padren

Technically he did include that, since Abraham's story about his experience with God was in error, and it was written in the bible as if Abraham's account was correct... and therefore erroneously written. The topic though was pretty much with regards to how to reconcile that story with the bible and that definition of God, without God having to look like a total jerk. Dismissing it outright was already covered earlier.

When you have to deal with large amounts of information, having explanations that are wrong but work can be a net advantage. They have a cost - reduced chances of learning the real reasons - but an efficient simplified model often is preferable to a complex and highly incomplete one. The belief that gravity exerts a force of 9.8m/s^2 towards the ground is entirely false. It breaks at any real distance and fails to account for other planets, or non-trivially massive objects being dropped on the Earth. However, it is a lot easier to remember than calculating the masses of both bodies and distance - especially when the lighter body is going to be negligible, as will be the distance for most observations. The module could spread by natural selection, but wouldn't it have to be the result of intelligent design, at least being seeded by intelligent design? It may be spreadable by natural selection, but if it's inclusion in the human genome (whether to emerge at a time, or always reside from early ancestors) was an act of volition, it's not exactly fair to call it an evolutionary process. Evolution could be the delivery mechanism, but that would be it. Also, why is the number of atheists be on the rise if this module is advantageous? Why do the messages seem to conflict between different people within different religions?

There is nothing wrong with trying to understand the processes at work. I would agree that often the judicial system and even parents can elicit Stockholm Syndrome. Especially in the Soviet Union and places with heavy propaganda and harsh punishments for failing to buy it. Parents that use physical violence to impart huge degrees of fear in their children may very well elicit the same effect. Good obsevations Also, God does not tell us to do good, he tells us what good is and that we better like it, because while we are free to disagree, it will make him angry, and you won't like him when he's angry. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That is a nice interpretation, but do you think it is one that most people adhere to? If someone says "This seems wrong to me, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt" I can understand that, and when you say "I think it was a dream and then..." I understand and appreciate your take on it - I just wonder how most people view it. I guess the dividing line in my mind is, if people say "Yeah, that seems wrong, but I'll trust him" or "I think the bible describes it wrong and this happened" then that is a fair honest account... but when people lie to themselves and say God "was right to do it" when they don't have a reason to believe it that Stockholm is the most viable alternate explanation. I actually agree here. I think the one most fundamental moral conclusion I've come up with for myself, is that (at least for me) we have a moral obligation to try to find out what feels moral to us individually, and live by that. Respecting others is part of that, so understanding and respecting other people's morals is as well, but within the limits of what one personally feels is morally okay. When someone breaks from that sense of what is personally moral to them in deference to "higher" beliefs, or adopts them and convinces themselves they personally hold those morals as a defense mechanism, that something is amiss. The first case is generally survival or convenience, the latter being Stockholm indicative. I've definitely had "religious experiences" and know the feeling, it was just when I was going through a "new age" phase and the framework failed pretty concretely. Btw, I found your post quite interesting and well written - nicely done. I personally don't value that experience as you do, but I definitely respect how you feel about it and especially your honest reflections on the topic.

One of the things I've been interested in lately is how much phrases come up like "it's just a theory" or "but we don't know for sure" was ways to backup a specific belief. Other phrases like "It's widely accepted that..." or "It's obvious that..." come up a lot too. What I wonder is, how does our thinking change when it comes to pragmatic living? We all make decisions about information all the time, and we rarely have a huge collection of empirical evidence to back up those decisions. We do generally have some sort of "long history of observations" that, while we can't easily conceptualize in a singular way, give us an impression of what data to be skeptical of. We use authorities of knowledge we trust, which may be because of scrutinized credentials or because we trusted them in the past, and "it seemed to work out well then." If you are standing near the edge of the street and someone yells "Mind that bus!" you generally will look, not ask for evidence on the basis that "You'll have to make a stronger case for the existence of that bus before I commit to the effort of turning around and looking that way, considering my schedule shows no buses passing through this road for at least 20 minutes the burden of proof is on-whap" Granted, the cost of verifying is low, the risk and time limit to act is high, and the motivation to convey inaccurate information (even if they don't know it is wrong) is low. But the interesting thing is - we all have ways of thinking to make our way through (even if we have trouble making sense of) the world. Often in debates, we can see our own stances get strained when we go out on limbs we would not normally go out on in any general topic. No one ever says "But we don't even know if reality is real! Not really!" in response to whether that Nigerian prince email is legit. It's not practical. So how do we deal with thinking in the day to day world of getting by? Are we "plagued" by the shortcuts we use, or are they a practical necessity due to the sheer volume of information? I think it would be interesting to explore practical thinking in general. Any thoughts?

