iNow

I freely admit that I’m biased against argument via hand waving and empty “what-if” speculation in favor of measurable testable evidence in support. Not all bias is bad. The best ideas will always withstand criticism. It’s important to be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out. This is a science forum. If you want to post on a wild assed guess forum, then do so, but I’d say you and your ideas posted here have been treated both respectfully and with more kindness than most. Maybe you just need a thicker skin (or, even better, a better argument). Thus far, I’m open to the idea that consciousness and mind may extend farther throughout nature than our society currently believes, but I find your attempts to convince others of that possibility thus far rather lacking (and also off topic here in this thread). You seem only to see data which supports your preconceived conclusions. There is bias, and it’s in your sampling approach and cherry picking.

Those on the margins, or those who don’t like Trump but like Biden even less, will be less likely to cast their vote for Trump. Yes, it’s marginal, but with the electoral college system this race will be won or lost based on a few hundred votes in states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Not only that, but the jury was picked with involvement from Trumps own legal team. They helped select the jurors in the first place, but as always in our modern dystopic political arena:

And yet you persist in being trivially wrong In similar spirit, this thread should go dormant

You need education. Subspecies doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means You must also think calico cats are a different subspecies from black cats and white gray ones. I’m sorry your day gets so confusing every time you walk passed the bell peppers in the produce section of your local market.

Haley coming out and endorsing him was example number one of how tied to this cult of personality the whole party has become. Governor Hogan seems to be the only one with enough of a spine to continue stating what's factually true, and he's paying a price for it. But when Haley came out to endorse? I literally shook my head and palmed my face.

Ethics, too ✌🏼 His lawyers are already appealing.

So much so that many in the legal community are suggesting she’s guilty of conspiracy.

Just stay on topic, dude. You’re not Galileo

Huh?

Peer review helps minimize this issue in science, and helps tremendously despite not being perfect. However, groupthink is off-topic in this thread here (whether or not it's applied to religiosity or scientific method)

Can you find an office phone or open cubicle somewhere? Break room, perhaps?

OP probably lacks sufficient education to avoid such simplistic stereotypes

Also whether on mobile or laptop

This seems about as likely as humans becoming infinite

Religiosity is most likely tied to our tribal tendencies and adherence to group norms and mores. Members of the tribe who acted and behaved in ways contrary to local social expectations tended to find themselves ostracized or separated from the group and so consequently lost access to food, protection, and access to mates for reproduction (I.e. they were selected against). Cooperation and shared explanatory narratives fed cohesion, basically. Belief in god(s), however, is slightly different than religiosity and is far more likely related to our abilities around mental rehearsal of interactions with unseen others and our tendency while young toward accepting stories from parents and tribal elders.

Number of humans isn’t the issue. As others have mentioned, it’s how we use our resources. Reducing our numbers doesn’t solve that challenge.

Yes, sometimes even all at once.

My worldview is a work in progress, evolving, not static. Changes with experience and based on context. <insert random Nietzsche quote>

W.I.P.

Untrue! 🥸

Spending more time outdoors in motion and getting exercise coupled with consistent good sleep is no panacea, but they do hit the intended target rather often and forcibly

How to change everything? Just wait.

That works. I was mostly trying to be cognizant that not all religions are the same. I was trying to account for Buddhism etc. and focus more on those which suggest women were made from a man’s rib and silly stuff like that.

We use it for convenience because saying “best currently accepted internally and externally consistent provisionally validated model” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. Things can be true within certain context and parameters, but much like proofs are for maths, truths tend to be for tyrants.