iNow

The system of the whole train is not. The individual cars are, in which case he’s mixing frames (pretending that the cars being in different places is equivalent to the train as a whole being in more than one place). He thinks he’s being clever.

If you’re struggling with my wormhole example, let me present an alternative. If our framework is an Excel spreadsheet sorted alphabetically by name, then Saturn truly is closer to Sun than Earth is to Sun. That’s all I’m saying. Everyone is making claims about truths and facts and I’m simply saying they’re not universal. They depend on the framework… or frame of reference if you prefer. I don’t generally spout nonsense, regardless of how often my wife might assert otherwise. ✌️

This definition really only seems to apply at the margins. The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. Not believing is not the same as actively believing in none. https://theweek.com/articles/476559/rise-atheism-america

I didn't say it was off-topic. I said it was unrelated to the subtopic of the actual exchange taking place between me and MigL. Here's the play-by-play / paint by numbers version for you: MIGL: No one has the right to dictate to others what their opinion should be. INOW: Who exactly do you believe is doing this? Can you name names? MIGL: No one has the right to take that choice [of whether or not to be courteous] away from you. INOW: Who precisely do you believe is trying to remove that choice from you? Can you name names? MIGL: If someone sues you for repeatedly calling them by the 'wrong' pronoun, it goes to court, and the judge rules that you are in violation of their personal rights. INOW: Right, but getting sued in court has literally nothing to do with others "dictating your opinion" or others "removing choices from you." You've evaded my question and answered with a red herring. That red herring is not what we were actually talking about in our last several posts and replies to one another. Hence, your question to me: ... suggests only that you were not reading closely enough OR are attempting to attack me for something I did not actually say. Which is it? In this thread, in writing, other members suggested that trans individuals may simply be delusional. So, yes. I think that's going on here and that's precisely what I was referencing. No amount of handwaving or disingenuous posting will change that.

There are different "flavors" of atheist, but pretty much all of them simply mean "not theist." It's right there in the word... A (not) - theist. But there is weak atheism: I don't believe in god or gods. And there is strong atheism: I actively believe there are NO gods. These are subtly, but importantly different. There's also agonistic atheism (I don't believe, but cannot know for sure), and agnostic theism (I do believe, but cannot be sure I'm right). Anyway... looks like our OP was just here to spam us anyway, and I have strong beliefs about spammers.

Within our current framework, you are correct.

I'm fairly sure we're not as far apart on this as you're making it seem. My core point is that God will never be mentioned in the Methods section of their paper. The reason? It's totally and completely irrelevant to the experiment itself, even if on a personal / psychological level it is motivating factor.

In what way and by what mechanism?

It's unclear to me why you think we disagree. I mentioned nothing of intellectual dishonesty. I said they must leave their beliefs out of the picture entirely and pretend their personal version of god(s) don’t actually matter while engaged in that science. Is it that I used the word "pretend" when mentioning their god was irrelevant to the processes they are studying?

But now you're moving the goalposts. You spoke of others dictating your opinion. You spoke of others removing your choices. Neither of those things are happening, and now in response you've switched over instead to talking about a response based on actual actions... not a response to your opinion... not a response to your choices or preferences... a response to your actions... You "repeatedly called them by the wrong pronoun," which is different from choosing to think they're wrong or having an opinion that they're ridiculous. It's also a red herring unrelated to the actual topic we were covering together. In addition to this, it's all of the opportunities we fail to pursue because we keep spinning our wheels on dumb stuff like this... Like instead of addressing climate change, we have to devote attention to false claims that the election was stolen... instead of addressing universal health care, we devote attention to death panels, etc. The opportunity cost imposed by these social wedge issues is yuge! I'm sure you'll get over it.

To repeat my previous query which wasn't directly answered: Who precisely do you believe is trying to remove that choice from you? Can you name names?

Let's say one day we figure out how to open wormholes, and it turns out for some reason that it's easier to wormhole to Saturn from the Sun than to wormhole to Earth from the Sun. Seems unlikely, but at least my framing is future-proofed and accounts for those possibilities. My framing is less likely to be inaccurate as new things are learned and discovered... it's a fact within the current framework, and if the framework some how changes later it will not necessarily be a fact in that other framework. Hope this helps. "Truth" is a term with lots of baggage. If there's a better path to letting go of that baggage, then it's generally a good idea to take it, IMO. It's not a truth value, though. We're actually asserting a likelihood of validity or accuracy. Truth has too many skeletons in the closet My position here about respecting the distinction between truth and facts is quite similar to respecting the difference between faith and trust that so often comes up in these god conversations.

Again though, who exactly do you believe is doing this? Can you name names?

