SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Just before 9.30am on Sunday 11 November, a series of unusual seismic pulses rippled around the world almost undetected.
The waves rang for over 20 minutes, emanating about 15 miles off the shores of Mayotte - a tiny island in the Indian Ocean between Madagascar and Africa.
From here, they reverberated across Africa, setting off geological sensors in Zambia, Kenya, and Ethiopia.
They crossed the Atlantic, and were picked up in Chile, New Zealand, Canada, and even Hawaii nearly 11,000 miles away, the National Geographic reports.
Despite their huge range, the waves were apparently not felt by anybody. However, one person monitoring the US Geological Survey's live stream of seismogram displays did notice the unusual waveform and posted it to Twitter, sparking the interest of other geologists and earthquake enthusiasts.
[...] The bizarre waveform is what scientists call "monochromatic". Earthquakes normally produce waves of so many different frequencies, the wave readings appear more jumbled.
But the mystery waveform from Mayotte was a crisp zigzag, which repeated after steady 17-second intervals.
"They're too nice. They're too perfect to be nature," joked the University of Glasgow's Helen Robinson, who is study[ing] for a PhD in applied volcanology.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05 2018, @01:26AM (37 children)
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Working of Error [wa.hle.rs]
(Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 05 2018, @01:33AM (2 children)
For this reason, Marissa sendeth thee a powerful Spam mod, that thou mayest stop shitting up thy discussion forums, and hie thee elsewhere, lest your foe findeth thee and breaketh off her steel-toed-boot-clad foot in thine ass...eth.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Wednesday December 05 2018, @10:47PM (1 child)
You seem to be an enthusiast. What brand do you prefer? I like my Bellevilles, but I've heard plenty of good things about Redwings, too.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 05 2018, @11:27PM
I can't afford anything fancy. My last pair, and they're unfortunately coming apart after a year, are a set of men's Roebucks I got at the local Sears last November for $50. It turns out you can just subtract 2 from a mens' size and get the equivalent womens' size :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05 2018, @02:11AM (3 children)
How 'bout an executive summary? Some site with a shitload of stupid videos and crap, and the innocent(?) clickbait victim is supposed to sort it all out? WTF? No one has time for that shit.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05 2018, @02:15AM
No one can be told what Energeian Planes is; you have to see it for yourself.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 05 2018, @02:27AM
Executive summary [soylentnews.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Wednesday December 05 2018, @04:51AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 05 2018, @04:15AM (29 children)
You say here that God lies? That's quite the blasphemy.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 05 2018, @05:06AM (28 children)
It's in the Bible. I believe 2 Kings has an instance of Yahweh specifically sending people delusions, as opposed to simply sending evil spirits to tempt people...which is totally different, just like you're not a murderer when you hire a hitman. Honestly, I really think the Abrahamic religions are the single worst idea the human race has ever had.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05 2018, @05:28AM (19 children)
How can you classify those as a single idea?
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 05 2018, @08:44AM (11 children)
It's easy:
1. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all based on the same set of fictional/mythical stories filched from earlier Mesopotamian religious and historical traditions;
2. Christianity builds on the Jewish traditions and bastardizes them to make them more palatable to non-jews;
3. Islam builds on Jewish and Christian traditions and bastardizes them both to make them more palatable to Bedouins.
4. All three worship the same imaginary sky daddy (Adonai=Jehovah=Allah).
See? Really easy.
tl;dr: Abrahamic religions are all pretty much the same. The only real difference is how much they want others to worship the same way (Jews don't proselytize -- they don't want you, so fuck off; Christians want to convert as many as they can, and while they generally don't torture or kill you --any more-- if you refuse, they do get quite pissy about it at times; Muslims want to convert as many as they can, and while they don't generally torture or kill you if you refuse, they will torture/kill you if you try to leave).
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday December 05 2018, @05:19PM (10 children)
As a non Christian let me ask you, would it make more sense if I replaced jahovah with Mother nature? Nature causes delusions and creates tempting traps that you should avoid has almost a scientific ring to it. Your fixation on jahovah makes you as much an ignorant as fundamentalist Christians. The thing that needs to be taken as fact without question from those tales is that the world really is a harsh place to live, and it is helpful to be cautious and be respectable of things that can kill you.
Also, Islam was developed independently from Christianity and any common stories are common because they all originated in middle east.
Also, I am not a Muslim either.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday December 05 2018, @05:44PM (1 child)
Any personification of objective reality is going to lead into either contradictions or a massively sadistic entity running things. Either that or just denial of what's observable.
