Airbrush

My ignorant rant is all about prejudice, prejudice against the nonreligious. Even Trump claims membership to a religion because he, and many other candidates are compelled to. Religions all judge without knowledge or thought, it comes from dogmatic, blind-faith rote. Thanks for your agreement with me. Religions are all conspiracy, they are all massive intricate conspiracies. They are all conspiracies of the members to force others to join or die, or go to hell, or go to limbo. I don't fault the church for using litanies, since the ends justify the means in all religions. "Modern society" is not available everywhere, but that is changing with the internet. In many areas of the world the only info available is the local domineering religion. You better say you believe to the local religious hooligans or be ostracized. That is not a fair and balanced way of developing a personal belief system. Youths should be encouraged to know about MANY other religions, before they take the leap, so they can develop a balanced belief system. Then they will realize there is no BEST religion, only the most appealing to an individual. Then perhaps they may not take religion so seriously, and have a healthy agnosticism. Like the saying "you don't really understand your own language until you learn another". Here is a nice quote from Thomas Jefferson from wikipedia: "[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." When Ronald Reagan said "freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM religion" it made me think that no, BOTH freedoms are just as valid. "Freedom of religion or freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.[1] The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group—in religious terms called "apostasy"—is also a fundamental part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion

If you did not see the "no parking" signs, you may argue you had no intent, but that is no excuse to pay the fine. A crime usually requires a victim? What about those killed in prior terrorist attacks? It doesn't matter what Islam seeks, people in violation of human laws should be arrested and given a fair trial, and the sentence should fit the crime. Joining a terrorist organization should be a crime, even if you were lied to by your recruiter. Small groups of people heading across the desert towards ISIS controlled zones are probably not there for a pick-nick, and probably not archeologists searching for artifacts in the desert. If they are jounalists or doctors without borders, then they are in for a rude awakening when they encounter ISIS sentries. Their fate is a coin flip between acceptance or death.

This is the best example. We cannot know what people think, we can only guess based upon what they say or write. This priest, Fr. Lemaitre, first proposed the big bang theory. My guess would be that he was intelligent enough to be agnostic about his religion, but since he was a priest in the Church he did not express his doubts about the Bible to his superiors. In high school my ethics professor, a priest, expressed that the Bible is not a science book, but a book of human values. Communism is always considered to be bad in the west and it is atheistic. Hitler was atheistic even though he was raised Catholic. So one does not become virtuous just by being atheistic or agnostic, just more honest in their own mind. Yes, it is not unique to religion, but don't you think it was more common historically in religion, and now most common today in Islam?

There is a world-wide religious tyranny going on without most people aware of it. Atheists and agnostics must keep quiet while the religious spectacle is played out, over and over. People are forced into religion at birth. I remember Ronald Reagan saying "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM religion." Sounds like everybody should join some religion or not be a good person. Let me explain using my own experience with the religion of my birth, Catholicism. I was raised by good, devout Catholic parents who stayed together for 50 years until my mom passed away at age 86. In grammar school we learned the Catholic prayers. Among these prayers are the "creeds", such as the "Apostle's Creed". These creeds are obvious methods of autoprogramming or brain-washing, having social and political implications. They are a long list of dogma that are officially deemed believable by the Church and so good Catholics should say these prayers to reinforce their belief. But I finally realized that TRUE belief is a feeling that comes from INSIDE of people, not something artificially imposed on them, to use "whistling in the dark". I was also taught that the Catholic church was the ONE, true religion. Something seemed fishy to me that so many people are following wrong religions, and I am supposed to try to convince myself of the Catholic dogma by reciting these prayers. Does anyone notice this in their religion? Were you taught your religion is the one, true religion? Were you taught prayers to autocondition yourself to believe in things you really don't know anything about, so at best you WANT to believe these things? You were told to believe these things or else you may go to hell, or in my religion you go to LImbo. I suspect something like this happens in Islam, but I don't know for sure. Can any nominal Muslims out there confirm this? I think most people have doubts about their religion and are nominally religious for the social structure it provides. Religious zealots, however, are true believers beyond human reason and beyond science. In school I learned about science and got an appreciation for knowledge that can be tested, so we KNOW it for certain. This cannot be done with religious beliefs. You are supposed to rely on "faith" and believe a set of doctrines that are supposed to be from God, but I suspect it is all from the minds of clever, "wise" men. Long ago, when faced with so many questions from their tribe members, the elders (the "wise men") needed to come up with some good, comforting stories to tell their members. These stories are the Bible, Torah, Quran, Vedas, Castaneda, etc. They are a mixture of human brilliance and lies, but we ignore what is stupid about them, the blatant lies about miracles, and blindly only focus on what is comforting (life after death, omniscient omnipotent God), whatever appears to be clever. Are there scientists who are also VERY religious? Or do scientists have their doubts about their own religion? This should have been perhaps posted in the "Religion" discussions, except that religious belief, which is so devisive, has profound political implications.

