dimreepr

34 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Which discussion? It's relevant to the discussion of some things - like the prevalence of bigotry in human cultures. It's relevant to the psychology of mass manipulation and self-esteem. "Science", whoever she is, might not give a shit, and it shouldn't matter to physicists and chemists, but no scientist in the fields of medicine, psychology or anthropology can ignore it. 

Indeed, nor should they. 

But as Nietzsche suggests, not everyone is equal and it takes a great man/person to point out the difference.

7 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Others made it relevant whether he wished it or not. Your criticism seems nonsensical.

No, 'he' made it relevant to others, when 'he' wrote the book; every other biggoted argument just used a different word.

12 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

(dimreepr, is the incorrect "you're" in your signature ironic?)

Depends on the subject. 🙏

11 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Given the vociferous and frequently malicious nature of the attacks on evolutionary biology by the US christian right in particular, I think Dawkins strikes the right tone. Sufficiently punchy to attract the attention of the uncommitted, yet not sinking to the level of the opposition. Got to remember who the target audience is - it isn't to the regular contributors to scienceforums.net. We more than any should allow him his leeway and applaud his contribution.

Personally, I'd have gone for the title 'Satanic Verses' but I understand someone else got there first.

His delusion is that 'god' is relevant to the discussion; much like every other biggoted argument.

Science doesn't give a shit what 'people' believe, some scientists do...

14 hours ago, MSC said:

Well I appreciate you and your passion also. Ehrfucht vom der leben! I've just never been one to ignore the elephant in the room, hence my profile pic!

You should have a read of Schwietzers declaration of conscience too, you'd appreciate it. There is also an article called Blacklisting Schweitzer by Laurence S Wittner that details a lot of what was being done collaboratively in the late 1950s and early 60s to sway public opinion against nuclear testing that I think would interest you, if you've not already read it of course!

Global zero will probably never happen in our lifetimes but the groundwork has been laid and if people don't pick up the torch, then and only then is it an impossible goal. 

I'm 30! I've still got a few good years of naivete left in me I think.

Regimes rise and fall, Putin, Kim and Khamenei are all mortal men with an expiration date, opinions and policies change. You are old enough to know that the world does in fact change as you've lived through more of those changes than I have. 

But hey, I'm more than happy to steelman your points. Let's say for the sake of argument, that the dismantling of the global nuclear deterrence apparatus is impossible. I don't think it is but for the sake of argument I'll run with it for a tick.  Without people actively fighting against it, it could be argued that our very presence as global zero advocates tempers humanities worst inclinations and decelerates the approach to midnight, while actively accelerating the technogical advancement of defensive technologies. Big stick meets big shield. 

Mass murder of non-combatants by nuclear weapon = Morally acceptable?

Extortion and blackmail of criminals and psychopaths to stave off a nuclear apocalypse = Morally reprehensible? 

How is the latter not the lesser of two evils in your mind?

MigL I respect you as a person I really do but your arguments aren't very strong or convincing to be honest, at least not to me. The reason being that I've read so much on this subject that you're not going to be able to dismantle it all and convince me otherwise with just a few paragraphs. It isn't even my arguments you need to dismantle but the arguments made by people who have been making these arguments decades before I was even born. Like it or not it's the truth. Same goes for @swansont and the arguments he's made, they just aren't very strong or convincing and that isn't on me but on you guys. I'm not the type to listen to what amounts to "because I said so.", I'm sorry but that's just not going to happen. 

Nobody is suggesting that anyone should let their guard down. 

Great so now that songs gonna be stuck in my head for a week. Thanks Dim. 

TBH, I'm indifferent to the issue, it doesn't even crack my top 20 of thing's to give a shit about; why would I waste my emotional energy, spending my daily chip allowance needs deeper problem's to warrant a reasonable return on my investments. 

Quote

The God Delusion is a 2006 book by British evolutionary biologist and ethologist Richard Dawkins. In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist, and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

Who thinks he's right and why.

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Did not get what Dawkins din't get

I'll start a new topic, you can can ask me there.

