jajrussel

My bad I forgot that people of the church consider themselves to be the church, so someone might take my attempt to have a conversation about the rational of the church a little bit personal. You do realize that in this conversation I have to watch out for stones from both sides Some see absolutely no rational in the conversation. So I'm right the church still resents it

Just coining a phrase, that is why I said "seem". I don't believe it to be true or an actual physical condition. Human beings are human beings. We have intellect yet still fall victim to irrationality. For thousands of years the majority of us haven't changed. There might be a mathematical method to predict when science will rule, but is using math to predict the future science? There may have been a little science in use even earlier, but religion was used to control for a very long time. What seems logical doesn't always win the day. Maybe it is because I lack logic skills but I've had my logical opinions handed to me on a science platter, all to good cause. All, to good cause. I just wish I could remember all those lessons. And even today the church still rejects some of that knowledge, and probably still to this day resents it. I confess I had to look up the world proclivity... It's much better than saying hardwired. Thanks

They, well not they, but a friend whom I used to play tennis with Told me when I asked for a game quoted scripture and told me that I should have known it was coming, so no more tennis. I don't remember the scripture, but perhaps one of the researchers will speak up and remind me and answer your question at the same time. Or, maybe not... I'll see if I can find it. It might take a while. It doesn't have to say that exactly which will make it harder to find. Have you ever been to one of their meetings. They go over their pamphlets line by line. They teach better than most schools if you are a good student. Even as a non-believer I have no problem with anything else you have said

Really? When studying a species don't we rationalize every little thing they do? Why they eat what they eat? Why they solve their problems the way they do? For thousands of years people have believed in an eye for an eye. Where is the faith in that? I believe that when people actually do become rational, religion will become a thing of the past. I'm just suggesting that after thousands of years of irrational behavior that it might be a little irrational to assume that a handful of years of enlightenment will win the day. I used to want to have faith in people, so maybe you are right about faith being irrational. I suspect that Paul after spending his whole life doing what's necessary to be a leader in the Jewish system then suddenly finding himself no longer Cohen because if his eyes caused him to take a path where it was still acceptable for someone of his experience to lead. If his eye problems made him no longer Cohen he would likely have found being a leader among Jewish Christians just as difficult, so he needed a whole group of people who could care less about his eye problems so he created the concept of faith. It might have been one of the first recorded times that someone used rationality to argue their cause. Is it rational today? No..., But, the rational of science has only existed a handful of years compared to the thousands of years if religion. A rational people will have to outlaw religion to make it go away. We are kind of out numbered. The Romans could have done it maybe. But through Paul Christianity became the rational choice of the time. History is history, and this section of the forum is for discussing the rationality of religion, and that is all I'm trying to do nothing more. I agree, accept to note that at first it was science that was thought to be irrational.

One of the things I admired about Witnesses is that they did their homework. When I was a believer I enjoyed the conversation but knew better than to seriously accept a challenge because, well, they do their homework. I have noticed what looks like research being done here in the religious section. Note - They also do their research. If you want to engage someone in the field in conversation you need to know how to respond in such a way that they will remain in conversation. If you have ever read their literature you might notice the similarities in how some of the questions are presented. I was never a witness and for them that became a problem. I had my own reasons for leaving my religion, and I had my own reasons for not wanting to join theirs, but I have admired them ever since. Note - if you are a believer and don't think it a sin to take advise of from a non-believer. This is the perfect place to do your research even if you are not a Witness. The Witnesses reached a point where they could no longer associate with me. Now to my question those if you who are believers how do you feel about taking advise from and associating with non-believers?

Worshipping God's seems irrational. So why have people worshipped God's for thousands of years? With all the evidence that shows that human beings have done just that, and the evidence is there. Is it rational to ignore a need that humans seem to be hardwired with just because the proof is lacking? We can demand proof, but with thousands of years belief as evidence can we rationaly say that humanity does not need to believe. Leasing to do you think it is wrong for me to say that must humans need God or God's? With all the many God's worshipped over thousands of years the only thing that seems irrational is the instance that there is only one God, which has become to the point that I couldn't even get Gboard to acknowledge that yes I meant God's plural until the third try and even then it insisted on the apostrophe s. Cause it didn't like it when I forced it to accept Gods. Maybe it is a Grammer thing, and the machine isn't really biased.