That is a weak argument. Simply make it public knowledge that if anyone intents to travel into Syria, you better have good documents and authorities know who you are and when you are going there. Along the border of Syria/Turkey have notices posted warning that anyone entering Syria without valid documents will be arrested. It is irrelevent if they say they are "there to fight Against ISIS". They have no permit, signs are posted, it is public knowledge this is a no-man's land. They are guilty as hell. It should not be too difficult to sort out the refugees fleeing from Syria from those entering Syria. "....there are numerous help organizations such as Doctors without Borders are active in that region." REALLY? I thought after so many kidnappings that doctors got smart and are staying away. Can you prove that "Doctors Without Borders" or western journalists are still active inside the ISIS controlled regions of Syria? I would be very surprized if that is true. We can't even get spies into those regions. ISIS just executed a Chinese national. With all the brain power this site has, I have not heard a good reason for not making travel TO Syria illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison IMO. There is a war going on there.

Of course "innocent until proven guilty". If there was a new law that bans unapproved travel to the war zones of Syria or Iraq, then it is simply a matter of proving they traveled there for no valid reason. Sorry for the confusion. But even "valid" reasons for travel there are suspect, since good intentions leads journalists and altruists to capture and perhaps beheading. Everyone should know by now that Syria and Iraq are VERY dangerous places to be for everyone, including wannabe ISIS fighters. Proving guilt should be relatively easy.

It's better then the current hands off policy until they do something illegal. You prefer they should be executed? Or they should have a tatoo on their forehead saying "ISIS"? All but one of the 8 Paris attackers were French or Belgian citizens who traveled to Syria for training, then returned to France and Belgium. Law enforcement was aware of them but could do NOTHING until they committed a crime. There are thousands of young European (and from many other countries) men and women who went to Syria for training and returned to Europe and they are on a list but mostly left alone. CNN just reported there are over 100 known suspects who returned to France from Syria, but nothing can be done about them. Doctors and nurses should be able to prove they are not fighters. Traveling to Syria for no good reason SHOULD be a crime. Are there REALLY many journalists, doctors, nurses, etc willing to risk there lives by traveling to Syria? Are they unaware it is a war zone? Are they not targets for kidnapping, torture, and beheading on camera? We are supposed to risk our lives to rescue them? BTW, what about the news footage of ISIS vehicles filled with fighters, and waving black ISIS flags? "Look at us, we are ISIS fighters!!" Seems like an easy target for drone strikes. What do you think?

Of course doctors, nurses, journalists, diplomats, business people, and aid organization should be able to have unrestricted access to Syria and Iraq. But others, the foreign fighters, who have no documents, they can't prove legitimate business, it should be a criminal act for going to Syria or Iraq for no good reason. These people are obviously fighters who were trained by ISIS, they return to their country and the police have to leave them alone because they didn't commit any crime yet. Going to Syria for no good reason, in itself, should be a crime punishable by a good prison term.

Why not make traveling to Syria or Iraq and returning to your home country illegal? There is no mention in the news about plans for infiltration of ISIS by using the huge resource of Suni Syrians fleeing ISIS. I suppose this is happening and we want to keep it secret? Why not publicize infiltration opperations to make the ISIS recruiters uneasy about new recruits when they know some of them are spies who want to destroy ISIS? Disaffected youths should be channeled into activies such as soccer leagues to keep them occupied. Law enforcement should be able to penetrate the "dark web" if they have a search warrant. Any other ideas?

Build settlements in lava tubes, near a water source.

Right. So many of the fleeing Syrians will need a job someday right? Let's see what jobs are there for young, military-aged guys? If they are Suni, then perhaps a few of the brave ones might consider joining an ISIS infiltration operation. In the USA we call it "be all you can be in the army". What's wrong with that? They should be trained. Maybe some of the especially pious ones may even be encouraged to be reverse suicide bombers. Only if they want to, of course. Not my plan, but that is what goes on over there. Join ISIS, get their confidence, at a meeting of members detonate. But only if they WANT to, if they have that much religious zeal. If people can be so devoted to their religion that they blow themselves up to show their faith, give them a VALID jihad by blowing up with the real embarassment for Islam, ISIS. I would prefer they simply designate locations for drone strikes. Give these holy warriors an opportunity to show their disgust for ISIS by leading the infiltration.

