Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_index.html

Take a look- a compilation of radical ideas by leading thinkers (a vague term, but you get the gist). The contributions start about one third down the page.

Interesting ones include "Our planet is not in peril" by the News and Features editior of Nature magazine where he says that it is a myth that the Earth is in environmental danger (kudos to him!), "Let's stop beating Basil's car" by Richard Dawkins, where he argues that criminals should be looked at as broken machines, to be repaired, not punished... Dawkins this week starts a Channel 4 series in the UK where he argues that for the good of the planet, we must get rid of all religion; this thought is echoed on this website in Sam Harris' contribution "Science must destroy religion", and for a highly controversial one- "School is bad for children", by Roger Schank, Chief Learning Officer at Trump University.

Thoughts on any of these?

PHILIP ZIMBARDO
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Stanford University; Author: Shyness


The banality of evil is matched by the banality of heroism

Those people who become perpetrators of evil deeds and those who become perpetrators of heroic deeds are basically alike in being just ordinary, average people.

The banality of evil is matched by the banality of heroism. Both are not the consequence of dispositional tendencies, not special inner attributes of pathology or goodness residing within the human psyche or the human genome. Both emerge in particular situations at particular times when situational forces play a compelling role in moving individuals across the decisional line from inaction to action.

There is a decisive decisional moment when the individual is caught up in a vector of forces emanating from the behavioral context. Those forces combine to increase the probability of acting to harm others or acting to help others. That decision may not be consciously planned or taken mindfully, but impulsively driven by strong situational forces external to the person. Among those action vectors are group pressures and group identity, diffusion of responsibility, temporal focus on the immediate moment without entertaining costs and benefits in the future, among others.

The military police guards who abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the prison guards in my Stanford Prison experiment who abused their prisoners illustrate the "Lord of the Flies" temporary transition of ordinary individuals into perpetrators of evil. We set aside those whose evil behavior is enduring and extensive, such as tyrants like Idi Amin, Stalin and Hitler. Heroes of the moment are also contrasted with lifetime heroes.

The heroic action of Rosa Parks in a Southern bus, of Joe Darby in exposing the Abu Ghraib tortures, of NYC firefighters at the World Trade Center's disaster are acts of bravery at that time and place. The heroism of Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, and Gandhi is replete with valorous acts repeated over a lifetime. That chronic heroism is to acute heroism as valour is to bravery.

This view implies that any of us could as easily become heroes as perpetrators of evil depending on how we are impacted by situational forces. We then want to discover how to limit, constrain, and prevent those situational and systemic forces that propel some of us toward social pathology.

It is equally important for our society to foster the heroic imagination in our citizens by conveying the message that anyone is a hero-in-waiting who will be counted upon to do the right thing when the time comes to make the heroic decision to act to help or to act to prevent harm.

JAMES O'DONNELL
Classicist; Cultural Historian; Provost, Georgetown University; Author, Avatars of the Word


Marx was right: the "state" will evaporate and cease to have useful meaning as a form of human organization

From the earliest Babylonian and Chinese moments of "civilization", we have agreed that human affairs depend on an organizing power in the hands of a few people (usually with religious charisma to undergird their authority) who reside in a functionally central location. "Political science" assumes in its etymology the "polis" or city-state of Greece as the model for community and government.

But it is remarkable how little of human excellence and achievement has ever taken place in capital cities and around those elites, whose cultural history is one of self-mockery and implicit acceptance of the marginalization of the powerful. Borderlands and frontiers (and even suburbs) are where the action is.

But as long as technologies of transportation and military force emphasized geographic centralization and concentration of forces, the general or emperor or president in his capital with armies at his beck and call was the most obvious focus of power. Enlightened government constructed mechanisms to restrain and channel such centralized authority, but did not effectively challenge it.

So what advantage is there today to the nation state? Boundaries between states enshrine and exacerbate inequalities and prevent the free movement of peoples. Large and prosperous state and state-related organizations and locations attract the envy and hostility of others and are sitting duck targets for terrorist action. Technologies of communication and transportation now make geographically-defined communities increasingly irrelevant and provide the new elites and new entrepreneurs with ample opportunity to stand outside them. Economies construct themselves in spite of state management and money flees taxation as relentlessly as water follows gravity.

Who will undergo the greatest destabilization as the state evaporates and its artificial protections and obstacles disappear? The sooner it happens, the more likely it is to be the United States. The longer it takes ... well, perhaps the new Chinese empire isn't quite the landscape-dominating leviathan of the future that it wants to be. Perhaps in the end it will be Mao who was right, and a hundred flowers will bloom there.

HAIM HARARI
Physicist, former President, Weizmann Institute of Science


Democracy may be on its way out

Democracy may be on its way out. Future historians may determine that Democracy will have been a one-century episode. It will disappear. This is a sad, truly dangerous, but very realistic idea (or, rather, prediction).