40 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Also an advocate for Global Zero here.  The Brookings paper makes some strong arguments for continuing to work on this - the  mountain seems steeper now, alas, with Putin rekindling the Cold War and saber rattling crazily.  I hugely appreciate your passion on this - the world needs to be aware of that Damoclean sword over its head and agitating for its removal.

Bingo.

Yep.  And that's part of why Global Zero is, however distant, a pragmatic approach to global security and species survival.  When the stakes are this high, gambling on continued good luck is a bad idea.   

 

Utopia is the clue here, sure take steps towards zero but who cares, as long as it's not the final countdown, bc tomorrow we'll be faced with an even bigger stick and it doesn't matter who wields it, good or evil it's all the same in the end... 😉

For instance, are you sure Utopia is a good guy with a perfect defence system?

19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Pop-science journalism is an extension of science and promulgating basically the conclusions of science. I persist in saying that there is a prevailing negative undertone in science. As if we are still hung up on what religion entailed for society as a whole in the past. As if the counter revolution never stopped. The mere mention of religion or god gets everyone riled up.

If anything it's the other way round, if for pop-science we say philosophy; science just wants to get on with it, without all those peskie journos asking personal question's, it only gets heated when god is used as an excuse to not try and understand (edit, gods, something else Dawkins was confused by 🙄); if you make an honest mistake the scientists are quite tolerant and happy to explain why.

You, my friend is treading a fine line, as did I when I joined this forum and sometimes continue to do so, the difference between now and then is, I learned to listen to these fine people, before I argued with them.

I'd hate to see you banned. 

22 hours ago, MSC said:

Not to mention this stick is just as likely to burn the hand that wields it as it is to burn the person being hit with it.

The 'only time' it was an effective weapon was in Japan; now, it's just a weapon of revenge, whomsoever pulled the trigger first; it's built into the contract, no one can afford to be seen too flinch.

7 hours ago, MSC said:

If you start to believe the possible to be impossible, you'll never take steps to achieve what may be achievable. 

- https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-a-world-without-nuclear-weapons-really-possible/

That's me all done with this topic for today. Need sleep. Goodnight MigL.

If you're facing who you think is a psycho, would you put down your gun?

The best we can achieve is for all side's to take out one bullet at a time, the entropy of collateral damage, we'll just be left with one (probably a secret 10) each.

Such is the meaning of life...

10 hours ago, MSC said:

The OP asked why the use of nuclear weapons was necessary to end the war, the war may have been going on but we've already covered that so too were peace talks, negotiations for surrender and an internal desire to surrender in Japan which knew it was being badly beaten and was about to have a new front opened onto it via the Russians. 

Indeed, the answer is a bigger stick is difficult to define if enough of you continue to wield it...

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

That it is still possible to find slow television - a series that doesn't have to land a narrative hook in you in the first couple minutes.  That takes its time.   Lots and lots of time, looking around at everything in sight, no constant buzz of dialog.

They had a go with Dune and the children of dune, but it seems Marvel is more conducive to the screen...

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Trivial? This is an entirely different worldview than what was being promulgated. Maybe most physiologists and system biologists have come to the realization that the genome holds limited capacity, but the worldview that they espouse and communicate has not "adapted" to this change in circumstance. The way in which you responded to my latest post is testament to this.

The "major" part of your contention is being questioned by recent evidence. It see more an "interplay" in the litterature.

Why bring this up when no one as I know it is doing so.

What are you trying to prove here?

That 'we' don't fully understand is trivially demonstrable, that you think you do is trivially denied; if you think that equal's a stalemate, you need to learn chess... 

21 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Again, you are trying to obfuscate the issue, you are being deceptive, the book you are discussing is not just any book, you are trying to say you are talking about books in general while you continue to quote a specific book of mythology. I do not require mythology, from a book or otherwise to learn. 

Again you're being to literal, at a certain level of complexity even science becomes a sort of mythology for most of us, as in a famous example from Richard Feynman, he explains why a mirror reflects us the way it does.

The poker reference I made earlier, is analogous also; every player gets their card's equally, it's the card's themselves that are not equal, the player's choice is whether or not to play the hand dealt, or wait for the next and learn about the other player's, those with little experience play every hand; the aggressive player will go all in on the first hand and win, bc the experienced player knows to fold unfavorable card's. That player think's he's learned something valuable, every hand can win; what he doesn't understand is, why he never wins a tournament.