The normal work around is some form of polytheism, including dual gods. But when you take your traditions from numerous sources, it's not surprising if you mix then nature of the entities up a bit.
The only real alternative is that the universe doesn't care about us one way or the other. Most people find that difficult to believe, even though, game designers never care what happens to the NPCs. So even assuming a creator, assuming that it cares about us is a bit of a stretch. Other workarounds include things like "the Michael teachings". But a study of the "predictions" made indicates that "Michael" is not infallible. Whoops!
FWIW, the original teachings of the Buddha, as translated into English in "the word", don't seem to have this problem. But they also don't make any person the center of anything except their own world view. (E.g. the popular notions or reincarnation and karma were not a part of that. He had a notion of karma, but it didn't imply continued existence of any particular entity.) It was a philosophy, not a religion, and is basically unchallengeable, though I would assert that it's incomplete.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday December 06 2018, @01:16AM
I agree with you but you cannot call the 'entity' sadistic because it is not supposed to be understandable. It just is. Like no matter how much fascinated I am with a star, I can't come anywhere close to it. Whatever that entity is, it is not really focused on me or mine per say.
Between monotheism or polytheism, I say both have been used to kill same number of people, but latter still feels more tolerant to me. Otherwise, theologically speaking they both portray powers that be as 'just how it is' and as a challenge as well as benovalent. Which is probably why it is easy to make it a representation of father, who portrayed the same role in family.
Now I am not saying that all that is revealed truth etc. I am differentiating between the stories and the church/temple. Former was written by frontier men fighting at the border of survivability, latter is religion. We can question the religion but we should be cautious while disparaging wisdom.
Also I agree with Runway below. All I am saying is that Islam isn't Christianity 2.0, and such has been accepted in academia for at least 50 years that I know of.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 05 2018, @08:31PM
That is at least 80% true, maybe more than 90%. But . . . Christianity had some infinitesimal influences at least. If I may . . .
Islam was very much independent of either Judaism or Christianity, until Mohammed needed, or wanted, some allies. He appealed to the Jews. He even modified his beliefs, to be more apealling to those Jews he was courting. It was only then that he talked about the "Children of the Book". The Jews were the physical, geneological descendants of Abraham, and the Christians were sort of the spiritual descendants. Or, something like that.
But, it all comes back to Mohammed's need for allies.
Mohammed more or less said that Jews and Christians, each, in turn, turned away from Yahweh, or Allah. Islam was supposed to show both the righteous path. I've never dug to the bottom of the reasons that Mohammed included Christians in his acceptance of the Jews. Somehow, Christians influenced him. If not, he would have simply rejected Christianity as a complete heresy.
Knowing human nature, I suspect that he was also courting favor with the Christian Church authorities, and, in fact, won some favor with them. The Church, much later in history, took an official stance that it was better for Islam to rule any part of Europe that escaped the Church's rule, than to allow the protestants to rule.
It's a tangled web, to be sure, but it seems pretty obvious that the Christians influenced Mohammed somehow.
Maybe it was an attitude they shared. "Kill them all. God will know his own." More popularly misquoted as, "Kill them all, let God sort them out."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 06 2018, @12:51AM
You have to be a preordained Pope of the Church of Eris in order to make that replacement. They're the only ones with the theological oomph.
And no, it wouldn't make more sense.
What fixation? You're the only one talking about that.
And used the same common sources like the Old Testament. Jesus is also the second to last prophet [wikipedia.org] in Islam (Mohammad, of course, being the last - except for all those other Islamic prophets who have come since, depending on your flavor of Islam).
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 06 2018, @01:39AM (5 children)
I'm not a Christian either. And no, it doesn't make more sense. You're just replacing an imaginary sky daddy with an imaginary earth mama. It's the same thing: nonsense.
i'm not fixated on fictional characters like Jehovah/Adonai/Allah (same fictional character, by the way). Okay, maybe I am a little fixated on Montana Wildhack. But there's nothing religious or spiritual about that. ;)
As for the mythos and lore around the Abrahamic religions, some of the stories are parables and provide thought-provoking insight into life, humanity and nature. However, most of it is just stories about murder, vengeance and death. Which is perfectly normal, given that for almost all of human history (with the exception of the past 100 years or so), life was harsh, brutish and short.
BZZT! Wrong! Thanks for playing. The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious communities of faith that claim descent from the Judaism of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham." [wikipedia.org]
And I thought literacy was overrated. Sigh.
Nor am I. I do not subscribe to demonstrably false belief systems.
