dimreepr

I find it very difficult to believe that you'd walk past a dying person for a beer.

And if I emphasised the word NEED would you want too?

Anyone with a PhD knows an awful lot about very little.

I have faith in the late, great, Stephen Hawkin; he had all the tools and never found it. How will you know?

My point is, did you see that or hear it or did you scrutinise the evidence, fully understanding the subject at hand?

How often do you find a person in more need than you, and would you walk away because you fancy a beer? We see people in need every day, but they're not really people, they're pixels on a screen.

Do you have others?

Let's wait and see, personally, I wouldn't bet more than I can afford to lose either way.

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. - Marcus Aurelius

What makes you think politics doesn't include the scientific community?

How do you know what the truth is (people lie)? Some people know what the truth is but don't want to admit it, even to themselves, because it's something they don't want face.

Yin and Yang

Do you?

Who would have thought that such hilarity would be played out in the real world?

The chemistry of being called a fucking moron perhaps.... wait for laughtiming (oh shit).

God damn it, puppy, I thought you had a point but not this BS, now I feel foolish. OK back to the topic, it may have rational arguments but they can never be definitive. I think it's more likely they use the wager to defend a position they believe but can't prove, and my point is there's nothing inherently wrong with that, for instance, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies yet he's still celebrated.

In what universe?

I bow to your greater knowledge, but there's always a but. https://quotational.com/author/sheldon-cooper/

Guilty (my bad), for is read maybe.

My only point is, it's possibly not entirely correct because we need something we can't see/observe (or understand why we can't see/observe) to explain it in full, all observations so far say it's correct, but?

My mistake, I miss-read your post. I have no doubt, hence my question. How many of them would consider themselves bad people? 1 to 5%, if memory serves, of the population is a sociopath/psychopath, the rest of us do, as you suggest reflect our upbringing, not our default state.

I'm sorry I retract my +1, I missed this bit, it's a non-sequitur, humans invented language but not because of an alteration. The only thing it can possibly alter, either way, is society. Our current models that predict dark energy is only rationally consistent if we believe in the current model, which is incorrect.

It's more than just this, we're an intelligent a species, which ultimately gets in the way of a binary explanation, yin and yang just present the extremes of human nature (the nuance lies somewhere between), we need to recognise it but not be guided by it.

Good post +1. Why do both sides get so worked up about a deity rather than the path they choose to follow? A scientific/academic path is no less difficult and no less valuable, than the high path of humanity.

Rare? WTF, it happens every single time.