Intrigued

I don't see anything in my post that suggests I think faith makes anyone bullet proof. In fact, the reverse is true as my second sentence clearly introduces the possibility of failure. I applaud your efforts to help bring calm to your community and accept that faith plays a key role in enabling you to engage in this way. However, as yet I cannot see what you mean by faith. Now, I can imagine engaging in the same actions as yourself. I would do so with the hope that I would come through relatively unscathed and would have made some positive contribution along the way. I would recognise that there was a possibility that things might not go well, for either my "clients" or myself. But I would hope for the best and make such plans and preparations to make this more likely. So what I am not getting is where faith comes into this picture, and just what it is, from your perspective.

I guess, if true, this means I like monotonic, introductory lectures and always insist on paying up front! As others have observed fiction, like marmite and durians, is definitely a matter of personal taste.

I have not read your entire post, but I have two points occurred to me from what I scanned. Firstly, you note that tides are higher far from the equator than close to it. However, the examples you give of large tidal ranges are unrelated to their latitude. The high tides are a consequence of local submarine topography. If that is all the evidence you have then your assertion is without foundation. Secondly, the word "whirpool" in English commonly refers to a small feature, whose diameter will be measured in yards or at most a few hundred yards. The large circulation patterns you are talking about would be better termed "gyres", a word you did use on one or two occassions. If you are intending to convey the vertical component of a whirlpool in your argument then you might be better to talk of mega-whirlpools. However, you will then have to explain why these mega-whirlpools or gyres have a stagnant zone at their heart, unlike their smaller cousins.

That I can readily agree with. The accuracy of their faith/belief/assessment has no impact upon that confidence, until and unless events show it to have been unfounded.

I could see from your avatar that you have capital I's. Your nose isn't too bad, either.

I realise my comment is possibly made irrelevant by your use of the word "most", however, I am most likely to display confidence in a difficult situaiton because I know that failure to do so will almost certainly result in an unfavourable outcome. My observation is that this is actually commonplace. I cite stage fright as a classic example. Many successful salespersons use exactly this technique. They sell the service or product to themselves, if only for the duration of the sale, before selling it to the client. In such a case detachment from reality is recognition of a wider reality. .

This one, winner of the 1961 Hugo, is difficult to beat: Walter Miller's A Canticle for Leibowitz. Nuclear war, as per your preference, and millenia spanning timescale.

I suspected as much, but I'm not clear what point you were trying to make. I think most would agree that perspective can and often does influence the questions we ask as well as the answers we give. Many would say, and I would agree, that this is normal and understood and not necessarily negative. All well and good, but how are you tying this into the role, or character of faith?

It seems, from my perspective, that your views are more heavily weighted with perspective than mine. Can I justify this? I think I can. In my post, which you addressed, you suggest that I have viewed White Nationalism (WN) as something to be accepted as rejected. I commend a second reading of my original post. Nowhere do I imply WN should be rejected. My interest, in that post and this conversation, is the measurement of WN; how might it objectively and quantitatively be measured. Such measurements could support condemnation/rejection, or they could identify for White Nationalists individuals sympathetic to their views. The measurement is independent of how it is subsequently used and it might be used to support, attack, or simply observe WN. That said, I agree that often measurements are taken in order to support an agenda, or test a hypothesis. When NASA first looked for life on Mars the experiments carried out by the Viking Landers were done from the perspective that their might be active life present in the regolith. The results of those experiments, seen as negative, meant that perspective changed. Subsequent investigations looked for water and evidence of the action of water. Why would I waste time and angst having faith in parachuting? If I think I might like to make a parachute jump I carry out what in current buzz words is called a risk assessment. This might include a look at the accident statistics for jumps, discussion with experienced and novice jumpers, reviews of the group or company I shall make the jump with, objective examination of the physical skill set and mental attitude I would bring to the jump, relevance of weather conditions and landing terrain, etc. On completion of that analysis I would have a realistic, semi-quantitative measure of the risk involved in a jump. Faith would have no relevance. I would jump confident that the odds were in favour of a successful jump, with only a small risk of minor injury and very small risk of death. In short, why oh why, would I base my decisions on an emotional and wholly subjective appreciation of an imagined world, when I could rely on an objective assessment of risk. Unattractive as it often is, I vote for reality at every opportunity.

Thank you for that. Your argument didn't seem to match other posts of yours I think I had read. so I was puzzled.

