Topic awaiting preservation: Chalk one up for the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Made my day. -_Q

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523

___________________________________________________________________________
"My lips resist...But your eye's insist - - Oh oh----"

Total win that one!
It only annoys me that he was subjected to a medical review and the whole process took 3 years. Now everyone should be able to follow suit though.

It would be only fair if the drivers license exam included at least a simple logic and reasoning test. The first question could be: Do you believe in an invisible all-knowing entity that has the ability and will to punish or reward you in this life or after your death based on your moral choices?

(Edited by Arthurio on 07-14-2011 04:40)

it was fake, though... the driver's license has as the only (non-size based) requirement 'face must be completely visible'...
http://derstandard.at/1310511140592/Fuehrerschein-Nudelsieb-doch-nicht-aus-religioesen-Gruenden-genehmigt for a german article on this.

TP - of course they will say that! They don't want to appear as total nutjobs, right?

If it really did not have anything at all to do with the strainer and religion, why the medical review and 3 years of litigation? Hmmm?

I think me smells a meatball in the pasta!

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

The guy marked the 'do not send me my driver's license' box, it had been waiting for him since 2009.

And about the medical review (psychological review in this case)... driving is a privilege in Europe,
and there are about one million (legitimate) medical reasons not to get a license, from having
bad eyesight (d'oh) over epilepsy to 'being a dangerous nutjob' (though the later usually is defined
in more medical terms). And if the issuing officer suspects you having one of them, it's his duty
to require a medical examination (so the denial of a license on medical is not based on an officers
opinion, but at least on a doctors). And if you'd peeve the officer of by going on and on about
your 'religious rights' (because you have not actually read the law, but go by hearsay that you
can't wear headgear), well, he would be thinking you're nuts.

Now, we can argue all night long without data whether the medical requirements reduce injuries
on the road, but that's more than I can handle right now .

So long,

->Tyberius Prime

Arthurio : I believe in an invisible all-knowing entity that I am part of, like you, as a cell to an organism essentially. Based on the unlikelihood of the accidental perfection of all life forms.

(can of worms is open now).

I do find the guy funny, but he might be a difficult 'case' in the spiritual sense - rebel without a cause, lots of explosive potential within - and I can tell there is an element of fervor for his faith, that his show is more relevant to how much he dislikes human authority, than anything else.

Pasta powa.

TP - I live in Europe, and I have a German driving license. None of the things you have described have I ever been witness to, or heard of.

And I have lived in Germany for over 20 years, now.

If one looses their license, because of drinking and driving (for example), then one can be required to undergo psychological exam, yeah. But not just "because", before-hand.

Still, I think you are correct when you mention that we are lacking sufficient facts here.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

argo: Yup, we are all a tiny part of the universe. No reason to suspect that the universe gives two shits tho. I don't think any terrestial life-form is perfect. "Pretty good" would be a more accurate evaluation. With all the disease, cancer and other problems evolution still has quite alot of work to do.

Arthurio : I didn't say we are part of "a greater whole". I said we are part of an organism. Everything tends to prove this true for planet Earth, and a lot suggests it is true for the Universe (the sole fact it's finite and inhabited by life, and the entirety of thermodynamics or rather, of the "life vs entropy paradigm for pointers).

Eq. the Universe, according to physics, should be decaying into iron, but it doesn't, and this suggests chaos is limited and illusory, that underneath chaos, there is a more complex set of rules.

/

quote:

---

argo_navis said:

entropy paradigm

---

You will likely find this interesting.

quote:

---

A deck of cards being shuffled, a basement becoming ever more cluttered, a car relentlessly rusting - these are all cited as examples of entropy, the reason things fall apart. But as Ian Wilkinson discovers, entropy is really about the transference of energy, and it underlies absolutely everything. The Second Law of Everything

---

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2011/05/30/the-second-law-of-everything

___________________________________________________________________________
"My lips resist...But your eye's insist - - Oh oh----"

Indeed NoJive! Which poses the other question : in actuality, things do not decay around us. They're supposed to end up decaying into iron (the most stable element) eventually, but..

But they don't. The beat goes on.

Why? Because the opposite of entropy - is life. Life tends to structure, to systematize, to pour energy into the "system" so to speak. Death is not the opposite of life : entropy is.

And that is where we touch on chaos theory, eq. Order ALWAYS emerges from chaos, and chaos always emerges from order (a bit of a stride, but the actual chaos theory implies this - the more a system becomes orderly, the more variables for it to blow up into newfound chaos appear, the more chaotic a system, the more room there is for us to order it).

So : chaos underpins everything, and happens to be subject, in hindsight, to strict regulations that bind it, inextricably, to life and order.

...

Now if even chaos is regulated, what gives?-)

You can see this sheer piece of weirdness, also, when studying randomness. Creating true randomness, as coders have to do at times, is incredibly difficult. TOO difficult.

(Edited by argo_navis on 07-26-2011 13:45)