Falling boundaries between countries, cross border commerce, merging economies, instant global flow of information and numerous other features of our modern society, all lead to multinational structures. If you extrapolate this irreversible trend, you get the entire planet becoming one political unit. But in this unit, anti-democracy forces are now a clear majority. This majority increases by the day, due to demographic patterns. All democratic nations have slow, vanishing or negative population growth, while all anti-democratic and uneducated societies multiply fast. Within democratic countries, most well-educated families remain small while the least educated families are growing fast. This means that, both at the individual level and at the national level, the more people you represent, the less economic power you have. In a knowledge based economy, in which the number of working hands is less important, this situation is much more non-democratic than in the industrial age. As long as upward mobility of individuals and nations could neutralize this phenomenon, democracy was tenable. But when we apply this analysis to the entire planet, as it evolves now, we see that democracy may be doomed.

To these we must add the regrettable fact that authoritarian multinational corporations, by and large, are better managed than democratic nation states. Religious preaching, TV sound bites, cross boundary TV incitement and the freedom of spreading rumors and lies through the internet encourage brainwashing and lack of rational thinking. Proportionately, more young women are growing into societies which discriminate against them than into more egalitarian societies, increasing the worldwide percentage of women treated as second class citizens. Educational systems in most advanced countries are in a deep crisis while modern education in many developing countries is almost non-existent. A small well-educated technological elite is becoming the main owner of intellectual property, which is, by far, the most valuable economic asset, while the rest of the world drifts towards fanaticism of one kind or another. Add all of the above and the unavoidable conclusion is that Democracy, our least bad system of government, is on its way out.

Can we invent a better new system? Perhaps. But this cannot happen if we are not allowed to utter the sentence: "There may be a political system which is better than Democracy". Today's political correctness does not allow one to say such things. The result of this prohibition will be an inevitable return to some kind of totalitarian rule, different from that of the emperors, the colonialists or the landlords of the past, but not more just. On the other hand, open and honest thinking about this issue may lead either to a gigantic worldwide revolution in educating the poor masses, thus saving democracy, or to a careful search for a just (repeat, just) and better system.

I cannot resist a cheap parting shot: When, in the past two years, Edge asked for brilliant ideas you believe in but cannot prove, or for proposing new exciting laws, most answers related to science and technology. When the question is now about dangerous ideas, almost all answers touch on issues of politics and society and not on the "hard sciences". Perhaps science is not so dangerous, after all.

JEREMY BERNSTEIN
Professor of Physics, Stevens Institute of Technology; Author, Hitler's Uranium Club

The idea that we understand plutonium

The most dangerous idea I have come across recently is the idea that we understand plutonium. Plutonium is the most complex element in the periodic table. It has six different crystal phases between room temperature and its melting point. It can catch fire spontaneously in the presence of water vapor and if you inhale minuscule amounts you will die of lung cancer. It is the principle element in the "pits" that are the explosive cores of nuclear weapons. In these pits it is alloyed with gallium. No one knows why this works and no one can be sure how stable this alloy is. These pits, in the thousands, are now decades old. What is dangerous is the idea that they have retained their integrity and can be safely stored into the indefinite future.

ROBERT SHAPIRO
Professor Emeritus, Senior Research Scientist, Department of Chemistry, New York University. Author, Planetary Dreams


We shall understand the origin of life within the next 5 years

Two very different groups will find this development dangerous, and for different reasons, but this outcome is best explained at the end of my discussion.

Just over a half century ago, in the spring of 1953, a famous experiment brought enthusiasm and renewed interest to this field. Stanley Miller, mentored by Harold Urey, demonstrated that a mixture of small organic molecules (monomers) could readily be prepared by exposing a mixture of simple gases to an electrical spark. Similar mixtures were found in meteorites, which suggested that organic monomers may be widely distributed in the universe. If the ingredients of life could be made so readily, then why could they not just as easily assort themselves to form cells?

In that same spring, however, another famous paper was published by James Watson and Francis Crick. They demonstrated that the heredity of living organisms was stored in a very large large molecule called DNA. DNA is a polymer, a substance made by stringing many smaller units together, as links are joined to form a long chain.

The clear connection between the structure of DNA and its biological function, and the geometrical beauty of the DNA double helix led many scientists to consider it to be the essence of life itself. One flaw remained, however, to spoil this picture. DNA could store information, but it could not reproduce itself without the assistance of proteins, a different type of polymer. Proteins are also adept at increasing the rate of (catalyzing) many other chemical reactions that are considered necessary for life. The origin of life field became mired in the "chicken-or-the egg" question. Which came first: DNA or proteins? An apparent answer emerged when it was found that another polymer, RNA (a cousin of DNA) could manage both heredity and catalysis. In 1986, Walter Gilbert proposed that life began with an "RNA World." Life started when an RNA molecule that could copy itself was formed, by chance, in a pool of its own building blocks.

