Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apollo 8 Astronaut Re-Creates 1968 Christmas Broadcast To Earth

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the one-small-station-break-for-man dept.

Moon 152

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "AP reports that standing by a part of the Apollo 8 spacecraft he once rode, retired astronaut James Lovell read the 1968 Christmastime broadcast from the day he and two others became the first humans to orbit the moon marking the 45th anniversary of the orbit and the famous broadcast. 'The idea of bringing people together by a flight to the moon where we encompassed everybody in our thoughts is still very valid today,' says Lovell. 'The words that we read are very appropriate.' Millions tuned in on Dec. 24, 1968, when Frank Borman, Bill Anders and Lovell circled the moon. A television camera on board took footage of the crater-filled surface as the astronauts read Bible verses describing the creation of Earth. They circled 10 times and began reading from the Book of Genesis on the last orbit. 'It's a foundation of Christianity, Judaism and Islam,' Lovell said of choosing Genesis. 'It is the foundation of most of the world's religions. ... They all had that basis of the Old Testament.' Lovell says at the time the astronauts weren't sure who would be listening and how the broadcast would be taken. The famous "Earthrise" photo was also taken during the mission. Lovell closed with the same message the astronauts did in 1968. 'From the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas and God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good thing they recreated it. (1)

Behrooz Amoozad (2831361) | about 10 months ago | (#45784855)

It's become really foggy in my mind. Anybody can remind me which state it was they played the movie inside of?

Re:Good thing they recreated it. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 10 months ago | (#45785059)

Yeah, it was a long time ago. I didn't even remember it until slashdot jogged my memory.

I'd get these pesky kids off your lawn but they keep handing me beers and hitters... damn, it's 1968 again! Are we still at war?

Re:Good thing they recreated it. (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45785957)

Are we still at war?

Yep. After the landing the following year, not much happened, except TV sets don't weigh so much anymore..

Re:Good thing they recreated it. (1)

plopez (54068) | about 10 months ago | (#45785207)

Area 52

Oh, good. (-1, Flamebait)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 10 months ago | (#45784865)

Yes, let's "bring people together" by encouraging them to believe in god. Because religion has never caused any problems. Just ask Giordano Bruno [wikipedia.org] . What a great way to celebrate a scientific achievement.

Re: Oh, good. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785427)

*tips fedora*

simple-minded atheist drivel (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786559)

Lumping all religions together and then assigning blame to "religion" for many discreet misdeeds committed by practitioners of various religions is like lumping together all secular thought and then blaming "secularism" for all non-religious bad acts. Sorry, but physics is not responsible for what some 1930's Germans did with phrenology, and Chemistry is not at fault for Stalin's massacres. Catholics are not responsible for human sacrifices by the Aztecs, Protestant Christians are entirely blameless for both the Crusades and the Inquisition.

WHAT somebody believes and what ACTIONS that person takes as a result are FAR more important than whether or not a person HAS beliefs.... and that goes just as much for religious beliefs as for non-religious beliefs. You might like to slime "religion" but those same religious people have done more to feed, heal, clothe, and educate people than any atheist groups have ever done.

Oh, and while the Apollo missions were great scientific and technical accomplishments, most of the people involved where Christians and/or Jews and the overall endeavor was a fantastic HUMAN achievement that also involved the human spirit, philosophy, art, culture, etc

Re:simple-minded atheist drivel (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786617)

Hypocritical nonsense - you're not allowed to lump everyone together to assign blame, but I can lump all atheists together to blam them for behaving in a nice way when some do and not even most of the religeous group I also lumped together do as I claimed.

Lumping all religions together and assigning blame seems prety justified when all of them seem to prey on the weak minded and/or indoctrinate people into their fairy stories before they have a chance to develop a mind of their own.

Religion is bad. I'll grant you that some are definitely worse than others, but they are ALL bad.

Re:Oh, good. (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 10 months ago | (#45786623)

When you have the cojones to travel to the Moon on a spacecraft that hasn't even been thoroughly tested with a good chance to die out there, you'll have the right to express your worthless opinions. Until then, bend over backwards and shit on your own face, loserboy.

Re:Oh, good. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 10 months ago | (#45787023)

Merry Christmas.

Re:Oh, good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45787737)

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Little Kimmy of North Korea, etc. killed 100+ million in the name of their own perverted political science.

There is no audio link. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45784869)

I thought TFA would link to a stream of the event, but it does not.

Re:There is no audio link. (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 10 months ago | (#45785457)

You must be new here. Nobody bothers going to TFA because we already know it'll be useless. You need to bing [to keep with the original astroturfing above] for the real article yourself.

Most of the world's religions? No. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45784903)

The book of Genesis is certainly not the foundation of most of the world's religions. There are hundreds of religions with more than a million followers each. In demographic terms it may be closer, with followers of Abrahamic religions making up close to half of the world population. However there are billions adhering to other faiths, especially Hinduism and Buddhism.

Re:Most of the world's religions? No. (3, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#45785507)

... followers of Abrahamic religions making up close to half of the world population

More than half actually.