If the seniors are willing to go, and are able, then why not? There is no shortage of younger people who are willing to spend the rest of their lives on Mars. They just need vetting to get the right candidates. We need to resolve the issue of low gravity and long-term health. The 1st thing they need to build on Mars is a centrifuge for the people to sleep in at one g. This could be built below ground to shelter from cosmic rays.

Yes, in the minds of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, plunging the world into war by invading your neighboring countries was a "rational decision". The problem is in hindsight they were delusional, confident in their decisions, because in totalitarian regimes everyone around you agrees with you out of fear for their lives. There were probably multiples causes for WW2 but in totalitarian regimes the leaders are in total control. They alone initiated WW2. Ben Carson as president would not be in TOTAL control, but imagine how disfunctional our government could become when the branches of govt are constantly at war with each other, thanks to Dr. Ben's "Gifted Hands" and empty head. "(Memo to the Donald: Please elaborate as to what exactly bothers you about Seventh-day Adventism! You say you’re a Presbyterian, but you show no signs of genuine faith-derangement syndrome. If you spoke up you would help turn evangelicals...against your [Adventist] rival and sink his electoral campaign." http://www.salon.com/2015/11/08/you_know_ben_carson_is_crazy_right_lets_discuss_the_craziest_things_he_actually_believes/

Because of the risk of electing a VERY delusional president. That level of delusion is shocking. The Bible is the biggest "fairy tale" along with the Quran, Vedas, Joseph Smith, and all religious scriptures, even though they may be comforting to the masses. The Bible and "great" religious scriptures are mostly unsupportable by the scientific method, especially the bogus "miracles". Carson is as delusional as Hitler, maybe more so since Hitler believed in evolution long before it became fashionable. People believe the fairy tale scriptures only because they WANT to believe, along with effective brain washing, that is all. Factual info is irrelevant to them. And if Carson actually does NOT believe the outrageous claims about science he is making, then he is the most sophisticated, pathological lier we have ever seen. WW2 was started by delusional leaders in Germany and Japan.

The "one way trip to Mars" is the most economical way to put people on Mars, and therefore very likely. Volunteers for the "one-way" trip are already being selected and vetted.

True, but in the information age it may be possible to survey all the high performers in schools. There would be a set of agreed-upon qualities that we look for in a president. The best of the best students would be selected to go on to presidential school and learn to be a good president. They would be well-educated in the knowledge of international and domestic politics. They would be trained like Jedi knights and as great negotiators and debaters. Most of all they will be continually tested in all sorts of ways to weed out undesireables. The public would vote also, as would an electral college, as we have today, but these candidates must not initially WANT to be president, but they could be PERSUADED to do the job, with great salary, perks, the best security, a chance to see the world, and they would be doing it for their country, and be remembered by history. It's a tough job but somebody has to do it. They would have a choice to opt out, but many may be convinced it is worth their while to run for the office. That Ben Carson declares his disbelief in evolution just shows how delusional he is, or what a great lier he is if he suspects evolution is a fact but he must fake it to please his supporters, for the greater good in the long term.

My feeling is that presidential candidates should be drafted or appointed, based on their intelligence. Most intelligent people would never want to be leaders. If someone WANTS to be a leader, watch out for them. There should be a way to search for great leaders based on certain criteria. Hitler wanted so badly to be a leader. Phi for All: "....The ultra-conservative candidates all seem to imply that they believe in God, not evolution, like it's mutually exclusive." That is a good point. Denying evolution is thought to look religious. Ben Carson and the others will deny evolution because it makes them look more Christian, and therefore more virtuous to their extremist supporters. It looks funny to see Trump, a very worldly man, try to look religious and therefore virtuous. I don't believe he loves the Bible as much as he says. What a good lier. There is a religious tyranny going on all over the world. Anyone who is NOT agnostic is either ignorant or a lier. The religous leaders must be intelligent enough to know what agnostic means, but they choose to deceive their followers to believe that God talks to them, all for the "greater good." That is why religion is in control. Even though religion is based on wishful thinking and lies, the religious leaders consider them good lies, for the greater good of the uneducated.

There is no mention of "dark flow" in this article. Is dark flow a different motion? Does the multiverse hypothesis support a finite universe? Maybe the universe is just a region of expansion, so there can be other big bangs? But if another universe is close enough to ours would we not detect a region of collision between the expanding gas from two adjacent big bangs? Or would such a collision be outside our observable universe?

What is the consensus among democratic candidates? Maybe some of them are also disbelievers in science. According to Fareed Zakaria, 98% of scientists accept evolution, compared to only about 65% of the general US public.

