Phi for All

18 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Wikipedia doesn't know what  conscience is. For me it is religious concept.

None of this has anything to do with evolution, but how do you explain how so many atheists live moral, compassionate lives without a god to urge them or force them into it? How do you explain when non-religious people have a very well-developed conscience? Could it be that morality doesn't need religion to be effective? Could it be that judging people the way you do isn't really moral at all? I actually think it's immoral that you love a god that wants to torture me for eternity. Shame on you!

34 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

...not only creationists. There's a lecture of N.dG.Tyson, astrophysicist, in which he says that life on Earth made of the same elements the Universe does. And that the Universe is inside us. Now i understand it's absolutely true.

Well, that's something completely different. Of course we're made up of the same elements the universe has available. That doesn't mean individuals evolve during their own lifetime. Evolution's effects are only seen as succeeding generations happen. 

It's very difficult to talk science with you when you have SO MANY misconceptions and yet you still think your arguments from ignorance are relevant. You don't know what you don't know, and it shows.

39 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

But it was imaginary situation, you could think of any plot, but you've chosen this one. So you literally made your neighbors think that all swans are white. And asked me whether i would tell them that there were black ones. As if it was the most tragedy in their lives. Well, it depends whether i'm ready to ruin someone's beliefs. And it's up to a person to attach to one's beliefs or not.

The benefit of a thought experiment is that you can arrange the situation to fit a need. I needed you to tell me how you would deal with a neighbor who didn't understand something but believed his god had done it, that's all. You first told me you would tell them the truth, but now it sounds like you would let them believe what you know is a lie (that god is the one taking care of their trash). I've known a LOT of Christians who believed like this, that it's better to let someone believe in a lie than to question their faith. 

It's funny though. It sounds like you want to tell people about the lies of science and other religions, but when it comes to YOUR religion, it's better to let people believe what they want. Isn't that funny?

2 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

They screwed up, and making supernatural claims. Calling it "scientific claim" doesn't make it one.

Nice to know it was a mistake trying to discuss this with you. Enjoy always being right.

5 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I don't think scientologist claims count. Otherwise, I'd have to count absolutely everything any random person made.

You claimed religion doesn't make scientific claims about how things function in the natural world, that "none of them are scientific claims". iNow pointed out it just takes ONE example to make your statement false. Then you started to waffle about it.

Look, attempts at Intelligent Design being taught in US schools are chock full of examples of religion rewriting science and making scientific claims. Can you please admit it's wrong to generalize and just move on with this discussion?

2 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

None of them are scientific claims

31 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You expect me to know every detail of every claim that as ever been made.

You made a mistake here. Can you acknowledge it and move on?

1 hour ago, ttelect said:

Apparently I have been given a "Moderator Note" for 'preaching.

To preach is to EARNESTLY ADVOCATE for whatever the cause is. I find this to be discrimination on SCIENCE found. Regardless of what or where it comes from, if it is proven, it should be considered Science still. 

 

Anyone to mention the GOD particle should be considered religious then, and we know this isn't the case. Consequences should be given to primitive thinking people simply wanting their ears itched by what their primitive professors taught them. They are all bound to the culture they face. The Science I spoke of is beyond our very culture, beyond our very selves. 

Do you know how discussion works? Please get down off the soapbox if you want to talk.

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

It is your belief what others think.

I believe it because I can gather evidence to support my statement. I TRUST what I said, rather than have FAITH in it. I said, "...you can't deny there are many people who attribute things they don't understand to their gods". Haven't you ever heard about how the Christians persecuted early scientists like Galileo for claiming the Earth revolved around the sun, because the Bible claims in Psalms that the god set the Earth on its foundations so it can't be moved? The Bible claims rabbits have split hooves in Deuteronomy, and that all flying insects walk on all fours in Leviticus, so it's NOT just my belief what others think. I have evidence. Surely you see that?

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

But what about a well known fact that we can see whole in small.

I assume this is that weak macro vs micro argument creationists always bring out. Well, you're forgetting all the time involved (can I also assume you also believe your god is fooling everyone about the age of the Earth?). Small changes each generation over tens of thousands of generation produces speciation. You really should study before ridiculing.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

It is also your belief what others think.

I'm not sure if it's a language barrier, or a reasoning barrier, or just you trying to obfuscate because you have no good arguments, but this response is just weird. I gave you a scenario about my imaginary neighbors, I told you what they were thinking because they told me. I was asking you what you would do if faced with that situation in real life. You answered it, briefly, when you said you would tell them the truth. Ever since then, you've avoided answering further.