The Global Religious Landscape [pewforum.org]

The demographic study – based on analysis of more than 2,500 censuses, surveys and population registers – finds 2.2 billion Christians (32% of the world’s population), 1.6 billion Muslims (23%), 1 billion Hindus (15%), nearly 500 million Buddhists (7%) and 14 million Jews (0.2%) around the world as of 2010. In addition, more than 400 million people (6%) practice various folk or traditional religions, including African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, Native American religions and Australian aboriginal religions. An estimated 58 million people – slightly less than 1% of the global population – belong to other religions, including the Baha’i faith, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Wicca and Zoroastrianism, to mention just a few.1

At the same time, the new study by the Pew Forum also finds that roughly one-in-six people around the globe (1.1 billion, or 16%) have no religious affiliation. This makes the unaffiliated the third-largest religious group worldwide, behind Christians and Muslims, and about equal in size to the world’s Catholic population. Surveys indicate that many of the unaffiliated hold some religious or spiritual beliefs (such as belief in God or a universal spirit) even though they do not identify with a particular faith.

Re:Most of the world's religions? No. (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 10 months ago | (#45786887)

Censuses, surveys and population registers are all hopeless ways of determining people's religion. In many countries they don't ask about religion on such things, and when they do it tends to get conflated with race and heritage rather than an individuals's actually belief. Many people claim their young children share their religion when they are too young to even understand it, and even adults often feel pressured to say they are one thing to avoid upsetting their families. It's almost like finding it hard to come out as gay.

ln Europe church attendance is an order of magnitude lower than the number of people claiming to be Christian. In the UK it's something like 65% claim to be Christian, mostly CofE, but only about 5% go to church regularly.

Christmas (1, Troll)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 10 months ago | (#45784923)

As divided as we all seem to be these days, Christmas still seems to be a time when we each can remove these mental boundaries and see humanity for what it is, regardless of our religious (or lack thereof) preferences.

In nature, when it's summer time, and food is plenty, generally wild animals fight for food, fight for mates, and fight for whatever else they see fit to fight over. But when it's cold, food is scarce and everything seems to be fighting to live, even some wild animals share what is available.

Merry Christmas everyone. I hope it was/is filled with the things that you love most.

Re:Christmas (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 10 months ago | (#45785075)

Merry Christmas everyone. I hope it was/is filled with the things that you love most.

See my sig*. Oh, and we're offtopic...

*May not be valid after Christmas

Re:Christmas (2)

waimate (147056) | about 10 months ago | (#45785379)

But when it's cold, food is scarce and everything seems to be fighting to live, even some wild animals share what is available. Merry Christmas everyone.

Well, I've looked out the window, and it's none of those things. The sun is shining, it's hot, the grass is green and I think I might go for a swim. Oh, and by the way, it's also tomorrow.

You hemispherist, you.

Re:Christmas (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 10 months ago | (#45785485)

As divided as we all seem to be these days, Christmas still seems to be a time when we each can remove these mental boundaries and see humanity for what it is, regardless of our religious (or lack thereof) preferences.

...a creature able to turn everything and anything supposedly "holy" into a cash cow?

Re:Christmas (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45787235)

In nature, when it's summer time, and food is plenty, generally wild animals fight for food, fight for mates, and fight for whatever else they see fit to fight over. But when it's cold, food is scarce and everything seems to be fighting to live, even some wild animals share what is available.

What? Are you totally retarded?
When there is plenty for all, and life is easy, wild animals avoid fighting whenever possible - because there is no advantage to be gained, and everything to be lost. But when times are hard, and food is scarce, animals fight for what little there is, or else they will die.

Orders (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45784931)

China went to the moon. Now go dig out some of the cool stuff NASA did before we started funding useless wars for no gain instead.

We can't look like we're second to china...

Remind everyone what cool stuff we used to do.

Oh. By the way. You can't spend any money to do it.

Re:Orders (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45784971)

I'm sure the American citizens who are homeless and hungry on this Christmas night really give a flying fuck about nationalistic ego-stroking. We've fallen. Deal with it. We sure as shit shouldn't borrow billions of dollars from the Chinese to try to one-up the Chinese in a pointless pissing match.

You cannot solve poverty with money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786495)

We ran the experiment. We've spent TRILLIONS on anti-poverty programs and we have more poor people now than before we started spending the cash. Oh, and before some religious person pops up and tells us to give till it hurts..... Jesus said "For ye have the poor with you always" when his followers tried to scold a woman for not selling some oil to raise money for the poor - his point was NOT to oppose charity, obviously, but even He was expressing a limitation to the ability to solve the so-called poverty problem with money. The simple fact is that most (but not all) people in the US who are in poverty are their by their own choices.... do not get drunk, do not use drugs, graduate from high school, get married to somebody of the opposite sex and stay married, do not have kids until after you are married and you will most-likely never be in poverty. Oh, and I cite these rules NOT from some religious text but because they are the primary statistical indicators; there are always exceptions to all stats, but for most people, it's just that simple.

There is simply no justification for the nation needing to halt progress and re-direct funds from productive activity into taking care of a bunch of idiots who jammed syringes full of toxic substances into their arms; that's a backward, warped, twisted, evil and phony form of compassion. Individuals may CHOOSE to give money to such people as an act of charity, BUT the society as a whole should feel no compulsion to re-direct is money and efforts to coddling such dysfunctions. As for people going hungry in America on Christmas.......oh, PLEASE..... we have the fattest poor people on EARTH. Obama has DOUBLED the food stamp program so we now spend FAR more on food stamps than on NASA.