I am not clear how stating the blindingly obvious without recourse to an internet or library search consitutes quote mining. Nor do I find it surprising that two members might come up with the same examples, when they are so prominent. Can you point me to the faith qualifier. I don't see it. All the more reason that your statements should be factually accurate.

His post likely should read " The un-corrupted or characterised message of religion could be that we should all take responsibility for some thing greater than ourselves, in order to attain 'eternal' life." However, like you, I have no idea what a "characterised message" is. Given his analogy of pedigree dogs and their breeders K.C. may be The Kennel Club. The second sentence would then be "The breeders, who focus exclusively on the definition of a breed, are blind to the existence or role of the environment." I think, until he can express himself with clarity, it is likely that we will find ourselves arguing with a strawman, of his creation, not our devising.

Take your time. I'm in no hurry. Just make sure your terms are defined and that there are no ambiguous pronouns.

Exactly so, and thus having faith, would become a self-reinforcing, positive-feeback, unchallengable position. "Faith consistently supplies positive profound benefits, therefore faith is a good thing and since it visibly does this it is obviously something to accept and believe in unreservedly." Thank you for your detailed response. If I understood what you meant by it I would be happy to reply, either agreeing, disagreeing, or questioning. Unfortunately, while I understood all the words and the superficial meaning of each sentence, I was unable to assemble the whole into a coherent point of view. I've struggled with several of your earlier posts. Please attribute this to my poor English comprehension* if it makes you more comfortable, but also consider the possibility that you are not as clear in your exposition as you imagine. *As a native English speaker and occassional teacher of communication skills, I'm usually quite good at distilling meaning from word salad.

I found my question relevant to almost every point and question in DrmDoc's OP, but I'll just select one example. DrmDoc said this: "What have you observed, experienced, or accomplished that supports your faith?" If an individual believes that faith has predominantly, or even exclusively positive and profound benefits this will provide a justification for their faith. If they do not hold such a view, then we must look elsewhere for the source of their belief. Consequently I was interested to learn what EricH's position was on this. (And still am!)

Since you note that expertise on standard HR theory is completely absent here, I take this as an acknowledgement that you also lack any expertise in the matter. Consequently we may safely disregard any thoughts you may have on the matter.

It is, however, relevant to the thread topic. The nature of faith, as perceived by those who make extensive use of it, usefully informs DrmDoc's questions in the OP.

Would you agree it can also have negative and profound detriments?

This appears to contradict itself. In your analogy of the Pedigree Dog, the pedigree particulars are specific and quantifiable. The breeders focus on these quantities, rather than, as you claim, blocking all others. Indeed, they have to "measure" non-pedigree features in order to determine that they are non-pedigree. How to measure White Nationalism? For example, determine preferred reactions to hypothetical situations. Or, measure the degree of acceptance of negative stereotypes of non-whites. It should not be too difficult for a comeptent sociologist to come up with several protocols that would ahndle this.

Plate tectonics. Hot Jupiters. There's two.

When Woody Allen was asked if he thought sex was dirty, he replied, "it is if you are doing it right."

Other than Aman777* in another place, can you name any other Christian individual, or denomination that makes the same unique claims regarding our origins as you do? They not only conflict with science they are contrary to any version of Christianity I am familiar with. It's a rare achievment to combine heresy and pseudoscience in one concept, but you have managed it! *Or just confirm that's who you are and I shan't waste anymore time on you.

This line is in error. The first 20,000 is 20,000as you say. From 20,000 t0 40,000 is not 40,000. It is 20,000, and so on. 10% of 20,000 is not 20,000. Does that set you back on the right track?

Informative. I have learned something from you. I spent some time a few years back on a couple of Christian forums and based on the fundamentalists encountered there considered them "beyond hope". (The fence sitters, or those standing quite close to the fence could be recovered.) I now accept, based on your input that for some at least, Dawkins approach can work. Don't worry about the confusion. It amused me and I hoped your probable discomforture might give me a slight edge in the ensuing discussion.

I have tried very hard to get excited about this achievement and the findings. I've seen the excitement of others and tried to attach myself to it. Sadly my feet remain planted firmly upon the planet - though, to be clear, absolutely any planet would do. Planets and satellites and asteroids and comets and meteors. Those I can get excited about. Giant black holes at the middle of galaxies are just too far above my pay grade. Now what did excite me was the incredible technology that mediated the signals from multiple telescopes spread across the globe. That is amazing. I can't wait to see what else we can do with it. . . . . . Hopefully something to do with planets.