This was a shocking revelation for me when I saw Fareed Zakariah interview a scientist about this. Fareed went on to say almost all the republican candidates express a disbelief in evolution. "Dr. Ben Carson...rejected some of the fundamental tenets of Darwinian evolution as "incredible fairy tales," asking how could "something come out of nothing" or "life evolve from non-life"? He also stressed that mutations in species tend to "degeneration," not improvement, and emphasized that "there are no intermediate species" to support the theory of evolution." http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/ben-carson-evolution-life-evolve-non-life-incredible-fairy-tales It is terrifying to think that the next president may not believe in evolution. Or he is pretending to not believe because his supporters don't believe in the fact of evolution.

That the observable universe started out tiny is the conclusion from evidence. Ok. Forgive me for trying to understand this. It looks to me like the evidence shows everything is expanding outward. Obviously that originated from a denser state, but how do they know that the entire observable universe was smaller than an atom? Or a proton? Maybe the observable universe blasted out of a region of unknown size, and that size was much larger than an atom. Why not? As for an infinite-sized universe, no one has yet given me a hint at how an infinite sized universe can result from the big bang model. What else can the entire universe be but one of 3 things: It could be exactly as large as the observable universe, which is unlikely but possible. It could be finite and just larger than the observable universe. It could be infinitely larger than the observable universe, which is what I doubt. Can you change my mind? No, that is not my intention. I only know enough about science to be interested in it, and to accept it most of the time. When I discover inconsistencies I try to reconcile them. I'm not here to bore you with the consistencies of science, only what baffles me, even after searching for an answer. You appear to be saying, since I don't know much about science, I should just accept what the experts say, and not question authority. I have no business here. This discussion is only for experts who already understand the intricacies of the big bang. Strange: "...I see you mention Michio Kaku: I would take his pop-science stuff with a large pinch of salt. In fact, I would disregard it completely." Why should I? What Michio says is what Stephen Hawking, and Neil DeGrass Tyson, and a number of other very reputable, respected, televised experts ALSO say. It looks like a conspiracy to keep people confused, but it is certainly not intentional, just careless.

My little dictionary defines "universe" as "the totality of all things that exist." It also gives a second definition as "the world". All things that exist goes beyond the observable. So the assumption any English-speaker should make when a scientist says "the universe is ....." they mean the ENTIRE universe (all things that exist) and not merely what we can see. I'm not putting words into their mouth. You are inserting the words by saying "universe" means observable universe. Oh...everybody knows that already. Scientists are being sloppy in their use of the word "universe". Then please explain how the big bang function can cause a finite size to expand to an infinite size in any length of time. What I would really like to know is how can an infinite-sized universe result from the big bang? The idea of a tiny size at the start is meaningless if the universe started out as infinite. No documentary, or episode of "The Universe" or "How the Universe Works" has ever suggested the universe could START out as infinite in size. Then all discussion of cosmic inflation becomes meaningless. I am here to LEARN because I know very little about astronomy and cosmology. But when I hear inconsistencies in scientists' lectures, I have to call them on it in their ivory tower. What do you say about this issue Micheo Kaku? What do you say Stephen Hawking? Why the assumption the universe started tiny? Why not the idea that the universe started huge, as a jagged rip, like a lightning bolt, trillions of light years across?.....IF it was caused by a collision of higher dimensions as string theory speculates.

Then every time a scientist neglects to state "OBSERVABLE" universe, before saying it was smaller than a proton, or even an atom for that matter, that is GROSS negligence because it implies the entire universe. Shame on them. Also, I would like to hear them clarify this and explain how a universe that is infinite in size could ever begin as a big bang. I have seen many documentaries about this, and ALL those scientists ALWAYS blunder in this issue. Such stupidity for scientists! This tells me that scientists, who are often professors whose job it is to explain these subjects to students (such as Micheo Kaku), are besides being brilliant in their field, are raving idiots when it comes to lecturing. Oh well....nobody is perfect.

Because Micheo Kaku, Hawking, and the other scientists always say that the [entire] universe was smaller than a proton at the moment of the big bang. I put "entire" in brackets because that is what they mean. They do not say the "observable" universe was smaller than a proton. Smaller than a proton is definitely a finite size. Nobody ever suggested a finite-sized object can expand to an infinite size in ANY length of time. Even cosmic inflation is not infinite acceleration, only faster than light. Even Phi For All believes the universe was "no bigger than an atom" at the earliest moments: "...a fraction of a second after it happened....the universe at that time was no bigger than an atom."

The universe had a finite size at the start. So no matter how fast the universe expanded, except for an infinite speed which it did not, the universe must still be finite, no matter how large. How does a finite universe become infinite in size? This is not about the "observable universe" but about the entire universe.