreversable. it would be like cutting the head off of the penis and just leaving the stalk. a notably different thing. and not an apt comparison.

49. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #126241 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 12, 2008 at 6:57 pm

well on the issue of drugs, i dont know bill's views..but i know...i for one do not take them. not asprin, not benedril, not even cough syrup. if im sick i let my body handle it on its own.

its not that the businesses get together and purposefully try to harm you, but it can seem that way, just like it can seem like symbiotic lifeforms got together and decided to help each other. it just happens that way. part of it is the ignorance of the people and the lack of scruples of the companies.

consider antibacterial wipes, they market these to say "if you dont WANT your child to suffer...you need these wipes...but of course if you are a neglagent parent and dont care about your child's health and well being by all means dont bother" they also paint it that there is a bunch of tiny invisible creatures attacking your child every day and these are the only way to stop him from coming down with the bubonic pleague.

which of course the truth of the matter is that by santizing your childs environment you cripple his immune system and make him dependant on medication for the rest of his life.

which therein lies perhaps the reason people might think the drug companies WANT this. and it does help them, i cant say they did it on purpose mind you. but it is notable that by crippling the populations imune system you make them dependant on drugs more than if you didnt, since they now need them to live, you can perscribe all manner of drugs, and then there are the side effects, and it seems the side effects are getting worse as time goes on, i cant think of any drugs before a bit ago that had possible death as a side effect (and for something so stupid as alergy medication...a minor inconvenience) people take medication for minor inconveniences like a headache or an upset stomache or a runny nose, they take medication for snoring, for alergies, for every little incovenience you can find, and they all have their own side effects, alergy medication makes you less likely to fight off infection...of course because it cripples your immune system...thats what its made to do. alergies are a sign your imune system is working. and what happens when you get an infection, you take more medicine. there is medicine to fight the side effets of medicine and medicine to fight those side effects.

and as long as people will keep buying it, companies will keep selling it.

i think medical science means well, i dont think there are any scientists who would purposefully put out a drug knowing it could cause problems...though i do think there are businessmen who would...but i think the goal of medicine is noble, which is perhaps why its so susceptible to perversion.

50. Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn't make atheism a movement, either.

Comment #126181 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 12, 2008 at 2:48 pm

im with sam harris on meditation personaly. ive found it quite usefull...you know how sometimes you have too many things going on in your head at one time...thinking on too many topics...by meditating you can silence those and focus on one thing.

also meditations is a nice way to order your thoughts and to relieve stress, can also help to improve your control over your emotions (so as not to be driven to do something irrational for them)

and i imagine most everyone wishes for a time the name atheist wouldnt be needed, like you dont need a name for all the other millions of things you dont believe in. but for now...its needed.

and he is correct that not all religions are equally bad, though all religions have that same element of non-thinking. but the amount of non-thinking practiced varies. and to some degree there are many things people take without reflecting on them, political affiliation is one that comes to mind.

taoism for instance places the virtue on the here and now and has no afterlife, it doesnt put virtue in acceptance without thinking, but serves as a rough outline for meditation on philosophical issues. budhism tends to be similar, though it has its unusual claims, you dont have people saying its 100% true, most take it as being nothing but euphemism, alagory, and parables. even the dedicated monks dont take it as true, nor the common man. and since it emphesised critical thinking of the religion, there are many different forms all teaching largly different things. but unlike christian sects...the budhists sects dont hate each other with a firey passion.

but that doesnt mean is is by default good, it is still somewhat dangerous to have any form of non-thinking. if there is anything more ironic than killing in the name of budha id like to hear it. but such things have happened.

but some religions just lend themselves better to violance than others...such as books which have kill, smash, destroy, rape, kill, kill, kill written in them like the abahamic religions.