Eh, kind of. There's a no atheists allowed rule last I checked (A belief in a supreme being and scripture is a condition of membership), but they're not picky about what god(s) you might worship.
It means that a freemason have to hold contradictory positions as true. One might be an atheist by one cannot reject the so-called supreme being, one might belong to an Abrahamic religion but one cannot reject the Hindu pantheon. And within the Abrahamic religions it's more contentious than anything.
It's an expression of the Orwellian "2 + 2 = 5", and it's a very dangerous anti-realist totalitarian ideology, and it should be rejected whether you're a theist or an atheist.
I don't think I follow. From what I've read here, the question is "do you believe in any higher power at all?" which everyone except a committed atheist could answer "yes" truthfully (and even then, an atheist could presumably accept some sort of "life-force" that isn't a god).
Correct. The question is "do you believe in a higher power y/n?" not "give us details on what you think of said higher power".
In ceremony/ritual we refer generally to "The Grand Architect of the Universe", instead of any specific diety.
BTW, Freemasonry is NOT intended to be a religion nor a replacement for one, and we don't want to be. We just use symbols and allegory that relate to the story of the building of King Solomon's Temple.
That's completely incorrect. Freemasonry expects religious tolerance. That is, Freemasonry generally believes people have the right to believe and practice religion as their conscience dictates. That also means that generally speaking, Freemasons should respect the religious beliefs of others. That doesn't mean Freemasons are required to adopt other people's religious beliefs or refrain from disagreeing with them.
Yup. I updated it for one our web services today, haha. But it was really my mistake. I had received the new cert soon after Google's advisory. :p Consider ass kicked, and lesson learnt to do these things right away, when I earlier today received a mail from a colleague alerting me of Chrome 66 going stable...
You say that like those are impossible obstacles. It's been a while since I rode a school bus, but the driver wasn't exactly adult supervision, and there was plenty of vandalism already. If anything, a self-driving school bus would be a positive as it would then allow the former driver to actually focus on the kids.
Not sure I agree with the idea that others could be fooled by where it's going in traffic, given that it's programmed to obey traffic laws.
Adult supervision for extraordinary events (fire, collision, sick kid) is very feasible on an ordinary bus. We're not talking singing songs around the campfire, but a baseline of a responsible adult is very important.
It is always highly amusing when Silly Valley engineers pontificate on life outside their engineering bubble. The idea of the self driving adult free school bus is brought to you by the same people who brought you Juicero and Bodega.
Yep, I was a bit annoyed to find stuff like the Boomerang in here. Most people don't realize that losing the critical engine on a multi can be much more dangerous that losing both. Burt's Boomerang is probably one of the least ridiculous designs out there, as the asymmetric design of the wings is there to negate the adverse effects of a critical engine failure.