Re: You cannot solve poverty with money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45787527)

Go fuck yourself. You give no facts, so quit your bitching. I remember the crashed economy that shrub left behind after his mission was accomplished. Those people on food stamps, the majority working minimum wage, would not be able to survive in this festering market where the economy is driven by crass economics, not democracy.

But don't waste time reading this when there is some self-fucking you need to accomplish. Asshole.

Re: You cannot solve poverty with money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45787759)

Touch a nerve, did he?

Re:Orders (2)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about 10 months ago | (#45784989)

Yeah, like back before some oil guy handed the NSA NASA's budget for the oil wa.. err ah.. war on terrorism. Yeah, like back when we still had a space program.

Re:Orders (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#45785491)

Now go dig out some of the cool stuff NASA did before we started funding useless wars for no gain instead.

You do realize that the US Apollo missions to the moon occurred concurrently with the US involvement with the Vietnam war, when military spending took twice the relative bite out of the economy as it does today? Maybe not.

You should also be clear about how the spending of Federal tax dollars has changed over the years [heritage.org] . (Don't like the source? Find another one, it won't really change if the numbers are honest*.)

* Honest Federal spending will include both "mandatory" and "discretionary" spending. Some sites mislead by excluding mandatory spending to distort the burden of social welfare spending versus defense spending.

Re:Orders (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 10 months ago | (#45785989)

Some sites mislead by excluding mandatory spending to distort the burden of social welfare spending versus defense spending.

And some sites mislead by including the stand-alone SS Trust Fund as if it were a regular budget item.

Re:Orders (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#45786039)

It doesn't really matter.

MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY- Part 2 [ssa.gov]

Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

RL33028: Social Security: The Trust Fund [fas.org]

Re:Orders (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 10 months ago | (#45786667)

The expanded Trust Fund was intended to pay for the "population bubble" of the retiring baby boomers. That means it gained value for decades (something like $3 trillion), until the number of retiring boomers outweighs the current workers paying in, then it is intended to decline until the boomers die out. In accounting terms, it's an accumulating asset, but it's also a future liability (and it's a revenue item and an expense). Then the Trust invests in US Treasuries, so it's both an investment asset, and a debt liability. How you account for that clearly matters when discussing the budget. (And there are lots of games people play, and knots that people twist themselves into.) But how you account for the Trust in the budget clearly doesn't affect the function of the Trust itself. (Unless people make stupid decisions based of those accounting games. "Ohnoes, Social Security will be "bankrupt" by...2025...2030...2050...! We must cut payments, or else we risk possibly having to... ummm... cut payments!")

The most honest thing, IMO, when talking about the US budget in general, is to simply recognise the Trust Fund as a stand-alone entity with its own revenue and expense streams, disconnected from the ordinary budget, and leave it out of the discussion entirely.

Re:Orders (1)

meglon (1001833) | about 10 months ago | (#45786859)

Lets get more to the point:

Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To....

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

When exactly was the last insurrection or invasion?

Further, it's immaterial what our GDP is, the only reason to compare spending as a percentage of GDP is to hide how significant the percentage of spending your number is. For 2012 DoD's budget was $651B, Veteran's Affairs $124B, and another $47B on DHS... for a rousing direct cost of $822B (22.2% of all spending); NASA's budget was $18B (.49%). Add in non-direct defense spending, and estimates go up to the $1.2-$1.4T range (32%-38%).

So.. back to the big question: When exactly was the last insurrection or invasion? That's what our military is supposed to be for.

Re:Orders (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#45787155)

After declaring war [pbs.org] on the United States in 1996, the international terrorist organization known as Al Qaida, which comprised elements of the armed forces and government of Afghanistan, conducted an attack on the United States of comparable magnitude to the attack by the Empire of Japan on Perl Harbor in 1941 in terms of loss of life and economic damage on 11 September 2001 [telegraph.co.uk] . They attacked targets in both New York City and Washington DC, having attacked American embassies and military forces previously, and many other targets subsequently. The conflict continues.

Re: Orders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45787569)

You should have brought up the august 6th security memo from that time period. Ben Ladin determined to strike?
Of course, now we have the TSA because we know who was asleep at the wheel reading my pet goat on September 11th.

Re: Orders (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#45787673)

"Bin Laden determined to do something, somewhere, at some unknown time." That is not really helpful for security planning. It wouldn't have mattered if President Bush was sitting in NORAD at the time, little would have changed. You should really rethink your views on this, they are unserious.

Re: Orders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45787799)

Don't you have some chicken wire [democratic...ground.com] to jump on?

Re:Orders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45787751)

You would think a self-styled "security expert" like COld Fjord would know how to spell Pearl Harbor.

Re:Orders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45787859)

You would think that someone making a correction would bother to get the name right - "COld Fjord" ?? You appear to be just as wrong. :D

Religions (1)

_Ludwig (86077) | about 10 months ago | (#45784937)

'It is the foundation of most of the world's religions. ... They all had that basis of the Old Testament.'

I know you can’t be a dumbass and make the astronaut corps, so I’m a little confused as to how he could be saying something so stupid. The Old Testament is the foundation of exactly three of the world’s major religions (and that’s counting Judaism as arguably major.) It’s irrelevant to half the world’s population.

Re:Religions (4, Informative)

Beeftopia (1846720) | about 10 months ago | (#45784995)

Pew Research report: "The Global Religious Landscape" [pewforum.org] , with global numerical breakdowns.