21 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I do not require mythology, from a book or otherwise to learn.

We 'all' start our learning journey with a little mythology, bc we need it as base on which to build our understanding. 

No one wins every hand, even the tournament champ...

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I don't need a book to bolster my ideology much less a book of nonsense. If your ideology is based on faith then you have no vision. Be that as it may you cannot know my mind, so you cannot know that I have faith in anything much less a book. You lost a suckers bet. 

Way to miss the point, I don't need a book/teacher is essentially a blnd faith; or did you spontaneously learn everything?

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

My point is that you used "The Bible" in your quote but insinuated that you were just talking about books in general instead of the specific book of bs called "The Bible" I do not believe "The Bible" so you lose the bet. It was a fools bet but instead of admitting you can't know my thoughts you used your usual tactic of doubling down to bring kaos into the conversation.   

I talked about belief in general and the varying degrees of belief, specifically our need for some sort of bible to bolster our ideology; blind faith is a different conversation.

In poker, the nuts represent a winning hand, it doesn't matter what you believe... 😉

On 4/20/2024 at 12:54 PM, julius2 said:

Looking for some intelligent thought about this:

Been looking at online video's to update my knowledge about such things as the Big Bang, exploration in the universe, the concept of time etc.

I come back to where we are now. I am aware there is ongoing space exploration going on but on the off chance that all of this becomes fruitless what is the summary?

What we know for sure is this planet - the trees, ocean, animals, life, sun etc.  We are secretly optimistic that we will "find" something that will extend the reign of humanity in time. But as the years pass and there is a lack of any new discovery we are left with how special this planet actually is.

At the moment we have a leakage in human consciousness about looking to the outside universe and the vastness that entails. But if this option is closed off I predict we will take a closer look at our own planet. In this case we would have to consider the finiteness of resources such as oil and uranium which power us as people. As an intelligent species I imagine a gentle decline as we seek to use more sustainable resources. (Or there may be a more warlike history). And more global policies come in to play as nations work together to ensure continual survival.

In which case eventually life on this planet will end. Humankind didn't get to conquer space and the rest of the universe. In which case what would happen now? Perhaps the universe stops expanding and then starts to contract into an interesting state. And then who knows what happens next, is another universe born again etc.

And we are left wondering what this is all about. Luckily this is a big planet so we have a while to go. As an observer in the 21st century I wondering if anyone has thought of such an angle. Is there any intelligent thought about this? I am happy to be wrong about everything providing there is some logic.

 

(If anyone knows of a better forum in which to post this please let me know.)

We will eat until the food runs out, the planet doesn't need to eat, so it will survive us; the end of the world will happen much later than we are late... 😉

19 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Bible, in this context, doesn't mean just any book and you know this, so stop trying to be deceptive. 

Yes, it literally does mean that, in this 'rapist bible' context and the in the context of my post.

19 hours ago, Moontanman said:

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it

My point exactly! 

What exactly is your point? Please elaborate.

12 hours ago, toucana said:

The passage about “Jesus and the woman taken in adultery” (John 7:53-8:11) is an interesting and  problematic quotation, because it doesn’t appear in a number of early Greek texts; while some other variant texts place it in a completely different gospel - after Luke 21:38 instead.

https://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html

It’s known as the pericope adulterae and is usually regarded as a pseudepigraphical interpolation into the text of John by a later scribe.

It was apparently regarded with some misgivings by early christian fathers who thought it could imply that Jesus was sympathetic to adultery.

The way I view that passage is that he's (someone) simply pointing out that we're all human beings and as such we're all capable of human behaviours, good and bad; "there but for the grace of god go I"

Quote

 

People point to a number of religious leaders as the source of this expression, which means that I, too, could be in such a situation if it weren’t for the grace of God.

It is most widely attributed to John Bradford, who said it upon seeing criminals who were being lead to their execution in 1553. Bradford himself, who many credit with the phrase, was executed two years later for heresy. He was a Protestant living in Roman Catholic English.