It does depend on your personal take on religion, and what you believe as the highest truth. Some people believe as the highest truth that "God is just, but humans sometimes interpret it wrong" and in that case, it is at least possible to go against the Church without going against your own view of God. Out of curiosity, what do you feel is "wrong" when it comes to reconciling those issues you mentioned: is it that some of your fellow believers are wrong, that your church is wrong, that you are wrong, or that God is wrong? On a side note: To specifically examine a story fairly widely accepted in old-testament offshoot religions - I have to ask (in the thread generally, not specifically to you lucaspa) about the Abraham and Issac story... So Abraham was asked to sacrifice his firstborn son, and then at the last minute got out of it and it was just a test of faith, and he got to kill something else. I know that society was different then and such, and not fair to judge God entirely by the Old Testament and such, but when we talk about contemporary religion, that story is retold to this day and generally God's actions are considered reasonable. I mean, if I was staying at a friend's house and I owed him everything, and he wanted me to show my appreciation by sacrificing my firstborn in his name, I would say "yeah, he was acting like a bit of a dick" if I retold that story. Most people would say "yeah that guy was being a bit of a dick" in response. So why don't people today, in the Church say that about God? There are a couple different ways to take it too - you could say "Abraham was a bit touched in the head, may have gotten it wrong" or written it off some other way, but no - the story is taught literally. It is taught as God told Abraham to off his son, and that it worked out but God was a pretty alright guy. So really, if you take that story literally, God could at any time ask any follower to off their own kid. Unless he says "psyche!" you're going to have to go through with it. What I want to know is - is there any way to understand that story (which I know is old) and why God is apologized for today in contemporary retelling? It's not like we get an explanation of "he was a jerk back then, there were words, he felt bad and we took him back - he promised it wouldn't happen again" we just get told "no, God had every right to do that, he's an okay guy." I just don't understand what that could be other than Stockholm. The only reason to think that sort of behavior is okay (that I can see), well the guy can send you to hell or do other horrible things. Again, I am not talking about whether Abraham had Stockholm Syndrome but whether pastors etc telling the story today as if God is an alright guy in the story exhibit Stockholm Syndrome. When you lie tell the guy waving a gun around that "he's an alright guy" that's just survival. When you start to believe it is when Stockholm is kicking in. Since pastors and priests seem to be happy to believe that "God had his reasons" despite the fact that no one would generally be tolerated acting that way - what else can we really contribute this behavior to other than Stockholm?

I would suspect that it would go along the lines of first speech and abstract thought emerging, followed by trying to figure out how the world works. Natural patterns would be easily identified by early humans, but their causes would not. For example, the seasons, the length of the day, the sun and moon and star movements are all easy to observe and that they adhere to predictable patterns, but for early humans the reasons why these patterns are present would be almost impossible. As such, we have a natural tendency to not only want to know what happens, but why it happens. Anyone who has been 6 yrs old can attest to how often the word "But why?" comes up in a day. So, they began sharing ideas, stories, anything that could make sense of the world. The stories existed within the framework of their experiential world - many early religions involve animal spirits, when you get to societies with chariots, they invent a sun god in a flaming chariot. Most consistently though, each group created and told stories that explained their world in terms they could understand. As for evolutionary advantages, we all are aware of how helpful explanations are to remembering patterns, even when the explanation is false. When you are really little, (or, at least if you had parents like mine) you get all kinds of stories about how little people live in your stomach who take your food and use it to feed your body, but if you eat sweets they stop to eat them themselves, and it spoils your appetite for dinner. It's patently untrue, but having an explanation makes it easier to swallow. Similarly, having explanations with a religious bent tend to be more strictly adhered to. Not long ago some Inuit hunters prepared some meat they killed, and decided to forgo the 3 day offering ritual. They got sick and died. When the researchers investigated, they found that part of the ritual actually stopped some food borne illness risks, and they died of food poisoning. They never knew why the ritual was important, and it was used long before microbiology was understood, but the patterns kept people from dying. Stories and weighty religious connotations helped insure the patterns were not deviated from for thousands of years.

