beecee

While both statements are correct in any democratic society, we are all (even judges) still human, with human frailties and biases. Therefor justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, for any white male human, female white human, or a human of colour. I'm sure humans of sufficient intelligence, qualifications, and minimum frailties and biases, can be found in all those specific groups. ps: Why do we call black people coloured? When in actual fact, scientifically speaking, black is the absence of colour, while white is a combination of seven vibgyor ? 😉

Au contraire my friend....I don't assume anything different to what others are expressing about what you think you know, particularly this thread. And I don't necessarily agree the alternative is ugly and frightening either. In essence, I believe you are trying to be something you aint. 🙄 Essentially, what you have claimed/proposed is irrational as I showed in my first reply. Much of what you say is what I have already said in different words...😏 Perhaps it is you that isn't reading what I am saying? Now again, what is this truth you are searching for? And how do you know it really exists? And what you need to understand is science is based on observational and experimental evidence at that time, and what you claim people are happy with being taught is unscientific at best, but hey!! that's OK as I have already stated many times. If that gives them that warm fuzzy inner feeling of contentment, all well and good. I'm OK and content with the scientific view that death is finality of life. And I will continue to point out the irrational such as "Is it rational (for an athiest) to believe in religion?" 😉

Or obvious politcal leanings, as reportedly perpetrated by Trump. And of course another consideration would be, and should be, as much as possible, representations of all classes of people in that society, male or female, black or white.

That is a point, but still the reality exists that atrocities appear to be happening everyday with hundreds dying everyday. My suggestion, hopefully could stop that...hopefully!! On another note, I am flabergasted at the twists and turns in the arguments being put in this thread, and the attempted justifications of those atrocities by some. Christ almighty, the situation is as plain as day!!! A narcissistic meglomaniac ratbag has invaded a neighbouring country. To attempt to justify that, is wrong in the extreme.

And others may ask, a male, white judge whether he got the job on merit or because he was white and male. On this Peterson character, I see him as dangerous, narcissist, who is out to make as much money as he can by preaching ‘pseudo-facts’ and conspiracy theories. https://www.unikumnett.no/2019/10/12-reasons-why-no-one-should-ever-listen-to-jordan-peterson-ever-again/ On another note, Nothing against President Biden, but certainly would like to hear more from the American vice president, Kamala Harris. just a thought from an old Aussie!

And any aspect of religion, the supernatural in any form, and the paranormal, is unscientific at best. I often seem to read/interprete that in your posts. Atheist= a person who does not believe in a creator/deity/ID/god Religion = The belief in a super duper omnipotent being/god Rational = A belief based on reason, logic and evidence. Yes we are. But you failed to answer my question as I put it...I'll shorten it for you to make it easier and simply ask again, do you have any evidence at all that shows those that reject the ID myth, have any more life struggles and problems, then those that prefer unscientific nonsense for whatever reason. Which truth is this? You see, like your use of the word create, or creation, truth is often used when religion or philosophy raises their ugly heads. Science isn't about any search for any so called "absolute truth" if it at all exists. Science reaches provisional conclusions, based on current observational and experimental evidence, and agreed upon by consensus. So obviously Neitzsche was wrong on that score. He was also wrong about the peace of mind propaganda. The never ending progressive nature of science, gives me all the peace of mind I require. See above.

