Trademen were paid in pounds, gentlement in guineas.
Are you announcing that the UK is giving the Falklands to Argentina?
Very widely indeed, because it would be a major faux pas for one Hindu to ask a another "Do you really believe in all this? Say you do!" Instead, people are not asked about what they feel deep inside, so they are free to believe whatever they wish. This is what makes Hinduism so inclusive and, over time, so syncretic.
Not asking isn't the same as not making an evaluation. I'm also somewhat amused by the intimation that Hindus don't discuss religion. They certainly do evangelize.
What makes Hinduism so "inclusive" and syncretic is incorporating external religious figures or practices into Hinduism. Unfortunately this tends to distort the incorporated figure beyond recognition. The "Jesus" that is incorporated by many into Hinduism is not the same Jesus of Christianity. They are incompatible.
I think you are overstating the prominence of atheists as a component of the Hindu faith community.
Neither a plane ticket to India nor speaking with educated Indian atheists is necessary to understand social religion, or state religion. It's something that has been around a while.
"They will hold to an outward form of godliness but deny its power." - 2 Timothy 3:5
How widely do you think that Hindus accept their ritual without belief as Hinduism? I doubt it is universal. All they really are is atheists performing socially accepted rituals.
One thing to keep in mind when looking at those statistics is that Hinduism and atheism are compatible.
Much like bicycles and fish.
An alien lands on Earth and finds it odd that all the scientists of our planet are trending towards atheism....
Maybe in the West, but not necessarily in the rest of the world.
...interviews with scientists revealed that while 65 percent of U.K. scientists identify as nonreligious, only 6 percent of Indian scientists identify as nonreligious. In addition, while only 12 percent of scientists in the U.K. attend religious services on a regular basis — once a month or more — 32 percent of scientists in India do.
Science and atheism - correlation is not causation.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
If "peak oil" was in 2008 you better tell the Lefties at The Nation, they apparently didn't get the memo
A note to the Guardian might be helpful as well.
Some of us made vague predictions, others were more specific. In all cases we were wrong. In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was "99% confident" that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that "never again will we pump more than 82m barrels" per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that "Saudi Arabia cannot materially grow its oil production". (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.)
Peak oil hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen for a very long time.
The US affordable care act was a mere 2,000 pages long and is spawning tens or hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations governing, regulating, taxing, and reshaping American healthcare. Next to that the development of regulation to govern all aspects of the internet, world wide web, and its many manifestations is peanuts. It will probably be about as successful as the "Affordable" Care Act, AKA Obamacare, but it can be done none the less. That should suggest to you that nobody should give them the idea of actually do it if we want to avoid a fiasco.
Link to Original Source
How about protecting the public from the lobbyists and legislators pushing oppressive copyright laws?
No, this is all about some pretend thing in their heads that they're special enough to kill and yet smart enough to be hidden. The truth is most people are aware of how unimportant they are as a target and don't even attempt to hide themselves.
Do you think that journalists and aid workers are so unimportant as to not be targets? It seems that ISIS disagrees with you.
If they can be targets, why not CIA/NSA/FBI officers?
And it isn't just an overseas threat.
The CIA/NSA/FBI all take advantage of this, have a certain level of loathing of the "sheep", and don't want to be placed into the same category because it fundamentally goes against their feelings of superiority of not being so "stupid".
Maybe what it actually goes against is their attachment to their head?
Honestly, "operational security", "ongoing investigation", and "national security" are the words of cowards more often than a real and meaningful thing used to actual protect the populace at large. And I should know as an Anonymous Coward, right?
Even though they can be and have been abused at times, what they are in fact are genuine issues that have to be dealt with by people in responsible positions in government. The fact that you don't deal with that demonstrate your post is disingenuous nonsense.
You do realize that many predicted dates for "peak oil" are in the past, many are in the future, and that it hasn't happened yet? No, I guess you don't.