All Activity

I believe I already have. Not quite. Vaccines with slightly better than 50% effectiveness have eliminated diseases which used to kill thousands of people. It would be troubling ( stupid actually ) if you didn't go with the odds. I believe I said that. I believe I said that too Well, at least Eise reads my posts ...

Trust me, in online discussion, you want the conversations to be very specific. The probability of reaching some kind of consensus or meaningful stance is much higher when the topic is more focused. And as swansont mentioned, people responding to multiple ideas in the same thread is chaotic and hard to follow. If you want a better topic than moving away from capitalism, what about changing our education processes? I've heard some great approaches designed to better prepare children for modern life, and I've often thought we leave too much to parents in the early years, and then wonder why kids get so screwed up.

My stance, the stance of those I'm talking about, or something else? Never mind, I don't care what it's kinda like. It's what I said, what I meant, and you should feel free to be clearer in your responses. You think that's the point? That your concept of religion/spirituality should only lead to outcomes you approve of? You're asking why would the Abrahamic religions reduce humans to garbage, spread lies, and oppress so many folks? But you don't ask WHY ARE THEY doing it, like you're wearing blinders and can't see it happening all over the world?

Your assuming I don't want to be clear and dismiss my efforts on that basis, I'm not that clever...

For me, it's about the time and effort others put into their responses to make them as clear and meaningful as possible for the rest of the folks in the discussion. You often seem to be listening (and responding) to only what you're thinking instead of what other people said. You're even quoting yourself now, like we aren't that important. You also often seem to put special emphasis on the vagueness of your responses, like a guru claiming, "Life is a river". I mostly ignore it because questioning it only brings more vagueness. I have to admit it offends me for two reasons. First, it seems intellectually lazy for a science discussion site (which is probably the exact opposite of the way you think of it), because you can never be wrong if you're vague enough. Second, you often talk about how much you've had to drink while posting, and I'm over 30 years sober, and enough of a snob about it to think we aren't getting to talk to the real you. I'm not looking for arbiters, truths, or wisdom nuggets. I'm here to talk to folks about life on Earth, their experiences, and to share knowledge. I like that knowledge wrapped in transparent cellophane with a simple twist tie, not covered in opaque brown paper, glue, and duct tape.

That's kinda machiavellian. But that is the point, why would it?

Broad topics tend to spawn multiple lines of discussion. We prefer one topic per thread.

Yes, and we all know men who wouldn't assault a vulnerable woman, and we all know politicians we believe tell the truth, and we all know conservatives who aren't racists, but how do we protect ourselves from the others? By assuming they're all the same until they show us otherwise. I've heard enough stories about god-fearing, righteous people who did unspeakable things to their children in the name of their god to know that nobody who claims to be religious can be trusted. I've heard many religious people claim to be looking forward to when the bombs fall and the righteous are called to heaven, and quite frankly I wish they'd leave now, and let those of us who care about this life live it in peace, away from all those toxic judgements from those who truly believe God thinks humans are pieces of shit that deserve eternal torture. I don't deny spirituality. Wish it didn't have to reduce humans to garbage, spread lies, and oppress so many folks, though.

It's always Richard Feynman for me, he was so excited to explain; it was as contagious as a sneeze.

We need to trust the arbiter of truth, in order to be relaxed about it's output...

I know people from rather disparate spots on the belief spectrum who use religion to propel them towards positive social work and activism - Catholics, Unitarians, Jews. While I agree leaders have weaponized religion, or used it to manipulate, there are a fair number who use it as a fulcrum for helping others, pushing for a more compassionate and nurturing society, ending nukes, etc. These people deserve credit for moving their brand of faith past the torture/rape/murder history. Or, in a sense, moving it back to what sages like Jesus actually taught, i.e. the former spiritual core. The human craving for a spiritual life isn't going to go away, so maybe reforming religions makes more practical sense than just abandoning them.