Re:Religions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785005)

'It is the foundation of most of the world's religions. ... They all had that basis of the Old Testament.'

I know you can’t be a dumbass and make the astronaut corps, so I’m a little confused as to how he could be saying something so stupid. The Old Testament is the foundation of exactly three of the world’s major religions (and that’s counting Judaism as arguably major.) It’s irrelevant to half the world’s population.

54% is still more than half. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

54% counts non-Christians as Chrisians (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785195)

Depraved zionists, preaching the sick, evil and perverted principle of 'anti-Apostasy', claim that children born in nations of 'Judaic' influence (Islamic, Jewish and Modern Christian) are Jewish, Muslim or Modern Christian. This is despicable, disgusting, and illustrates just how much zionists loath Freedom of Conscience.

You are a modern Christian ONLY when, as a rational adult, you accept some version of Modern Christian beliefs into your life. In Britain, for instance, the vast majority of people the zionists lyingly call Christians are no such thing. So, when one counts the REAL number of Christians in the world, the figure is massively lower than the zionists claim. Judaism numbers are confused by the masses of non-religious Jews who follow the secular racist principles of secular zionism. Muslim numbers are massively confused by cultural and legal abuses in many Muslim lands that lead to massive persecution of any adult who declares him/herself a non-Muslim.

The true number of members of Judaic based religions is but a tiny fraction of that put forward by zionist propagandists. Depraved zionists, for instance, are evil enough to claim that children can be Jews or Christians or Muslims, completely contradicting the concept of Freedom of Religion. Zionists actively encourage anti-Apostacy laws in Israel and the Middle East.

The zionist lie "Jesus was a Jew" is a classic example of zionists pushing the anti-Apostasy position. Jesus was born into a Jewish culture, but as soon as he was old enough to draw an informed opinion, he was so appalled by Judaism, he actually created a fresh religion to replace it. But the lunatic right-wing racist zionist fringe in the USA pushes the idea on most TV channels in the USA that you are BORN into a religion. I promise you that the extremist religious lie "Jesus was a Jew" was repeated hundreds of times on most TV channels in the USA.

Re:Religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785111)

I know you can’t be a dumbass and make the astronaut corps ...

Your definition of what constitutes dumbass needs revision.

Religion of ALL kinds harms humanity far more than helps it.

If Lovell doesn't grasp this, then Lovell IS a dumbass, regardless
of his performance as an obedient hairless monkey inside a tin can
which was thrust away from earth by the force of a controlled explosion.

Religion is for people who lack the courage to embrace the fact that
they alone are responsible for their lives.

.

Re:Religions (2)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | about 10 months ago | (#45785265)

Religion of ALL kinds harms humanity far more than helps it.

That's an unfalsifiable claim, but I can try.

The religious impulse seems to be an evolutionary adaption. Lots of "atheists" still exhibit other forms of faith like an implicit trust in ideologies like libertarianism, democracy, science, etc.

I'm not saying those things are automatically religious, far from it. I'm saying that a lot of people are less than skeptical of them in the same way that 'religious' people are less than skeptical of their belief systems. At some point you have to put your trust in something because there just aren't enough hours in the day to verify everything from first principles. But even so, a lot of people go beyond trust as a matter of expediency and are unwilling to consider the possibility for error in the same way that religious people are often unwilling to question doctrine.

So, if this religious impulse is such a wide-spread evolutionary adaption then it stands to reason that it has a net positive value to the human species.

Re:Religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785599)

Religion of ALL kinds harms humanity far more than helps it.

That's an unfalsifiable claim, but I can try.

The religious impulse seems to be an evolutionary adaption. Lots of "atheists" still exhibit other forms of faith like an implicit trust in ideologies like libertarianism, democracy, science, etc.

I'm not saying those things are automatically religious, far from it. I'm saying that a lot of people are less than skeptical of them in the same way that 'religious' people are less than skeptical of their belief systems. At some point you have to put your trust in something because there just aren't enough hours in the day to verify everything from first principles. But even so, a lot of people go beyond trust as a matter of expediency and are unwilling to consider the possibility for error in the same way that religious people are often unwilling to question doctrine.

So, if this religious impulse is such a wide-spread evolutionary adaption then it stands to reason that it has a net positive value to the human species.

Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

As for the rest of your inane argument, I know from past
experience that it is a waste of time to try to reason with
someone who "thinks" like you do, because you don't actually
think, you just make assumptions which fit your worldview and
you ignore anything which contradicts your worldview.

Ultimately what IS truly tragic is that mankind has made tremendous
technical progress yet the overwhelming majority of mankind are a bunch
of primitive fools who continue repeating the mistakes which have been
made for thousands of years. For proof of this, you need look no further than
the violence perpetrated by one religious faction against another religious faction.
Only a true moron could think that religion is ANY kind of good thing when it continues
to be used to justify such awful behavior in this world. Fuck Christians, fuck Jews, fuck
Muslims, and fuck all the rest of you idiots. You are ALL WRONG and the ideas you
embrace have outlived any usefulness in the world of today.

Finally, people who "think" like you do are the enemy of true progress
in the human species. Some day your kind will have to be eradicated,
or at least kept in cages so the harm they are able to do is severely limited.
That day is coming, and sooner than most of you think.

