Phi for All

Isn't it true that "infinite density" can also be called mass with zero volume? The mass is measurable, not infinite, but it's in a space with no volume. Is that right?

"Babble babble babble, flood the zone with shit, same old script as last time, I am full of it!"

Dem, as in Democracy? Yes. There are few people here who want to see it overthrown in favor of a corrupt despot. Rule of law is still important to us, as is integrity, honesty, and compassion. Most of us here also enjoy a good sense of humor. Have you ever noticed that TFG has never, NEVER said anything even remotely witty or chuckle-worthy? He insults in an elementary, Rickles-esque manner, and his worshippers laugh when he makes fun of others, but the man doesn't have the imagination or character to say something genuinely funny. Never funny. Never. NEVER.

This sounds like pro-Trump propaganda from a troll farm, and as such is one of the stupidest things any American who wants to preserve our democracy could do. Yep. Straight from TFG's scripts.

Who really cares what you think is true? Nobody here. We're looking for evidence that lends our beliefs some validity. For instance, there are more polytheistic religions than monotheistic ones, so it seems more likely that, in your scenario, people are more likely to choose many gods over one. Also, we don't believe in science the same way you believe in your one god. We trust the information we glean from our processes and methodologies because we can verify it, rather than simply having faith that it's right.

Which people? Can you cite some examples? I think your bias is making the classification seem insulting to you. I know your beliefs give you supremacy over the other animals, and that your perspective makes you want to view everything as a totem pole hierarchy where your god is on top and everything else is below that. Do you think people are trying to deny you your rightful place in the hierarchy by calling you an animal? It's based on observations amassed over centuries, once science was able to operate without being under the thumb of the church.

It's certainly NOT conservative Christian Nationalists hoping to get a jump on Armageddon. I remember the horror of the possibility that Sarah Palin might end up with her finger on the button. The Bible seems to encourage nuking your enemies in God's name, so it seems we've avoided nuclear wars based on humane reasoning alone.

Are you OK? Your reasoning seems to be suffering from poor information. You seem to suggest that progress should be abandoned. Are you Amish?

What's arbitrary about the "animal" category? Nothing, nothing at all. We fit it perfectly. Your supernatural beliefs blind you to the obvious classification and its merits. Humans are animals who have evolved an intelligence at the cost of other natural traits like big teeth or fins or wings. We gave up a lot to have this capacity, and many of us prefer to use methodologies that synchronize well with such intelligence rather than primitive, cave culture fear worship. We have unique brains, and we should be filling the gaps in our ignorance with high-quality knowledge rather than guesswork and superstition.

Rather than cherry-picking the ones you don't like? Do you enjoy your bacon, shellfish and rabbit? I don't blame you for glossing over the inconvenient laws. It seems pretty obvious that many were made without a hint of "divine guidance". My fave is from Deuteronomy, where you're fighting with another man and your wife intervenes to save you from a beating. If she grabs your privates, you're commanded to chop off her hand! So you agree it's a bad foundation for discerning right and wrong? For instance, I could make the case that Jesus was a petty, vindictive tyrant who went around cursing fig trees, withering them when he was hungry and they had no fruit, then told his disciples they could have that kind of power if they believed hard enough. Creepy, right?

This seems EXACTLY like what most religions do. An atheist has the advantage of understanding why something is wrong, not being tainted by priests telling them it's OK to own slaves from another land, or that women are unclean, or that you'll be damned eternally if your beard's not square. We also aren't hobbled by threats and coercion. "The Lord will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head" just shows us how INHUMAN actions are just wrong no matter who perpetrates the crime. Atheists have nothing to justify raping and pillaging in the name of a god over. We also don't suffer from the hypocrisy the religious often demonstrate wrt compassion and charity. And we don't suffer crises of faith where the foundations of our morality come into question. Being a decent human is a learned trait, and it's marred by the judgement most Christians impose on non-Christians. I argue that my morality isn't as fragile as yours, since it's based on what I've observed, not irrational fears about what hides from me and judges me and promises me eternal torture if I don't believe.

Certainly NOT moot. Better education opportunities in modern times would reduce the gullibility factor necessary to invent supernatural beings. Many modern folks have a more reasonable stance, especially wrt omnipotent beings who curse us for the flaws they supposedly created us with.

! Moderator Note Five pages on the subject seems sufficient, especially since we're now attracting those who have vested interests and want to avoid soapboxing. Thread closed.

As other members realize this new member has no interest in their replies, and is just pushing an anti-intellectual agenda, responses will dwindle. Preaching is boring, but enough members are discussing the topics that staff isn't going to pull the rug on what appears to be a good time.

I'm sorry if you were abused as a child, whatever form it took. It has certainly left some scars. Do you think your god encouraged Paul to discourage marriage for these reasons?

Not obvious. Extraordinary claim, citation needed.

I've not studied Hinduism as much as I have the Abrahamic religions. I don't need gods to explain anything or fill in the gaps in my knowledge. Oddly though, I can appreciate a many gods approach to religion much better than a single god approach. The Abrahamic god is a straight up asshole, imo, and that's all you get. Ganesh, however, is a patron of the sciences and arts, and if you don't like him, there are a couple of others. Infinite power seems better suited to a pantheon than a single entity, if you're going to believe in the supernatural.

This is yet another reason I use the word "trust" instead of faith wrt science. Faith is for religion, where the sources are unobservable so belief needs to ignore conditions. Trust always has conditions when it comes to what you believe.

Some of us prefer to trust in the things we believe. Gods are unobservable by choice, which is far too coincidental for me. It's OK that you don't understand gravity and prefer to make up some garbage rather than study science. Intellectual pursuits aren't for everyone, and I hope you find a lot of comfort in your invisible sky buddy. Truly.

! Moderator Note Pasting the same post twice? This is the very definition of soapboxing. If you're done with discussion, I'll need to close this.

We can keep it simpler. It's all belief because it's what people believe. The difference is what it's based on. Faith is based on belief in powers we don't observe but are convinced of their existence. Trust is based on belief in what can observe and quantify and explain scientifically. Wishful thinking is based on belief in what we hope is true. Faith might tell me I'll live eternally as some kind of heavenly soul being. Trust tells me my consciousness will fail as my body does, and when the body is dead "I" will cease to exist. Wishful thinking tells me some part of me will still be thinking thoughts after my body is gone. This is the way I've always defined belief.

It's no surprise that you don't understand, but I find your willful ignorance a bit disgusting. This is a debate you can have with yourself, as my ethical stance on abortion doesn't recognize your waffling and judgemental unreasonableness.

Before it can actually live separately from the woman?!

I've often wondered if divergence isn't a natural response to the many dichotomies present in modern societies. When everyone is telling you that your society is all about freedom, yet you experience the opposite, divergence from the norm seems like a reasonable response.

Sorry, neurodivergence defines human neurocognitive functions only. But your idea is valid when talking about people, so by all means let's talk about people.