orosee

No smokoes, no sickies, no arriving at 7am and taking 2 hrs to find the shovel. The only problem is they will not be able to produce the machines quickly enough.

Let's develop a 3D printer to produce 3D printers!

It's turtles all the way down (and up as well).

Thanks, that helps indeed. Strangely, I wanted to add that list as a joke, barely managed to put egg on my face there.

Well, the English translator of MCOT finally has a reason to feel smug.

Can someone please tell me what "3 national Legalized Labors" means?

A long way from the beach?

As the saying goes: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just because it's easy to reject religious dogma that is based upon parables and allegories, that doesn't mean that there's no higher power. That's the problem I have with Atheists like R. Dawkins.

Again, please distinguish between religion (institution, dogma, man-made, dualistic) and spirituality (experience, personal, all-including).

Religions are like fingers. Don't argue which finger is the best. They are just different expressions of the hand they're attached to. Look for the hand.

A lot of people seem to have a go at religions based on religious texts written thousands of years ago. I don't have a go at nuclear scientists based on thousand-year-old works. I suppose actually I am a bit credulous, accepting a lot of that new-fangled stuff, but if it works and it wins the war then, like prayer, that's good enough for me

SC

I really think you are on to something here.

Religious groups are always talking about a higher power.

And now you are talking about nuclear power,

And then we had the Aztecs who worshiped the Sun God.

Isn't this all basically the same thing?

Well, everyone can see the sun, so it's fairly easy to believe in. And we can empirically show that it makes crops grow, so that seems a worthy object of adulation. I'm not so certain about tiny invisible particles, but I was brought up to believe in them, and I don't want to rock the boat. I don't have a better explanation, so I'll go along with the consensus.

SC

The great thing about these particles and science is that you can read up on the physics behind them, do some math, set up an experiment and see if the hypotheses behind the claim are working. If you can show one reproducible case where that doesn't hold, you'll earn a place in the science books and thousands of other scientists will start working on a better hypothesis.

No need to believe in it. Test it!

By the way, I don't look down on the generations that believed the Earth is flat or in the centre of the universe. Casual observation over short periods does not contradict this idea. Such theories worked well for most of our existence. Newton's physics worked well for his age, Einstein had much less (relatively) time until quantum theory made things harder to explain but better to predict.

Many more discoveries and revisions to come!

By the way, being scientifically semi-ignorant is still fashionable today. Just look at people referring to the big Bang, Schrödinger's Cat or the mechanism of evolution by natural selection (calling for a Darwin Award is usually the most idiotic example).

A few thoughts about Richard Dawkins. If you pick up his more recent books, you're like put off by his harsh and uncompromising style. But that's really like reading a book on string theory before knowing Physics 101.

I've read all his works in order for the genetics roots through his initial atheist writing up to his last, more aggressive anti-theist works. There a clear evolution visible (duh) that coincides with increasing attacks by largely US native faith industries. Plus an air of desperation coming from being perpetually confronted with the same old fallacies (theory versus theory, blind watchmaker, monkey descent etc.) and statistics on populace believing in creationism, intelligent design etc.

Where his earlier works matched his opponents with the skill if a top chess player, the style of debate has forced him to switch the game to heavy weight Boxing. Unfortunately for the newcomers, his blunt style might hide his substantial arguments for his case.

Personally I prefer his scientific works and I'm still excited to be a living descendant of a long chain of genes that have managed to survive, reproduce and evolve several billions of years. So much better than just being a copy of someone's image.

Trying this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Rome

Risking that: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch

Now we know history never repeats itself, and if Suthep persists like that guy in the second link, Thailand may look forward to a Thousand Year democracy soon.

I'll watch this develop from my safe spot 60km South of the North Korean border.

#197 and #198 made reading this worthwhile.

Gazpa, while your post was pleasant to read you should know that in science - quite different from our daily language - a "theory" is about as good as it gets. This is a common argument used by Creationists to cast doubt where there is none. To make it more confusing, a "law" is of a lesser order than a "theory". More accurate definitions on the Web, I'm just telling you because using the "theory" fallacy destroys all the good arguments you may have.

I disagree, Science theory can and does become Science fact.

Example: Sir Alexander Fleming discovered and theorized that a substance found on a mould had qualities that may kill infections. We now know this to be Science fact as it was developed into Penicillin.

So a theory is exactly that, a theory. It may be in Science circles that a theory is almost as good as it gets but in truth it is still not proven. Also, if you were correct in that a theory is as good as it gets then Science has no more merit in explaining how the universe came about then religion.

lastly, I think it is wrong to state that Creationists use theory to cast doubt when there is none. There is doubt, it is not certain and just for your reference I am not claiming to be a creationist.

I think we're still not on the same page. One word only though.

You say theory where the scientist must say hypothesis.

You say fact where the (slightly drunk) scientist would say "a darn good theory" (just kidding).

But the main difference is: In science, if you can prove something wrong only once, it is discarded (or improved). In religion, if you prove it wrong a thousand times, it is still considered truth (or called a miracle).

If you believe, and their is a God, you win, if you don't believe and there is no God, you lose nothing.

However if you don't believe and there is a God, you gain nothing ( Mossy' addendum to the wager )

Actually, if you don't believe and there is a God, you lose everything, as you rejected God and will in turn be rejected when your time comes.

