OT: KosherSwitch - Control Electricity on Shabbat!

[corrado33]

Science has already disproven much of what was originally interpreted from many religious texts, but religions keep moving the goalposts. Science has already convinced me. I think it would be a good thing if it convinced more people.

I see your point. Your way is the right way and everybody else should recognize and join it.

Makes sense to me.

I realize you're being sarcastic, but I stick by what I said. Science and the scientific method is HUMANITY'S BEST way of FIGURING CRAP OUT. If you don't believe what science provides evidence for, what DO you believe? The scientific method IS the RIGHT way. So yes, MY way, being the scientific method, is right, as realized by millions of scientists who have lived since it was thought up. Believing something, with zero evidence, just because someone told you to, is stupid. Very, very foolish.

Sure, science can be wrong sometimes (not often), but we're long past the days where we need a deity to explain things. Despite what people say, we're also long past the days when you can reconcile science and religion. You either believe what science says and realize that religion is only good for teaching good morals, or you unequivocally believe what a piece of really old propaganda tells you. A person cannot fully believe both. If you say you can, you've obviously not thought about either very thoroughly, or have ignored the inconsistencies enough to keep your "faith."

[free_electron]

Haha this is hilarious.  Basically the sabbath prevents you from doing work.  Pushing a button is work.  It's silliness though considering even Jesus himself found it ridiculous and disobeyed it on several occasions such as when he healed people.  The rabis were not happy but he basically told them to screw off.   

Also I just realized, my thermostat system is probably kosher.  I input my work schedule and don't have to touch it after that, typically.  Of course I still do because I can but I don't have to. 

Working requires consuming calories, so if we define work as ' burning calories' then even eating , walking, yes: breathing, burns calories so is considered work.
So they should all hold their breath for 24 hours and the world can move on then.

Theosophical and religious things aside ( you can believe all you want , at home , or anywhere you want ,that is your prerogative. I will not comment on that. to each his own. ) and i can understand 'no work' rule. but if blowing your nose or turning on the light is considered 'work' .... then why stop there. breathing is work too.

The whole light thing alone is silly. The rule is : do not make fire. A lightbulb is not fire ! There is no combustion process involved. Fire is a combustion process. A candle would be considered 'fire'. a lightbulb, CCFL or LED is not fire !
Aha, but what if the switch sparks ! Put a dampening capacitor across it. Now, may i introduce you to the year 2015 ?

[Gribo]

There is a religious institute here (Israel) devoted to modernizing and finding solutions to such religious problems. I must admit, I have never heard of 'no nose wiping on Saturday' before.

[zapta]

I realize you're being sarcastic, but I stick by what I said. Science and the scientific method is HUMANITY'S BEST way of FIGURING CRAP OUT. If you don't believe what science provides evidence for, what DO you believe? The scientific method IS the RIGHT way. So yes, MY way, being the scientific method, is right, as realized by millions of scientists who have lived since it was thought up. Believing something, with zero evidence, just because someone told you to, is stupid. Very, very foolish.

Sure, science can be wrong sometimes (not often), but we're long past the days where we need a deity to explain things. Despite what people say, we're also long past the days when you can reconcile science and religion. You either believe what science says and realize that religion is only good for teaching good morals, or you unequivocally believe what a piece of really old propaganda tells you. A person cannot fully believe both. If you say you can, you've obviously not thought about either very thoroughly, or have ignored the inconsistencies enough to keep your "faith."

It's not about belief A vs. belief B, it's about being humble vs. being cocky. None of us has special ability to determine 'the real truth' and anything that you believe now will look ridiculous in 1000 years (remember the four elements  earth, water, air, and fire?).

[corrado33]

It's not about belief A vs. belief B, it's about being humble vs. being cocky. None of us has special ability to determine 'the real truth' and anything that you believe now will look ridiculous in 1000 years (remember the four elements  earth, water, air, and fire?).