Unfortunately, a half century of chemical experiments have demonstrated that nature has no inclination to prepare RNA, or even the building blocks (nucleotides) that must be linked together to form RNA. Nucleotides are not formed in Miller-type spark discharges, nor are they found in meteorites. Skilled chemists have prepared nucleotides in well-equipped laboratories, and linked them to form RNA, but neither chemists nor laboratories were present when life began on the early Earth. The Watson-Crick theory sparked a revolution in molecular biology, but it left the origin-of-life question at an impasse.

Fortunately, an alternative solution to this dilemma has gradually emerged: neither DNA nor RNA nor protein were necessary for the origin of life. Large molecules dominate the processes of life today, but they were not needed to get it started. Monomers themselves have the ability to support heredity and catalysis. The key requirement is that a suitable energy source be available to assist them in the processes of self-organization. A demonstration of the principle involved in the origin of life would require only that a suitable monomer mixture be exposed to an appropriate energy source in a simple apparatus. We could then observe the very first steps in evolution.

Some mixtures will work, but many others will fail, for technical reasons. Some dedicated effort will be needed in the laboratory to prove this point. Why have I specified five years for this discovery? The unproductive polymer-based paradigm is far from dead, and continues to consume the efforts of the majority of workers in the field. A few years will be needed to entice some of them to explore the other solution. I estimate that several years more (the time for a PhD thesis) might be required to identify a suitable monomer-energy combination, and perform a convincing demonstration.

Who would be disturbed if such efforts should succeed? Many scientists have been attracted by the RNA World theory because of its elegance and simplicity. Some of them have devoted decades of their career in efforts to prove it. They would not be pleased if Freeman Dyson's description proved to be correct: "life began with little bags, the precursors of cells, enclosing small volumes of dirty water containing miscellaneous garbage."

A very different group would find this development as dangerous as the theory of evolution. Those who advocate creationism and intelligent design would feel that another pillar of their belief system was under attack. They have understood the flaws in the RNA World theory, and used them to support their supernatural explanation for life's origin. A successful scientific theory in this area would leave one less task less for God to accomplish: the origin of life would be a natural (and perhaps frequent) result of the physical laws that govern this universe. This latter thought falls directly in line with the idea of Cosmic Evolution, which asserts that events since the Big Bang have moved almost inevitably in the direction of life. No miracle or immense stroke of luck was needed to get it started. If this should be the case, then we should expect to be successful when we search for life beyond this planet. We are not the only life that inhabits this universe.

I do agree that schools need to be revamped. Children aren't taught how to think, but what to think which is funded by the government. It's all geared towards the standard tests. Homeschooling is becoming big here, and for many states it it not regulated by the government. The government is trying to get their foot in the door of these states by offering free supplies, though most homeschools won't accept them for fear that if you take from the government, the government will take from you.

Besides kids spend all day in school, and wind up with 2 plus hours of school at home taking away their home time, when in a normal homeschool family, it only takes a student about 4 hours to finish all their schooling per day.

Take a look at this one:

---

W.DANIEL HILLIS
Physicist, Computer Scientist; Chairman, Applied Minds, Inc.; Author, The Pattern on the Stone


The idea that we should all share our most dangerous ideas

I don't share my most dangerous ideas. Ideas are the most powerful forces that we can unleash upon the world, and they should not be let loose without careful consideration of their consequences. Some ideas are dangerous because they are false, like an idea that one race of humans is more worthy that another, or that one religion has monopoly on the truth. False ideas like these spread like wildfire, and have caused immeasurable harm. They still do. Such false ideas should obviously not be spread or encouraged, but there are also plenty of trues idea that should not be spread: ideas about how to cause terror and pain and chaos, ideas of how to better convince people of things that are not true.

I have often seen otherwise thoughtful people so caught up in such an idea that they seem unable to resist sharing it. To me, the idea that we should all share our most dangerous ideas is, itself, a very dangerous idea. I just hope that it never catches on.

---

There always has to be someone trying to be a smart-ass, eh?

Oh, we should all just go to US schools and be taught not think...That will solve it.

as far as the "planet in peril" part, i agree. the planet is in no danger by our actions. and though we may have a hand in accellerating or maybe causing climate change, its the human race that will suffer, not the earth.

"If the belief that the planet is in peril were merely wrong, there might be an excuse for ignoring it, though basing one's actions on lies is an unattractive proposition. But the planet-in-peril idea is an easy target for those who, for various reasons, argue against any action on the carbon/climate crisis at all. In this, bad science is a hostage to fortune. What's worse, the idea distorts environmental reasoning, too. For example, laying stress on the non-issue of the health of the planet, rather than the real issues of effects that harm people, leads to a general preference for averting change rather than adapting to it, even though providing the wherewithal for adaptation will often be the most rational response."

by exagerating the danger to mankind and saying "save the planet", environmental groups fuel the opposition and allow themselves to be discredited. but i must say, i see no argument against human influenced global warming, in fact the acknowledgement of the possibility.

