SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
n1
on Monday August 11 2014, @05:25AM
from the back-to-wasting-time-on-futile-things-in-meatspace dept.
from the back-to-wasting-time-on-futile-things-in-meatspace dept.
Pope Francis thinks you are spending too much time chatting online, using your smartphone and watching TV, among other things. He did not Tweet the message, but rather delivered it in person to 50,000 German Altar Servers who dropped by for a visit.
Earlier this year, the pope said the internet was a "Gift From God", while warning against isolation caused by too little face time with real people.
Meanwhile, the British government is warning that too much time online is causing mental illness in children "Loneliness, depression, anxiety, low self-esteem and heightened aggression are some of the possible issues faced by children who may overuse the Internet."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Pope Francis Urges Young People to Not Waste Time Online
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 64 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The game of life is a game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words
return to us sooner or later with astounding accuracy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @05:59AM
Why does anybody who's not catholic care what the leader of a church has to say? Why don't we hear the opinions of the leaders of the jehova's witnesses or the UN? And I don't just mean here; anywhere.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @06:04AM
similar to why many people not in the USA still care what Obama says.
Obama controls nukes tho and the Pope doesn't. So generally we care less about what the Pope says ;).
(Score: 1, Troll) by isostatic on Monday August 11 2014, @10:29AM
Surely if god is omnimpotent, and the pope is god, doesn't he control everything?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Dunbal on Monday August 11 2014, @11:32AM
The pope is not god. He is the "substitute for the son of god". Vicarius filii dei. Not that I care as an atheist. Still I can see where he's going. Don't use the internet, and don't use a condom. Make lots of little christians instead. Personally I see the internet as a good thing, teens can now play games on their cell phones or text their friends with pictures of themselves instead of engaging in myriad petty crimes. Idle hands make for mischief. Of course some of them do both, and film themselves doing the crime, but that can't be helped...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Monday August 11 2014, @12:05PM
Isn't he the holey father though, i.e. god's dad?
Regardless, it's good advice. Too much of anything is a bad thing. Kids should remember to take time out of their busy facebooking schedules to take a hike without a phone. Climb a tree just because it's there, not to share on instagram.
Yes, I'm hypocritical as I spent most of the 90s on the internet, but it doesn't mean he's wrong and I'm right.
(Score: 2) by danomac on Monday August 11 2014, @02:30PM
Yes, but at least those dumbasses get caught.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ancientt on Monday August 11 2014, @03:04PM
Or maybe he's thinking that doing something productive is better than wasting time. He seems to appreciate the good that the internet does and also understand that people use it as a portal to time wasting. He seems to agree with you about some of the good that comes from internet access.
Take what he said in another speech, speaking about the value of the internet:
I am not a Catholic and disagree fundamentally with some of what they believe, but come on, this kind of knee-jerk response based on personal beliefs rather than checking facts is exactly what most atheists would criticize about religion.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 3, Funny) by Thexalon on Monday August 11 2014, @03:07PM
The Pope's official titles for really formal occasions and documents are:
"Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God."
The terms "Holy Father" and "Pope" (cognate of "papa" and "paternal") has to do with being a Father of the Church, not a Father of Christ as a sibling poster thought.
That kind of listing isn't unusual among really important people. For example, the guy commonly called Prince Charles is formally:
"His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Extra Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Grand Master and Principal Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Companion of the Queen's Service Order, Royal Chief Grand Companion of the Order of Logohu, Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty"
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday August 11 2014, @01:32PM
You might not care, but lots of the roughly 1.2 billion Catholics in the world take what he says pretty seriously, particularly those in South America and Africa.
As someone who has never been Catholic, this pope seems like a fairly good guy with a good head on his shoulders, and while I certainly don't take what he says as dogma, he has some decent ideas about how to live a good life. For what it's worth, I agree with him that quality time with real-life flesh-and-blood friends is generally preferable to yammering online.
