zapatos

Not so much 'misunderstood' as let your bias show through. I doubt the medical profession categorizes those who believe they have benefited from god as "delusional". That is your characterization. What I actually meant to say was that "Most people who display HAVE confidence going into difficult situations, do so HAVE IT because they have reason to think they have a good chance for a favorable outcome."

Seemed kind of obvious to me. Most people who display confidence going into difficult situations do so because they have reason to think they have a good chance for a favorable outcome. Either because of their strength, skill, intelligence, faith, experience, analysis, money, or whatever. And when they are successful they typically attribute their success to those factors. But they don't usually go in thinking they are 100% guaranteed to be successful. If someone goes into a difficult situation believing they are invulnerable, it is not due to their faith (or boxing skills, or whatever), it is due to their detachment from reality. Having faith is not a detachment from reality, unless of course you can prove there is no god.

I thought you were inaccurate because your interpretation was that "his god will protect him" (in the future). While Eric said his god has kept him safe (in the past), he specifically pointed out that he has no idea if his god will protect him in the future. I think the distinction is important because going into harm's way with a feeling of god-given invulnerability speaks of delusion which I don't think Eric is displaying. He seems to be using faith more as a way to give him strength of purpose to do what he believes in, while remaining based in reality with the knowledge that any given night may turn out poorly for him.

I didn't mean to take this discussion off track, but I'm still not seeing your interpretation of his comments as quite accurate.

This entire site is dedicated to overthinking it...

That's an interesting interpretation.

I think the breakdown in discussions between the religious and those who are not is that so often one side doesn't really listen to the other. I don't think Eric was trying to tell you why you should use faith, but was instead telling you what faith means to him and how he uses it. As with most things there are many ways to approach a problem. With parachuting Eric uses his religious techniques, you use risk analysis, while others use financial, image or adrenaline considerations. In short, each of us uses what is important and useful to us as individuals. Not everyone relies strictly on logic and science.

When my kids were growing up their mother took them to church because they knew that for some reason the grocery shopping could only be done by me on Sunday mornings. Once they figured out the grocery stores were actually open all week, my wife had to put up with years of "but if dad's not going why do I have to?!?!"

Just curious but how does that sort of comment go over with your wife? I know my wife would be less than pleased if I suggested her beliefs were "pretending".

Thanks. Edit: Up to 2600 gallons per bucket. Impressive.

I may have just missed it but I didn't notice that claim by Eric H. I just saw him say he has faith, and things have worked out. What he said was that he initiated the interaction by praying to god for help. He didn't say God tells him to do things outside his comfort zone. Don't mean to be difficult but it feels like you are putting words in Eric's mouth to bolster your position.

Since the fire started IN the building I'm wondering what a couple hundred gallons of water on the roof will accomplish. And once the roof is burning I'm wondering if a couple hundred gallons makes flying directly over the fire worth the risk. Who makes water-dropping helicopters? I've not seen them before.

How much water will this helicopter hold?

From my own selfish perspective, I typically learn the most from those types of threads and would hate to see them cut off. Following a discussion between only knowledgeable participants is often too narrow and too deep for me to gain much. When someone flails about with misunderstanding, the responses tend to be more at a level I can gain from, and the suggested links for further information are generally very helpful to me. Oftentimes I'd like to ask similar questions myself but after one or two curt answers I tend to back off. I'm glad others aren't so sensitive.

I read that Andrew Chael chuckled as he pointed out that those trolls didn't realize the man they held up to take the spotlight off his friend Katie Bouman happens to be gay, another group often targeted by such trolls.

Very generous of you to help him out.

Those lines in bold seem to me to be at odds with each other. If the universe could be infinite, then how can we know it has always been full of matter and energy? I can understand how we'd know the universe is full of matter and energy if the entire universe was limited in size to its expansion since the beginning of the Big Bang. But if the universe is infinite in size, how can we know what exists beyond the size the matter and energy have expanded to in the last 13.8 billion years? If the universe is infinite, isn't it possible that the only matter and energy in the universe is limited to a volume with a diameter of 93 billion light years?

Yes, that is why people are as safe in Congo as they are in Finland.

It is absurd to believe that "the government" acts with one mind, and that the inevitable outcome is likely death.

Read the Old Testament. Cruelty, hardship, greed and other terrible things are just as likely to be evidence that God DOES exist.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Their peers were abolitionists. England abolished slavery prior to the US and pushed the US to do so. You need a new history book. And Christians were slaving before Muslims. WTF has that got to do with whether or not it is wrong? Why would you want to do that?!?! No one here but you is suggesting anything like that.

Good point. I imagine if AK-47s were in the hands of every New Yorker they could be taken with only a few weeks of carpet bombing. I'm not sure that would pass Constitutional muster but it certainly would be in "short order".

Like England swept away the IRA in short order.

Tell that to Al-Qaeda and the resistance fighters during WWII (just to mention a couple).