 

Just now, Moontanman said:

Then you lose. 

OK, so you don't believe in any book or teaching? 

Let's toss this out to the crowd:

Quote

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone is a proverb that means we should not criticize others when we are not perfect ourselves12. It is a paraphrase of a quote from Jesus in the Bible (John 8:7), where he said this to the people who wanted to stone a woman caught in adultery32. The expression can also be used as let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her or to throw the first stone

I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Want to bet? 

I'm a poker player, with the nuts, so I'm all in...

31 minutes ago, MSC said:

I'm a pragmatic centrist who sees each issue of political policy as having it's own requirements for dealing with it effectively.

I'm a realist, it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always win...

But let's get this lot out... 😉

8 hours ago, MSC said:

I personally find the title to line up well literally and metaphorically. Trump has literally raped people (and tbh I think we all suspect there is more than one victim of his on that front) and on the metaphorical front he raped the USA, is raping the wallets and pockets of his imbecilic followers, is raping the legal system and I bet @dimreepr would agree that now he's metaphorically raping the bible. 

This comment is in no way meant to trivialize the real act of rape; I'd never describe a garden variety bad experience as metaphorical rape, but when I think about all the things TFG has done, how many he has done it to and the malignant effect his public presence has on both the USA and political discourse everywhere in the past and to this day, can you blame me for describing it as a rape? On a personal level too I have watched as my own fathers political views have been warped and changed from someone who was very much a working class liberal, into someone who wants to shoot "wokeists" and calls the majority of Palestinians terrorists. 

I'd also argue that cult leaders especially could be thought of as mind rapists. Just my two cents really.

Don't worry, the karma police have got him in their sights, I bet they're already twisting the metaphoric knife... 😉

BTW I don't think his followers are imbecilic, he's appealing to confused people because of very specious argument's, much like the screens we're all constantly glued to, so both literal and metaphor.

We 'all' have a bible that we believe, for many different reason's (including rapists), some are just better at interrogating what was meant when it was written and rapists just want to believe. 

7 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Not only that, The Donald now wants 5% of any funds raised by candidates using his name or likeness...

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-republican-campaigns-fundraising-name-face-5-percent-2024-4?op=1

He also tried to pawn his mugshot suit, in little squares; it took a lot of shop visits to fence that swag... 

I wonder if/when people will get the possibility that his business model isn't sustainable/much good... 

5 hours ago, CodeBreaker said:

Do you have scientific evidence you don't believe in God?

That's an interesting philosophical question, do you have scientific evidence you do believe in God?

5 hours ago, CodeBreaker said:

Do you have scientific evidence you don't believe in God? Also why are you being a dumb a.? If you choose not to believe females have a right not to be raped because "i don't believe in absolute morals" that doesn't mean "well I don't believe in absolute morals therefore I can't hate that females have a right not to be raped". May I rabidly insult your demonic psychopath self now? Say you have a dad you hate and put him out of your mind, and someone says, "you hate your dad" and you reply in childishness: "how can I hate him I don't think of him!" And if you love someone, you think of them. Are Satan's blinders coming off yet? Seeing your immaturity now? It's really bad man, it's stinking childishness. "But God how could I hate you I only said you didn't exist despite endless evidence, I didn't believe in you that is why I hated on your messengers and rejected Jesus' Golden Rule which I chose to reject and not lying, stealing and murdering." Good luck with that on Judgment Day, your "but God I chose not to believe and stay ignorant and stubborn". Try it, see if your rotting flesh isn't shredded with flails. Bless you.

Aww bless, you seem awfully confused, are you saying that a belief in god is necessary to not rape women?

Is that why some priest's choose to rape little boys?

19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am more like SpaceX, where I shoot rockets in the air and see them blow-up until maybe they fly.

SpaceX employ rocket 'scientists' for the basics, just saying.

19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

It's too late for me to change, because it would take me too much time to back-up and move forward.

And I would rather run and fall on my face than walk, again because time is of the essence for me.

I hate to be a prophet of doom, but that's the same for most of us, just never forget that this endeavour is little more than a parlour game, it doesn't matter who wins; so slow down and enjoy what you can learn from the view. 😉