You are exactly right. The difference is that science and the scientific method attempts to find the truth, where as religion simply changes what it "interprets" out of it's texts to fit with what science (and popular belief) tells them to. (Oh a day in god's eyes isn't necessarily a day in our eyes...  (In reference to "god created the universe et. al. in 7 days.)   )

You can be damn sure that science is a hell of a lot closer than religion is to what we'll believe in the future. The probability of science proving a "deity" created everything with one fell swoop of his hand is very, extremely, miniscule.

[rolycat]

There is a religious institute here (Israel) devoted to modernizing and finding solutions to such religious problems. I must admit, I have never heard of 'no nose wiping on Saturday' before.

I believe the reference was to the 'no tearing' prohibition - If observant Jews don't have tissues or pre-torn toilet paper they aren't permitted to tear any to wipe their nose (or any other part of their anatomy).

[Howardlong]

remember the four elements  earth, water, air, and fire?

Sounds suspiciously like what we now call the four states of matter, ie solid, liquid, gas, plasma. Maybe they were onto something after all.!

[Sigmoid]

Despite what people say, we're also long past the days when you can reconcile science and religion. You either believe what science says and realize that religion is only good for teaching good morals, or you unequivocally believe what a piece of really old propaganda tells you.

Well your view of religion is, from one viewpoint, ridiculously idealistic, and from another, quite narrow.

So let's start at the beginning. Religion is a horrible way of teaching good morals. Many religions advocate horrible practices of inhumanity, cruelty and just plain general bad conduct. Religion is not even the source of morality as some insist - Western morality is the result of several millennia of lots of people living close together in Europe and around the Mediterranean, but any comparable culture has evolved its morals from the requirement of living together in relative peace.

So if we want good morals, we don't need religion. You don't need God to tell little Timmy that he shouldn't hurt others. He just needs to be made aware that others are living, feeling humans like himself.

As for your narrow view... You really think that religion is about ancient theories on the origin of the world? That "7 days" is somehow integral to Christian faith? Come on! And there are some religions with even less objectively "historic" scripture. And as for the "elimination of God"...
I recently read an article about how the theoretical state before the Big Bang is entirely plausible based on our current knowledge of the rules of the universe, therefore a "divine spark" isn't necessary. But someone may then ask "who put the laws of physics there"? I mean the laws of existence are SOMETHING, right? Where did they come from? Oh... Right?

Of course I'm not advocating belief in God. Definitely not advocating acting silly and irrational based on such belief. Just saying that if you want to eliminate any notion of a God, you have a long (infinitely long) way to go.

[corrado33]

Despite what people say, we're also long past the days when you can reconcile science and religion. You either believe what science says and realize that religion is only good for teaching good morals, or you unequivocally believe what a piece of really old propaganda tells you.

Well your view of religion is, from one viewpoint, ridiculously idealistic, and from another, quite narrow.

So let's start at the beginning. Religion is a horrible way of teaching good morals. Many religions advocate horrible practices of inhumanity, cruelty and just plain general bad conduct. Religion is not even the source of morality as some insist - Western morality is the result of several millennia of lots of people living close together in Europe and around the Mediterranean, but any comparable culture has evolved its morals from the requirement of living together in relative peace.

So if we want good morals, we don't need religion. You don't need God to tell little Timmy that he shouldn't hurt others. He just needs to be made aware that others are living, feeling humans like himself.

As for your narrow view... You really think that religion is about ancient theories on the origin of the world? That "7 days" is somehow integral to Christian faith? Come on! And there are some religions with even less objectively "historic" scripture. And as for the "elimination of God"...
I recently read an article about how the theoretical state before the Big Bang is entirely plausible based on our current knowledge of the rules of the universe, therefore a "divine spark" isn't necessary. But someone may then ask "who put the laws of physics there"? I mean the laws of existence are SOMETHING, right? Where did they come from? Oh... Right?

Of course I'm not advocating belief in God. Definitely not advocating acting silly and irrational based on such belief. Just saying that if you want to eliminate any notion of a God, you have a long (infinitely long) way to go.

The "7 days" may not be integral to the christian faith, but it's a very hotly argued topic, hence the inclusion here. I was merely demonstrating "moving the goalposts." Oh and how the die hard christians love to argue the point I mentioned above.