It was a good link you provided. I can relate to the last sentence of the article. Though I don't relate despondency to apathy, and don't know why the writer choose to use them as if they mean the same thing. Yes, despondency can lead to apathy, but it can also lead to one believing that the glass is always full and the desire to keep trying. Apathy says we are all done in the end anyway, so, whatever... Note, I'm not saying whatever. Please don't assume I am. Some of the monsters are real you can only slow them down. The human race taken over by machines is not a real monster because common sense will lead to a balance first.

We will have to keep taking jobs that machines can't do. Until they run out. Then it is a matter of waiting for people to run out of patience. Governments will prepare and will behave very much like any human to maintain power. They will use an elect people to maintain power they will give machines to those people and tell them to use them. Those people will. People will die. They will use fear to justify killing those who would take their power away from them. The corruption that they allow because there is profit in it. They will clamp down on. First with jail then death, because jails are not cheap. Power is about money. Human beings are resources now. It will be evident then. We like to watch TV shows and read books about survival. There are always heroes. There won't be any heroes, just survivers. The machines are getting smarter. This tablet seems incredibly stupid considering all I wanted it to do is correctly predict and spell the words I want to you use. I say that so cavalierly as if it is it should be simple. Considering the length of time I have been waiting it obviously isn't simple, but it is getting better. In fact sometimes it does so we'll that I become suspicious that at times it is intentionally tormenting me, but then I brush the thought off because I would rather think that it is my imagination, or would prefer to believe that I am going insane rather than accept that a machine would intentionally torcher me. History is a chronological list of humans surviving. It gets ugly, but then there are the Cherry blossoms, the country side villas, the wine... Paris in the spring time. For me there is the chair in the back yard next to my garden. For others a Harley on the highways. Machines can be a good thing. Like doing dangerous jobs. I'm not positive but I think that if a study was done a lot of work injuries probably occur to people who work with, or on machines. The injuries and the lives lost have yet to cause people to take a stand against machines, and they never really will because people will have to say the really hard things that those who are not affected don't want to hear, and when people who don't want to hear something they can respond very harshly. One would think that a balance would best serve. I don't think it will reach the point of how will we survive, with machines taking most jobs. Not unless we learn to design sentient machines that needs, and wants to buy products. My printer seems to be getting there but to date it still needs me. 

I've been attempting to read, On the Shoulders of Giants, which is more like a library than a single book, but I keep putting it down so I can grab my tablet and tune in to SFN. I'm guessing that I have at least twenty more years to finish the book, but then I will have to start over because I'll have forgotten the beginning, but that is okay. I'll just start another twenty years of reading hoping to repeat the cycle.

I thought of an explanation of time standing still that only requires momentum. Not a theoretical travel of c, but right in the middle of explaining the thought my tablet shut down and all was gone. Probably a blessing for all... What theoretically happens to someone entering a sufficient sized gravity well. I've read that for them time would stop. Wouldn't that be in their reference frame as well as the observers? Actually, now I dream of days off endless Summers. I want it back. Oh well... Sigh!

before I post something I always worry because I know the limit of my intellect. Memory is the limit. Mine sucks. If it didn't I'd be able to read ( on the shoulders of Giants ) then be fairly confident that I would never have to ask another question because I would be able to figure things out on my own without, but then I would be in the same position I am now. Do I allow my limit to prevent me from participating? I used to have to swim across a river to get home. I had another choice I could have walked a very long way round to the nearest bridge to get to the other side. But every day after washing the boat I would check the tide, walk in the appropriate direction the distance I needed then enter the river and swim across to the other side so that when I exited the river I would be as directly across the boat as possible, cause I got there home was half a block directly away from the river. Occasionally, I would start to worry and just sit on the boat and look at the other side of the river. Until l finally decided that sitting there wasn't getting me home. Someone could have rowed across in a dingy and and picked me up, but that only happened once it had been a tough day out the tide was running fast and he was afraid that I would drown. At least that is what he said when I asked what the special occasion was. We always offloaded on the other side before putting the boat where it was kept and at the last minute the party decided they wanted their catch cleaned, so I think he just wanted help cleaning the rather large catch of that day, but he gave me an extra forty dollars for a half an hour's work and I got home dry. Your right... I do get a little too deep... But do I delete what I've written? No one has to really know the limit of my intellect but I post anyway, usually. Not always... Sometimes the only thing that stops me from rambling on is the notification that someone has replied to my post, so I'll stop here to see what they have said...