The Stockholm Syndrome as it pertains to religion is with reference to followers, not external parties. Saying you are free to blaspheme freely without consequence is only true if you don't believe, but if you don't believe you aren't exhibiting the symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome in the first place. As for political correctness... KKKers and NAMBLA still exist, they get by. Censorship is bad, but it's not nearly as bad as eternal hellfire. I don't think the two are really on parity at all.

I thought people's religious beliefs were dangerous only when their political views run counter to your own. As long as Beck says the right things, the most they'll say about him is "Well if other Mormons were half the man Beck was...." and really only shy away if he says something they don't like. Mit Romney hasn't been too badly hurt by being a Mormon that I'm aware of - as it been an issue for him?

You're cherry picking. You're choosing to only look at the outside, and on a very specific scale. You're fingerprints are not symmetrical. You're features aren't either, in fact their asymmetry, and how close they come to approaching symmetry, is a major factor in what humans identify as beauty. More important than "degrees of symmetry" would be, what does this symmetry mean to you? Why is it important? What does it tell us about the world? How have you been looking for truth? All I see is you throwing out some unsubstantiated ideas, and then accusing people who do continue to research the very topic, who do uncover more and more information of not looking for truth. As I said before, the seismic waves provided data that correlated with other models, and independently verified other methods of assessing the core. And while we are on that topic - you can glibly mock these efforts as laughably incomplete, but can you provide even a single criticism as to the process? Can you demonstrate any flaw in the mechanics? It's easy to sit on the sidelines and say "that's dumb" but it's a lot harder to explain why it's dumb.

If you would for my benefit, I'd appreciate it. The liver looks asymmetrical, as done the fact that the heart is on the left side of the chest.

Who has? I can't think of a single person who has. You say they've tried and failed, obviously, but have you ever witnessed anyone? What observations did you make that brought you to that conclusion? Btw, I'm not trying to hound you or being facetious, I am genuinely interested in your answers.

Can you please tell me why you are not open minded with regards to the theory that drinking bleach makes you stronger? I mean, we've all been told not to drink it for so long I don't think I've ever known anyone who has, nor do I know anyone who knows anyone who has. You said you "know it will kill you" but I don't understand what you are basing that knowledge on. I am genuinely curious.

For our calculations about the Earth's core to be that far off as to allow for it to be hollow - you must consider: 1) We have tracked compression waves as they have traveled through the Earth, and they are deflected by the core itself. The fluid dynamics get a little complex, but the predictions that allow plumbing to work, also say the independent calculations for the Earth's core's size are accurate. 2) The laws of motion do tell us the Mass of the Earth. Granted the Earth could be without mass and it's all an illusion - but if it is an illusion, it has illusionary mass, which serves the exact same purpose as mass. If the Earth was hollow, the moon would be getting farther away at a faster rate, and gravity would be less than 1g applying F = 9.8m/s^2 on it's surface. More importantly, if it was hollow and it still applied 1g applying F = 9.8m/s^2 on it's surface.... we'd be completely screwed as every satellite we've ever launched would have worked out due to sheer luck alone, due to some incredible statistical anomaly and 99.999% of future launches would likely fail. If it wasn't for people like us, people like you would have died of cholera a very long time ago. I did wonder not long ago about, if I wear my pants inside out, if that means "I have the entire rest of the universe in my pants" or not. Of course, that's just a human construction of what "inside" and "outside" mean. Anyway, for your concept of inside/out world to work, you pretty much need 99% of physics to work exactly like it does, but to not work in special cases that somehow don't impact the rest of the cases. We have not seen any indications of special case scenarios - in fact, physics is incredibly simple, and creates complexity because of just how widely it effects everything over time, iteratively. Btw: I didn't say the Universe isn't an organism - I said there is no evidence that it is an organism. There is a pretty big difference, nor am I concerned with the question of whether it is an organism. How do you know if you drink bleach that you'll die? Have you tested it? (I do not recommend testing it of course) Have you witnessed anyone dying from the consumption of bleach? What if I were to tell you that the effects of bleach are based on astrological signs, and that in your case it would make you super strong? If that's just my opinion my "guess" is as good as your "guess" by your own logic. Why would you want to be enslaved by your narrow "humanity's rules" concerning bleach? Why would you be so close minded? Why the linear thinking?