Geez, there is loads of opposition to the general consensus on global warming. In fact, counter-opinion on that area is one of the most firecely debated scientific areas, though you hear little about it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Geez, there is loads of opposition to the general consensus on global warming. In fact, counter-opinion on that area is one of the most firecely debated scientific areas, though you hear little about it.

im just saying that the acknowledgement of possibility is there.
dont think you dug up the holy grail on the anti-man made global warming theory

And when did I ever imply that it did?

I would point out though that he doesn't say the Human race will suffer- he says some humans will.

well of coarse not ush. only a global catastrophy would put ALL humans in danger. but the possibility is there and the current state of debate is a ridiculous stalemate on both ends. one side exagerating and lying "THE WORLD IS DOOMED" while the other just uses that as fuel to discredit the whole theory on man made global warming. i think the main point of this passage was to illustrate that.

as far as the origins of life, i feel that little will change.
those who are sold on the idea of evolution will have the answers they seeked, while those who chose to deny will continue to deny. it will be a great leap in the science community, and for those willing to accept it, but i dont think it will sell anyone on the idea.

No, I don't think that's it at all- he is very much making the point that bandying around terms like 'the Human race' implies that this is an enormous issue that will impede all of us.

He very much does not think that- he thinks it will only cause isolated problems, that should be approached with the same spirit of charity as were responses to, say, the Boxing Day Tsunami, rather than with a sense of desperation that we are against some general threat. He points out it will mostly affect the poor, and so the problem is actually entirely different to how it is generally presented.

He doesn't actually think it will affect many of us very much at all- except, as he points out, on a kind of moral level, about whether it is ok to let so many species be destroyed, and so forth.

That's what he is saying.

"All of these effects provide excellent reasons to act. And yet many people in the various green movements feel compelled to add on the notion that the planet itself is in crisis, or doomed"

That's all part of the same point.

He specifies the point I made above- that it will only have impact on certain groups.

Current responses to environmental issues are based around the idea that 'we' are under threat. He is saying this is not true- but that we should still act because others are under threat, and it is moral to help them.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I do agree that schools need to be revamped. Children aren't taught how to think, but what to think which is funded by the government. It's all geared towards the standard tests. Homeschooling is becoming big here, and for many states it it not regulated by the government. The government is trying to get their foot in the door of these states by offering free supplies, though most homeschools won't accept them for fear that if you take from the government, the government will take from you.

Besides kids spend all day in school, and wind up with 2 plus hours of school at home taking away their home time, when in a normal homeschool family, it only takes a student about 4 hours to finish all their schooling per day.

I only see one problem with your Homeschooling argument:

You don't exactly have the greatest choice of babes when it comes to choosing a prom date.

BUT...when one is chosen, the teachers should rest assured that one of their students won't get knocked up...here's hoping!

he suggests the idea that we should act NOW, thus the comparrison to green peace's method of addressing the issue. present tense. there is no way to act now in response to a catastrophy until what is done, is done. unless what he said is in regards to research and if possible, changes on our manner of using fuel.

That proponent wasn't actually seeing homeschooling as the answer- he still wanted the opportunity for kids to go somewhere for their day, but he wanted something nothing like the modern idea of a school.

Originally posted by PVS
he suggests the idea that we should act NOW, thus the comparrison to green peace's method of addressing the issue. present tense. there is no way to act now until what is done, is done. unless what he said is in regards to research and if possible, changes on our manner of using fuel.

No no- he is saying we should act now to avoid Global Warming- not because it affects us, but because it will have a disastrous effect on others.

He is saying that just because it does not affect us, that's no reason to not still act, but he feels the reason that many are acting is because the Green movement has scared them into thinking that it WILL affect us, which he does not like.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The Internet inadvertently undermines the quality of human interaction, allowing destructive emotional impulses freer reign under specific circumstances. The reason is a neural fluke that results in cyber-disinhibition of brain systems that keep our more unruly urges in check. The tech problem: a major disconnect between the ways our brains are wired to connect, and the interface offered in online interactions.

one word: troll

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No no- he is saying we should act now to avoid Global Warming- not because it affects us, but because it will have a disastrous effect on others.

He is saying that just because it does not affect us, that's no reason to not still act, but he feels the reason that many are acting is because the Green movement has scared them into thinking that it WILL affect us, which he does not like.

so then we agree. man you are impossible

Ah, that's because you thought I was using it as part of a Man-made Global Warming myth argument, which I was not (if I was hawking my own ideas, I would have posted the ones in there which talk about Kyoto being doornailed or Warming being unavoidable).

Originally posted by botankus
I only see one problem with your Homeschooling argument:

You don't exactly have the greatest choice of babes when it comes to choosing a prom date.

BUT...when one is chosen, the teachers should rest assured that one of their students won't get knocked up...here's hoping! Not much to chose from that's for sure. Though I wish the education system was geared more towards independent thinking than rote learning. Schools are preprogrammed by the government on how to think and view such things as historical events and science.