You seem to be projecting a bunch of ideas onto me that I never expressed. Ever. Is this because you have some sort of agenda? Because you're stupid and/or ignorant? Or do you just have poor reading comprehension skills? All three?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Sunday December 09 2018, @05:10PM (4 children)
If you think "Nature causes delusions and creates tempting traps" doesn't make sense they you should read more, because that is a scientific fact whether you like it or not.
Oh, so people who think the stories about something else are wrong because your inability to comprehend facts is a proof of everyone else being an idiot. May be try being a little open-minded, perhaps? [wikipedia.org] The stories are about struggling in a world that doesn't go according to your plans. It is shown via murder and revenge because that is what was happening most of the time, but there is a reason why people going through troubled times find solace in those stories.
I am very close to declaring you to be lacking empathy and I am already sure that you are full of hatred but latter is a temporary phase maybe there is still some hope.
BZZT!! BZZTT!!! Does that electric shock jostle you out of your puberty when that kind of retort was cool 15 years ago? Because they are Abrahamic religions that means "Islam builds on Jewish and Christian traditions and bastardizes them both to make them more palatable to Bedouins"? Nice straw-man, I will give you another try to prove your case, because I put effort to dig into sociology textbooks to conclusively show how bastardized your understanding really is.
On a side note, this is why left is a sham. It consists of hateful sexists and racist bigots who think PC culture will hide their true nature.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 10 2018, @12:02AM (3 children)
Your use of English is rather poor, however I will attempt to make some sense of the mishmash you've presented.
Before I do so, I'll point out (again) that you seem to be attributing attitudes, beliefs and ideas that aren't congruent with anything I've said. And not just in this comment thread either. You claim that I think
Where exactly did I say that? I will say that I'm a little confused as to what exactly you mean by that statement, are we talking about brain chemistry? Optical illusions? Please do elucidate.
You also seem to think that I believe that
Huh? I never said anything remotely close to that. *Ever* [soylentnews.org]. It seems you've made certain assumptions about my thought processes, mindset and beliefs that don't correspond to reality. Which isn't all that surprising, since you don't know me. The old saw about "When you assume, you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'" only partially applies, as it doesn't really reflect on me at all.
Once again, you're projecting stuff onto me that has zero basis in reality. Go back and re-read what I wrote. Or don't. It's no skin off my nose either way.
By all means take whatever actions you feel to be appropriate. We are all entitled to our beliefs, opinions and points of view. However, I'd point out that folks who actually know me would be quite surprised to hear me described in those terms.
Regardless, I have no interest in attempting to modify your view of me or anything else. Please carry on.
Wow. Finally! An argument that actually contains more than just ad-hominem attacks. While you continue to use ad-hominems, you added an appeal to authority, sadly without actual reference to those authorities or the arguments they present, as well. Well done. I commend you.
Once again, you're projecting things onto me that have no basis in anything I've ever said. Don't believe me? Go ahead and read my posting history [soylentnews.org]. There's three years of it, so if I do hold sexist, racist and anti-free speech beliefs, surely you'll find some evidence of it. But you won't. Because it ain't so. Feel free to check. You'll find that I'm annoyingly consistent in my beliefs about individual liberties, egalitarianism and freedom of expression.
Here you've shown that your projections are, at least partially, about pushing your own agenda. It remains to be seen (although the evidence appears to be pretty good for the third, at least) whether or my second and third reasons for this are true.
In any case, I wish you well and look forward to seeing improvement in your rhetorical skills. Have a great day!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday December 10 2018, @07:52AM (2 children)
It was a side note, and not a comment on you. Though I am not sure which "agenda" I am "pushing". Something about ad-hominem and projections comes to mind.
I am sorry, I should have used Wikipedia to avoid that accusation.
Yes, neither English is my first language nor I use it well after 2 days of partying. This led to a spelling mistake which I correct below:
"I will give you another try to prove your case, before I put effort to dig into sociology textbooks".
The reason being that I will have to manually type the full quote as I don't own ebook.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 10 2018, @03:08PM (1 child)
I wasn't trying to insult you, your use of language just didn't make your point clear. That English isn't your first language and the impact of "partying" on your brain could certainly be reasons for being unclear in what you mean. However, I (and thankfully so) can't read your mind or necessarily discern what you're trying to say. I attempted to make sense of your writing. However, if I misunderstood you, that's likely because you didn't clearly express yourself.
That your "spelling mistake" completely changed the meaning of what you wrote is unfortunate. As such, how am I supposed to know what you *meant* to say?
