dimreepr

I never tried to but if you want, I will. "Irrelevant" being the operative word.

Not just a European problem.

Yet again you need to read again, specifically, post #33. It helps because some people take succour from their beliefs and are better for it; you show signs of hatred maybe you should really think about that and allow people the choice. Can’t you see? That it’s hatred that leads to suffering? If your hatred can’t be relieved then it’s you that suffers; if your hatred is relieved then it’s others that suffer; that has NOTHING to do with a book.

Come on delbert, play the game, your flat denial at every turn and no supportive evidence, doesn’t further the argument; what it does do, is show you as ignorant of, not only, the economics but also a deep ignorance of your fellow man in terms of empathy and understanding. Basically “put up or shut up”.

Really? No it doesn't, read again.

And less people would die.

Excellent attitude, hope to see more of your ideas, welcome to SFN.

This sentence is a little ambiguous given the tone of the post. Do you mean the greed of people who want to live a comfortable life (who wouldn’t) is the enablers (your choice given the context)? Or Do you mean the money lenders, who prey on the vulnerable and week willed (my choice)?

There’re many religious scientists, Mondie, including some of the giants of science; would you really put them in the same category as these nut jobs? The point is groups like the KKK have a hate filled agenda and used the bible as means to legitimise the hate by cherry picking ambiguous passages, of which there are many (caused by time and translation), and twist the meaning to their needs. IOW it’s people that diminish religion not the book.

The bible didn’t order Galileo’s torture, people did. Science created the bomb; it was people who used it on other people.

Well yin seems opposed to yang. So...

Indeed it is... But my question isn’t so much ‘what can I gain’ from the fight but ‘what can WE gain’ from it.

Most would consider “ours” supersedes “others”.

Don’t confuse religion with what has been done in its name; essentially religion seems to be trying to convey a means to enjoy life and so would facilitate life (and thus help); rather than dictate a doctrine that hinders life.

This answer seems to show the gulf in cultural thinking between America and the rest of the world. Why, for instance, settle on “5 firearms” rather than one and “when not in use” has a very limited definition.

To me ‘spirituality’ is only espoused by those that try very hard but fail to understand, the meaning of and the road to, contentment.

So the average citizen must be blamed for not being bright enough to spot a professional Politian’s lies? Given your monochromic view of the world I have serious doubts of your abilities in that area. Of course we are responsible for our actions but when those actions are by another, who may have deceived/coerced to gain your approval, they cease to be our actions.

A potentially attainable technology is, perhaps, a photovoltaic cell that could be printed onto, something like, vinyl and so could be applied to the entire house/building rather than just the roof. "May be plentiful in the middle of the Sahara desert , but distribution to where you want it is very very difficult ." The point is your idea has exactly the same issues but with no immediate method to solve them whereas at least my idea builds on working tech; meaning it works now, can be applied now and at no, excessive, cost .

So if you voted for a liar or idiot (not that they advertise that information) and he/she bugger things up, you’d be happy to starve? Not everyone does.

What you seem to be proposing is a high cost uncertain technology to send ten times less energy to earth than the sun already provides and that we can already collect; so my question is why?

You can’t have it both ways: The Greeks should be held to account because they voted for the gov that buggered things up. If the Greeks were lied to why should they be made to suffer? So which is it? Besides why should those that didn’t vote for the gov be made to suffer?

When did astrology become a religion?

Good point.

But however sophisticated the simulation and however intelligent the machine it will never understand a human. Because it will understand the conditions in which an emotional response is present but will never feel the emotion.

In the early days, more so than now, I have absolutely no doubt religion has helped many people, greatly. My only real objection to religion, other than genocide in its name, is its desire to convert everyone; even when those they seek to convert share the same basic beliefs (whether through god or other).