Also, there's no evidence that Francis either is a pedophile, or protected pedophile priests. The organization had a problem, and Francis seems to understand that it's a serious problem. Right now he's engaged in mostly symbolic gestures, but it is completely unfair to blame him for what was going on in, say, the Archdiocese of Boston. I'm not saying "Yay, Catholicism is great", but blame the right people for the right mistakes.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by nukkel on Monday August 11 2014, @08:49PM
Please stop making sense, it's frowned upon around here.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 11 2014, @06:29AM
FTFY (My point: why would the identity of the messenger, in your mind, take priority over the message?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @06:39AM
The point appears to have been that the messenger is always identified with the message in an attempt to give the message weight.
As such, the question stands.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @09:06AM
The identity of the messenger does not take priority of the message. However it is an important part of the message.
If the leader of Botswana became insane and said he'd wish humanity to get extinct by a global nuclear war, I'd not be too concerned, since I don't think he has the power to start one. On the other hand, if Obama went insane and wished for a terminal nuclear war, I'd be very concerned.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 11 2014, @10:47AM
FTFY (my point: since there's no danger from the catholic church to start a nuclear war, I wonder why the identity of the Pope is so annoying for the OP? Especially since it seems that his message does bear some relevance and his identity doesn't/shouldn't take priority over the message?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @07:09AM
At last count, there are still well over 1.2 billion people in the world who identify themselves as Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church is bigger than all other Christian denominations put together: by comparison there are only some 800 million Protestants and other Christian groups of various denominations, and there are almost as many Catholics as there are Muslims (1.6 billion). Say what you want about the Pope, but he's the spiritual head of a faith held by close to 20% of the population of the entire planet, and while he might not command their absolute loyalty, they will generally listen to what he has to say. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a far smaller group by comparison, with less than 8 million adherents worldwide. There are more Shintoists, Jews, and Sikhs.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @06:03AM
I'll stick to online thank you.
Don't you have anything better to do than tell us what to do?
Shouldn't you be doing something about your guys all fucking little kids?
(Score: 2, Troll) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 11 2014, @06:05AM
And busts of pedo priests I don't blame him, if I ran a church that had to pay out billions because of a systemic coverup of child abuse i probably wouldn't want my followers on the net either, as it wouldn't take too many trips to Google News before they heard some really bad things about the church.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Lagg on Monday August 11 2014, @06:22AM
How about you go fuck yourself if you manage to take a break from molesting small children you piece of crap. I'm so tired of this holier-than-thou nonsense from this guy. People are saying how he's so much better than the last pope, bullshit. He's the same deluded prick but with shiny silver lining. How dare he claim that the internet is a "gift from God". It's the result of a collaboration of intelligent engineers, not something your magical sky daddy pooped out. The entire racket that passes for the vatican need to be knocked off these pedestals they've built for themselves. I understand that delusion and religious brainwashing is a powerful thing as I was under it for a time early in my life but that was before the internet and the thorough stripping of all religion down to its core where its nature as a system to enable abuse was fully laid out for everyone. So how people can be so willfully ignorant as to follow any of this stuff let alone Pope Pedo Protector up there (and yes he is still protecting them, just like the last guy) in the year 2014 is beyond me.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1) by Bot on Monday August 11 2014, @07:23AM
So you had to wait for the internet... what about Matthew 23:3? or the devil offering Jesus all the kingdoms in mt 4:8-9, which strongly implies the are under his control?
Believe what you like, but if you think bad people won't get advantage of respectable systems, and you keep the religion itself liable when their books warn you explicitly that wolves come in sheep's clothes Mt 7:15, then you're being a bit too simplistic.
If you don't believe, then you should consider those scriptures in Matthew as a too clever work of reverse psychology, which risks backfiring badly.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Lagg on Monday August 11 2014, @08:17AM
Here's the thing, when you're at that level of willful ignorance like I was the mind tends to rationalize the plethora of inconsistencies in the bible. That's what brainwashing does, it deludes people and trains them to rationalize every flaw with an excuse that basically boils down to "god wrote it this way for a reason" and killing any argument in much the same way. They even rationalize the many revisions and translations as god basically doing version control or some nonsense like that. I didn't have to wait until the internet but it really could have helped. I figured out how much of a scam the entire thing is by noticing the contradictions and inconsistencies on my own but it was a slow process.
