Religious Religion v. Religious Athiesm

On facebook I have a couple very religious people, and one or two pretty open athiests, or at least religion hating people.

I have obvious problems with the former, but you would think I wouldn't have as many with the later. You'd be wrong. I actually have more problems with them, becuase to some degree they speak for me. Not that I'm athiest. I waver between Diest and Agnostic, most days.*

Anyway, here is a great article on why athiesm has become what it hates: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/12030/

I would add that we on this side of the spectrum don't want angry athiests, or even anti-religion athiests. I like my athiest happy, having reached that point by choice and reason, and not to avenge to some wrong. Being athiest, or even agnostic doesn't mean you have to hate religion or the religious. We are all just trying to find our way on this big rock. Why should I care how you do it any more than you care how I do?

Sometimes I sound like a hippie to myself.

*If you want the whole "where I stand currently" post, here it is: Currently, I don't believe that to the extent God could exist, he would interfere in human activity at all. But I also can't believe he would create a world where dementia and Alzhiemer's disease exists. You can do a pretty good job of bringing the pain down on the human race for original sin without those two dingers. No God would create a world where they exist - at least not a thinking, all-knowing, all-caring one like I was brought up to believe.

Now, on to the "all-knowing." Sure, sure, I can't comprehend his plan. Maybe Alzhiemer's patients are actually off in some soul-heaven where they glide down lollipop slides and cuddle with cloud bears filled with pure love. And maybe its his plan that if I jump out my window a piebald unicorn will glide softly under me and save me - but I'm not going to believe it will.

Having said all that, I'm watched a lot of Nature shows on the universe, and I think I have a fairly good understanding of the science of creation, the big bang and the origin of the universe. I believe in the big bang. What came before that, or how that bang got its start... it seems to me if there are 5 different scientific theories, and no one is sure which one is correct, there is at least a chance that "God did it" is the answer.

Let's say sciences comes to the conclusion that there are 1,000s of universes lined up in vibrating strings, and when those strings touch a new big bang occurs. That is one theory out there. It still begs the question: who or what pulls the strings. To me, science has gotten us to point X, and I'm willing to accept everything it has to tell us. But once you get really, really macro level, really big picture, science falls apart a bit. I'm not saying science can't or won't figure it out, but I'm also not saying that God isn't the thing in between all the particles. I just don't know. Diest Agnostic.

Back to the salt's mine

After NY and other places went on a tear and tried to ban salt, or at least reduce its use, and after years of government programs shouted from the rooftops regarding the hazards of the white crystal, it turns out that lowering your salt intake can be harmful. And these weren't crazy reductions to like 600 mg per day, these people were still eating - after the reduction - 3,800 mg, which is much much higher than the 2,000 mg the government recommends.

Meanwhile, out on the left coast Los Angeles is busy preventing new fast food chains from opening, on the premise that they locate in poor neighborhoods and make the poor fat. Ignoring the personal choice issue, it turns out that - OMG - middle class people eat more fast food and in fact, the richer you are, the more fast you eat, up to about $60,000 in income. The availability of healthy food in poor neighborhoods, and health and obesity in general in those areas, is an issue, but simplifying it down to "fast food = bad" is not the way to solve it. But it makes some people feel like they are helping, so who cares who it hurts.

Oh, and after needlessly worrying parents for the last 5 or so years, it turns out that your fat baby probably isn't going to grow up to be the blob.

How to save newspapers - The news & microtransactions

I think newspapers in their current form and function are probably dead-men walking. There is a LOT of "old-style," "think within the box" thinking in newspapers - this is especially surprising given that I'd say 85% are liberals. As much as that thinking rules the roost, there's even more snobbish smugness about how important "news" people are to the world in news rooms. But for all the liberal-leaning people in newsrooms, and don't kid yourself, liberals DOMINATE, its a very VERY conservative place as far as form and function of the papers themselves.

I go on this little digression only to note that the problems are deeper than the article I'm about to share. Part of the reason papers are in the trouble they find themselves in is because they aren't forward thinking enough to implement a plan like the one recomended here by Time Magazine author Walter Isaacson.

Newspapers are the kind of place where this idea would get suggested - maybe - bantered about - possibly - and either A) done half assed, or B) discarded as too scary, novel, hard to implement, or just plain different from how things are done or how "news" should be done.

And yes, its some what funny that an article proposing to save newspapers and magazines by charging a microtransaction fee for each story (similiar to texts and I-Tunes) provides a permalink.

Ever wonder what to do if you find yourself falling out of an airplane?

This guy apparently did, and he wrote a book about it and how to survive just about anything else that could befall you. The link is to the Slate.com article on the book and explains what the book, and experts on sky diving, recommend, both from an overall strategy (don't panic, that helps) to more situation specific stuff (don't forget to pull your cord - seriously, it apparently happens).