If religion isn't about ancient theories, and it's not about morality, what IS it about? Following ridiculous traditions for no reason? Community? Why does a bunch of people need to believe in a made up character to be a good community? (I'm picking on christianity here) The 10 commandments are essentially "Rules to live your life by if you want to be a good person." (Minus the ridiculous ones about believing in one god.) Aka, morals. No, we don't need religion to teach morals, but the threat of eternal damnation is a pretty convincing(and convenient) reason to be a good person. Unlike you, most religious people ignore the atrocities committed by many of the religions in the past. (Let's not forget the wide use of torture by the church in the many inquisitions of the past.) Sure, countries have done similar things, but religions did it because people wanted to think differently, not because some asset was being threatened.

Yes, the big bang. What the more educated of the religious argue about. Specifically what happened BEFORE the big bang. No, we do not know, but scientists have statistically proven that a universe like ours is very likely to exist, over other universes where laws of physics are different. Sure, it's statistics, but until we can build particle colliders that can produce particles with energies on the levels of what was experienced in the big bang (not ever going to happen.) we won't know. We can only theorize. And even our theories don't require a deity. Why do we need someone to CREATE the laws? Science has proven many things wrong in the bible, therefore the "smarter" of the religious people take it back (literally) to the beginning of our universe and say "Well you don't know what happened then so therefore *GOD*" Yeah, sorry, you tried that before when scientific thought was in it's infancy, and you're still moving the goalposts. Pointing out places where a god COULD exist != the existence of a god.

I don't think we have an infinitely long way to go. We do not have to know what happened before the big bang. We need to teach everyone to think rationally and objectively about everything. They will eventually (like I did) figure out that their religion is a bunch of BS stories propagated to scare people into acting a certain way.

[xrunner]

So if we want good morals, we don't need religion. You don't need God to tell little Timmy that he shouldn't hurt others. He just needs to be made aware that others are living, feeling humans like himself.

Somewhere on planet Earth 15,000 years ago ...

Og drop rock on foot - it hurt foot.

Og drop rock on Zog's foot - it hurt Zog.

Zog throw rock at Og - it hurt Og.

Og throw rock back at Zog - it hurt Zog.

Og and Zog get together and agree rocks hurt each other when thrown - agree to stop throwing rocks.

Beginning of morals.

It don't require deities to figure this out people.

[BradC]

So if we want good morals, we don't need religion. You don't need God to tell little Timmy that he shouldn't hurt others. He just needs to be made aware that others are living, feeling humans like himself.

You and I are capable of understanding that logic, and by extension the difference between right and wrong. Oddly enough (and I had to have a professor of psychology explain this to me in little words) a *majority* of the population (something like 75%) never reach that level of emotional development and actually *need* someone to give them hard and fast rules to live by (ie religion). No matter how badly you think of organised religion (and I'm neither a fan nor a believer), it gave people who are not clever enough to self determine right and wrong based on morality, some rules to live by (ie don't be shitty to one another).

[Dave]

Oddly enough (and I had to have a professor of psychology explain this to me in little words) a *majority* of the population (something like 75%) never reach that level of emotional development and actually *need* someone to give them hard and fast rules to live by (ie religion).

I find it hard to believe that 75% of people lack empathy. There is no freaking way the human species could survive if that was the case.

[BradC]

I find it hard to believe that 75% of people lack empathy. There is no freaking way the human species could survive if that was the case.

It's not empathy, it's the ability to associate empathy with causation. It's that logical connection and the ability to think the process through to its final consequences. How many people do *you* know that can actually analyse a process from start to finish without reverting to external guidance? Now apply that to every action you perform, every day. Some people do that naturally. Most don't.
These people don't make the connection between "Oh he got a hammer through the skull, that's not nice and must have hurt" and "I'm going to put a hammer through his skull and steal his wallet". There's no sense of consequence when it applies to others.

I thought the number sounded high too, but he provided a couple of studies for me to look at. In reality the number is pretty irrelevant, it turns out to be a relatively small proportion of people who are actually developed enough to determine right from wrong without having someone explain it to them first.

Look, I'm not defending religion, but one thing it does do is give people who need something to believe in, something to believe in. It also lays some behavioral rules down where people are not clever enough to come up with them on their own.