and I'm not holding the religion itself liable, I'm holding the religion and the people practicing it liable because they are. I hope you're not implying that any kind of religion is "respectable" either because they're all horrific and disgusting methods of control and means to manipulate people into being tools for the hierarchy leading it. Christians, catholics, scientoligists, they're all the same trash from the pile. Religion has always been about oppression, killing and money. Pope Prick up there yet again reinforces that fact too. His transparent attempts at playing the nice guy is clearly not working so he's moving to the old stand by of "THINK OF TEH CHILDREN" to stop them from learning and exploring what this universe has to offer. Because as the good book says the fruit of knowledge is evil, but knowledge that makes you fear that sadistic fuck in the sky is okay.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday August 11 2014, @05:17PM
Something as personal as belief can be tied to some arbitrary reasons, but the personal feeling about it is more important, as blindly following someone else's orders is not a merit anyway. "I listened and I don't believe" is sufficient, because "I listened".
The Books are contradictory when seen as a collection of orthogonally important, persistent, truths? oh, but that was not feasible in the first place, because the guy Jesus says "but I tell you", MT 5,43.
Square peg, meet round hole.
I also do not see how a thing that contains symbols, originates partially from oral tradition (which means it contained other expedients to facilitate its learning), and has been object of revisions, has to be taken as an instruction manual instead of a chronicle. If you require it to be an instruction manual you should not be asking yourself "why does it have inconsistencies", but instead "why the hypothetical God left its redaction to man".
The instruction part is in the commandments, and in the sermon of the mount you have the way to improve on them. Why improve? It's not the law that changes, it's those on whom the law is directed that have changed.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @08:32PM
I would consider myself a Christian, and while I don't buy into the Bible as the 'infallible word of God' (it was, after all, written by people), but I consider Christ as an example, not because he is God, but because he was genuinely good to people.
When asked, what the greatest commandment was, Christ (reportedly) replied, "Love God with all your being, and the second one is just like it, love your neighbor as yourself." Which I take to mean that the way to show love for God IS to love your neighbor. This way of living, putting the needs of others, including your enemies, on equal footing as your own doesn't require belief in Christ as God, nor does it require a literal belief in the Bible. It merely requires one to understand that all people deserve respect and love.
And for the record, I was troubled to hear how happy many people were to hear of the death of Osama Bin Laden, not because I felt he was a great guy or anything, but because he was a fellow human.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by EQ on Monday August 11 2014, @07:30AM
Wow. You have an anger/hate issue? Seriously, get help, that kind of vitriol will eat you up.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Lagg on Monday August 11 2014, @08:01AM
Probably. Spending most of one's early life in a cult and being taught to ignore science and maths (seriously, this particular brand of crazy was that you were sinning if you tried to add up the year of the rapture. Of course these fucks never hesitate to shove mathematical "proofs" of The Lard being real in your face) and just generally exploring the universe will do that to you. I didn't fully recover from it until I was an adult and to this day I feel like there is a void where I could have learned things instead of filling my time and mind with bible trash. I might be blunt about the nature and disgusting abuse brought on by religion but I've experienced it first hand and it deserves no less.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @09:12AM
So you think because you've been in a version of Christian religion that forbids employing rational thinking instead of blind following, you are now forbidden to employ rational thinking instead of blind rejection whenever Christian religion is concerned?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Lagg on Monday August 11 2014, @09:45AM
Blind rejection? Give me a break. Give me one goddamn reason, give me one piece of evidence showing that anything about any religion never mind Christianity is rational. That's how it always is, the religious type always tries to use critical thinking against the person who actually does it and knows what it is because they can't do it themselves. And the "version" I was in isn't a version, that's how every single religion is. It requires willful ignorance and suppressing one's natural desire to question and instead encourages following of a dogma written by insane assholes looking for a handout and a herd to control a few millennia ago. Don't you dare try to make religion as something more significant than it is.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @10:06AM
Well, I for one consider the advise not to spend too much time on the internet quite rational. Not because the pope says it, but because of personal experience with the negative consequences of spending too much time on the internet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lagg on Monday August 11 2014, @10:24AM
Saying that one is spending too much time on the internet is like saying one is spending too much time on books or talking to people. Ignoring that though, doing something for too long without exercise is a good point in the same way saying "Don't murder people" is. It's common sense and you can't really argue with that and really the way that this guy delivered that "advice" is just about as far as it gets from rational. Here's a choice quote:
This is not an uncommon quote from this pope either. How people can see this guy as anything but a nutcase is a testament to the brainwashing powers and herd mentality religion encourages.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday August 11 2014, @03:43PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday August 11 2014, @09:47AM
I can sympathize with you, but that doesn't make your behavior any better for yourself or your environment. First of all, I went to a roman-catholic led school, and even though several of the teachers were priests, the physics- and maths- teachers were not. Actually our school had the best reputation in natural-science related topics in a radius of ca. 25km (and yes, there were a couple of other grammer schools around, usually not led by church). Even religious lessons were held as a science lesson were we learned facts about other religions; facts, neither opinions nor judgement. We had obligatory bi-weekly services as well, which I did not like, but aside from that lessons were not affected by believe.