Here are a few youtube channels i recommend: Rational Animations SciShow Techlinked NotJustBikes CGP Grey Kurzgesagt All Vsauce channels Veritasium 3B1B Primer I have more but it would be too much

its kinda supposed to be broad? unless you're not okay with that, i can see if i can narrow it more if you'd like.

I think we need to divest ourselves of capitalism, personally, and the best way to start that is to focus early on teaching children ways to succeed through cooperation as opposed to competition. And I'm not talking about getting rid of competition, just educating young people on how humans get more positive outcomes by cooperating with each other than we do competing against each other. A few generations of that type of focus might remove much that is highly toxic in our societies.

So did I then, I guess a couple of people were offended on your behalf; go figure...

Still too broad. Behavior and government are not really interchangeable Please narrow your focus.

I had no issues with your post. Guess I must have missed something.

No they didn't, there's nothing in historical record's that suggests that idea, while there's plenty of evidence to suggest they thought it was a globe. The map they did have was a social one, how to get along with their fellow's and how to defend against their aggressor etc. the truth of that map is still true today. There's a reason why the death of god scared Neitzche so much and why he spent so much time trying to think of a replacement. My point is, it doesn't matter what the facts are today, bc they will change tomorrow. My apologies @sethoflagos, it was intended as a joke but I was drunk at the time. 🙄

For me it has to be David Attenborough. I find his series as fascinating and awe-inspiring now as I did as a child. For YouTube, the group of channels put out by the profs and associates at Nottingham University seem very well curated and pitched at an accessible level. Professor Poliakoff on the Periodic Videos chemistry channel is particularly entertaining. Associated channels are Sixty Symbols (physics) and Numberphile (maths).

What i mean are things like behavior, biases, corruption, Government, cities, etc For the better ofc.

That works. I was mostly trying to be cognizant that not all religions are the same. I was trying to account for Buddhism etc. and focus more on those which suggest women were made from a man’s rib and silly stuff like that.

We use it for convenience because saying “best currently accepted internally and externally consistent provisionally validated model” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. Things can be true within certain context and parameters, but much like proofs are for maths, truths tend to be for tyrants.

As I said... A bit pedantic don't you think? They way you define truth can be used to deny reality, or even more troubling device to not take e a vaccine because you can't prove absolutely the vaccine is 100% effective. Just because we can't prove something absolutely doesn't mean it's not true and it definitely doesn't mean bs beliefs are valid just because someone believes them. Belief does not equal knowledge and in fact belief often prevents knowledge from being accepted. "Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box, religion is a smile on a dog"

Yeah. The term 'Abrahamic' doesn't really cover Scientology and Tom Cruise. Maybe INow should have said "exposure to American Religious thinking" If D Trump gets back in, America won't become 'great again', it will be a 'sh*t-hole country' whose cult leader is blindly/religiously followed by a 'basket of deplorables'.

Hi again The couple of things I mentioned are just examples - this works for any speed and any distance . For example let’s put both clocks tilted 45 degrees . Or let’s put light clock from 0 to 360 degrees (relative to speed v2 direction ) and do calculations . Above picture (very rough) drawing is in my humble opinion how Lotentz transformations should be applied . In this picture , the observer is stationary and the clock mirrors are stationary. L=3x10e8m is distance between mirrors- any distance can be used - this is just for better understanding. The distance between observer and light dot is d=3x10e8m it takes 1 second for light beam to reach observer from light dot in position A (mirror A) It takes 1.41 s for light beam to reach observer from position B(mirror B) The speed of light c is constant . The distance has changed and because of this the time has changed . Let’s reverse this - let’s see how is the observer seen by light beam point of view. The observer is moving ,going further away from light dot- the distance is increasing?! And he is moving away at speed of light?! And we observe that observer is stationary. Lotentz transformations work perfectly in any system where signal is emited 360 Degree away from source. And we measure time of signal to the receiver. When source is moving distance of travel is Changing and we observe that time is changed - we can not see the distance .