I just wanted to show you how people can be wrong in their religious beliefs, like all of us can be wrong. The difference is, science uses information we can TRUST, so we don't get caught in a process where we just blindly believe things we can't support.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Now I am a bit confused on individual vs collective survival. 

I'm not sure why what I said would confuse you in quite this way. By definition, evolution happens within a population over time. It's a mistake to think of individuals unless those individuals are successfully reproducing to pass their genes along to future generations.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Apparently so does ignorance since it seems they tend to reproduce in far higher numbers than the non-ignorant 

There’s an old quote about not judging a fish based on its ability to climb a tree.  Do you know that one? 

Likewise, we should never judge the intelligence of a deaf friend based on their ability to detect perfect tones or discover the familiar voice of a loved one amidst the cacophony of a crowd. 

There are limitless contexts to which intelligence may be applied, and similarly endless “shapes” of “intelligence.” 

Does this entity have skills accurately recalling past events? Does it have skills accurately forecasting futures today unwritten?

Does this entity have the ability shape the surrounding environment, to build a dam, or construct a nest? Is the entity an individual or a colony of individuals farming and building mounds? Does it have the ability to camouflage itself with chromatophores and control 8 legs independently all at once?

Does this entity have a sense of self? Does it process and remember sounds better or do they process and remember sights better? Are they good at calculating complex math in their head without pen paper or tool? Are they able to fix a tractor using a spoon and some duct tape, or resolder a computer chip?

Is this entity a gifted author or poet, or do they perhaps build amazing pieces of artwork and exhibit quality craftsmanship using wood or gems or edible ingredients on dinner plates? Are they good at puzzles or playing Tetris? Are they good at getting unlost along the side of a towering mountain, or avoiding icy spots driving down winter roads?

Do they regularly find insights into the mysteries of the cosmos that intelligent others for centuries before them walked passed simply unaware? Do they know how to predict a tornado, or collect nutrients months in advance before getting covered for months by a frozen layer of tundra? Do they know how to sense and avoid dangers and plan for future security, and can they do anything to act on those plans and make them real?

Or, are they simply going with the flow like a twig in the shoulders of a mighty stream?

All of these things involve “intelligence,” but intelligence doesn’t require all of those things. Sometimes intelligence is simply being kind to the person in front of you, or perhaps sharing your nitrogen with the trees beside you, remembering to breathe and be grateful your skins not turning blue. 

And let’s say “all of nature” is intelligent. Okay, super. So what? Does that mean she knows how to simmer a great gumbo, or that she can manufacturer computer chips by the billions at a 3nm scale? Does it mean she’s really good at fractions and calculus, or drawing hyper accurate maps of cities? 

No, of course not, so why use the term “intelligent” at all when it would likely be better to focus on specific things that are far more relevant and interesting… like asking whether the tree that fish is trying to climb happens to currently be underwater. 

Oh, yes. +1

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Wait. I mentioned that this example is incorrect, but you insist on it. It is incorrect in the core.

It's not  religious belief, it's immaturity. Faith is not about waiting for God to do my work for me.

It's not YOUR religious belief, but you can't deny there are many people who attribute things they don't understand to their gods. They don't believe in evolution because they never studied it, they only learned to ridicule it.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Are  you waiting your neighbors to "evolve" from the country neighbors to respectful city neighbors?

Evolution doesn't happen to individuals. We see whole populations evolve as each successive generation carries their traits forward to the next.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Why have you mentioned that they are from the country?

To let you know that my neighbors didn't realize that, in the city, their taxes paid for city trash services. They didn't know where their trash was going, and assumed it was their god answering their prayers.

42 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

And i don't see a problem in this imaginary scenario , though you ask for imaginary advice. As for me i would try to make friends with those neighbors and explained about trash. If they didn't pick up the trash I would do it for them, when i notice that trash.

So you would explain that it's the city that sends trucks around early in the morning to collect trash cans, and not their god? You would correct their religious beliefs about trash pickup because you know the real explanation and feel it would be wrong not to help them?

59 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

2 + 2 = 4, no theory involved as this is easily proven.  So math is never theory, it either works or it fails which makes it wrong not a theory

Maths are used to model theories. The Lambda Cold Dark Matter model supports the Big Bang Theory, for instance.

1 hour ago, Paulsrocket said:

which is why dark matter was invented as without the missing mass the math fails, and the universe can't be proven. 

You're mixing standards here. Proofs are for maths (and formal logic). Theories are NEVER "proven", no explanation for anything in the universe is "proven". Theory is our best supported explanations, and the methodology works best if we always assume there's a better (or more detailed) explanation. When you think you've found an answer, you stop asking the question, so theory keeps us searching for better and better evidence for our explanations. Does that make sense to you?