I'm rather curious as to why the sanctions on Russia, have been piecemeal type of actions. I am of the opinion that this invasion of another country, was serious enough to go in with all guns blazing, as far as sanctions go. I see it as obviously the piecemeal implementions of sanctions was not going to shift Putin one iota. Isolate the country fully without comprimise, as Putin has Invaded Ukraine without comprimise. Perhaps creating such difficulties for normal Russian citizens, all at once, may prompt someone to do what I believe is needed to end this war....expel them from the UN security council...expel them from the UN... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-03-20/ukraine-war-how-the-un-can-expel-russia-and-remain-relevant How the UN Can Expel Russia and Remain Relevant Russia’s seat on the United Nations Security Council is a travesty. But that’s something freedom-loving nations can change if they are determined. https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/09/24/piecemeal-sanctions-wont-deter-russia/?sh=64c9216a6fb6 https://graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-CRISIS/SANCTIONS/byvrjenzmve/ https://voxeu.org/article/sanctions-against-russian-war-ukraine-could-be-made-work Sanctions against the Russian war on Ukraine could be made to work Peter A.G. van Bergeijk 28 March 2022 The sanctions against Russian have been described as “unprecedented”. This column argues that this is not the case, and neither is the current sanctions packet sufficient to realistically expect that they will work, as sanctions against military adventures have a significantly lower probability of success. The weak 2014 sanctions against Russia’s annexation of the Crimea reduced the credibility of broad-based EU sanctions and or the threat of scaling up targeted sanctions. The West could do better by including an embargo on capital goods and a boycott of Russian energy. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" All this pussy footing around with piece meal sanctions, while hundreds are being slaughtered.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/fermilab-says-particle-is-heavy-enough-to-break-the-standard-model-20220407/ Newly Measured Particle Seems Heavy Enough to Break Known Physics A new analysis of W bosons suggests these particles are significantly heavier than predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. hysicists have found that an elementary particle called the W boson appears to be 0.1% too heavy — a tiny discrepancy that could foreshadow a huge shift in fundamental physics. The measurement, reported today in the journal Science, comes from a vintage particle collider at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, that smashed its final protons a decade ago. The roughly 400 members of the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) collaboration have continued to analyze W bosons produced by the collider, called the Tevatron, chasing down myriad sources of error to reach an unparalleled level of precision. If the W’s excess heft relative to the standard theoretical prediction can be independently confirmed, the finding would imply the existence of undiscovered particles or forces and would bring about the first major rewriting of the laws of quantum physics in half a century. “This would be a complete change in how we see the world,” potentially even rivaling the 2012 discovery of the Higgs boson in significance, said Sven Heinemeyer, a physicist at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Madrid who is not part of CDF. “The Higgs fit well into the previously known picture. This one would be a completely new area to be entered.” more at link. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: OK, what will a heavier then predicted W Boson mean? Would this really rewrite particle physics?

If people get a warm fuzzy feeling of contentment in believing in a higher existence and reward or whatever, then good for them. No one I believe has ever denied them that right. But of course we have no evidence for such, and of course such thoughts of supernatural/paranormal myth is unscientific. And if this god of yours does exist, why do we still have struggles, evil, wars, crime etc?....Alternatively, do you have any evidence at all that shows those that reject the ID myth, have any more life struggles and problems, then those that prefer unscientific nonsense for whatever reason. Why do you object to the overwhelming evidence of the finality of death? And why do you seemingly have sympathy/feelings towards one of the most evil humans ever to walk on this planet? You (as usual) ask a question with no definitive answer. Oh, and I'm even happier this morning, as my Sydney Roosters won a hard fought game 24-20 This thread remaians irrational....

We can be sure of that!! 😉

Missed this...Nice post by the way. Came across an interesting article....... https://www.quantamagazine.org/arik-kershenbaum-on-why-alien-life-may-be-like-life-on-earth-20210318/ Why Extraterrestrial Life May Not Seem Entirely Alien The zoologist Arik Kershenbaum argues that because some evolutionary challenges are truly universal, life throughout the cosmos may share certain features. Arik Kershenbaum, a zoologist and animal communications researcher at the University of Cambridge, thinks that the evolutionary forces that shape life on Earth will produce many similar features in extraterrestrial life. On the website for the department of zoology of the University of Cambridge, the page for Arik Kershenbaum lists his three main areas of research, one of which stands out from the others. Kershenbaum studies “Wolves & other canids,” “Dolphins & cetaceans” — and “Aliens.” Granted, science hasn’t yet found any aliens to study, but Kershenbaum says that there are certain things we can still say about them with reasonable certainty. Topping the list: They evolved. “The bottom line — why animals do the things that they do, why they are the things that they are — is because of evolution,” said Kershenbaum, a lecturer and director of studies in the natural sciences at the university’s Girton College. He argues that evolution is a universal law of nature, like gravity — and that studies of plants and animals here can therefore tell us something useful about potential inhabitants of worlds far beyond Earth. He finds evidence for this in the process of evolutionary convergence, in which unrelated lineages of organisms evolve similar features as adaptations to similar environmental challenges. It’s an argument he presents in detail in his new book, The Zoologist’s Guide to the Galaxy: What Animals on Earth Reveal About Aliens — and Ourselves, which draws on comparisons of animals’ physical adaptations as well as his own research (and that of others) into animal communications. more at link................................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I sort of anyway see plenty of logic in that article. Particularly if we are inferring comparable intelligent advanced life forms that may reach space-faring capabilites. I made a comment supporting that stance a while back here, somewhere. Isn't basically the human form, two arms, fingers, opposing thumb, etc necessary for constructing cities, engineering projects etc, along of course with the necessary intelligence?

