Phi for All

Be careful mixing your mythologies. It sounded like you just claimed that hope is bad unless you believe in the supernatural. And if that IS what you're saying then I, for one, am tired of this morbid, self-hating, mind-crippling preaching about your god being merciful. This isn't a discussion when you're standing on a soapbox telling us the only hope is believing the way you tell us to.

We'll get an Admin to look at this activity.

I know it's a post hoc fallacy, but I'm convinced microwaving silica gel causes mental fixations.

I'm assuming it's the bit mentioned in the article, the evolutionary process supposedly affecting inorganic systems as well as organic. :

! Moderator Note OK, 17 pages into this discussion, and I'd like to know if any of the input you've gotten has persuaded you to soften your position, or if it's been of no value and you stand by it adamantly. Nobody wants to discuss any subject with a preacher, someone who has no intention of being persuaded by any argument. Please give a brief summary of what, if anything, you've taken on board wrt this discussion.

The hinge looks to be about level with the top of the rear tire. Lots of variables there, but a 2019 model I saw had 215/50 R17 tires, which are 25.5" tall.

Or we did and didn't find anything to support your claims that "Mind-brain theory has a lot of catching up to do with what observation and findings are telling us about it." Can you highlight the reference for this? It's very helpful to provide a link, and even more helpful to call out the particular bits that support you: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929314000048

! Moderator Note Staff doesn't judge the correctness of the information you present (the membership is better for this), but rather enforces our rules about supporting the assertions you make. It's frustrating when someone makes an assertion but won't show the evidence that convinced them. Opinions are fine as long as we all know they're opinions, but when you make a hard claim, you should link to or present the evidence on which you based it. This, for instance, seems like a specious claim, one that sounds reasonable until you look harder at it. Do you have any articles that also make this claim? What is "a lot of catching up"? There are whole university courses and many graduate students studying this, so how are observation and findings lagging behind so badly? Do you have any evidence that researchers are doing the experiments and getting the measurements but are failing to advance the theory?

Or the church was so powerful that acquiescence meant you could continue doing science, as long as you lied about your findings and your beliefs. It's hard to do science from the dungeon, or when you're dead. Ask Galileo about not being Catholic in 17th century Italy. So other than being diametrically opposed, yeah, same page.

! Moderator Note This isn't a classroom either. It's a discussion forum. What would you like to discuss regarding evolution on other planets? Please design opening posts to encourage an interesting conversation, in this case on a specific aspect of this article.

You're going by the book now? You think these folks are actually practicing what they preach?! Tell me you've never seen people pointing out the sins of others righteously. I think it's part of the whole magic of sinning your ass off but being aware enough to openly ask for forgiveness. That's what seems to bump you up the heaven ladder. Judgement is measurement, and yes, we do it all the time as part of the way we observe the universe. The difference is sort of like what we have here at SFN wrt attacking ideas instead of people. I fight against the urge to judge a whole person by what I observe, and try to make my measurements based on their words and actions for that situation. I don't think I'm better person than a meth addict, or a religious zealot, or a someone who has less money, or a person from a foreign country. I don't think a priest, or a billionaire, or a police officer is a better person than I am. People are people, the only humans we know of in the whole universe. When you think about it, any judgement that isn't about specific actions is prejudice. It's fairly easy to spot, actually. If someone throws trash on the ground, we can denounce that act without claiming they're a litterbug. Exactly how much trash do you have to throw and how often in order to deserve that judgement? I think it's better to call out each act and hope the person can change, which might be much easier without the onerous judgement about their whole being.

There you go! All you have to do is claim we can't do something that your god can do easily, and you set up a vertical hierarchy that you can use to manipulate and subjugate others with. The part about consciousness "absorbing existence" is particularly nebulous. That's a first class religious argument right there. Don't forget to berate us for being sinners! That's really the important part. Call us sinners first and you're obviously higher up the moral ladder than we are. Judgement is yours!

You're so lucky you've found an argument nobody can ever assail! It's the answer to every unknown, it uses only the knowledge you currently have, it puts all those smartass scientists in their places, and you never have to study or bother with thinking on your own. You can now close your mind for good!

And that is a crying shame. I wish it could be different. I, of course, blame religion. It only took a few seconds to find that there's absolutely no evidence for an immortal soul. I made some tea, ran an errand, and swapped out laundry before answering. I tried to make the wait last longer, but, like your religion, I felt it was wasting my time.

So it includes "essences" that can't be measured but are supposed to be tangible, such as "identity". It can contain memories the way the brain can but doesn't need actual physical storage. And it can transcend the need for electrochemical processes even after the body that provides such is dead. So my answer is "NO!" Btw, I used intelligence instead of "wisdom", because I feel when you say wisdom, you mean "a wise person would agree with me". Also, because I have advantage on Intelligence checks.

Can you define how you're using the term, please?

! Moderator Note Non-mainstream concepts need to be worked on in Speculations, so I'm moving this there. Please support your idea (not a theory) with evidence, including possible ways it could be falsified. Please be aware you're trying to build this concept by pre-assuming other universes exist, which is a shaky foundation at best.