I quit church a year ago because I didn't want to add to the weight of the popes claims anymore. Still, if you really resent the emotional, biased and apparently abusive treatment you received from the priests around you, stop following their example and start to apply logic and common sense instead of anger. That way people might to pay you even respect instead of / on top of sympathies.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Lagg on Monday August 11 2014, @10:15AM
Therein lies the problem, I don't want sympathy nor do I particularly care whether or not people respect my position on the subject. That's the beauty of it too. I don't need to be an apologist for things like science. I'm angry because I want to be. You don't get rid of problems by ignoring it and pretending that the bible thumper opposite you is giving you any good argument or stimulating discourse. You get rid of them by fixing them, which in this case requires religion and particularly the Pope /or Vatican in this case to be called out for what they are: Manipulative trash. People aren't angry enough at stuff like this, which is why the Pope runs his deluded mouth like he does. He knows that people are just going to uncomfortably shrug him off. I won't. Really though, what does what school you went to have to do with it? You happened to have people who have no business following religious crap in the first place teaching your classes in a school full of cultists? Yay? I mean what do you want from me here? Yes, you can find gold dust in several tons of mud but there's still several tons of mud. Every church and religious school have a few good people in it. The same can be said about maximum security prisons so you'll have to excuse me if I don't see your point.
This thing where people go with the proven-to-be-false mindset of "ignore the trolls and they'll go away" lately really needs to stop. They don't go away. Giving people like this silence merely makes their voice louder.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Monday August 11 2014, @12:00PM
Then I don't get your point. You gave anecdotal evidence that church is a harmful organization, which I agree is a poor way of arguing a point. To prove how poor and unreliable anecdotal evidence is, I gave a counter-example, which you now refuted by basically claiming it's only anecdotal evidence. (Your allusion to gold in mud is clearly a reference to statistical insignificance of my example compared to the huge machinery of the catholic church, but apparently you do not come to the conclusion that your personal experience also only reflects a very limited subset of reality.)
You re-iterate your opinion about the catholic church being obsolete or harmful, putting some time and obviously also some personal spirit into it to make your point, on the other hand you claim it doesn't matter to you if people take you seriously or not. Why do you try to make a point when you are not interested in other peoples opinion?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @04:04PM
I've been following this thread and I appreciate your calm and sincere responses. I have known quite a few religious people who believed in things that I consider silly or pretty clearly insane, but at the same time I've observed that most of them are actually acting like pretty decent people. I knew one particular very nice couple who seemed to ground everything they believed in logic and careful thought (even though I disagreed with some of their conclusions) and eventually I took them up on their invitation to attend their church. It was a shock to me to discover exactly how much loony the service sounded to me after getting to know the couple who invited me. So, I'm prepared to accept that people can be decent to each other, in fact that they usually are, even if their religion is a little nuts.
Then there is the lumping every religion into one group thing. If your religion says everybody should believe the same as you, then fine, I don't care, but I do care what you are supposed to do about people who disagree or change their minds. If your church (or whatever) makes you think you should harm somebody, even "just" mentally, to make sure they believe what you do, then you have a bad religion. Most Christians, Catholics in particular, seem to believe that the right way to handle somebody leaving their church is to pray for them and maybe offer to visit with them. That's a far cry from Islam or Scientology.
