DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
Let me ask you a question. What kind of answers do you want? Ones that satisfy intellectual curiousity OR spiritual answers that give peace and direction to ones life?
Shouldn't a "correct" answer do both?
-
For me, TV has almost completely been replaced by the internet, but I think that's just the way it goes. If the internet did not exist, I would probably watch more TV, if the TV didn't exist I'd probably listen to more radio, if the radio didn't exist, I'd probably read more books, if books didn't exist I'd probably go to more plays. As technology increases, new mediums pop up to kill free time. If someone doesn't have the base motivation to go out and do something productive, I don't think that the newest medium for diversion is to blame.
-
SPOILER
It's too bad there isn't a spoiler tag in this forum. Kudos on your reasoning skills though.
-
The answer to this puzzle is interesting in that it is quite simple yet until you read it, you probably wouldn't think of it in a million years. Neither me, my brother or work colleagues could work it out by ourselves.
The puzzle is at follows:
Try and figure it out before you look at the answer, which can be found here.
Yeah, I saw that on the XKCD blag a while ago. Unfortunately I'm not patient enough; I thought about it for a little while and then looked up the answer because it was bugging me.
-
What is shocking about this presidential trip, however, is the United States has agreed with demands of the Saudi monarchy to limit journalists accompanying the President to only covering formal meetings, and prohibiting visiting elsewhere in Saudi Arabia or reporting on anything else. Our capitulating State Department, in announcing this remarkable agreement, informed reporters that those in violation will be “subject to arrest.”
Over the years as a presidential advisor I accompanied U. S. Presidents to dozens of foreign lands. Customarily, coverage of official diplomatic discussions is necessarily and understandably limited, but never would the United States have agreed to such constitutionally abhorrent restrictions on American media. Such restraint on freedom of Americans would almost certainly have resulted in cancellation of the President's trip, accompanied by a strong diplomatic protest.
What exactly is "constitutionally abhorrent" about this situation? You go to another country, sometimes you have to play by their rules. If they don't like it, they are free to stay home and not cover this story.
-
I guess.....but how did he sell so much hatred??
I'm not exactly a history buff, but from what I've heard, there was already a lot of anti-Jew sentiment and Hitler just capitalized on that, giving people a scape goat to blame all their problems on. I don't think he so much "sold" the hatred as he utilized it to accomplish his goals.
-
It is very creepy looking at those pictures. How were so many duped by this guy??? Right time and right conditions I suppose.....
Cult of personality?
-
When wooing Atheists he's going to play up beliefs in separation of Church and State.
No politician would try woo atheists, it would be political suicide. When playing up the separation of church and state, politicians are just trying to woo liberals. If there's anything that most people of different faiths can agree on, it is that they really don't like atheists :)
-
That's usually not how the grilling goes at my house. Then again I am one of the few males who actually enjoys cooking.
-
If your children or close relatives chose another religion that excluded you from their wedding ceremony, how would you feel? Personally I would be a bit disappointed, but still be there for whatever parts I was invited to, but I can understand how some people would be hurt and confused as to why they can't be there to see the ones they love get married.
Being non-LDS and living in Utah with many LDS friends of marrying age, I've seen these types of situations a lot and overreactions on both sides. All I can say is try to put yourself in their position and be understanding (though it sounds like you already are doing that) and hope that your relatives get over their disappointment and decide to support you and be a part of your wedding day. If they decide not to go at all, it is their choice, but I believe they will regret it later.
-
Okay. The first, I'm not really bothered by, but the second? A CHILD brought the bible to school for show and tell and was told 'No'? That was a child exercising his right to free speech. It wasn't condoned by the school.
Show and tell is not exactly free speech. If the kid were reading a Bible out loud at recess and told no, then I believe it would be an issue of free speech, but show and tell is an assignment that they can give any arbitrary parameters they want. If the principle says to do something else for show and tell, why bring a lawsuit over that?
Assuming this is true and that's all there is to the story, I think it is stupid on both sides. If the kid wants to read the Bible for show and tell, sure, why not? If the principle or teacher says 'no' then just do something else.