I think your points about the education thing don't really address what the guy said. I think he would probably say that engendering an interest in such things is actively impossible in the school system, which he thinks distracts from, rather than encourages, education.

He might even go so far to say that if people are not interested in learning Maths and can survive without it, why bother? If they are interested or it is necessary, then they can learn it.

He is pretty much in favour of students guiding their own learning rather than having it dictated. That would be the part people would take issue with, I think.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think your points about the education thing don't really address what the guy said. I think he would probably say that engendering an interest in such things is actively impossible in the school system, which he thinks distracts from, rather than encourags, education.

He might even go so far to say that if people are not interested in learning Maths and can survive without it, why bother? If they are interested or it is necessary, then they can learn it.

He is pretty much in favour of students guiding their own learning rather than having it dictated. That would be the part people would take issue with, I think. I have heard of programs like this...In Michigan it's called unschooling and is taught by interest. For example to learn math, it could be taught by learning music with its notes each have time counting and such or in a job related field of measurement. Though I do know some who have gone to this kind of teaching approach, it does leave gabs, which have to be filled later in the community colleges.

The good thing with this approach though is no burn out and a great field of interest in learning. Much like what was done in societies with apprenticeships of old.

Summerhill in the UK is probably the pioneer in the Western world of the Humanist, student-centred approach.

Much to the irritation of many, it works- but you do have to pay.

It's generally very difficult to teach in a class setting with other students because of differing interests.

Well, the schedule is co-operatively decided by the students at Summehill; that is the root of the humanistic theory.

Actually I wish I was taught like that....Though many kids don't have any interests beyond tv and other type things, so it makes it hard to plan anything especially when girls only want to learn about mermaids and stuff....true story......How long can person learn about mermaids, and things associated with, but oh yes, you can go into the study of Oceans, and water timetables, geography and such....You just got to be creative

Well, again, the system there is that in the co-operative atmosphere, and guided by the older students who act as mentors, the students are encouraged to elect to learn about things that are useful, not just whatever fancy takes their liking.

Plenty of people thought it would fail completey, and indeed for a long time it was performing below standard, with its creator (who takes an equal voice in the council and was actually outvoted on decisions by his own pupils several times) having to mount defences of it by pointing out non-academic advantages his pupils got.

But the school's most recent Government inspection report was glowing about its achivements- as I say, much to the annoyance of many, it works.

But that's one fee-paying school; that doesn't mean it could work universally.

Actually that is what true education is IMO. Doesn't kill the love for learning and it doesn't end with graduation. It becomes a life process of always learning. I wish more schools offered it though here I also think it goes by the name Montesory(sp?)

Not that we have High School Graduation here, but if the Government report praised it that would mean in turn that its pupils were actually perfectly capable of taking and passing the state exams at 16 and 18 (and did).

So the point about its success is not only the way in whuch things are taught, but that the people there do at least as well, academically speaking, as they would at a mainstram school. So it appears, anyway.

Well there are a lot of famous people that learned that way, like Edison, and even Einstein...They were both pulled out of school for not keeping up. Best thing that could of happened to them for sure.

I am pretty sure there would be a lot of educational casualties if we switched over the whole system like that though.

It's not for everybody. Many students need more structure, and this unschooling is very unstructured here at least. The education system should be equipped to handle many styles of learning. There are kids that would totally flop if not pushed. Though I do wish that answers weren't just given to kids, but debated on them and why things are so..More analytical thinking skills.

It think there would be some casualties, but only because the educacional system is made to train students to have high grades, you learn how to obtain high grades, not to think.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
It think there would be some casualties, but only because the educacional system is made to train students to have high grades, you learn how to obtain high grades, not to think. Yes, they are only taught for tests, not real education for learning. More rote. No wonder so many hate school.

Maybe it was because I was in honors and AP classes during high school, or maybe because I went to a really good high school, but a lot of my classes - my science ones especially, and my physics class I took junior year in particular - were like that. In my physics class in particular our teacher wouldn't always explain exactly why something worked the way it did, but rather set it up where we could do an experiment to work it out ourselves. Surprise surprise, I liked my science classes a lot in high school, and despite the fact my physics class was the hardest one I took, I did very well in it.

Though there are many people who aren't interested in why something is the way it is, they just want to know the info.

Originally posted by Lana
Though there are many people who aren't interested in why something is the way it is, they just want to know the info.

I agree. They just want to know what they need to pass the tests, and even the tests are made in a way that is not needed to much analytical thinking. Just remember the equation, substitute x by the given number, and find the result. Students do not do much more than a calculator do.

They just want to know the info for the passing grade, because that's what they've learned to do. It's the easier yet most uninteresting way.

Originally posted by debbiejo
They just want to know the info for the passing grade, because that's what they've learned to do. It's the easier yet most uninteresting way.