The movement of the other planets are not consistent with a binary Earth/Sun orbital relationship. The math is pretty complicated but it is quite reproducible. I am not saying the sun is hot, I am saying the "hot sun theory" is inextricably interwoven with a number of other theories that, if are so flawed as to misinterpret the sun as being hot when it's cold - none of the inextricably interwoven theories would be worth anything. By not worth anything - I mean they would not have produced the modern quality of life we get to enjoy. I don't. However, "sun illusion theory" doesn't tell us anything useful, where as "giant ball of hydrogen undergoing fusion" does. Our theories about the sun's processes ties into a huge range of applications, and is again inextricably interwoven with our technological society. I actually made caveats for this sort of thinking several posts ago, where I said: Illusion or not, if I drink bleach, I get sick and die. Illusion or not, if I step off the roof, I fall and die. Illusion or not, if I douse myself in gasoline and light a match, I burn and die. Now... I haven't tested those theories, but they are based on scientific principles involving biology, chemistry, and physics. I also suspect they are the sort of theories that may be just a little preferable to test by inference, than direct experience. Since I answered your questions, would you answer mine please? The top of the Earth isn't the core? I don't follow. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Personally, I don't see any evidence of an after life, not that I'd expect that I would even if there is one. As far as science is concerned, it's not a question that is really scientifically testable unless someone creates a way to experiment and test the topic. In short: Does science believe there is no life after death? - no Does science believe there is life after death? - no

For the Earth to burn like a star, or become one it might help for you to discuss what you think a star is. Do you mean the Earth would become like the sun, or a very small version of it? Based on what we know of the sun, it is very massive and burns hydrogen by nuclear fusion creating helium, as a result of the massive gravity compressing it's mass and creating enough heat to begin the reaction. For the Earth to be a star, (not simply burn like an oil soaked torch) you would have to have some sort of similar process. It does not have the mass to create the gravitational implosion needed to kickstart fusion if it had the hydrogen to burn - not even Jupiter does. The temperature reached by burning oil would not be sufficient either. In addition to that, even if you had all the oil burn, and found a far higher density of oil than currently known, we have a very thin atmosphere of oxygen to react. If you took a basketball and soaked it in water and pulled it out, the thickness of the film of water on the wet ball is about to scale for the thickness of air on the Earth. From that visual, you can see how little air there is for the oil to burn with. Now, all that is "science talk" about mass, fusion, combustion, gravity, etc and it could be wrong. However, what is wrong becomes a key unspoken part of the conversation. 1) Mass of the Sun and Earth: If you wanted to contend these values are not accurate, it would mean that Newton's laws are not accurate. These laws are used with formulas that tell us everything from the time it takes the Earth and all the other planets to orbit the sun at their relative distances, to what altitude geosynchronous satellites need to be in order to operate. F = G(m1m2/r^2) So if you wanted to contend these values are guesses, you'd have to explain why they appear to be right to the extent that we have been able to use them so effectively. 2) Temperatures and fuels for fusion: You could contend that we haven't really tested fusion reactions as they occur in the sun. We actually have created nuclear fusion reactions, but you could argue we are guessing about the ones that occur in the sun, since they are not directly witnessed. However, our understanding of fusion/fission would be entirely thrown out of whack. The famous E=mc^2 equation demonstrates the energy released by annihilating matter and we went on to make the first nuclear bombs. Since then, our understanding of nuclear reactions give us everything from nuclear submarines to power plants and atomic clocks, and without understanding these principles our safety systems would be wholly inadequate. Again, if you contended these principles and calculations were just guesses, you'd have to try to explain how we've managed to actually achieve these reactions without blowing ourselves up. 3) Perhaps you feel the Earth can survive as a star without fusion. In that case, you'd have to understand the concept of the limit of a chemical reaction per mass to produce energy, and why it varies so greatly from the nuclear energy released relative to mass. There is a huge body of science covering this, and it governs among other things, why batteries have certain limits without going nuclear. 4) Perhaps the mass of the Earth would change? If the Earth ballooned to the size of the Sun, through some unknown process, it would break the laws of thermodynamics and the conservation of mass/energy. It would take a huge amount of energy to create that amount of mass. The reason I go to all the trouble of making the above points - we wouldn't live in the world we do today if these scientific principles were just guesses and entirely unreliable, or even if they were kinda reliable but weakly drafted enough to accommodate the Earth turning into a star. Out of curiosity what sparked this idea that the Earth would use Oil to become a star at some point? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You could think of it this way: the Earth would resemble a slightly cooler version of Mercury, more than it would resemble a star. It isn't likely to be enough oxygen and oil to entirely melt the Earth's crust - I don't have exact calculations but I believe it would be in the orders of magnitude below the fuel requirement. It also has a larger surface area and would radiate that heat, loosing it as infrared (and some visible light) radiation, since the fuel would be gone rather quickly. It's also worth noting: For all the oil to "ignite at once" it would literally have to be infused with oxygen as some sort of mist. Lighting a pool of oil only burns the top, since only the top is in contact with oxygen. You'd need oxygen bubbles passing through it, and in small enough sizes that they don't leave unburnt oxygen, and at a frequency density that all the oil has surface area exposed to to it. Since "oil" is technically really small, that's a lot of tiny bubbles very densely packed. I am not even sure if fluid dynamics would allow this to occur, since bubbles would rise and join, and you'd need bubbles near the top and bottom at the time of the reaction.