-
My favorite Onion news brief: Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
-
My wife and I saw it yesterday and loved it, but then again we love just about every Pixar movie, partly because we appreciate the technology that went into them, but mostly because they usually tell an excellent story. This may even be my favorite Pixar movie yet :)
-
I think the real danger with kids on the internet is not that they inadvertently give away too much information so that a predator can find them, I think the greater danger is when they other person gains their trust enough to lure them somewhere. If someone is looking to take advantage of kids and is willing to risk breaking into a house to do it, it would probably just be much easier to stalk the kid with binoculars than to stalk chatrooms hoping to find a stupid kid who lives near enough to them and happened to give out enough information to find them.
Don't get me wrong, I would teach my kids never to give out personal information online and bestow some technological common sense on to them, but I think that the whole paranoia over kids on the internet is overblown. Dealing with the internet is just one more potential danger you have to teach your kid about, like paying attention when they cross the street. While banning your child from the internet altogether is an option, in this day and age in my opinion it would be as silly and counterproductive as banning them from crossing the street.
-
In a way, nudity is still seen as art, as long as it's not done to arouse people. Outside of Utah, art students draw nude models in Life Drawing classes, and for many students, it's the only time in their artistic careers that they depict anyone nude. I understand that in Utah and probably other extremely conservative areas, models for those classes wear bathing suits or leotards.
Figure drawing classes at BYU aren't allowed to have nude models, but I believe at the University of Utah they do draw nude models.
-
Do you feel that those who do not believe in any afterlife are spending their time better than those who do believe in an afterlife?
Or do you feel both are spending their time the same?
It really depends on the person, but for me not knowing if there is anything after this makes this lifetime more meaningful and worth trying to get the most of. I'm sure it could have the opposite effect on some people, like they would think that if there is no afterlife there is no point to anything in this life because it doesn't matter after you die. It just depends on how you look at things, no matter what you believe someone could find the optimistic or the pessimistic side of it.
Or do you feel religion does have benefits and does bring good into the world?
I definitely believe religion has the potential for great personal improvement, but it also has the potential to be used as a tool for hate under a mask of righteousness. Again, I think it really depends on the underlying person more than the particular religion or lack there of.
-
Godless, do you truly believe that all the varied religions of the world---that believe something happens after death---are all wrong and are all basing their beliefs on "making death easier to cope with"? Can so many religions really have it wrong in believing in some kind of afterlife?
I am not attacking, I am just very curious. Even my father who is agnostic believes in something after this life. I had never met anybody, personally, who thought nothing at all happened after death. I hope you don't mind my curiosity.
~TG
I don't know about Godless, but I will answer from my perspective because I always like talking about my beliefs (or lack there of) with people who are genuinely curious.
No matter how you look at it, the vast majority religions that have ever existed are wrong and conflict with each other. Many facets of religion appear to have been designed to make people feel better and cope with things and I think obviously the main thing that people are worried about is death so it seems quite logical that so many religions have a concept of an afterlife to ease fears of what happens after they die.
Personally I don't strictly or dogmatically believe that nothing at all happens after death but at the moment it seems like the most likely scenario to me and I am perfectly alright if it is the case. I have come to terms with the fact that this life may very well be all that we get, our only chance at experiencing anything at all, and so I will make the most of it.
Don't get me wrong, I would be pleasantly surprised if there was some type of afterlife, but I'm not counting on it :)
-
SIGH
Yes, I am well aware that I did not configure in the MANY different religious beliefs that exist or have existed upon the earth, as I was speaking to Godless.
Again, I was just trying to be light. Apparently my humor was not received well. My apologies for all those who are offended.
I apologize as well for not picking up on the humor. I was not at all offended, I just wanted to point out that the logic you were using was somewhat flawed since I've seen people make statements like that in all seriousness :)
-
It would seem that my understanding of freedom and yours differs somewhat. I see freedom as a byproduct of knowledge and understanding (truth). Freedom is withheld or hindered whenever accurate information and knowledge is withheld. I am completely bewildered by your statement
I agree that our definitions of freedom appear to be quite different and as such I am equally bewildered by your statement and we can leave it at that :) You do have a very interesting perspective though and I appreciate you sharing it.
-
Either two things are going to happen when I die:
1. GAME OVER...in which case I won't be able to say Godless was right (
), because there will be NO final thoughts, no final images. NOTHING. BLANK SCREEN. In which case, at least I lived a good life. 2. Everything I believe is true. I will face Heavenly Father on judgement day and I will be placed in an eternal kingdom based on my earthly life and choices. In which case, I hope I live my life in such a manner that I get to where I am striving to go.
Seeing it in this light...I definitly want to err on the side of caution!