I know there are lots of religions that call themselves "Christians" and there are some that are dangerous, but if I find out my sister is going to join the Lutheran church or the Pentecostals or the Mennonites or the Mormans, I don't fear for her nearly like I would if she was joining the Scientologists or Islam. I find it sad that someone can be so embittered by one group that when he escapes, he loses the ability to see distinctions.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday August 11 2014, @06:49PM
Thanks. I work in an environment with people from >50 different nations in our office; it would be quite chaotic if we would discuss religion on an emotional base.
For the same reason I disagree partially with you about your opinion on Islam: I think that generally, the less educated people are and the less open-minded and the more oppressed they are, the more dangerous they become in their religion. Most Christian countries can afford to be lenient. But considering that we got our position in the world centuries ago by bloodily slaughtering Islam populations, and considering that GW Bush claimed [theguardian.com] God ordered him to liberate Iraq, I have a hard time to accept that Islam is inherently more bloody than Christianity.
I do agree that I perceive violence performed directly in the name of god is more common in Islamic countries in the name of the sharia, but I also met lots of more educated moslems who are as much moslem as most west-european city-folks are christian: i.o.w. it's in their passport, they wouldn't say much against it (well, you never know...), but that's it mainly.
Personally I'd rather follow the Church of the Holy Spaghetti-Monster.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday August 11 2014, @10:17AM
You are not alone.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0x663EB663D1E7F223
(Score: 2) by EQ on Tuesday August 12 2014, @12:51AM
I hope you find a way to unwind all that bad batshit insane stuff that was done to you. Remember that very often, forgiving, even just in your own mind, helps, psychologically. Not them, but you. I know it helped me over abuse in my childhood. Its trite, but true, at least for me. Took a couple decades though, so it is not trivial or easy to do. And there was still some disgust when I had to deal personally with the abusers, but the boiling anger is gone, and I'm far better off for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @11:06AM
You're blaming the current pope for things that happened before his term. I know Americans love blaming the current person in charge for everything bad thats ever happened ever, but the world is more complex than that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @08:55PM
And get worldwide islam instead?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @07:12AM
How about having the balls to say that it's peer pressure and issues at home that causes that, and those dealing with it flock to the internet? (correlation != causation)
In my 17 years behind a computer (out of 21 alive), I have never heard anything as pants-shittingly ridiculous as this.
Yet another reason why I refuse to take ANY media outlet seriously now a days. Whenever they comment on anything I personally have experience with? They ALWAYS fuck it up.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RobotMonster on Monday August 11 2014, @07:17AM
Brainwashing... just say no!
Embrace critical thinking, because I told you to! :-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mojo chan on Monday August 11 2014, @07:18AM
Human beings built the internet and are entirely to thank for it. God can sod off, trying to claim credit for someone else's work.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Monday August 11 2014, @11:55AM
If you accept Sagan's truism "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe", then you're left with either god (or Chuggs, entirely possible that modern myth has it the wrong way round) creating the universe, thus creating the internet (by using people he created), or you're left with god not creating anything.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mojo chan on Monday August 11 2014, @05:27PM
You assume that a person must have create the universe, without explaining why it could not be a natural phenomena that did not require intelligence to come into existence.
If god created the universe, who created god? If god is special and doesn't need his own creator, why can't the universe itself be special and not require a creator?
Even if somehow you prove that god created the universe, unless you are also denying that human beings have free will and evolved intelligence you can't deny us the credit for the internet. At best, god seems disinterested in the universe these days, and can no more claim credit for the internet than Einstein's father can claim credit for the theory of general relativity.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday August 11 2014, @08:02PM
You assume that a person must have create the universe, without explaining why it could not be a natural phenomena that did not require intelligence to come into existence.