I have no "case to prove." Imaginary sky daddies and imaginary earth mothers are equivalent in their non-existence. That's why your statement didn't "make more sense" with one over the other. I suppose you could be going Stanislaw Lem [goodreads.com] on me, but as far as I can tell, he was being facetious. You appear to be quite serious.
If you wish to convince me, or anyone else, of the existence of Jahweh/Adonai/Allah or that of "mother nature," you need to provide evidence of such existence. The old saw "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies in spades.
Your lack of clarity also makes it difficult to understand (and I did ask for clarification) what, exactly, you meant by "Nature causes delusions and creates tempting traps that you should avoid has almost a scientific ring to it." Feel free to elucidate. Or don't.
I don't really care whether you agree with me or not. This is a discussion site. I expressed my opinion and you disagreed. When I asked for clarification, you proceeded to attempt (ineffectively, I might add) to insult me rather than refine your point of view. That's not discussion. That's ad-hominem.
As such, I'm done with this thread. I welcome further discussion with you on this or other subjects. At the same time, given that you have absolutely no idea who I am or what beliefs I hold (aside from those I have expressed on this site), why don't you stick to making your own arguments rather than attempting to project beliefs and ideas onto me?
Just a silly thought.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday December 17 2018, @09:34AM
I managed to read you comment today, so sorry for being late.
What exactly is the confusion here re? Each word has a meaning, unless you confused about the meaning of the word nature, which is commonly also referred as Mother nature?
And this is where you show your narrow mindedness. This is why I was exactly right when I assessed that you are hung-up on terminology. Did I talk about convincing you of existence of any 'deity'? Go ahead, find a quote somewhere. And it is not because of my English, it is because of your inability and lack of interest in understanding what was said. You read a word 'mother' and nothing else there mattered. Funny enough when I was writing it, I added 'mother' in front of nature simply because it sounded more poetic to me, and I had good suspicion that it might trigger a cookie-cutter response, which unfortunately it did.
I didn't take it as an insult either.
Facts aren't insult, but apparently it was effectively taken as one so...
If you want to understand what I and others are talking about, you need to stop treating an argument as a place to prove your superiority and instead as a occasion to learn something. And if you find it difficult to navigate poetic or artistic freedoms people take while telling stories then the least you could do is stop critiquing those stories. I learned from this discussion is that I was pretty much on the spot in my very firs assessment and that I should be more careful in my spelling.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 05 2018, @02:49PM (5 children)
What NotSanguine said. They all spring from the same diseased root. If this Yahweh character is real in any sense, he's a blaspheming demon, as he claims to be God but clearly does not meet the qualifications.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Friday December 07 2018, @05:08PM (4 children)
Wait. Did you just "No true Scotsman ..." a deity?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 07 2018, @05:57PM (3 children)
No. I compare the traditional list of what apologists call "great-making properties" to Yyahweh's actual behavior and attributes, and make that judgment. Leaving aside the unsoundness of the entire class of ontological arguments (they hinge on the false assumption that existence is itself a property), Yahweh as described in the scriptures of all three Abrahamic faiths does not meet the definition of what it means to be God, i.e., he does not possess all the great-making properties to the maximal extent. I can imagine many, technically infinitely many, beings who possess at least one of the great-making properties to a greater extent than Yahweh, as described.
Furthermore, the very existence of anything EXCEPT Yahweh shows that he cannot be God, if he exists. The reasoning is simple: According to the Abrahamic corpus, at some point in causality ("causality" because time would not have been invented yet), there was a state of affairs such that Yahweh and ONLY Yahweh existed. We may refer to this state as "God-world." We can also deduce certain things about God-world: it is the one possible state of maximal perfection, goodness, righteousness, etc., because since nothing but Yahweh existed, the sum of existence would have been all perfection. God lacks nothing, wants nothing, cannot be added to or improved, is contingent on nothing ("divine aseity"), and is completely perfect and self-sufficient in and of himself.
This being the case, *there is in the most profound and literal sense of the phrase no reason for God to create anything." And there is *no* way out of this. Apologists attempt to slime their way out by saying things like "love is gratuitous," but that falls flat on its face off the starting blocks because love itself is still a desire--in this case, desire for the well-being of other beings. Not that I trust any Abrahamic death-cultist to know love from his own asshole of course. What this means is that the very fact that anything other than Yahweh exists is deductive proof that Yahweh, if *he* exists, is not God.