1 hour ago, Paulsrocket said:

As for black holes they once claimed that nothing could escape, now they say different, 

No, you didn't read what swansont said. Hawking radiation happens just outside the event horizon. Nothing is entering and then finding enough energy to leave.

3 hours ago, WhatsThat said:

In wealthier and more educated areas, there is less litter. In fact, a stray can will be removed from the street quickly in a more affluent area. In poorer and less educated communities, litter is rife. A stray can will rust and decay before anyone lifts it from the ground.

Are you aware most communities in the US base education and sanitation expenditures on property values? In essence, this means wealthier areas receive more education funding, and better sanitation services BECAUSE they're wealthier. In poorer communities, far less is spent on education and sanitation so we get situations where "litter is rife", but you seem to be blaming the citizens for this. 

You make it sound like the rich are removing the stray trash cans themselves, so why shouldn't the poor? It gets removed quickly in the rich neighborhood because the trash services respond. It lingers in the poor area because the trash services don't respond, even after multiple complaints.

4 hours ago, WhatsThat said:

Maybe if normal people could adopt patches of areas instead of big corporations?

I thought big corporations wanted to be normal people?

4 hours ago, WhatsThat said:

If somehow average people could feel an attachment and investment in their own little space? I bet there would be a host of creative and beautiful settings if we could somehow get everyone to see Nature as part of a whole. After all, birds and trees and grass don't care how much someone makes......

My plan to implement your idea would be to raise the taxes on those big corporations to fair levels, tax top tier income so hard that the billionaires start investing instead of sitting on cash, and increase city services all across the board. Knowing that their government cares enough to invest in their communities, people will feel an attachment they don't now. I would welcome an effort to help citizens see the amazingness of nature and all it's bounty. 

I consider society to be a bargain between peoples. We agree to certain necessary rules (especially sanitation, health, and hygiene), and gain the benefits of working towards a meaningful level of prosperity and fulfillment. I want people to care about the environment we all live in, but I know it's difficult when big corporations pretend to care as they pollute and litter and also lobby away our social services and environmental regulations. 

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Why are you saying this? it's so incorrect that i don't know what to say.

How can a question be incorrect? I gave you a scenario and asked you a question about it, so how can "this" be "so incorrect" that you don't know what to say?

Pretend the scenario is happening to me and I'm asking you for advice. "Hey, mar_mar, my neighbors are from the country and don't understand that the city picks up trash cans that are put out at the curb. They think it's because they prayed for the trash to be dealt with, and God is answering their prayers. Should I let them keep thinking God picks up their trash cans, or should I tell them what's really happening?"

5 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Really?? I think this theory of evolution and a theory of bb are exactly matter of faith.

And this is because you haven't bothered to study science. You came here specifically to champion religion over science, without understanding either very much.

Imagine this: someone from the country moves to the big city. They tell you they've been putting their garbage in a can next to the street, and praying to god to take care of it. And each time they do that, god takes away the trash. They believe trash collection is a matter of faith. They don't know any better, and it seems like a miracle when the trash disappears overnight. You have the power to educate them, and tell them about how the city collects the trash, or you could let them believe their fantasy. What do you do?

5 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I didn't say a word about feelings. It was subconscious, the concept, which was underrated by some members of a forum. The thing is that one can't create a new work without participation of one's subconscious.

Underrated? That's not what we did. We pointed out that the term "subconscious" is being phased out in favor of better descriptive concepts. We explained it rather well, I thought, but you must not have read that part. To recap, the term subconscious isn't applicable in the context you're using it, so you got some pushback (not underrating). Specifically, "one can't create a new work without participation of one's" preconscious, the stuff that you aren't thinking of right now but can recall fairly quickly. The preconscious mind is what helps you solve problems, and where you'll find what you call "intuition".

Not entirely sure, but it looks like the unconscious mind and the preconscious mind are parts of the subconscious. So all preconscious thoughts are part of the subconscious, but not all subconscious thoughts are preconscious. Does that make sense? It's difficult discussing this with you since I don't think you care much about the actual science, and are focused on being right about your beliefs.

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Topics of most interest to GOP voters:

Well, there you go. Complete idiots. 

1. The US has the lowest rate of inflation in the G7 countries. The GOP voters aren't being told this.

2. Immigration is vital to any growing democracy. The GOP voters are being misled about this.

3. The objection is basically, "I don't want to hear how I've been manipulated as an American!" GOP voters don't seem to understand this perspective.