I assume no such thing, as the time before time is by definition unknowable and non-existent, this theory of what happened before the big bang makes as much sense as any other:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoqSas2uFKw [youtube.com]
Even if somehow you prove that god created the universe, unless you are also denying that human beings have free will and evolved intelligence you can't deny us the credit for the internet. At best, god seems disinterested in the universe these days, and can no more claim credit for the internet than Einstein's father can claim credit for the theory of general relativity.
Interesting argument, but one which hangs on the concept of free will. In classical mechanics, as I understand it, the entire universe from the creation to the destruction would have been created in the second that the big bang happened. Each subatomic particle has a discrete mass and vector, and thus there can be no such thing as free will, this entire sentence was ordained 13.8 billion years ago
Now I understand quantum mechanics apparently causes randomisation in that motion, but does it, or is it also predictable?
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday August 11 2014, @08:34PM
I notice that you completely ignored my most powerful argument about needing to believe that god is special, while somehow knowing that the universe itself isn't special.
Anyway, I don't accept your so-called "truism".
Now I understand quantum mechanics apparently causes randomisation in that motion, but does it, or is it also predictable?
It makes no difference, because even if there is no free will that doesn't mean god gets the credit, it just means that the laws of physics, wherever they come from, lead to a certain outcome.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday August 12 2014, @12:22AM
But if you define god as being the thing that created the universe (and thus the laws of physics), and accept there's no such things as free will, then god created the internet.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Tuesday August 12 2014, @07:43AM
I don't define god that way because I don't think there is a god. I don't think anything created the universe, you are making that assumption.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday August 12 2014, @10:07AM
So you don't think there was a big bang?
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Tuesday August 12 2014, @04:51PM
I do think there was a big bang, I just don't think that anything external caused it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday August 11 2014, @06:01PM
If you accept Sagan's truism "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe", then you're left with either god (or Chuggs, entirely possible that modern myth has it the wrong way round) creating the universe, thus creating the internet (by using people he created), or you're left with god not creating anything.
For that to work you must assume that there is only a single act of creation in the entire universe. Tell me this: If I create a child and that child creates a masterful work of art. Did I create that masterful work of art? (e.g. is creation transitive?)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Shub on Monday August 11 2014, @11:51AM
I'm kind of surprised by the hostile reaction to this article.
As most are quite fervently pointing out, the pope is an old man leading some antiquated belief system that is quite possibly causing more damage than good in the world these days.
On the other side of the argument it doesn't mean that there isn't value in what he's saying. When people don't and least hear each other out and consider what is being said then we leave ourselves in a situation where fear & hate rule over us.
Even though I don't count myself as religious or even someone that likes the pope, I don't have much time in my life for hate. I will still go against the crowed in hear and listen to what he has to say as I would with anyone else.
The irony being in this particular situation is that someone has made the observation that today's children are spending too much time on the internet which is making them hateful and angry and this is exactly the reaction that is being brought to bear(by a crowd that is assumedly an average of about 30 years old) in the comments here.
So for what it's worth I think kids today could do with less internet and going outside to experience the world more. There is no other time in life when its better to do so.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mojo chan on Monday August 11 2014, @04:52PM
It's because everyone can see right through him. He doesn't want young people spending too much time online because they will be exposed to other ideas and cultures. The Catholic church likes to get children as young as possible and indoctrinate them, not just in its teachings but into its culture and way of life. The internet is a threat to that.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1) by digitalaudiorock on Monday August 11 2014, @07:24PM
As am I...
Not only that...there are plenty of valid opinions out there (as well as books on the topic) from many who have little or nothing to do with religion, that the endless onslaught of input gabbing our attention just about 24/7 is obliterating just about all traces of quiet thought, contemplation, reflection etc...and with it innovation, creativity...you name it. That also can include the contemplation of all the grey areas of right and wrong that are required simply to be a decent human being in a complex world. If that's what he's concerned about, I tend to agree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 12 2014, @02:33PM
I am surprised how religiously people react in opposition to anything about religion. I remember seeing a similar reaction to another article that mentioned religion. Seriously, it makes you look like the blindly reacting religious bigot when you criticize something strongly without actually learning if your criticism is accurate in the first place.