What conditions are needed in order for time to stand still. Theoretically, I thought that all that was needed is to travel at c. When I try to Invision this the only way I can think to start to give such a place dimension is using c as a measure of distance. Mentally it doesn't seem to work. The world gets very large but then you have to stop because time stops. But... The speed of light is invariant this indicates that turning on a flash light so that I can see what I want to measure would still produce a beam if light traveling at c. This thought seems to me to create an endless loop, but when I think infinite? Infinite loops of c? And if there is a light beam for the traveler at c how can time be said to stop? Don't you need time to measure c? Mentally I want to insist that if time stops then there is no light. I may be completely wrong in the thinking but light seems to be necessary for measuring in our world, but then I think a blind person doesn't require light to measure, but they have been taught to use a sited persons way of measure, which seems limited by c? Which seems to suggest that because c is invariant, time cannot stand still. The light beam still shines at c. If time cannot stand still then then next thought is we obviously cannot travel at c. Nothing new... This seems to suggest a numbering system. Like c is as close as you can get to something. If c is not that something, but is as close as you can get to it then what is it that you can not achieve? it seems to me that time standing still might be it. So, can time stand still if c is the limit? I was reading another thread about the big bag/sudden expansion and the above is where my thoughts ended up. Note I may not actually need to use c as a units of measure, but I'm not sure that would change how I got to the question.

I have to be careful I'm not jumping to the wrong conclusions, but I am guessing based on the story labeled doubting Thomas that it would only take an act or leap of faith on the new believers part. If my assumption is accurate, I'm wondering why science's approval would even be sought by a believer? Now for a believer not to believe, nothing more than anger, frustration, and sorrow. Based on personal experience. Otherwise perhaps peer pressure?

For my sake I hope so. I bow to the wisdom of my peers. Apparently my attitude is still a little but out of wack. I'll fix it...

Maybe I am reading to much into it but apparently I'm supposed to believe that women of the world are going to decide not to have children if the rest of the world doesn't decide to take climate change seriously? To me this story seems like sensationalism to extreme, but maybe it is simply hyperbole. https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3099448002 Why aren't journalist held to the same scrutiny that someone who maybe likes to make up their own science facts. Climate change may be a fact. But seriously? I can imagine some scientist waving the climate change banner backing this story but maybe I'm wrong.

By never come back. Do you mean to never be able to consume Earth resources? Is there a mathematical process by which you come up with the numbers and time frame? It might make for a good app that I would like to use to create what if scenarios. I might be approaching the OP a little too broadly, thinking that maybe the goal of reaching the apparent desire defines as within target. But if ( and I had no sense that the OP meant this ), if taking a life as cruel applies to micro organisms and applies to germs,bacteria, and plants I'm not sure that the goal is obtainable.

No... The reason... you said it yourself, it would be an imitation. I would end up depressed, lamenting the good old days when life was real. Then the government would step in and insist that since I don't need to rest then I will work 24,7 or be dismantled. Wait a minute, my last employer used to do that caring less about the governments blessing. Their motto ( 24,7 when needed or be dismissed. Resistance is futile, dismissal is final. )

In some places there are homeless willing to eat out of some of those trashcans. One such place the employees are told to put the food on top in effort to keep the actual trash out of the Ally. I remember asking why no one collected the food to hand it out. I was told that there were health laws designed to protect the homeless from eating spoiled food which prevents it. Not wasting food is going to be a challenge. Eating out of a dumpster sounds disgusting when you don't have to, but confronting someone who's eating out of a dumpster can be dangerous. A person might suffer severe injuries before they figure that those eating out ofthe dumpster are more interested in being the first ones to get to to the meat, gravy, and mashed potatoes in the dumpster than the humanitarian gift of the carrot.