By his supposed directly-inspired scripture, Yahweh is full of desires and wants, and seems not to actually be able to tell the future of his own actions ("it repenteth Me that I have made man upon the Earth" and similar). A perfect being does not have an enemy (Lucifer), much less one he must plan to fight a war with, not least because such a being would never have created such a thing to begin with. A perfect being does not demand worship--in fact, any being that does demand worship is by definition unworthy of it. ANY state of affairs that includes ANYTHING other than God is by definition less perfect than God-world, and may arguably involve a diminishment of God in some sense, which itself is a blasphemous notion. A perfect being does not create imperfection, either; at most, the only thing a perfect being could create, and the word "create" might not be appropriate here, is multiple aspects of itself.
Study of ancient Near-Eastern religions sheds much light on Yahweh. To me it is fairly obvious he's just another tribal ANE deity who's become the driving force behind most of the world's ills through sheer historical accident and human evil (and it could as easily have been Zeus or Indra).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Friday December 07 2018, @06:20PM (2 children)
Wow! You've got it all figured out. You should start a religion. I bet it wouldn't be long before you have enough followers to buy you a nice pair of Doc's.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 07 2018, @10:24PM (1 child)
Sorry, was that too much to take in at once? I've been studying these things for something like 13 years now, so I may come on a bit intense when doing an infodump like that...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Saturday December 08 2018, @01:00AM
It's fun to talk to someone who actually has a bit of breadth on the topic. But I don't actually care enough to argue it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 05 2018, @06:36PM
How can you classify those as a single idea?
It's easy, that Abraham guy was a massive douche.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 05 2018, @05:33AM (7 children)
Only if you haven't heard about the religions that came before. The many misadventures of Zeus indicate things can get worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05 2018, @08:12AM (5 children)
what misadventures? as far as I know he cheated on his wife constantly, and always got away with it. otherwise he had fun on mount olympus, eating, drinking and throwing lightning at people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 05 2018, @01:20PM (4 children)
Then Hera, his wife set up a spy network to find the other women/men, and cursed them (usually involving some sort of transformation into a vile monster) or sent monsters after the resulting progeny, often resulting in considerable harm to the humans of the area. I gather she couldn't do anything too overt, but it's like some adultery version of the Cold War with all sorts of nasty shenanigans going on merely because Zeus kept going after the women.
Now, imagine this religion where we have the head boss and a bunch of other gods with different motives and personalities, most who would be considered seriously mentally ill if they were human today, doing this crap all the time and we're supposed to worship them? While the Greek gods were relatively civilized, one couldn't say the same of gods who demanded considerable sacrifices, particularly the Central American ones. Now, that's a bad idea that thankfully never survived to modern times.
My view is that this whole mess from start to finish was an attempt to consolidate a huge number of tribal religious beliefs into a more uniform system. Every tribe probably had one or more gods that they worshiped. When larger organized efforts happened, they would have to deal with all those tribal gods. Everyone's god had to fit somewhere or people wouldn't be happy. Thus, we have polytheism, religion by committee.
Monotheism, including the Abrahamic religions was the natural next step. Instead of having a committee of gods that you had to pray to, now you just had one go-to god for everything.
My point behind this is that the Abrahamic religions are the result of a lot of evolution of religion from stuff that was really unwieldy. So saying that they're the worst thing ever ignores that there was worse, it just hasn't survived to modern times.
As to the flat Earther "winter sunlight" dude, he would have found some other way. That's brain chemistry not religion.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 05 2018, @02:47PM (3 children)
...so you don't think nymphomania is less of a problem than the kind of ego that goes "kiss my ass or I'll barbecue yours alive for eternity" then? Right. Interesting. Not entirely surprising, just disappointing.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 05 2018, @04:11PM (2 children)
You mean like Tartarus? Zeus threw some uncles in there. They have yet to come back out.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 05 2018, @04:16PM (1 child)
Doesn't the Greek mythological cycle have something akin to Ragnarok in it, prophesying the end of the Olympians and their system?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 05 2018, @04:47PM
According to that myth, Zeus then swallowed Metis. Athena was born anyway, though from the forehead of Zeus (or perhaps born twice, since she was born first from Metis, who apparently was just hanging out inside Zeus, before being released the second time). No word on whether there was a second baby on the way, but it does seem that the prophecy was thwarted.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 05 2018, @08:35PM
I don't know about Zeus being all that bad. There were a bunch of swamp dwellers, who worshipped a vulture, a snake, a cactus, and the sun. They build a huge pyramid, and raided hundreds of miles around for victims. Said victims were dragged to the top of the pyramid, to have their hearts cut out, and held up in the sunlight, while the not-quite-dead-yet victims watched the blood spraying in every direction. And, that may or may not be the worst example of belief systems.