I don't. As I said before, nothing is certain, only suggested. The evidence regarding geomagnetic reversals suggests they do not happen rapidly. This is suggested strongly by the evidence. Iron, among other elements present in minerals comprising the bedrock below the oceans are affected by the Earth's magnetic field as the molten rock cools. Molten rock, just like melting a magnet causes it to loose it's magnetic properties, as it becomes scrambled and no longer polarized. As the sea floor spreads, new material pushes out as new sea floor, and hardens. This leaves an imprint on the minerals telling us about the magnetic field of the Earth at the time of this spreading. It's literally written in stone. I won't go into the dating technology and such, since there is more than enough material out there describing it. Do you know what analyzing the imprinted minerals uncovered? The polarization effects of the Earth's magnetic field appears to shift, reversing at times. This happens to be how we know about geomagnetic reversals in the first place. In addition to that, we not only see that it "changes" but changes "over time" as the polarity gradually shifted from one direction to the other. Based on the age of the rock, it appears to take many thousands of years for a reversal to occur. Or, at least it has in the past. It doesn't say it's impossible, just that it doesn't appear to have happened quickly before. So, out of curiosity, what do you dispute with regards to this methodology? Do you take issue with the age determination of the sea floor itself? Do you take issue with the magnetic imprint readings within the minerals? I'm not just throwing out some "wild guess" based on an opinion - there's a whole process that went into determining this information. Where is the flaw that caused them to "get it wrong" and not catch it? You can't experiment on a star - only with the light that comes from a star. You can't experiment on anything you see with your eyes - only the light that comes off of it, even if it's 5 feet away. Likewise, you can't actually touch anything, the atoms in your hands repel the atoms in whatever you try to touch, and you feel the repulsion force - it's not like the nuclei are colliding. All observation is at a distance. That is pretty fundamental, but if you disagree with it let me know - I'd like to know what we can agree on, it makes it easier to reconcile where we disagree. The point of mentioning that all observation is at a distance, what varies, is the quality of the observations. When it comes to the distance of stars, people have built experiments quite independently that reinforce those measurements. The fact it may be 28m light years away can be a challenge, but in the case of measuring the distance of most stars, it is not. Quality observations can still be made, often easier than some observations we try to make on Earth, even with our hands. What is "proof" in your view? The closest thing we have to proof of anything is "I think, therefore I am" and even that is an assumption, albeit a pretty decent one. I don't understand what you are trying to get at with this. No one is saying there is absolute proof of anything, ever. Just that a lot of predictions have successful results when we view the world in certain ways. You can detect and predict particle/anti-particle spin. You can build internets and cellphones, and go to the moon. I don't really care if it's "true" or not, it works. It makes life better. I am looking at the universe from it's perspective. It has multiple perspectives scattered most notably on Earth, of which I am one. It may be fun to think of the universe as an "organism" but what does that even mean? What does "organism" even mean to you? Do you see some sort of metabolism working away over celestial time? It's a "pretty idea" but you can't even describe it. It doesn't tie into anything anyone can relate to observationally. As far as models go, it's not very useful. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. I'm not interested in telling people how to live their lives. I am challenging one assertion on your part: That's your assertion. You are asserting that skeptics are applying a double standard, because they both just "guess" about stuff that wasn't witnessed, yet the skeptic asserts their view is more valid. The skeptic asserts there is evidence to support a model, that describes how these events occur. There is a lot that goes into these models. Your lack of research doesn't diminish the work they have put in. You can believe anything you want - it doesn't bother me. But at least acknowledge that they aren't "guessing" how things were, they are doing considerable work with intense scrutiny to determine the most likely explanations of how things were. Lastly, those aren't "the rules of humanity" that science tends to address. It's the rules of the Universe. No one wants to get sick and die because of a dirty water supply at the center of town. That isn't part of any "rule of humanity" when an epidemic spreads - those are the rules of life. When someone, without even the concept of bacteria cleans a spigot and ends an epidemic they are acting on a theory to save lives, to improve living conditions. These things you call "rules of humanity" are really just cause and effect observations about living and dying within this Universe. We also have "0,1 - 0,1" and other bases. There are many ways to do math, even many ways to count. Different systems have different applications and usefulness, though I don't see much use to a base4 system. It's not a question of whether it works, it's a question have what use it is. That's pretty offensive to be honest, you really don't know anything about me. It may surprise you, but I've actually studied a lot of Mayan stuff (albeit casually) when I was younger. Aside from that, I studied (through experience) all kinds of interesting new age models of reality. I'm a trained lvl 2 Reiki practitioner, by immersion (to varying degrees) I've studied Celtic shamanism, various eastern philosophies, lucid dreaming, astral projection, various native and Toltec philosophies, just to start. I've literally hitchhiked thousands of miles with no home and nothing but a backpack and $5 on nothing other than an omen. When I say "immersion" I mean as "not a side project" but as an entire basis of living - no backup home, no backup job or backup schooling - just straight up immersion. I've seen things and experienced things that are exceptionally hard to explain. That hasn't stopped me from getting many explanations from people of course, ranging from ghosts to demons to aliens to inorganic beings to blue people living under mount Shasta, to Christ, Loki, karma, to spinning merkabah fields spinning at "3/4 the speed of light" (not sure how a velocity relates to a measure of rotations) and just about everything else you can imagine. I have a very open mind, but one thing I've come to learn over the years, is what models and concepts are beneficial, and which ones only explain abstract constructs that can't even be seen anyway. I don't think science explains very much about the universe at all - just what we observe. We happen to be moving through time in a very specific way, which also kinda limits what we can observe. It is however, exceptionally useful for understanding what we observe. It is so useful, that people dedicate truly amazing amounts of time to the endeavor. They risk their lives riding rockets into space and returning against superheated plasma. They spend entire lifetimes dedicated to at times incredibly mundane research just to ensure it's sound. It's not an endeavor to justify an arrogant self-centric view of the universe - it's to understand as best we can, where and what we are. To be able to better stop epidemics that kill so many people and in general improve the quality of life on Earth. All I ask, is appreciate what science is, and the selflessness and sacrifice people have put into it over generations. When it comes to science, be a little more open minded.