It was not so easy for me, when I do not see the purpose of what I am doing I do not do it well. But it is a good thing to those who can do it.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
It was not so easy for me, when I do not see the purpose of what I am doing I do not do it well. But it is a good thing to those who can do it.

I'm like that too, if I see something as being pointless, or really can't figure out what the purpose of it is, I find I have a hard time doing it. I hated doing homework in school - I saw no point as I didn't need to do it to understand what we were learning.

I think things should be tailored per student.

The only way that can happen is with small classes and more teachers...and considering how overcrowded most schools are (especially in cities), how much schools have to cut programs to try and have enough money to stay open, and how much that stupid No Child Left Behind act has screwed things up in the US...that's not really possible.

Only in private schools I'm afraid...You know how expensive those schools are when people are already paying taxes for the government schools as it is. It doesn't even matter if your child is attending school or if you don't even have any children people are still taxed by it...Gotta pay no matter what....Not right.

Originally posted by Lana
I hated doing homework in school - I saw no point as I didn't need to do it to understand what we were learning.

Exactly, and that lead me to have some lower grades in high school sometimes. Fortunately in college things are different, and I do well enough. I have many friends who did very well in high school, and now totally failed in college.

I think that if the educacional system was good, then there should be some correlation between grades, and learning, but for me, were I live at last it is not like that.

Why should we not share our ideas? In my opinion, it isn't what you hear, it's how loudly you hear it. Good ideas or bad ideas can be expressed, but as a race we need to be able to have the foresight to see how it can benefit or detract from our existence.

Only after every human being is made aware of the consequences of their beliefs, and their willingness to act upon them in regards to the rest of humanity, will a true peace and understanding be acheived.

The variety of life is the driving force behind stability. Once people know and accept that their willingness to act on their counter-cooperative instincts will be detrimental to their existance, then the aforementioned variety can add to teh stability of our world.

The human condition lends itself to suffering. Therefore, fellow human beings must not be allowed to contribute, directly, to that suffering. Convictions are important, but knowing when to exercise them is invaluable.

Evolution

What we need in this world is clear understanding of what the modern theory of evolution is all about. People read Darwin and think that's what we still cling to, and that isn't the case. And that lack of a broad and sweeping modernization of the theory is what people who still believe the Earth to be 6K years old cling to when they're out there, spreading ignorance. Darwin hypothosized that a whale came from a bear. That's just wrong. It was a revolutionary concept for it's time, and it does indeed have it's basis in factual evidence, but it was wrong. The whale evolved from an animal that originally lived on land, but the bear-thing is way off.

So, basically what I'm saying is that there needs to be a modern Darwin, that puts all the pieces together for everyone. I'm not saying that there aren't going to be aspects of the theory that are proven wrong in teh future, I'm saying it holds up against all teh bible-based rhetoric that there fanatics want to present as fact. Look at how much time has been spent trying to prove the events of the bible; how better could that time and energy have been put to use? Evolution doesn't rob people of their faith. It can exist alongside all the scientific facts. Those in that position simply choose to ignore this fact. Once people realize that their "FAITH" is unshakable, then the religious will become much more tolerant. As it is, they argue so strongly, because they themsleves are incapable of dealing with their own insecurities in regards to their faith.

*I did not mean to post here*

Originally posted by Isredel
*I did not mean to post here*

*i did not mean to quote you*

Come on people! This is a good thread! RESPOND!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Dawkins this week starts a Channel 4 series in the UK where he argues that for the good of the planet, we must get rid of all religion...

You may say he's a dreamer, but he's not the only one. I hope some day people will join him, and the world will live as one...

I like the idea of proclaiming any idea that comes into our heads, but it could result in an awful lot of people walking around with watermelons on their heads as a means to cooling their brains so they could teleport on the ether airways. See what I mean?

You're right, no bad could come of this...Unless you count the Holocaust as one of those dangerous ideas.

It's not really a new concept though, is it? Philosophers, scientists and scholars have always shared - and acted upon - their 'dangerous' ideas. Without them, we wouldn't be where we are today. Where are we? Where were we? We were where? When? Whatever.

'The best ideas are common property.' - Seneca

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one...