This guy does have a huge number of people who care about what he says, and this is a group that is often opposed to new technology, so what he says does matter even if you don't interact with any Catholics. If you call yourself a critical thinker, you should have checked on what he actually said in this speech and what else he's said on the subject elsewhere. You'd find out that he was actually focused on the downside of time wasting but has praised the internet in other speeches. It seems that he says the internet is a good thing that can bring a lot of good to the world but using it just to waste time is a bad idea.
This pope is telling his followers to think pretty much the same things that all these "critical-thinkers" are so proud to say they believe.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Monday August 11 2014, @12:13PM
I know I've been banging on about it already but I never saw anyone get hurt by Buddhism while I was growing up which is saying something since it attracts crazies.
They always said to investigate things with your own mind and not just to accept it. I took that onboard. I rejected reincarnation, stories of breaking falling boulders with a thought and many other things,
What it has though is meditation, martial arts for your brain. You can make real improvements to your concentration, focus and mood using meditation. I strongly associate this with what I know of 'plasticity'. I have a feeling that AI's of the future will have systems that resemble the systems of meditation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @05:21PM
Maybe you should get out more [time.com]. And that was just on the first page on a Google search of the word Buddhism. Methinks your rosy view of this religion is born more from ignorance rather than enlightenment. Just sayin'.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @07:17PM
All religions have extremists and fundamentalists. Except for maybe Bahai, but if it doesn't, the only reason would be because its still young. Religion in and of itself a bad thing, its the extremists and fundamentalists of religions that are the problem.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Monday August 11 2014, @09:34PM
Did you even read that? Where's your sense of proportion?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @10:41PM
That article was rather pathetic and nonsensical. They showed a woman in her house with furnishings appropriate for the area and then decry the attack of monks from a pacifist religion. They say that she was left homeless and penniless. Claiming the radical attackers ransacked her home and took everything, yet she sits content in her normal furnishings with no evidence at all. Just silly. Even still, bending all reason and rationality and assuming all that was true, remember that the Boston tea party was done by white guys dressed up as native Americans.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday August 11 2014, @12:43PM
Meanwhile, the British government is warning that too much time online is causing mental illness in children "Loneliness, depression, anxiety, low self-esteem and heightened aggression are some of the possible issues faced by children who may overuse the Internet."
There are great alternatives:
* Get beaten up by the local thugs which the government doesn't deal with
* Play outside in the concrete jungle where everything is owned by someone
* Play in the forest.. if you have access to one and enjoy sticks and cones all day long
* Visit the local youth center occupied by the local clientel that seems to love to abuse everything around them
* The local library with books that can tell you that in the feature people will use trains
So deal with the reality..
And so:
* Loneliness - insane interpersonal culture and lack of alternatives
* Depression - because government doesn't bother to make the circumstances any good
* Anxiety - fucked up social interaction rules and perhaps parents too. Or you just try to live up to ideals of people with too little reality check.
* Low self-esteem - Same as for anxiety
* Heightened aggression - Duh, this issues tend to have real causes. Have a look in your mirror and don't find external scapegoats
So all in all government and by extension politicians trying desperately with misdirection away from the real issues. Better censor internet lest the people get a clue..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Monday August 11 2014, @02:04PM
I recall when I was a child in the 70's there were authorities, thinktanks, nonprofits, researchers, etc all decrying the dangers of too much TV, especially TV that showed too much sex and violence. The effects they claimed were nearly identical to these. Afterward when I was somewhat older in the 80's, the usual suspects decried D&D and other role playing games and cited, again, these effects. Then in the 90's and 00's it was video games. I recall distinctly recurrent stories on that theme on /. In the wake of Columbine, they really ballooned.
I know from talking to my mom and older sister that the phenomenon preceded TV, having previously being linked to disco and rock & roll.
It seems the constant is whole classes of people--politicians, academic researchers, pundits, etc--who make their living by peddling fear and prurient scandal. How much better the world would be without their efforts.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Lazarus on Monday August 11 2014, @02:33PM
While this pope is better than most popes, he's still a peddler of superstition. It's time we grew out of all religious nonsense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @03:54PM
Imagine what the labour market would look like if all those priests would also be looking for a job ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @06:16PM
At least that was what I first thought of when I saw that.