Au contraire my friend... ☺️ That one, up there! I'm as happy as a pig in shit at this time! fridge stocked with VB, salted peanuts ready, and my team the Roosters ready to continue their winning streak tonight against the Brisbane Broncos! That is the definition of irrationallity and of course obviously a deliberate, rather controversial understatement at best....but you alreay know that. I dare say so to were the millions upon millions of Jews being forced into cattle cars for supposedly resettlement. Or the little girl raped by a crazy madman in a toilet block. At least Hitler did the right thing in the end I suppose. I await with baited breath. 😉

Is it rational (for an athiest) to believe in religion? Atheist= a person who does not believe in a creator/deity/ID/god Religion = The belief in a super duper omnipotent being/god Rational = A belief based on reason, logic and evidence. https://www.google.com/search?q=rational+foundations+of+religion&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=rational&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i67i131i433j0i67j0i67i131i433j69i60l3.2928j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 "Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching"

And those foundations of religion as you mention here... Are they foundations or really just qualities that we all would like exhibited by people and nations, religion or no religion? IMO they are simply the foundation of a reasonable morally decent society, among others qualities you didn't mention. OK educate me! Let's start with why religions were started in the first place...and were they seen as religions anyway. Wasn't ancient man simply trying to "rationalise" the wonders of the universe around him? Didn't that so called "rationalisation" involve inventing some all powerful, omnipotent being as a "foundation stone" of whatever was to become a religion? Wasn't (in time) that rationalisation shown to be wrong? Wasn't human sacrifice part and parcel of some religious practises? Foundation stones perhaps? I don't really know...I havn't made an issue of studying religions, other then the little book they gave me at school called a Catechism and biblical quotes, by obscure men in an obscure age, in an equally obscure book. I understand that some of the foundations of religions are good. I understand that some were equally bad and harmful, (probably the ones you say are what some religions have become) I understand that while the original foundations were laid in limited times, they were equally wrong in hindsight. I also understand that much of what you say were foundations of religion/s, are simply good qualities we would like all of humanity to possess. I also understand (please correct me if I am wrong) about some biblical story about the God of the bible telling Abraham to sacrifice his Son Isaac? Please don't hold me to the accuracy of that quote, I am going from memory. (His obedience to said God was being tested) the foundation stone of absolute obedience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality#:~:text=Rationalism holds that truth should,conflict with evidence and reason. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching. Wrong. Today we are simply "more" enlightened as to the nature of the universe around us, and tommorow, we may see through the ignorance that still haunts us today. That's science. And I'm rather disappointed that you can infer that. OK, I'll leave the last laugh/comment up to you. Other then to ask one more question, doesn't rationality apply more correctly to believers than to beliefs).