Re:Religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785965)

Merry XMAS Internet Tough Guy!

AKA irony. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786001)

And that, boys and girls, is what we call "an unintended example of the point being made."

Re:Religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786117)

Good thing Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc. weren't religious, otherwise we'd have great progress! Oh that Big Bang theory you worship, it was originally heckled for being too theist since the person who came up with it happened to be Catholic. Looks like someone was forced to go to Sunday School and has a chip on their shoulder.

Re:Religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786673)

forced to go to Sunday School

This is the point that is so often missed by religious people

The vast vast majority of religious people are only religious because it was forced upon them when they were too young to make an informed decision. By the time they are old enough to know better there is so much peer pressure to fit in with the rest of the flock its often easier to go with the flow than admit your true beliefs.
If you were adopted and grew up in a different culture, how many of you could honestly say you would have the same religion you do now, and would not have been peer pressured into the dominant religion of the culture you were transported to?

Its not spiritual at all, and yours is no different/better than anyone elses, its just brainwashing/indoctrination/fairy stories and hopefully it will eventually be treated as such by most people. Humans are genetically predisposed to want to be social and fit it, evil people use that to create religions to control people.

Re:Religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45787823)

I love it when some asshole decides that he knows what your past is and what you are thinking.

All you need to do now is tell me that my health plan, which I like, is really trash and that I'm just too stupid to know it.

Sounds like someone was tied up in the basement and abused by his dad.

Re:Religions (2)

kanweg (771128) | about 10 months ago | (#45786711)

"Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution."

I think it has.
- people have a greater chance of survival if they cooperate. If there is a further possible bond (apart from being family), than that can help.
- it can also help against power. Suppose the chief of your clan is a grumpy strong man. You could lose your life. But if you tell him that you're in contact with higher powers that will punish him if he doesn't alter his behavior, then that can help you survive.
- it made for good stories in a time without internet. What have you been doing today? Herding the goats. Oh. Well, let me tell you a story (in the bible, there's a story about a well that was sealed off with a rock that required three people to move it. Or a bald guy who was yelled at by kids and bears came out of the wood and killed the kids. What do you think: It is something that god really wanted to tell us or was a good story at the campfire?).

So, while only my hypothesis, I think that there may well be a genetic component to religion/the ease with which humans can be deluded.

Bert

Re:Religions (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 10 months ago | (#45787015)

And for some people (like the parent post) the bashing of the concept of religion is their religion.

Re:Religions (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 10 months ago | (#45786563)

The religious impulse seems to be an evolutionary adaption.

Dawkins and co generalise it as "magical thinking", rather than just "religion". It's a stage of childhood development, and we're all prone to elements of it as adults, but some people (a minority) see it as an type of mistake. Others see it as a positive and celebrate it.

So, if this religious impulse is such a wide-spread evolutionary adaption then it stands to reason that it has a net positive value to the human species.

You mean like our attraction to sugar/fat/salt? Just because something was appropriate when we lived in small stone age tribes, doesn't mean it works in a technological civilisations of 7 billion people.

Re:Religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785449)

*tips le epic fedora*

Re:Religions (2)

mcgrew (92797) | about 10 months ago | (#45785145)

Wrong. A third are Christian, a third are Muslim, half of the rest are other religions such as Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. You atheists and antitheists only make up 10% of everyone (the rest are agnostic).

Re:Religions (1)

_Ludwig (86077) | about 10 months ago | (#45785235)

We atheists and antitheists know that 54% != 2/3.

Re:Religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785305)

We atheists and antitheists know that 54% != 2/3.

So what? The real Christians know that Pi =3.

take that, Atheists.

Re:Religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786403)

To be fair to the guy, if you exclude the atheists and agnostics from the count (i.e. phrase the question as "of religious people, what proportion follow Abrahamic religions?") the answer does indeed come to about two thirds (16% are atheist or agnostic, so the figure is 54 / 84 = 64%). It may even be reasonable to make that exclusion: there's a difference between atheist and christian that's of a different nature to the difference between, say, christian and hindu.

Re:Religions (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 10 months ago | (#45785569)

Sorry, you are wrong. The problem is that no accurate statistics exist and it is difficult to even ask people. For example "Jew" is both a race and religious identify. Most parents will state that their children share their religion on census forms even if they are too young to understand it or simply don't believe.

For example in the UK something like 65% of people put Christian on their census forms (or more likely had it put for them by the head of the household). Even so church attendance is about 5%, so it seems like the vast majority are not active members of their religion.

Re:Religions (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45786431)

Religion in the UK is usually a much more private matter than in the US. Most of our believers do not feel the need to proclaim it from the rooftops as is a common practice in the US.

Re:Religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786411)

Wrong. A third are Christian, a third are Muslim, half of the rest are other religions such as Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. You atheists and antitheists only make up 10% of everyone (the rest are agnostic).

The most accurate figures available suggest that the actual figures are more like 1/4 Christian, 1/4 Muslim, 1/4 Hindu, and the majority of the rest are atheist or agnostic. I'm not quite sure what an "antitheist" is, unless you're talking about Richard Dawkins. I don't think he's statisticically significant, however.