To support Mossfinn, the Bible (we Christians call it the word of God) says that Jesus Christ said: Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

3:18 and such are the reason why I will try to raise my child free of religion until it can decide for itself. What a preposterous line! To hell with tolerance and respect, or am I misunderstanding something?

Whenever I try to understand the vastness of the universe and how it came about (was created?) I literally start getting anxious and dizzy. How can anyone ever "understand" such. Our mental capacity and so-called logic is far, far inferior to do so.

I definitely don't believe in any type of conventionally conceived "god" that I can talk to or that thinks about me. However, I do think ... better yet, feel ... there is "something" out there. But beyond that I know nothing about what he/she/they/it is. Again, how could I possible know or understand something like that from by pin-prick of existence within the infinite vastness of the universe and beyond?

And so ... not that it may matters to anyone/anything but me ... I like to acknowledge that "something" (that I call God) and thank and adore it for the mystery and fascination of all creation (if indeed it was "created") and of all living things ... and especially for my own creation and life. I guess you could call that "acknowledgment" and "thanks" my form of "prayer" ... and my formula for prayer is 90% thank-yous and 10% favors (i.e., "My cup already runneth over, but if you do want to give me more, here's my shopping list.")

I have a personal theory about prayer: Even if there is absolutely nothing out there and so there's nothing/no-one to "hear" your prayers, I still think prayer is helpful. I see it as talking to our true inner self ... the nice, benevolent, loving, enlightened, wise, "godly" person we really want to be. Yeah, no one may be listening to my prayers, but I am.

Replace "prayer" with "meditation" or "reflection" and you've all the benefit without the shackles.

God = DOG

evil = live

Last one, I swear! :-D

Science and religion are both searching for the truth, but in apparently opposite directions. Only one group keeps searching and constantly re-evaluates their body of knowledge, casting aside what was proven wrong and trying out fresh, new theories as they expand their horizon.

I just picked the one that I consider less likely to be wrong. Never regretted my decision but I need to keep on my toes.

Sorry to disagree, sfbandung. Good cannot exist without evil. This argument leads nowhere. Science and reason can't be used to disprove nor prove the existence of gods. But I'll take a 0.999999999 certainty for this life.

Carl Sagan! How could I forget him! Much less aggressive than Dawkins, but then he lived in a better America.

I'm at the pool so I get my thoughts in a randomly disconnected way.

I'd start the way: Dismiss, without any further thought, every belief system that is based on a reward/punishment mechanism by a divine or supernatural authority.

That covers most common belief institutions including Santa Claus. It also exposes those religions that are just parenting of adults, and cement for ruling hierarchies.

Or, if you like it the hard way, see how science explains the world. I found for myself that even with the still existing gaps, there is no need for gods - only a need for deeper research.

I've never felt more connected with the universe than since I've read about cosmology (that's science) and evolution. "The Selfish Gene" has taught me that my best chance to immortality is to have a child (thanks to the flaws of Catholic birth control, this will be happening soon).

Anyway, I don't need my thoughts to be respected or tolerated, but I don't mind sharing and expanding them with like-minded people. Not too different from more religious people, really.

I'd call myself a 6 leaning towards a 7. My pinay girlfriend probably a 2 or 3, absolute belief in Jesus but no interest in church, prayers or preaching. She knows the Golden Rule and that's really the extent of her religion. She knows about Dawkins but no surprise, doesn't like him.

So far for me, no problems. With a baby arriving in 6 months however, I need to negotiate a few good compromises.

She's not into nonsense like Santa Claus and tells that to other kids, I find that ironic. These kids react with such honest indignation that I can much better understand how a religious believer feels when confronted with Darwin, Dawkins or Hitchens.

Personally, I refuse to respect a belief "out of the box" as much as I refuse to respect a pedophile or a child/wife beater. Please note that I'm not equating or comparing here. I don't have to respect everything, I don't even have to tolerate everything blindly.

Gazpa, while your post was pleasant to read you should know that in science - quite different from our daily language - a "theory" is about as good as it gets. This is a common argument used by Creationists to cast doubt where there is none. To make it more confusing, a "law" is of a lesser order than a "theory". More accurate definitions on the Web, I'm just telling you because using the "theory" fallacy destroys all the good arguments you may have.

Behind all this black & white only shouting, is there a satisfying assurance that the Thais aren't about to change the Czar for a Lenin/Stalin?

Nobody's misled easier than those who desperately want fair change. Europeans should know this.

The reason this will work is because it worked in the Philippines after Marcos... No wait.

Stop pickup trucks scuffling with ten wheelers!

They scuffled.

In what other places than TSNY do they drop a ball to usher in the new year? Not counting copies, I mean a tradition of say 50 years or more?

On a side note, now that Bangkok is fully staffed and run by Indians, is it safe to go to Hong Kong again?

Who are the jokers who think you need Internet to play music, movies or games on a mobile device? Were you sleeping when they invented the headphones, Walkman, Ipod or laptop computer?

I'm writing this with my Internet on and guess what, the Internet doesn't make a sound.

Flights won't get more annoying than they already are, with babies screaming and hyperactive kids kicking the back of your seat.

My guess is: European hotel level rates, like a $/minute and perhaps a $100 flat rate.