Perhaps. Is that how you see it? I'm saying there is good and bad in religion, and I am presumptious enough to say that is I'm sure what you accept, based on the evidence of your generally informative posts on this forum. You listed the good, I listed the bad. On the rationalisation, all I am maintaining is that while beliefs in gods and spirits and such were fundamentally necessary at that time, to explain the universe around them, we certainly don't in a reasonably enlightened age, scientifically endorse beliefs in invisible deities. How about human sacrifice as a fundamental to some past religious/faith? Yes the majority of the world's population are said to be religious...I'm still (as far as I know) a Catholic...perhaps and imo a very good chance why many still accept a deity is out of fear of the finality of death, wishful thinking, (without scientific evidence) and similar. Likewise our distant ancestors, in the face of illness and such, may have re-enforced their mythical beliefs, to help alleviate serious concerns in the face that illness. Either way, be any of that as it may, I remain as tolerent as ever to religious folk and their carryings on, based on their fundamentals, as long as it does not conflict or hinder my way of life or morals. And I support that. I generally am not critical of what religious people tell me about their beliefs, in the proper sections, until thet start criticising science, although this thread may be an exception. 🤔 Not bad (in all circumstances) just based in ignorance and while understandable of that ignorance for that time, still critical of it when applicable...eg human sacrifice.

I inferred there is much wrong, as I am sure you agree. The points you mentioned were the good points, or actually points that do not necessarily need religion to exist. eg: Not all atheists are evil and some are better morally and every other way then any supposed chiristian/religious person as I am sure you will agree. There is good and bad. That's why I said, A myth in an age of ignorance, which gives man a choice. Some good, some bad. I don't see belief in myth as good, despite perhaps giving humans a choice between good and evil...oh, and then beg forgiveness later if they chose the wrong path. That's why I finished with... I also have a couple of good religious friemds, and a Mrs also. Of course there is. And we can chose to grovel in one, or advance and learn with the other.

All of those of course highly desirable. But what about the other side...the holier then thou attitude....the my religion is better the your religion...the rejection of scientific reasoning in favour of myth handed down through generations, the virgin birth, the trinity, the resurrection....The myth of ID, in a super omnipotent being...the instilling of the fear factor, heaven and hell, life after death attitude for personal comfort in the main...the brain washing of little children....the many wars and conflicts caused by religion... Finally let me say that some of the worst most vindictive people in the world are religious. Some of the greatest and most goodly humans are also religious. Some of the greatest people in the world are non believers and simply followers of reason. Some of the worst people in the world are non believers. The foundations of religion, some good, many bad, were formed in an age of ignorance. Yes, I covered that, the brain washing of little children etc, can and does do harm. And of course while the great proportion of the worlds population, say they are religious, how many practise the rites and laws of that particulare religion. (I'm talking about the reasonable non harmful rites, like church etc, not the evil terrorism stuff by fanatics) eg: I am a Catholic, unless of course the Pope has excommunicated me without my knowledge!😜

Yeah that's 100% correct....the "rational" foundation of "religion", are contradictory. But isn't the point that now we know those so called "foundations" to be wrong/false? If engineers fail to adequately construct a proper foundation for a skyscraper, that skyscraper aint gonna stand for very long. Case in point.....https://sydneysentinel.com.au/2020/12/the-leaning-towers-of-mascot/

Spot on imo...the Moon causes the high tide closest to it by attracting the water, and then attracting Earth itself so that high tides also occur on the opposite side. Some effect, but minimal at this time. And of course just as the Moon was much closer to Earth in the past, so to will it be much further away in the future, moving at a rate of a couple of cms a year. It (the Moon) is also via the friction of the tides, causing the Earth's revolution about its axis to slow. This will continue until a day on Earth is equal to a lunar month. and Earth will have one side permantly facing the Moon, just as the Moon has one side facing Earth. None of this is due though, for at least a couple of billion years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality#:~:text=Rationalism holds that truth should,conflict with evidence and reason. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

Was just contemplating myself the rather contradictory terms of "rational" when referring to "religion".