I do a lot of work in custodial facilities, and a very common theme is it just never occurred to them that beating up the elderly gentleman to steal his cigarettes was wrong.

I'm not going to reply further because that would become "arguing on the internet" and we all know that way leads to madness. Whether you agree I have a point, or not, you can't argue that from a moral and ethical standpoint, things are getting worse and not better. There are many causes, and despite my distaste for organized religion I can't help but think the de-emphasis of the church is one of them.

[Sigmoid]

I find it hard to believe that 75% of people lack empathy. There is no freaking way the human species could survive if that was the case.

It's not empathy, it's the ability to associate empathy with causation. It's that logical connection and the ability to think the process through to its final consequences. How many people do *you* know that can actually analyse a process from start to finish without reverting to external guidance? Now apply that to every action you perform, every day. Some people do that naturally. Most don't.
These people don't make the connection between "Oh he got a hammer through the skull, that's not nice and must have hurt" and "I'm going to put a hammer through his skull and steal his wallet". There's no sense of consequence when it applies to others.

I thought the number sounded high too, but he provided a couple of studies for me to look at. In reality the number is pretty irrelevant, it turns out to be a relatively small proportion of people who are actually developed enough to determine right from wrong without having someone explain it to them first.

The same people will, without question beat up gays, torture women and children, commit acts of terror, mass murder, and war, just because "God" told them to. Those who don't understand why it's wrong to kill an old man for his valuables would, if deeply religious, would be absolutely positive that killing a gay person is the law of God and an act of absolute good.

Yes, if we assume that religion teaches "not to be a dick" (ie. some of the 10 commandments), then it might be good for "crowd control"... but most religions don't teach that. Not being a dick is the first lesson in Sunday school. All the rest are about when you should be a dick and to whom, and who totally deserves being horribly punished by God or those faithful to God.

The people who take the good part of religions, and live by them, ignoring or denouncing the bad, are in fact the same people who would be ethical without religion.

[Sigmoid]

...so what is religion then...

It is, and has been, definitely used as a way of crowd control, for good or evil.

Most religions also show traces of attempts at explaining the how's and why's of the world.

But ultimately, in my view, religion (as in not "any specific religion", more like "the noumenous and transcendental as something humans do") is an attempt at finding meaning and fulfillment in the ultimately absurd experience of the human condition. That the world exists, and we exist in it as human beings, and to top it off, we actually are experiencing this existence.

And even if science explains more and more of the how's of reality and human beings, that still leaves us with "why" and "what are we supposed to do now". And yes, Atheists, "just because" and "enjoy it while it lasts" are in fact valid answers. But the freedom to seek other answers is very important if we want to remain humans.

[timofonic]

...so what is religion then...

It is, and has been, definitely used as a way of crowd control, for good or evil.

Most religions also show traces of attempts at explaining the how's and why's of the world.

But ultimately, in my view, religion (as in not "any specific religion", more like "the noumenous and transcendental as something humans do") is an attempt at finding meaning and fulfillment in the ultimately absurd experience of the human condition. That the world exists, and we exist in it as human beings, and to top it off, we actually are experiencing this existence.

And even if science explains more and more of the how's of reality and human beings, that still leaves us with "why" and "what are we supposed to do now". And yes, Atheists, "just because" and "enjoy it while it lasts" are in fact valid answers. But the freedom to seek other answers is very important if we want to remain humans.

WTF is being an human? We often put ourselves at the top or at the bottom, depending on our point of view. We really have no idea, just lying ourselves.

Why are ignorants so full of ego and people that question everything get easily in varying levels of depression? Why is our mind so delicate and easily to get broken?

We refuse to acknowledge there's no meaning in our life's other than the one we believe, it's an extremely subjective and unstable experience.

Are religions the most old way of antidepressants? Are they a way to make us less aware of a reality our limitations are unable to understand? Are they a way to make us stop thinking and follow a routine accepted by other group of people and not feel alone?

[Simon]

OK I think we have all had our say and to avoid the risk that the argument goes religiously on with no resolution as clearly religions can never agree lets call it a close shall we.