DevilKing1138: also, i wasn't aware of this, but you might be
DevilKing1138: comets are baby jesus flying through heaven?
DevilKing1138: it's all part of my new christian religion
IMaSuperHottie2: lol
DevilKing1138: i've been thinking that if i start one too
DevilKing1138: that maybe i can get rich
DevilKing1138: and since people will believe anything
DevilKing1138: why not just make this shit up myself
IMaSuperHottie2: you should incorporate hidden bible messages
IMaSuperHottie2: and jesus juice
IMaSuperHottie2: they love that
DevilKing1138: oh, i will
DevilKing1138: shrimp, deveined, can only be comsumed on holy days
DevilKing1138: it'll be like communion
DevilKing1138: otherwise, you have to eat teh ones with shit still in them
IMaSuperHottie2: haha
DevilKing1138: clean shrimp was invented by jesus
IMaSuperHottie2: what will your role in the religion be?
DevilKing1138: well, i will be the founder
DevilKing1138: and i will tell people that jesus visited ancient china and left secret messages written in stool
DevilKing1138: that, over the course of 2000 years
DevilKing1138: hardened into fossilized comandments
IMaSuperHottie2: lol
DevilKing1138: you can be a man
DevilKing1138: you were born emma smith
IMaSuperHottie2: i mean, the male equivalent of emma smith...
DevilKing1138: but baby jesus made you a man to further the religion
DevilKing1138: and show off his powers
IMaSuperHottie2: because jesus was gay
DevilKing1138: right
IMaSuperHottie2: so he made me a man
DevilKing1138: yes
DevilKing1138: but he made you out of his own shin bone
IMaSuperHottie2: so that the union would be sacred
IMaSuperHottie2: instead of that blasphemus male-female marriage
IMaSuperHottie2: lol
DevilKing1138: no, hetero relationships will be allowed, but only in churches and monataries
DevilKing1138: for the purpose of breeding
DevilKing1138: and then, only with 11 to 15 year old girls
IMaSuperHottie2: you better be careful
IMaSuperHottie2: they might actually go for that
IMaSuperHottie2: lol
DevilKing1138: i know
DevilKing1138: thats the beauty of my plan
DevilKing1138: lets see
DevilKing1138: what else?
DevilKing1138: um, i'll say there's a magical church ritual that will turn common potatoes into vodka
DevilKing1138: and grapes into wine
DevilKing1138: I will also outlaw teh use of the number one
DevilKing1138: and then institue smoke breaks into mass
IMaSuperHottie2: umm... doesn't vodka come from potatoes?
IMaSuperHottie2: lol
DevilKing1138: yes
DevilKing1138: but they're so stupid
DevilKing1138: they will think its magic
IMaSuperHottie2: what kind of smoke breaks?
DevilKing1138: whatever, as long as they're smoking
DevilKing1138: weed would be good
DevilKing1138: it'll get legalized due to religious practices
DevilKing1138: and then, everyone will look forward to communion time
IMaSuperHottie2: it sounds promising
DevilKing1138: indeed
IMaSuperHottie2: you need to create a scheme to make lots of money
IMaSuperHottie2: like those televangelists
DevilKing1138: oh yes
IMaSuperHottie2: you can create a jesus land
IMaSuperHottie2: or help 3rd world children
IMaSuperHottie2: or heal people
IMaSuperHottie2: some gimmic to make money
DevilKing1138: how about a magical vision from baby jesus
DevilKing1138: telling me that all grandmothers would die unless we paid him
IMaSuperHottie2: haha
DevilKing1138: and that he needed the cash
DevilKing1138: to pay off the devil
IMaSuperHottie2: and when some grandmothers do die, you can say it is because they didn't raise enough money
DevilKing1138: right
DevilKing1138: because the devil didn't get his cash
DevilKing1138: he took those grannies away
IMaSuperHottie2: do you have any hellfire and brimstone
IMaSuperHottie2: or anything like an apocalypse
IMaSuperHottie2: or a rapture?
DevilKing1138: oh yes,
DevilKing1138: the rapture will be the return of god to this part of the universe. You see, he left baby jesus in charge while he went on vacation
DevilKing1138: and said that some day, he would be born again on earth
DevilKing1138: and bring peace and marijuanna to all teh children of the Earth

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one...