Do you think that anything less than knowing something as an absolute personal truth is a "guess" with all the same merits of any other guess? Nothing is known for sure, however it seems kinda strange to me to "believe" rapid geomagnetic reversal is a threat then, humans weren't even aware of the concept until it was studied scientifically. Striations in deep seabed rock and such that had shifting polarity in their iron components if I recall correctly was how it was originally studied. But sure - hijack a concept discovered by geologists, "guess" it could be dramatically catastrophic and then declare your guess as having just as much merit as the people who have exhaustively studied the process. And for the record no one witnesses anything. We respond to reflected light converted to electric signals that implies something about the world around us as with other nerve stimuli. That might sound pedantic, but it is no less pedantic than saying anything not "witnessed" is a guess. I am not saying geologists get everything 100% accurate on the first go, but I'll take a geologist's "guess" over a baseless guess any day.

Actually it's a great thread - we often get posts about whether some piece of information is accurate. I remember when someone posted about and it was a hoax - but useful to learn. The science behind the hoax was actually pretty interesting, since it involved using glass marbles and liquid with the same refractive index I believe, rendering them basically invisible. Anyway, no need to be embarrassed or anything - the only important thing in science is how you ask questions, and how you consider the answers, not the implications of the answers themselves. On those points you're on the mark!

Why do you think the answer to that question is within our realm of understanding? It seems to me, that if both space and time is a result of an event, than we can't even use the language in this very sentence: "result" of an "event" implies causality, that something happened somewhere at some time. The "creation" of the universe whether by physics or a creator is not a sufficient description. The word "creation" implies a process - no matter how short - of something changing from one state into another, such as the state of no Universe into the very first moment of the Universe. Nothing can change state without time. Nothing has a definable state without space. Our minds and our entire way of conceiving the Universe is the result of casual events within space over time, and has adapted to thinking about patterns in space over time. Whether the universe was the result of a creator or a non-volitional event - I don't think we will ever know. Without an actual answer, I prefer to leave the question marked as "unknown" and not assume to fill it with a creator. I don't need an answer. If I was to lean one way or the other, it's towards natural creation without volition of some being... because we've come to learn over and over again that incredibly complex systems emerge from simple ones. That's a lesson drawn from observations within space and time, but it's the only environment we have to analyze. I would have to see some evidence that this is unlikely to be the case in the creation of the Universe itself, and "not having a definitive answer" is not evidence. It's just lack of an answer.

Why would one need to know whether or not it's all a dream? Senses are stimulated by information, which appear to adhere to patterns, and interaction can result in manipulation of these patterns in semi-predictable ways. There also appears to be a degree of persistence in the state of the things that we manipulate, which becomes a factor in the patterns. From there we can go to the trouble of dividing and naming the elements that seem to stimulate or senses, create classifications, generate rules and models to represent them all... at which point we can then worry about whether or not all our classifications are "real" (are our extrapolations accurate) - but by that point we are so deep in models in our head there really is no chance that they are. The real question then really is whether we are interacting with an external environment that supplies the sensory stimuli, or a simulated one via a dream or "brain in vat" scenario. Personally I like to think we are interacting with external stimuli, since it implies other consciousnesses experience the world in a similar way and that my interactions are genuinely bidirectional. All in all though, it doesn't seem like the sort of conundrum that can be solved by focusing on it, so I'm happy enough to ignore the potential problem and live based on the assumption of my preferred preference.