To be perfectly clear, I'm not assuming you're transphobic. I'm suggesting you potentially have blindspots on this topic about which you may not be consciously aware.

I recommend trying one at a time instead of all at once

Cue spam link from another new user account in 3...2...

You’re welcome

Mixed feelings, and this thread has crossed my mind. I watched it and laughed, as I usually do when watching him perform. He makes insightful points and challenges sacred cows. I read the controversy and felt the criticism toward him was misdirected… and like you said, sometimes being made without actually having seen the special… a bit of a bandwagon effect… but I kept listening and I kept reading. I had blind spots that required illumination. In the end, I think he pushed it a bit too far, but I support leaving the special up. Points that later resonated with me and gave texture to my thinking were that he seemed to be applauding only those trans individual who in his words could take a joke… like his trans friend that killed themself (or like infosciences previously mentioned Asian friends in this thread who “Just roll with it” when mocked and made fun of or when left out). I accept this counter claim that expecting everyone to take the joke means he’s in parallel needlessly piling on to the already overwhelming negative feedback and hurtful comments noncomedians so often level at trans individuals every single. Even in this thread on this site filled with smart critical thinking people we've seen trans individuals described as having mental problems and being delusional and attention seeking… we’ve seen people assigned female at birth and asking to be identified as male today as equivalent to someone saying its racist to call black berries black… so I’m sympathetic to the idea that we should stop kicking people when they’re already down. I realize that comedians do this as part of,their jobs, though. Nobody is off-limits for kicking and that’s an important part of comedy. It’s not like he’s a university professor or elected official or ideological movement leader after all, so I tend to cut him some slack. The counter claim that gave me the most pause is how he identified himself as a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist). That’s a group known for a long history of spouting bile and nastiness and hatred and vitriol at the trans community. Maybe he wasn’t fully aware of this history when dressing himself with that label, but that’s really no excuse IMO. If you call yourself a nazi, you’ll have to deal with how others authentically respond to that. He called himself a TERF, and that has a violent connotation so it’s unsurprising people have reacted this way. I laughed at many of his jokes, though. I like Dave Chapelle and have for many years. I especially liked how he handled the murder of George Floyd by Chauvin in his 8 Minutes and 46 Seconds video on YouTube. We all need to laugh sometimes, especially at ourselves, and laughter often helps clarify difficult truths, but we must also remain vigilant with our own thoughts… we must be perpetually aware of and cautious about how others feel when we start (or keep) laughing at them.

Didn’t realize it mattered to others how easy something is for you personally to read. Fascinating approach to communication and clarity you seem to have. Next time maybe try Comic Sans or Wingdings to achieve the full effect

Speaking of EM waves… Is there a rational explanation for why you’ve chosen a horrible impossible to read yellow font?

Shocker It's actually the opposite of this. Proofs are for math. Science is always at best provisional and based on evidence. Here again we see the problems which ensue when you continue using sloppy language and imprecise thought. +1 for this acknowledgement. Progress

Actually, you were pointing that out about this site here, and the members in THIS community taking the time to respond to you... not society at large. You also appear to be doing so as a method of evasion of questions you obviously struggle to answer. If you want better answers, stop being so sloppy in your posts. So? Sloppy thinking is only ever correct by accident. Science is a method of minimizing human bias and sloppiness. If that bothers you, then maybe stop voluntarily posting at a site dedicated to enthusiasm for science and its methods.

Lots of folks here would be more than happy to engage you on this, to point out flaws, and even to support certain points. You simply need to do so with a certain degree of rigor. You need to work harder to support claims which fall outside of the mainstream. Don't bitch and moan if you're unwilling to do that work, and don't lie about what's actually happening. This has nothing to do with nobody wanting "to address the issue." The desire is simply to ensure we do so in a productive way that's more than a wild-assed guess / shotgun approach / arm waving nonsense spewing. Lots of folks come here with ideas, and they get a fair hearing, but you need to do your part instead of claiming victimhood like an immature child.

Yeah, you know... except for that 5 decades of demanding and questioning evidence. Hard to believe it's nearly 2022 and comments as profoundly ignorant as this one still continue being made. It's off-topic, anyway. Climate science isn't a religion, nor does it have bearing on the actual question of whether scientists can themselves be religious (which has the laughably simple answer of yes)

Please don't move the goal posts nor strawman me. I've used reason throughout my post and elucidated at length why I shared what I did. I am open to challenge and correction, but I supported my statements implying that maybe he really does have a problem with sexual identity, even if perhaps he's not conscious of it. You're welcome to disagree with my assessment, but not to suggest I'm asserting he's transphobic. I expect better. 🙄