joigus

Religion is not "what makes you feel good about yourself." I don't remember a single instance in my life when the religious principles that they foisted upon me made me feel the least good about myself. Quite the contrary. In the Christian religion in particular, it's quite ironic: God made the universe with you in mind, but you are constantly reminded that you are worthless. This case is completely different. Sex and sexual inclinations are not taught. Religion is. If you go back to what I said, it's really "people who want to get out of it need help and advice with...", rather than what you seem to imply. Forceful mutilation, mind programming to instill fear, hate, guilt, immediate obedience without question to unchecked-by-objective-observers religious authorities, who in many cases are only answerable to their own religious authorities. Arranged marriages for underage girls, obligation to kill others and die if necessary to protect or advance your own religion, persecution of other faiths --in some cases--. Social isolation or even imprisonment or severe physical punishment if you don't abide by the rules. Keeping children from being aware of similar circumstances in other religions, so that they more easily assume their condition as "natural" or inevitable. There are possibly hundreds more reasons. None of us comes out looking pretty here, no matter what our culture is. All of this carefully installed in children's minds year after year. As I said, psychological abuse beyond any doubt.

No. For starters, I had nothing specific in mind... 🏸 What I'm saying is very different. It's about offering advice to people who want to get out. Don't forget most religion is psychological abuse. (IMO.)

I see. Of course it does. Terribly wrong. The point I was trying to make is that the darkest aspect of faith is possibly that so many people declare themselves believers just for fear of being rejected by their particular social group, their family, and closest friends. That's why I think it's so important that closet atheists come out. And that as much people as possible be helped to take this bold step. And that atheists raise awareness about this situation, that avenues for researching this phenomenon be promoted, etc. We simply cannot be certain of what it means when people say they are believers. That's what's most terrifying. We may think it's faith, a matter of convincing them with arguments. But maybe we're getting it all wrong. Maybe it's a much more worrying psychological phenomenon that we're up against. How many are there whose belief is declared only on the grounds of social fear? That's the big question. I think understanding that millions of people are hostages rather than acting out of convictions is very important. I also think a very serious question that atheists must ask themselves is "what can we do to help those people?" Trying to connect with what @CharonY said on Thursday: If we atheists want to have a good reason to form common-interest groups, and rather than wasting time in trying to convince hard-core believers, why not rise to a higher moral ground and address the ones who need us most? Those would be the ones who don't believe, but are afraid to say so.

Is that officially a joke?

Mmm. I don't think faith is a good benchmark of anything. It's too vague a concept. How many among the believers are really 100% certain about anything concerning their faith? I'm convinced that if an experiment were possible to set up measuring the degree of certainty that people personally obtain from their religion, it would show very poor levels in general. Most people "believe" only because it's a necessary step to be accepted in their community. In that sense, they believe in believing in god, as some illustrious atheists have said. A declaration of faith is just a declaration of faith. It's not faith. I agree. And I abide by it. That's why I'm so uncertain about so many things.

My answer --before I read your post-- was going to be "Yes, I believe religion exists."

It corrupts knowledge for obvious reasons. Taking a one-sided (non-objective) view of facts can only lead to misconceptions. As a consequence, it also corrupts the ethics of societies. Example: The banking-system's ethos: We want to take full advantage of predictable fluctuations in the market that are invisible to the general public, while taking full advantage of the general public when fluctuations become unpredictable --by taxing them to cover for our losses. We hide the flaws and shortcuts of such system behind a thick layer of red-tape, legalese, and marketing lingo. The more analytically intricate the system of concepts is, the higher the risk for pitfalls, both ethically and conceptually.

I'm there too. It's all a ying-yang thing.

I recognize no truth, but degrees of certainty.

My opinion is that you cannot seriously believe in god if you've studied science in any length. Specially biology. But many scientists believe in believing in god. That is, they decide that it's a good social deal to keep saying they believe in god and, if pressed, talk about an abstract god, as in "god is the order in the cosmos" or something like that. Just to escape hostility from believers. Scientists discuss science even when the gathering has finished and the discussions keep going while they go back home, or to their respective hotel rooms. But I've never seen anybody discuss theology when they go back home from the church, the synagogue or the mosque. Religious people will leave you alone if you just say you're a believer. For all they care your "god" could be a telepathic giant cat living in another planet and handling the universe from there. As long as you say "I believe."

Aaaah. That rings a bell. I think we should have a thread dedicated to impersonate other users (nicely, of course). I would be very happy to have an impersonation of myself. We did that years ago in some language-learning forums. We had some fun. Edit. I think it's a great idea. If more people think it's fun and the mods don't mind, we could do that.

Thanks a lot, @Dord. The Andromeda looks sooo 3D... Here's some beetles of the genus Chrysolina: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysolina They eat leaves. Some species have been used for weed control. Why do they look so metallic?

Studiot: You may be interested in this: https://www.amazon.com/Chicken-Book-Page-Smith/dp/082032213X Got it. LOL

Swansont: Did the chicken cross the road? Any references?

As usual, Ed Witten drew far-reaching conclusions, but missed the chicken completely.

I've just found this and then noticed @CPG had already linked to it. No wonder. Very interesting. +1 https://www.brainfacts.org/ Main sections: Thinking, Sensing and Behaving Diseases & Disorders Brain Anatomy and Function Neuroscience in Society In the Lab ------------------- It also features a 3D brain to play with: https://www.brainfacts.org/3d-brain#intro=true

Everett: Which chicken and which road are you talking about, guys? Brilliant!

Feynman: The chicken tried everything it could. It only looks like one chicken doing one thing because he fell down a stationary-phase path.

Pascal must have been under a lot of pressure when he said that. I see no way in which this could be false.

I generally agree. This is a very hype-sensitive topic.

Thanks @Area54 and @MigL. Do you know of any geological/atmospheric process that could replenish PH3? Apparently the authors have tried some of that and ruled it out. Also, does anybody know the answer to, ?

Question for the chemistry experts: Suppose that were phosphine they're measuring in Venus' atmosphere, and never mind where it comes from. Would it be possible for this chemical to last in those conditions for, say, billions of years after it was produced, whether biologically or otherwise? OK. I'm no expert in chemistry, but I'm kind of an expert in explanations. And that is not one.

Hey, just to let you know I had the Russian Covid-19 vaccination yesterday and can tell you there are absolutely no negative sideffski efectovski secundariosvki Кто может это прочитать, это уродливый парень .Привет друг Антонио !!

There still is a need for the BB. Extrapolation backwards of receding galaxies makes inevitable some kind of bang. The cosmic background radiation, the remnant of the explosion, is the best evidence. It has exactly the frequency spectrum of light filling all of space and continually cooling off (at different rates following known phases of cooling) for 13.7 billion years give or take. So yes, there must have been a big bang.