https://phys.org/news/2022-04-page-red-climate.html Accelerating global warming is driving a rising tide of impacts that could cause profound human misery and ecological disaster, and there is only one way to avoid catastrophe: drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Spread across 10,000 pages, these are the main takeaways from a trio of UN reports on climate change published in August 2021, February 2022 and on Monday. The three tomes—each with its own roster of hundreds of authors—focus on physical science, impacts and the need to adapt, and finally how to slash carbon pollution. This will be the sixth such trilogy since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered its first report in 1990 and positioned itself as the final word on the science behind global warming. Here are five key findings from the three reports: Beyond a doubt Whatever climate sceptics might say, scientific evidence has removed any lingering doubt that human activity is "unequivocally" responsible for global warming, which has seen the planet heat up an average of 1.1 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. more at link..................................... More information: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports Supplementary article: https://phys.org/news/2022-04-obituary-earth-scientists-climate-doom.html No obituary for Earth: Scientists fight climate doom talk: It's not the end of the world. It only seems that way. Climate change is going to get worse, but as gloomy as the latest scientific reports are, including today's from the United Nations, scientist after scientist stresses that curbing global warming is not hopeless. The science says it is not game over for planet Earth or humanity. Action can prevent some of the worst if done soon, they say. After decades of trying to get the public's attention, spur action by governments and fight against organized movements denying the science, climate researchers say they have a new fight on their hands: doomism. It's the feeling that nothing can be done, so why bother. It's young people publicly swearing off having children because of climate change. extract: "Everybody knows it's going to get worse," said Woodwell Climate Research Center scientist Jennifer Francis. "We can do a lot to make it less bad than the worst case scenario." :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

A Vortex Aurora over Iceland Image Credit & Copyright: Christophe Suarez Explanation: No, the car was not in danger of being vacuumed into space by the big sky vortex. For one reason, the vortex was really an aurora, and since auroras are created by particles striking the Earth from space, they do not create a vacuum. This rapidly developing auroral display was caused by a Coronal Mass Ejection from the Sun that passed by the Earth closely enough to cause a ripple in Earth's magnetosphere. The upper red parts of the aurora occur over 250 kilometers high with its red glow created by atmospheric atomic oxygen directly energized by incoming particles. The lower green parts of the aurora occur over 100 kilometers high with its green glow created by atmospheric atomic oxygen energized indirectly by collisions with first-energized molecular nitrogen. Below 100 kilometers, there is little atomic oxygen, which is why auroras end abruptly. The concentric cylinders depict a dramatic auroral corona as seen from the side. The featured image was created from a single 3-second exposure taken in mid-March over Lake Myvatn in Iceland.

That is the $64,000,000 question!

Interesting NASA page........................ https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/research/astrobiology-at-nasa/exobiology/ The goal of NASA’s Exobiology program (formerly Exobiology and Evolutionary Biology) is to understand the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the Universe. Research is centered on the origin and early evolution of life, the potential of life to adapt to different environments, and the implications for life elsewhere. This research is conducted in the context of NASA’s ongoing exploration of our stellar neighborhood and the identification of biosignatures for in situ and remote sensing applications. more.................. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217840/ 1. Cosmic Evolution of Biogenic Elements and Compounds. The first epoch encompasses galactic time and distance scales and involves the death and birth of stars. It begins with the synthesis in stars of the biogenic elements—the elements that make up all life—and their ejection into the interstellar medium; it ends with the distribution of these elements and their compounds throughout our solar system within the planetoids, which became building blocks of planets. Discoveries in carbonaceous meteorites strengthen this perspective, as organic and mineral matter made up of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen has been found that retains properties traceable to its origins in interstellar clouds and stars. How commonly the aggregation of interstellar dust and gas into small primitive bodies occurs during star formation is not known. What transformations were undergone by the biogenic elements and their compounds during this process remain poorly understood, as are the ways in which the physical and chemical properties of these elements and their compounds may have influenced the course of events during the formation of the solar system. Answers to these questions will develop, however, as astrophysicists and astrochemists take advantage of the capabilities for large-scale modeling, and make use of sensitive space-borne astronomical telescopes with high spatial and spectral resolution to make observations of condensed matter in protostellar regions. In ground-based laboratories and by remote spacecraft, studies of interstellar dust and samples of other relict material—meteorites, comets, asteroids, and interplanetary dust—will continue to help reconstruct the nature and chronology of the processes that took place at the time of the solar system's formation. more......................... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In essence what Carl said...."We were all born in the belly of stars" or "we are all star stuff"