Indeed, we are. I'm suggesting that there's NOTHING the Abrahamic religions give us that we can't find elsewhere, and we can do it without all the guilt and sin and contrition and penitence and threats of eternal damnation. What you seem to be suggesting is that we can somehow recycle the good parts and keep them as spiritual guidelines for living. I don't mind reusing something worn but still useful, but you're asking me to keep using something that's been chewed up and passed through the bowels of some of the filthiest creatures imaginable. It's difficult to touch it without contamination. It's been used for some of the most horrible acts I've ever heard of. If it were a toothbrush, I'd have to figure out how to use only the clean bristles on my teeth. If it were something to drink, I'd have to strain the garbage out and take small sips. I think you're guilty of the Sunk Cost Fallacy in this regard. You think these religions are salvageable, but I think we'd be so much better off without this template of misery, salvation, and abasement guiding our society. Time to cut our losses and work on actual joy to the world.

! Moderator Note Please don't use one thread to advertise another. Thanks for understanding.

"Addresses"? Religion perpetuates that ignorance, nurtures it, manipulates it. It gives us supernatural answers that are later explained by reason and science. Please do me a favor and spare me all the things you think we don't know that religion can "address". It's a list that's bound to be just as ignorant, since by definition you're just wishfully hoping religion still helps. And btw, it's never hard to see the baby unless the bathwater you're trying to throw out is THAT filthy.

I haven't stereotyped any believers, unless by mistake. My gripe is with the premise of the Abrahamic religions, and I realize there are those who benefit from the spirit of the teachings, but I also realize folks like that (your friends and spouse who aren't natural persecutors) would most likely gravitate to something less rooted in sin, judgement, and penitence. I think all those folks would be more with less religion.

It is a bit of a paradox. The only group of folks I find intolerable are those that can't tolerate whole groups of people. But I don't need to set up your oppressive hierarchy. I don't need to ban religions entirely. That's just more straw. I want to remove the toxic influence of the Abrahamic religions from our governance. Do I need to ban them to do that, or can I just enforce what the US Constitution says about separating church from state? I don't need to remove the churches as long as I can get the transparency I need to keep them from molesting children, again a crime we already have provisions for. I don't need to ban the teachings as long as those who use it for violence can be dealt with by the law, which has been difficult in the past. I don't need to emulate these religions with an oppressive hierarchy. Instead, I'd really like to move forward with some relief for all the people Jesus is supposedly weeping for, and maybe work on alleviation of suffering instead of embracing it as part of our sinful heritage. I'd like to remove the oppressive hierarchies Judaism and Islam inflict on those outside their faiths, too. I should be able to do that again by simply enforcing existing laws against the promotion of human suffering. Keep your religion, but stop using it as a shield to keep harming others. It's tiring trying to see the trees through the forest of strawmen, but ultimately I think it's time to admit we have shackles on all of us, put there by the Abrahamic religions, and kept in place with our own minds thousands of years after the original con was engineered. It's embarrassing, I know, but we should be smart enough to rise above it. Science can show us we should just bookmark this fiasco and move ahead with educating ourselves in the natural world.

No offense, but this has already been done by targeting the Abrahamic religions, and the practices you mention aren't really applicable to a thread about god. Defending spirituality in this instance gives a lot of leverage to the Bible thumpers and the SoMuchHolierThanThou folks. Thanks, but no thanks. Of course it's not hardwired. The tendency to explain the unseen may have started in superstition, but we don't have to continue to placate the ignorant in this regard. We are distinct among species in our reasoning power, and for too long the Abrahamic religions have been the law of the land despite all the problems they've created. We've let those in power decide how to interpret the word of imaginary beings, and then lie to us about how it's necessary in order to understand oneself. Our desire to be part of something larger is mostly snuffed by the Abrahamic religions. They've taught us that only a few can be right, the rest wrong, and the last thing you should do is find empathy and common ground with such heathens. We may find small groups, but we'll never unite as a species if Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have their way. I, for one, am terrified that we're exploring space without being united as a planet, and these religions couldn't care less, since they all seem to give up on Earth in favor of their heavens. Ack! Sorry, choking from all the straw!

This falls flat right out of the gate. Energy is a property of a thing, not a thing itself. This has been demonstrated countless times. Can you support the concept of "pure energy"? How much would fit in a gallon jug?

I was making the distinction @dimreepr mentions. I may be wrong, but Utopia always seemed focused on being the best place for everybody, like there's one size that can fit all. I think of "Heaven on Earth" as a place where the opportunities for prosperity are supported so each person can find their own ideals. Abrahamic religions don't even come close to that concept. Also, I'm willing to support my assertions to the best of my abilities, but please understand I'm not talking about the "guaranteed success" of them. It does occur to me that if something fails to do what it's supposed to do after thousands of years, throwing it out seems valid. Maybe we take the halo off the baby and then throw out the bathwater? I get that you're OK with only half of them being applicable to everyone. I hope you still feel that way when they figure out how to monitor how covetous you are. I'm done tolerating such bullshit. Just because those religions provided a way for conquerors to subjugate and oppress doesn't mean we need to keep allowing them to interpret their god's will any way they please. This is today, and we should be using our brains instead of this stupid faith in ancient religions. Stuck with it in our DNA? Citation, please. I think this behavior is exactly the kind of thing that can be overcome with intelligence. Better education, more emphasis on science and less on beliefs from the Bronze and Iron Ages. But it will be difficult because there are many who think like you do, and believe it's inevitable that we'll always think only like other animals.