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: 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.