~TG
I think you're missing a few scenarios there, like maybe one of the thousands of other religions that have existed throughout time are correct and you will be judged based on the criteria of that religion. Given that many religions have conflicting requirements, there really is no way to "err on the side of caution."
-
Yes, I know my view here won't be a very popular one. Just throwin' it out there for consideration.
I agree with your assessment completely, but that's probably no surprise either :)
-
I've always thought that eternity would get pretty boring, but I also think 70 or so years is not enough. Maybe I'll feel differently in another 40 years, but it seems like there is so much to do right now.
In any case, most religions also believe it will be somehow different and much better on the other side (assuming you were "good") and not the same consciousness we experience here.
-
I stated in an earlier post in this thread that I believe knowledge and freedom are inseparable. The opposite I also believe is true – that is that ignorance and bondage are also inseparable.
What I would like to put to you is a question about history. How can anyone understand history without understanding the religious influences and cultures that are at the very center and core of shaping that history?
If we do not understand all the influences in history – how can anyone understand current politics and social challenges? If someone is not versed in politics and social possibilities – how can they be free?
Now I do not want to cram religion upon any unwilling person willing to be ignorant but for a person to stand up and declare ignorance as a desired or desirable situation – to me is not intelligent, free or wise. Decisions without being informed is never good or beneficial and a person will never be able to have a meaningful conversation with someone of diverse background if they do not understand the basic tenants of where they came from in history and society – and that includes the religion(s) that influence that history and society.
What should a child be taught without any possible reference to religion? I cannot think of one thing - including science and mathematics which have roots in history and societies if there is to be any practical use or benefit of such things in the future.
The Traveler
Traveler I don't think DigitalShadow is objecting to teaching about religion. Heck, my 10th grade world history class had Bibles as even if you think it's all a bunch of bunk it has historical significance. I think he's saying it wouldn't be cool if said history class made us read it and taught it as gospel (heh) truth as opposed to a historical/religious document.
So, its one thing to say teach about Christianity as background for teaching about the crusades (Islam would be another background you'd probably want to include), its quite another to teach that idolatry is wrong and that you should be Christian and follow the 10 commandments, aka teaching religion (sans the about part).
Thank you for your response and interest. There are many that are so opposed to religious reference that they get upset if a high school choir sings a Christmas carol in December or if someone says a prayer at graduation. Few understand the ramifications of religion in the saga of Joan of Arc or how religion played in the Pythagorean Theorem.
I am always surprised when people are offended that their children are influenced religiously at school but they do not have offence about politics, social engineering, sexual promiscuity or vulgar language.
The Traveler
Just to be clear, the only thing I am offended about here is how someone could think that having their religious ideals posted in every school is a necessary part of their freedom. My point was that if anything that infringes on other people's freedom, not that I am personally offended by the hints of religion in public schools. I certainly recognize how religion and in particular Christianity permeate our culture and history and am not trying to make ridiculous claims that all references should be eliminated.
My point was only referencing the boundaries of "freedom" and in my opinion, your freedom ends when it starts taking away my freedom and vice versa. Many people seem to think freedom is all about them and everything in the world being exactly how they think it should be without any thought to how other people who don't share their views would be effected.
-
Digital, understanding that 85% of Americans claim to be Christian, and that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution as originally envisioned as a protection against denomination-specific Christian sectarianism, not an all-out ban on any public religious platitudes, I fail to see the necessity of removing something as broad as the Ten Commandments from public space. Apparently the Gov. of Washington State felt otherwise, in that she chose to allow, along side a manger scene in the capital building, a sign posted by an atheist group that said religion is stupid and dangerous and has been the cause of most troubles in the world (yes, it was rather direct and intentionally condescending). We don't need to go back to the place of sectarian prayer in public schools offered by officials, but it's petty for small minority groups to complain about the majority culture, and attempt to disallow the most generic recognition of broad spirituality.
I'm not talking about removing anything here, I'm asking why it makes some people feel "free" to add the Ten Commandments to every school as the the original post suggested because as far as I know, the vast majority of schools don't have the Ten Commandments anywhere. For the record, I have been an atheist all my life and never particularly minded the religious platitudes (some generic, most overtly Christian) that have always been a part of public education.
), because there will be 
Bytor and politics
in Current Events
Posted
I don't mind at all. I read most of the articles just so I can get a better understanding of the conservative viewpoint since honestly it has never made much sense to me.