Re:Religions (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45786457)

Depends on definitions. Speak to much of europe and you'll find a lot of people, a majority in some countries, who insist they are Christians very strongly - yet they don't go to church, don't factor the religion into any decision they make, have never done more than skim a few verses of the bible and can't state the most fundamental precepts of the faith if questioned. Do you call them Christian or not? Most surveys work based on self-identification. I don't know what the situation is like in other regions of the world, but I expect there is something of a similiar effect. Except perhaps for Islam - their frequent public rituals would make it rather hard to be a muslim without at least going through all the appropriate motions, especially in countries where failure to comply would result in conseqences ranging from social exclusion and loss of employment to execution.

Re:Religions (1)

meglon (1001833) | about 10 months ago | (#45786873)

Depends on definitions. Speak to much of the US and you'll find a lot of people, a majority, who insist they are Christians very strongly - yet while they go to church, Jesus' teachings don't factor the into any decision they make, have never done more than skim a few verses of the bible and can't state the most fundamental precepts of the faith if questioned. Do you call them Christian or not?

Re:Religions (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45786461)

Selective dumbassness. Just because someone is part of the world's elite in on field, doesn't mean they can't be ignorant upon a completly unrelated topic.

How did they? (2)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about 10 months ago | (#45785053)

Did they orbit the Moon again?

Re:How did they? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 10 months ago | (#45785645)

He was at the Armstrong Centre, Kennedy City, here at Tranquillity.

Lovell was visiting to help open the new "giant baseline" optical array, at the Lovell Dark-Sky Park over on farside. On his way home, he apparently decided to do the broadcast from here. TFS doesn't mention but this month is also the 30th anniversary of our first permanent dome, so they made it a bit of a thing; and there were quite a few of the old-timers visiting.

My apartment is nearby but I didn't go. Busy working at bójin kuàng. I had it on the crawler's radio, but honestly it's all so typically American, wallowing in the past while the rest of us are out here working -- then bitching because the magnetic flux from the big cargo launches are messing up their precious footprints. Gorram groundhugging báichi yóukè...

Profound moments (2)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 10 months ago | (#45785083)

Would have been exciting to be around back when Sputnik took off or men orbited or landed on the moon.

Wonder how long it will be until another major leap for humanity.

Perhaps the Wright Brothers achieving flight or Columbus discovering the New World fits in that category.

These days, we have to settle for technological achievements like the start of the world wide web or the launch of the iPhone --- maybe New Horizons flying past Pluto will be a bit of a "first ever" moment for humanity here in a bit over a year.

Re:Profound moments (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 10 months ago | (#45785595)

It's just a Shane that with all that scientific advancement they couldn't get away from a fairy story like Genesis. They tried to bring the world together with that reading but ended up demonstrating how it is divided by superstition and dogma.

I imagine it was a bit of a poke at the godless soviets as well. I'm really glad they didn't do it when landing on the moon as well.

Re:Profound moments (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45786445)

Imagine? I'm all but certain of it. This was the same era when congress voted to add 'under god' to the pledge of allegence and change the national motto to 'in god we trust.' Both of which very much were ways to raise the national middle finger at the godless soviets.

Re:Profound moments (3, Interesting)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 10 months ago | (#45787049)

Part of the reason they didn't do it when they made the landing, was because of all the hell (read: lawsuit from an atheist) that NASA caught from this reading on Apollo 8. Buzz Aldrin was (is) a deeply religious man, and observed communion [snopes.com] in the LM after landing on the moon, after making this comment on the public radio loop:

"This is the LM pilot. I'd like to take this opportunity to ask every person listening in, whoever and wherever they may be, to pause for a moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his or her own way."

He wanted the communion to be broadcast, but had the sense to ask first, and due to the lawsuit it was deemed to not be a good idea.

Re:Profound moments (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 10 months ago | (#45785819)

Travel back in time 20 years. Grab me. I'm a 19-year-old college freshman home for Christmas break.

I can't check my email, because there aren't any commercial ISPs where I live and long-distance is brutally expensive (and the college's modem bank is only 2400 bps, anyway), but that's okay because almost nobody I know outside of a few college friends uses email. The WWW is still largely theoretical. Next summer, I'll be able to get free 2400 bps service from a local university by working in a lab there, but meanwhile my 14.4k modem is stuck checking the old local BBSes. I have a 66 MHz 486 with a 540 MB hard drive and 16 MB memory. Its monitor does 1024x768. I've got a Creative SoundBlaster 16, so I can record really short clips in CD quality and play them back, marveling at how good they sound.

Now, tell me that in twenty years I'll be carrying a device in my pocket that has 2 GB of memory, 32 GB of storage on a chip, a 1500 MHz processor, built-in data and telephony (and data will be ~10 Mbit in good service areas), with better resolution. It works almost everywhere on earth. It has the ability to use GPS to map where I am and show me how to get places, and it can even translate languages for me (badly, but well enough to be understood). And it will be a year and a half old and I'll be thinking of replacing it.

Those technological achievements are happening for everyone on earth. I couldn't even dream of this stuff when I was a kid. I mean, there was that science-fiction novel (from the fifties) whose premise was that on January 1, 2000, they abolished all long-distance charges for the entire world (along with all the flying cars and stuff). We're basically there, now, for those who know how to set up SIP. My grandmother was born in a world where cars were hand-built curiosities; she died just after Berners-Lee announced the Web. That entire time, we've been accelerating.