What if you disagree with the unseen Law's sense of justice, and you take actions you feel you have right to, perhaps morally need to, knowing that by your own beliefs you'll be punished because that creator has apparently commanded such actions as unjust? Whatever that sense of "justice" is - that women should not be taught to read and write, or be permitted to become priests, or that animals have no souls / are to be treated as property - all run counter to at least some people who follow religions that hold very strict rules regarding them. I would suspect everyone who has ever been/is religious has felt that pang of discord between what you feel is right and what you were taught is Right. In addition to the Stockholm characteristics that apply in relation to the deity directly, there is also the entire social structure when organized religion is involved. To reject a commonly held moral teaching for being - of all things - amoral can affect everything from your career options to social connections and general standing (in some to the point of being stoned) within that society. In addition to the fear of the Unseen Law taking care of the "justice" to the end of punishing you (perhaps with eternal damnation) you have all the most prominent and absolute authority figures you grew up with within that society telling you exactly that will happen. That tags a very real human physical sense of anxiety and stress on top of what is already an extremely tenuous personal (perhaps abstract) dilemma. The value of finding yourself sympathizing with "that sense of justice" at the expense of your own independent sense of morals and justice would alleviate that stress but would cause even more stress if it was done as a conscious abdication of responsibility - hence the subconscious process (characterized as Stockholm Syndrome) allows this to come about without that cost. It comes out when the individual is no longer able to cope with the stresses in play, and has no conscious options that can alleviate it. For the record - I don't think all religious affinity is a result of such a process or anything, but I do think that as one of the mechanisms that result in religious affinity, it can't be ignored. Out of curiosity, if you had to choose between an act so amoral to your senses personally as to be unthinkable, and being literally eternally "cast out and disconnected" from this creator - knowing you would never again have that sense of connection - how much anxiety would this situation raise in you? I understand if you feel and/or trust "such a situation would not arise" but if you were to truly consider it hypothetically and put yourself in that moment: that you are without a place in the world, and that all the stars and sunsets and mountains are for others, but not you. When you take any joy in these things, they are more like stolen glaces from over a fence from where you have been clearly told (by God himself) you do not belong... partly a punishment and partly a consequence of rejecting what you were clearly told was required of you. No chance of redemption and peace even in death. It sounds like a fate worse than death to me, and as such I can see how the factors iNow is talking about could come into effect.

I think it really says more about what type of confirmation bias the daily show employs than a rating from low to high - his bias is just less partisan than most pundits, but not necessarily less intense overall. He doesn't even really try to hide it either - he has a comedy show and tries to highlight people in politics that are easy to lampoon. He shows us a world where politics is riddled with bumbling, stumbling self contradicting fools, and that's the world people expect to see when they tune in, whether it's populated from the right or left. He's also quite happy to cherry pick or take things somewhat out of context to exemplify the laugh he's going for, so it's not really objectively covering events either - it's just less politically biased since stupid is an equal opportunity selector.

I agree with you, I do feel like overall it's a loss though. I can't help but to think that if this is the best way for the tension that apparently was present in the situation to resolve, that there had to be better outlets that just couldn't be accessed, due to some failure in at least one of the people involved. We are in a tight situation in Afghanistan, having the man at the head of our operations there recalled and go through this mess really doesn't help our situation. If there was anything either the administration could have done, or McChrystal himself, then an opportunity to help streamline our objectives (even if they need to be reconsidered) and get out has been missed. Regardless of where blame sits, it's certainly both a setback and a failure for Americans to execute their collective intentions as a nation all in all.

What I want to know honestly, is if McChrystal was just shooting off his mouth, or if this was the result of systemic failures to communicate. If the lines of communication have been open all along and he suddenly decided to voice these views in Rolling Stone of all places, then I think he definitely went over the line - it's not the right channel for such complaints. If this was the only channel left to him due to some sort of attitude problem in Washington then I'd say the administration has a larger problem than just this article. It doesn't look like that yet - I haven't seen anything that would imply McChrystal was getting tied down without being able to offer candid feedback. It looks to me like the "failure in people skills" occurred on the part of McChrystal, who perhaps held his tongue to Obama when he shouldn't have, or should have found some way to relieve his reservations before they blew up in the form of a magazine article. I don't know enough about the background to consider that opinion conclusive though.

If it wasn't for a lack of resources, spare time, and a healthy fear of death and/or Evin Prison I would love to take an aid flotilla to Iran the day before theirs enters Israeli waters. If I was to cruise on into Iranian waters demanding that I be allowed to unload all my "aid" without customs or inspections for the benefit of the Iranian people - including items outright banned - I really wonder how far I would get. Especially if I condemned their national government and declared they had no right to board or inspect, refused to acknowledge radio contact. I'm sure I could find some reasons to take the moral high ground and state why we just would simply refuse to acknowledge any authority or authenticity of the Iranian government and it's actions to carry out it's policies. Somehow I would bet the Iranian government wouldn't be so quick to turn around and release (deport) the freedom protesters on board.