4. This is a two-party system problem, another thing the GOP voters are constantly misled about.

It's very sad and frustrating. Like watching Lennie with the rabbit, and trying to explain that he shouldn't hug it so hard, knowing he's not listening.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

First I am going to say +1, for actually answering another member.

First time that I can remember.

45 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

You sold your soul for 10 dollars, remember this day. And notice, how you feel, when i say that i don't need your soul even for 10 dollars, even for 1.

It's as if you said you don't place any value on the invisible purple unicorn I wanted to sell you for $10! Are you saying you don't NEED my invisible unicorn? Are you saying I might have imagined it to be real, but when faced with the absurdity of it all, realized I was being manipulated?

59 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Origin of life

Doesn't require a god. Science has some possibilities that don't require magic.

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

Origin of a man

No gods required. Humans evolved like the rest of the vertebrates, from tiny fish. 

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

Origin of a soul

Science has nothing to say about the supernatural.

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

Would you sell me your soul, which you don't believe in for 10 dollars?

Instantly! Please donate the money to a charitable cause of your choice. 

I don't feel any different, but I'll keep you posted occasionally. 

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

"Unfortunately, it is not possible to answer these questions because there is no confirmed definition of intelligence."

Exactly, and I think it's extremely sloppy to broaden the definition of "intelligence" just because cell communication has a similar pattern to sentient communication. IOW, I disagree with your author since I don't think there's a question there to be answered. Animal intelligence is completely different to the cellular processes described here. To equate the two is a big mistake and gives us no meaningful benefits. It's anthropomorphizing at the cellular level.

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

Why don't scientists just accept creation?

It's too farfetched. Can you point to ANYTHING that implies there is a creator behind the universe's mechanisms? Because I can point to an ENORMOUS body of evidence that explains those things, and none of them needs me to imagine something omnipotent that refuses to be observed. Have you heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes? Creationism seems exactly like that, people like you telling people like me that the naked Emperor's clothes sure do look great.

2 hours ago, mar_mar said:

And accept existence of God, because the science doesn't have proper instruments to prove.

One more time! Science isn't trying to "prove" anything. Science is looking for the best supported explanations. We don't need instruments to show us something that isn't there. 

2 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Too many questions, too many white spots. And people think, you know, people have capacity to think.

Thank you, this is EXACTLY the way I view the Abrahamic religions. I do have the capacity to think, you know, and that shows me your god probably isn't real. 

8 hours ago, mar_mar said:

They are.

That's why i responded that way.

Can you quote the people in this thread that are advocating for giving up their feelings and imagination? I've read through the whole thread, and I couldn't find a single one. So what are you talking about?

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

It might also be pointed out that this is a manufactured concern (surprise!) seeing as the number of immigrants in 2021 was about 1.5 million, lower than any pre-pandemic year this century. It was ~2.5 million a year under TFG, pre-pandemic

https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/

The party apparatus that spread lies about the 2020 election being stolen is using the same technique to spread lies about their opponents in 2024. They desperately want the White Public to think there are hordes of dark-skinned migrants crossing without inspection and overwhelming Border Patrol. And with that typical conservative put-that-out-with-gasoline mentality, trying to force Biden to shut down the asylum system just guarantees there will be an increase in illegal border crossings. 

I sincerely hope the entire planet can survive the death throes of the GOP. The ones calling the shots for the party right now are quite simply the scum of the Earth.

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

If Biden would deal with the border, that will neutralize the GOP's biggest weapon against him.

The GOP's biggest weapon is people like you. You ignore the ball & chain Congress put on Biden, and instead wonder why he's hobbling along. Did you ever question the numbers FOX News was throwing at you? When they claim the CBP "encountered" 250,000 migrants in November 2023, they're talking about people who walk up to the Port of Entry, people who cross irregularly but wait for BP to come collect them, as well as those irregulars who don't want to get caught. It's a TOTAL number, but when they phrase it like a Border Patrol encounter, the average viewer assumes it's all illegals.

8 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Don't listen to imaginative music, don't  watch imaginative movies, paintings, and don't read imaginative literature. Only documentaries and science fiction. And music of AI.

I think you missed the point entirely. The term "subconscious" is in question these days because it's been used as a catchall term for "things we aren't aware of", which is actually the definition of "unconscious". "Preconscious" is more accurate, and current debate is considering dropping the term "subconscious" professionally. At least that's what I've read.

Your reply would be more appropriate if people were rejecting feelings and imagination in favor of pure reason, but they're NOT.