Re:Profound moments (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 10 months ago | (#45786163)

It is nice to have something with about the equivalent of a 2004-2005 era PC in the palm of your hand complete with sound and wifi networking and OpenGL support. Modern phones are undeniably amazing devices ---- Agreed.

Re:Profound moments (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 10 months ago | (#45787073)

I was thinking about all the incredible things that my grandmother saw happen in her lifetime - she was born not long after the first flight at Kitty Hawk, and saw the aerospace industry develop from glorified powered gliders to moon landings to jet airliners that everyday people can travel the world on. Automobiles from something only the rich had, into something that everyone had. Telegraphs to television to digital cellular phones on global communications networks. The Farmer's Almanac to weather satellites and phased radar. Actual ice boxes to modern refrigeration. Antibiotics. Organ transplants. Eradication of polio and smallpox. Computers you can fit in a bag that are thousands of times more powerful than the ones that used to take up whole rooms, which were amazing for their time too. High-rise steel construction. The list goes on and on.

This new narrative of "OMG we don't do anything any more, not like we used to" is completely unfounded, but hardly new. In 15 years it's likely that today's bioscience research will eradicate major diseases like HIV, and the cause the survival rate of cancer to continue it's climb. And in 15 years, people will continue to bitch that we just don't do any amazing things anymore, like they were doing 30 years ago when they were laying trans-ocean fiber links and launching global positioning constellations.

Re:Profound moments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786433)

Would have been exciting to be around back when Sputnik took off or men orbited or landed on the moon.

Perhaps, but I'm kind of happy to have skipped the worst of the cold war. My earliest memories of world affairs are of talk about nuclear disarmament treaties and perestroika. Those who saw Sputnik take off have nuclear proliferation and events that brought the world to the brink of war to remember instead. Don't think I'd trade.

Besides, the optimism surrounding the first shuttle missions was kind of cool. Yes, in retrospect, that was the beginning of the end of government-funded manned spaceflight, but it took a while for anyone to work that out,.

...Three laws of motion, Two rad divisors... (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 10 months ago | (#45785135)

... and the Discovery of Gravity.
Happy Grav-Mass! [stallman.org]

Why not celebrate comprehensible laws of physics that got your astronaut asses to the damn Moon by honoring Isaac Newton? You know, someone who was actually born on December 25th? [nytimes.com]

Re:...Three laws of motion, Two rad divisors... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785423)

You know, someone who was actually born on December 25th?

I guess Dec. 25 is as good a time as any to enter the Twilight Zone [wikipedia.org] .

How do we define the progress of technology? (4, Interesting)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 10 months ago | (#45785211)

You can ask many a thirtysomething and younger nowadays, and even some fourtysomething, "Did humans
walk on the moon in your lifetime" and most will know the answer and some will respond "Did they ever?".

Yet these are the millions going down the street heads down, ears cupped, submerged into their own lives (and
thousands of so called 'friends' waiting to hear if the corner they rounded just now was to the left or right), these
lives totally and entirely framed within some 4x3 illumination.

Re:How do we define the progress of technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786185)

You can ask many a thirtysomething and younger nowadays, and even some fourtysomething, "Did humans walk on the moon in your lifetime" and most will know the answer and some will respond "Did they ever?". Yet these are the millions going down the street heads down, ears cupped, submerged into their own lives (and thousands of so called 'friends' waiting to hear if the corner they rounded just now was to the left or right), these lives totally and entirely framed within some 4x3 illumination.

And if you ask them what "progress" means, they tell you that it's a 16x9 illumination.

What a pity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785295)

It wasn't done on location.

Re:What a pity (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 10 months ago | (#45785495)

Depends on who you ask. :)

Sigh. The Glory Days Were Grand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785327)

So this is where we Americans are now. Alleviating the misery of our old, fat and lazy existence by getting a charge out of watching recreations of almost ancient history, lounging around and reminiscing about our grand and glorious past.

They all had that basis of the Old Testament (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785355)

Yeah, they all did. Except for non-Abrahamic religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Shintoism (which by the way encompass more people.)

Re:They all had that basis of the Old Testament (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 10 months ago | (#45787177)

Except for non-Abrahamic religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Shintoism (which by the way encompass more people.)

No, they don't. [pewforum.org]

I know, why bring actual data into a quantitative discussion...

This is like some old guy on his porch (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 10 months ago | (#45785501)

I can't help but picture Lovell sitting on his porch, reminiscing of how great we were and how good the times were and how much everything was better back then... ...and being one of the few people who're right when they say everything used to be better... even the future.

Star Trek TOS: The Cage (aka The Menagerie I & (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785787)

The Talosians became addicted to their illusion making powers, getting so caught up in their imaginary world as to completely care nothing about reality; dooming themselves to extinction. I'm beginning to think the writers of that story were on to something about human nature due to the imaginary alternate world of the internet having an effect on Americans that seems eerily similar.

Unfortunately, we've past the point of no return and there won't be a Vulcan, star ship Captains or Number Ones to save us from our demise.

Re:Star Trek TOS: The Cage (aka The Menagerie I &a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45785943)

Everybody seems convinced they're lucky to be alive at just the right time for this magical "Demise" that never happens. Why are people so addicted to an apocalyptic narrative? "We're addicted to the internet!" "Today's music is the worst!" "Kids today are dumber than ever!" "If we don't colonize space we're doomed"

Get over yourself. The fact you're quoting entertainment as some kind of reference point is both highly amusing and disturbing to me...