I've begun to think that I am like that cup. The apps still say I should be eating calories, even though I am like that cup. Based on how I felt at the end of those days I did eat that huge amount of food I would lay off and only eat about a third of the calories required. Then I would be scolded by the app no less. I'm fairly certain that we waste a lot of food just buy eating it. We do throw away a lot of food. I have thought on occasion that there are actuaries determining the package size at the grocer not caring about the waste so long as we buy enough product at the low weight price so that even with lower food prices designed to get us into the store we still spend the amount necessary to keep all the key members of the system in business. I like to eat, I like to eat left overs so when I shop I'm planning to eat everything. Then Mom will walk in with a bag of fast food. Why? I don't know? She won't listen. She is going to do it because she is my mother. Not eating it results in the kind of temper tantrum that only a mother can have. So I eat then add to it a portion of the food left in the fridge. So there is waste. The actuaries that work for the grocers could care less about the fast food joints economic needs. So there is waste, and the only nutrition need met is the calorie need, but I am like a full cup. If I suffer for a day of low calorie intake it will be for a reason other than calories. It will likely be for a large number of consecutive days I met the calorie need, but did not get the nutrients needed to maintain the red blood cell count needed for someone my size. The grocer doesn't care about that. The only thing fast food places only care about is my salt intake which grocer loves because I will add salt to my grocery list. It gets confusing. But, it does seem like every time I take steps to save money and better my health both the grocers and Mom also adjust, making my efforts null. The system is designed to support the economy. I need to adjust my way if dealing with food. If it gets too the point where the government has to step in their first attempt will be to adjust the economy. I always lose when they do that, and I assume that all normal people do, because the next promise will be to lower cost for businesses, the assumption being that business will lower prices. We know how that works. I have good memories of Japan as a child. I was there at the age when everyday was an adventure. My memories of Japan are not a photographic map, but occasionally a picture or TV show will trigger a sense of happiness and a feeling of having once belonged to a great adventure. I will check out the link thank you...

Overpopulation will likely be a global reality someday with a lot of new problems like food shortages. Should the world go vegan the animals not killed for food would then be competitors for the very material that we are eating in effort to spare their lives. What then? Every decision we make today will effect the future. Anyone who knows even a little about numbers knows that a point is always reached where a very small percentage can become a very large number. Eventually, even with the strictest of controls a point of collapse will be reached. Then our view on what is and isn't humane will likely change. I imagine that very few will voluntarily starve. Our governments will react much the way they do now when economic collapse seems eminent. Resources are the foundation of economics. If there are human survivers we will start over then eventually repeat the process. Our intellect cannot save us unless it shows us how to survive. It would be interesting to see what we will do. Right now we question the humanity if killing animals for food. The questions our future children will have to find answers to will likely be so horrible that we will refuse to believe that it could ever come to that, so we will be caught totally unprepared... Which will necessitate even harsher actions... It's amazing where the mind goes when just thinking about the humanity if eating a hamburger.

I saw a video last month where that said they went so far as to copywrite the name. I don't remember much about it I got bored and took a nap, but I began to think that it wasn't so much about the life of meat cells as it seems to be about the fight. I've read about feelings being hurt because someone was wearing fake fur and fake leather. I can imagine the same argument coming up about a veggie cheeseburger, which I find to be pretty tasty, but then my point of view is add little butter and salt and the result is a gourmet meal. Unless we are talking about rice cakes. Why in the world anyone would want to eat a puffed up piece of paper I do not know. I'm not taking about real rice cakes with bits of sushi and wasabi heaven on Earth... It's those round puffedd up pieces if cardboard that have no nutritional value. That I don't understand. Can we live without killing for food? I would think so, but then I'm not going to get upset if someone is wearing fake fur, or eating cultured meat, but if it comes out of a petri dish I'm probably going to have to add some salt and butter and maybe, well definitely, some wasabi.

Your right I spelt it wrong I had to look up an email from 2016. I should have copied and pasted. I'm glad to see that he is still on SFN he seemed worried then that he might not be. Now I'm worried about me. I tend to become aggressively competitive on occasion in discussion. I enjoy it. What bothers me is the effect it has on other people. I don't realize untill it is too late that that I have angered them. During a discussion of differences I do not exactly want them on their best game, but I don't want them angry either, so when I realize it has reached that point. I withdraw. I like point and counter point, and apparently I was too aggressive. When a person responds only with I am trying to pick a fight. Especially when all I did was respond to what I thought was an intentional insult with humor. So, into my shell I ran. I want to apologize to, and thank those who encouraged me. My head is clearing, I don't really want out. I may have mentioned before that SFN is is to me a weakness that I enjoy. Thank you ...

Thank you. I have my moments of weakness. I would like to be banned. Before I go years ago I had a friend here Robibitybob1. I got busy with life and when I returned to SFN he was gone. It's as if he never existed anyone know what happened to him?

An answer I can understand

Am I allowed to close my account or do I just avoid the site?