Moontanman

Why do you care?

No it does not, if you don't care about truth then there is no way to have a discussion about what is true.

Then there is no point to this discussion.

I have to ask, is it important to you that your beliefs are true?

You have the theist delusion, your need for a sky daddy is sad. I can call you delusional with just as much authority as you have to call me delusional. The only thing that matters is what you can show, what you believe is meaningless.

I don't have a god... because I see no empirical evidence of gods, goddesses, demons, devils, or anything else not demonstrably part of objective reality. I don't want it to say anything, I simply read what it actually says.

I read what it says not what I want it to say. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_Mount

The Bible specifically says that you have to follow all 613 commands from God, it says gods laws must always be followed, Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law can be changed. You do not get to choose which parts you like under penalty of burning in hell for all eternity. Numbers 31:18 Matt Dillahunty has done this quite well in his critique of the sermon on the mount, I see no reason to try do it any better, If you want to see it I can provide a link. There are also horrific commands that would get you jailed in any first world nation on earth. I've studied the bible extensively read it like a novel several times and one thing I find is that its followers are not allowed to cherry pick, you have to follow it all to the letter or go to hell.

Believe has nothing to do with reality, you can believe you can fly, no matter how convinced you are that you can fly, when you jump off a building the ground is still waiting to show you your belief is meaningless.

WOW! I thought we were discussing reality.

So stoning unruly teen age boys to death because they won't behave is morally good? Slavery is morally good? Genocide is morally good? Rape of little girls is morally good? You have a seriously flawed sense of morality.

Now can I get it in a spray can to use against yellow jackets!

Odd question... is phosphine heavier than air?

What kind of "light" are we discussing exactly?

Being a bit pedantic there aren't we? In our everyday lives do any of those things really apply? Is our perception accurate enough to need to include those things? If we want to go that far then nothing is real and my vat is just as real as yours. This thread is about religion and our thoughts on it, religion is not part of objective reality, my opinion on Islam is the same as my opinion on mother goose.

I would say there is no way to measure emotional pain but objectively your sadness is not part of our shared reality.

There is, by definition, only one reality, our interpretation of the perception of reality exists nowhere but inside our heads.

I am sorry, I thought we were discussing reality.

A new solution to the warp drive problem has been found that does not require negative energy or negative mass has been suggested in this paper by Erik W. Lentz https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.00652

It has nothing to do with relativity, it has to do with reality being objective by definition.

There is enough dihydrogen monoxide on our lovely blue planet to kill every human on Earth many times over. Dihydrogen Monoxide... you can't live without it, but it can and often does kill people... of course I'm talking about water. Until you define what you mean by "danger" anyone is free to define danger in what ever way is most meaningful to them. To me numbers killed is most significant, to others the amount needed to kill an individual is most significant, chemical reactivity is probably closer to what the op had in mind but failed to specify.

The op... "Most Dangerous Chemicals"

We are all much more likely to be exposed to radium than we are to chlorine trifluoride, which is more dangerous?

Shouldn't the danger a chemical represents be tied to the likelihood of actually being exposed to it? Botulinum toxin occurs in nature and often results of major kills of wild life... ducks come to mind. But a railcar full of chlorine trifluoride? Let me know when you see one, I'll be buying lottery tickets.

So some deadly esoteric chemical we're unlikely to ever come in contact with is more dangerous than the common but deadly chemical that is in nearly everything we eat?