Re:Star Trek TOS: The Cage (aka The Menagerie I &a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786361)

Nah. The referent is about people making an observation about human nature and creating a story around it. The demise is in the U.S. losing economic power status and being replaced by another, becoming its lap dog like so many countries before this country.

Typical Judeo-Christian attitude (2)

msobkow (48369) | about 10 months ago | (#45785867)

If you're talking about the number of sects and splinter groups, then maybe "It is the foundation of most of the world's religions. ... They all had that basis of the Old Testament." But if you're talking about the population of believers, the Hindus and Buddhists might have a thing or two to say about that.

Re:Typical Judeo-Christian attitude (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 10 months ago | (#45786005)

More importantly, most of China follows various "philosophies". They don't even call them "religions."

Re:Typical Judeo-Christian attitude (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 months ago | (#45786669)

because religions are illegal there.. ever thought about that?

so they just call them philosophies.

Re:Typical Judeo-Christian attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45787599)

Buddhism isn't a "religion", its a "way of life" no matter which country you're from.

Re:Typical Judeo-Christian attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786459)

If you're talking about the number of sects and splinter groups, then maybe "It is the foundation of most of the world's religions. ... They all had that basis of the Old Testament." But if you're talking about the population of believers, the Hindus and Buddhists might have a thing or two to say about that.

Numerically speaking, the Buddhists are insignificant (5% of total, IIRC). Hinduism counts as a major world religion, but is still smaller than both Christianity and Islam in terms of number of adherents, IIRC. Technically, therefore, the statement is correct if you're talking about total number of adherents: over half of the world's population adhere to one of the Abrahamic religions.

The 60's (1)

p51d007 (656414) | about 10 months ago | (#45786265)

I was 9 years old when Apollo 8 flew to the moon. I remember that Christmas eve broadcast just like it was yesterday. I was a "space nut" from the first launch I saw, John Glenn (being too young to remember Sheppard, Grissom's flights. I had a standing pact with my mom who woke me up to watch the launches, no matter what time they took off. Saw every launch from Glenn, to the first few space shuttle launches. I remember that Christmas eve, opening presents, pausing to watch that broadcast on that black & white tv in the living room, and seeing those grainy images of planet Earth thinking how small the world was. Apollo 8, kind of closed out 1968. Being 8, I didn't understand but today I do, how important that flight, and that broadcast were to a nation that was tearing itself apart. In the space of a year, the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam, Martin Luther King Jr, Robert F. Kennedy were both murdered, the riots after King, the 1968 democratic convention riot in Chicago among the many problems of that year, that one little broadcast, helped close out the year, on a positive note.

Re:The 60's (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 10 months ago | (#45787193)

In the fantastic HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon" there was an entire episode entitled "1968" that conveys exactly that point. The last bit of dialog is someone in Mission Control relaying congratulatory telegrams to the crew capsule as they travel back to earth, with one being a telegram from someone that simply says "You saved 1968."

Show must go on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45786595)

Merry Christmas,
-- Hollywood

Most of the world religions? (1)

manquer (1950350) | about 10 months ago | (#45786629)

'It is the foundation of most of the world's religions. ...

Last I checked neither India nor China follow any of the Abrahmic religions dominantly. They constitute at-least 40% of world population? (even back in '68)..

For all the religions... (0)

meglon (1001833) | about 10 months ago | (#45786893)

Great debate on the Abrahamaic religions, although it seems most everyone is missing a basic point: the old testament didn't start anything except a handful of offshoot cults; all it was was a regurgitation of Sumerian mythology, with some Egyptian added in... and probably a few others we've mostly forgotten about, although when every city has their own God (or gods), you really don't need anything else to pick and choose from. Then, of course, you have the Sumerians God's and beliefs that are are just a distortion of whatever culture was before before them.

Religion... the perfect long con.

Religion and wars (1)

Akratist (1080775) | about 10 months ago | (#45787009)

I don't really see much point in getting involved in a religious discussion, but just to set the record straight -- most wars are caused by the personal ambition and greed of the ruling class, and seldom have anything to do with religious beliefs of one side or the other. Jonathon Kolkey's World Wide War Project (www.worldwidewarproject.com) contains a body of supporting material for his thesis, which is generally borne out by examining various wars in history. At most, religion seems to be used as part of a vague, cynical appeal to a wide range of values and emotions, including cultural differences, nationality, past grievances, logical fallacies ("they break the small end of the egg, so they're evil!"), and so on. Even the Crusades seemed to be as much about an epic land grab as anything else.

Re:Religion and wars (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 10 months ago | (#45787607)

Historically, the ruling class is established by violence and conquest. Once ensconced, the rulers and their heirs naturally want to keep on ruling, because of the perks. However, the need for, and danger of, continued violence and conquest leads them to appeal to divine right. So their status is legitimized by god, which the peasants accept, and the status quo maintained.

Read "The Collapse of Complex Societies" for an interesting treatise.

This is like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45787529)

Some theory being deemed important because a majority of crazy people believe it.

If you believe in some invisible superhero who lives in the sky and watches you masturbate, YOU'RE CRAZY.

You have the right to believe in your anti-masturbation sky fairy, but I have the right to believe YOU'RE FUCKING CRAZY.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?