DevilKing1138: also, i wasn't aware of this, but you might be
DevilKing1138: did you know that comets are baby jesus flying through heaven?
IMaSuperHottie2: What?
DevilKing1138: yeah, it's all part of my new christian religion
IMaSuperHottie2: lol
DevilKing1138: i've been thinking that if i start one too
DevilKing1138: that maybe i can get rich
DevilKing1138: and since people will believe anything
DevilKing1138: why not just make this shit up myself
IMaSuperHottie2: you should incorporate hidden bible messages
IMaSuperHottie2: and jesus juice
IMaSuperHottie2: they love that
DevilKing1138: oh, i will
DevilKing1138: shrimp, deveined, can only be consumed on holy days
DevilKing1138: it'll be like communion
DevilKing1138: otherwise, you have to eat teh ones with shit still in them
IMaSuperHottie2: haha
DevilKing1138: clean shrimp was invented by jesus
IMaSuperHottie2: what will your role in the religion be?
DevilKing1138: well, i will be the founder
DevilKing1138: and i will tell people that jesus visited ancient china and left secret messages written in stool
DevilKing1138: that, over the course of 2000 years
DevilKing1138: hardened into fossilized comandments
IMaSuperHottie2: lol
DevilKing1138: you can be a man
DevilKing1138: you were born emma smith
IMaSuperHottie2: i mean, the male equivalent of emma smith...
DevilKing1138: but baby jesus made you a man to further the religion
DevilKing1138: and show off his powers
IMaSuperHottie2: because jesus was gay
DevilKing1138: right
IMaSuperHottie2: so he made me a man
DevilKing1138: yes
DevilKing1138: but he made you out of his own shin bone
IMaSuperHottie2: so that the union would be sacred
IMaSuperHottie2: instead of that blasphemus male-female marriage
IMaSuperHottie2: lol
DevilKing1138: no, hetero relationships will be allowed, but only in churches and monataries
DevilKing1138: for the purpose of breeding
DevilKing1138: and then, only with 11 to 15 year old girls
IMaSuperHottie2: you better be careful
IMaSuperHottie2: they might actually go for that
IMaSuperHottie2: lol
DevilKing1138: i know
DevilKing1138: thats the beauty of my plan
DevilKing1138: lets see
DevilKing1138: what else?
DevilKing1138: um, i'll say there's a magical church ritual that will turn common potatoes into vodka
DevilKing1138: and grapes into wine
DevilKing1138: I will also outlaw teh use of the number one
DevilKing1138: and then institue smoke breaks into mass
IMaSuperHottie2: umm... doesn't vodka come from potatoes?
IMaSuperHottie2: lol
DevilKing1138: yes
DevilKing1138: but they're so stupid
DevilKing1138: they will think its magic
IMaSuperHottie2: what kind of smoke breaks?
DevilKing1138: whatever, as long as they're smoking
DevilKing1138: weed would be good
DevilKing1138: it'll get legalized due to religious practices
DevilKing1138: and then, everyone will look forward to communion time
IMaSuperHottie2: it sounds promising
DevilKing1138: indeed
IMaSuperHottie2: you need to create a scheme to make lots of money
IMaSuperHottie2: like those televangelists
DevilKing1138: oh yes
IMaSuperHottie2: you can create a jesus land
IMaSuperHottie2: or help 3rd world children
IMaSuperHottie2: or heal people
IMaSuperHottie2: some gimmic to make money
DevilKing1138: how about a magical vision from baby jesus
DevilKing1138: telling me that all grandmothers would die unless we paid him
IMaSuperHottie2: haha
DevilKing1138: and that he needed the cash
DevilKing1138: to pay off the devil
IMaSuperHottie2: and when some grandmothers do die, you can say it is because they didn't raise enough money
DevilKing1138: right
DevilKing1138: because the devil didn't get his cash
DevilKing1138: he took those grannies away
IMaSuperHottie2: do you have any hellfire and brimstone
IMaSuperHottie2: or anything like an apocalypse
IMaSuperHottie2: or a rapture?
DevilKing1138: oh yes,
DevilKing1138: the rapture will be the return of god to this part of the universe. You see, he left baby jesus in charge while he went on vacation
DevilKing1138: and said that some day, he would be born again on earth
DevilKing1138: and bring peace and marijuanna to all teh children of the Earth

Hahahahahah. I don't know why, but that's really funny for some reason. I laughed and gave myself a stitch.

I can just imagine two angels knocking back a couple of cold ones and deciding to go outside and have a bit of a throw of the baby Jesus, football style.

why the double post?

why the double post?

It's it's like like seeing seeing double double..

'Flying baby jesus comets' is my favorite idea. It's probably a dangerous idea too - for the baby Jesus', anyway...

The whole 'invent a religion' thing definitely works. Look at what it did for Scientology and Christianity! Ol' L. Ron Hubbard and Plato(?) must be mighty proud...

Capt, where on earth did you find that little gem of an AIM convo? That was probably one of the most amusing things I've ever read.

Originally posted by Lana
Capt, where on earth did you find that little gem of an AIM convo? That was probably one of the most amusing things I've ever read.

Courtesy of his profile:

MSN Instant Messenger Handle: [email protected]

nice!

(I rarely check profiles )

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Courtesy of his profile:

MSN Instant Messenger Handle: [email protected]

Actually, it was an AOL Instant Messenger conversation. How do I know?

Courtesy of my profile:

AOL Instant Messenger Handle: IMaSuperHottie2

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Actually, it was an AOL Instant Messenger conversation. How do I know?

Courtesy of my profile:

AOL Instant Messenger Handle: IMaSuperHottie2



Was just cut and pasting from his profile...

yes, that was a conversation between Adam and I.

As for the double post, i went back and edited a few spelling mistakes I had made due to the speed of the conversation, and when I hit the save changes button, it reposted it. I dunno?

It seemed relevant to what Ush & Ya Krunk'd Floo had been talking about...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
yes, that was a conversation between Adam and I.

As for the double post, i went back and edited a few spelling mistakes I had made due to the speed of the conversation, and when I hit the save changes button, it reposted it. I dunno?

It seemed relevant to what Ush & Ya Krunk'd Floo had been talking about...

Indeed. However, even if it is not relevant, it is damn funny.