Phi for All

I observe quite a big difference between the way someone believes in things they can verify, and things they can't but still believe. To me, it's all belief, but faith, and we're talking about religious faith here, seems different than trust. I don't think your OED definition hits the mark. It mashes together the concepts I'm trying to separate. It's definitely not about "I have faith that PersonX is a good person", which I would put under a third category of belief, wishful thinking. It's something you hope is true, can't prove, but aren't as adamant about. And yes, it's made up. That's the way the language works when there's a need to differentiate. The way I'm asked to believe in science is different than the ways I was asked to believe in Christianity. And I'll admit that you have a completely different outlook in the UK on religion than my examples in the evangelical US. I have relatives that will tell you faith is the strongest form of belief BECAUSE it requires no evidence. They talk about how your faith must be unshakeable and steadfast, and how any doubt is wrong. They're proud that they don't question the things they're taught. Asking for evidence is almost sacrilegious. So yes, making a distinction between faith and trust isn't a mainstream concept, but it's one that's helped me in reasoning my way in modern human life.

mar_mar has been banned for soapboxing and bad faith arguments.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/rich-untaxed-wealth Imagine what could be done with even a 10% tax on that kind of wealth.

You've shown that you aren't really interested in the explanations that have been put forth. Like all the other creationists before you, you mock what you don't understand, and flee from rigorous questions. Have faith that you're as ignorant now as when you showed up. Keep pouring god into those gaps in your knowledge! Wishing you all the best elsewhere.

But it should give The People back some skin in the game, which We haven't had for a few decades. The Republicans gave up representing The People and started focusing on corporate interests under Reagan, and the Democrats did the same under Clinton. The difference in donations was too much to pass up. Now We have major issues that 70% of us all agree on, but the corporations don't so we get no action on what could be some of the best, easiest solutions available to us. Overpopulation is quite closely related to capitalism from what I've read, so perhaps it's finally time for the US to embrace public and state funding with no private leeching allowed. That would be the old European way, but perhaps I'm over glamorizing a system I didn't live in.

It only takes generations when one of those generations is unwilling to change. Pick any three major progressive changes and if you can avoid the obstructionists, things will move quickly. Offhand, I'd allow ranked-choice voting, just so we can break with the two parties that only represent corporations, and get some actual citizen representation going. I'd also nationalize something major, like food production, so healthy food was a right rather than something you have to earn. And my fave right now is to expand the USPS to compete with Amazon, including a vendor portal so small businesses aren't smothered. People who have no food insecurities and access to the means to prosperity aren't as likely to have lots of kids. Same goes for folks who are better educated, so a focus there can only help with overpopulation. We really need to stop supporting the industries that spend money to spin fear because we spend more when we're afraid and frustrated.

All right, I have no idea what you're talking about. *sigh* Is it hard for you to focus? My made up neighbors had a made up situation where they didn't understand how their garbage was being handled. They thought it was because they prayed for it, but I know it's because the city has a collection agreement. One is a lie (especially if I don't correct them), the other is the truth. My evidence is the bills I get from the city, and if I get up early enough, I can actually observe garbage collectors (not gods) picking up the trash. My question was designed to get you to see how sometimes the things people believe have no foundation in the real world. I wanted you to see what it's like to watch someone with bizarre religious beliefs struggle to explain the natural world when you know differently. Are you trying to say that my premise is bad? OK. Here's another. There are some Christians who believe that their god tests their faith by using snakes like in the Bible. They bring venomous snakes into church and people handle them because the preachers tell them their god will keep them safe. It killed so many of the faithful that most states made it illegal, but you can still do it in West Virginia. Do you think I should say nothing when I hear about someone who does this, because it's part of their faith in their god? Or do you think I should tell them it's a lie, and they are very likely to get bitten and die if they do this? What would you tell them? I'm going to guess based on past postings and say you'll be going with a fallacious response, most likely a No True Scotsman fallacy.

It just occurred to me that this could be a procrastinatory practice. You know you have a huge mountain to climb, so you start looking for reasons not to start; looks like rain, need new shoelaces, is this the best route? Lots of science to study. Looks like some discrepancies, need new books, is this really true? Much easier to blow it all off as not worth it because of all the enigmas. Saves a LOT of time.

None of this has anything to do with evolution, but how do you explain how so many atheists live moral, compassionate lives without a god to urge them or force them into it? How do you explain when non-religious people have a very well-developed conscience? Could it be that morality doesn't need religion to be effective? Could it be that judging people the way you do isn't really moral at all? I actually think it's immoral that you love a god that wants to torture me for eternity. Shame on you!

Well, that's something completely different. Of course we're made up of the same elements the universe has available. That doesn't mean individuals evolve during their own lifetime. Evolution's effects are only seen as succeeding generations happen. It's very difficult to talk science with you when you have SO MANY misconceptions and yet you still think your arguments from ignorance are relevant. You don't know what you don't know, and it shows. The benefit of a thought experiment is that you can arrange the situation to fit a need. I needed you to tell me how you would deal with a neighbor who didn't understand something but believed his god had done it, that's all. You first told me you would tell them the truth, but now it sounds like you would let them believe what you know is a lie (that god is the one taking care of their trash). I've known a LOT of Christians who believed like this, that it's better to let someone believe in a lie than to question their faith. It's funny though. It sounds like you want to tell people about the lies of science and other religions, but when it comes to YOUR religion, it's better to let people believe what they want. Isn't that funny?

Nice to know it was a mistake trying to discuss this with you. Enjoy always being right.

You claimed religion doesn't make scientific claims about how things function in the natural world, that "none of them are scientific claims". iNow pointed out it just takes ONE example to make your statement false. Then you started to waffle about it. Look, attempts at Intelligent Design being taught in US schools are chock full of examples of religion rewriting science and making scientific claims. Can you please admit it's wrong to generalize and just move on with this discussion?

You made a mistake here. Can you acknowledge it and move on?

Do you know how discussion works? Please get down off the soapbox if you want to talk.

I believe it because I can gather evidence to support my statement. I TRUST what I said, rather than have FAITH in it. I said, "...you can't deny there are many people who attribute things they don't understand to their gods". Haven't you ever heard about how the Christians persecuted early scientists like Galileo for claiming the Earth revolved around the sun, because the Bible claims in Psalms that the god set the Earth on its foundations so it can't be moved? The Bible claims rabbits have split hooves in Deuteronomy, and that all flying insects walk on all fours in Leviticus, so it's NOT just my belief what others think. I have evidence. Surely you see that? I assume this is that weak macro vs micro argument creationists always bring out. Well, you're forgetting all the time involved (can I also assume you also believe your god is fooling everyone about the age of the Earth?). Small changes each generation over tens of thousands of generation produces speciation. You really should study before ridiculing. I'm not sure if it's a language barrier, or a reasoning barrier, or just you trying to obfuscate because you have no good arguments, but this response is just weird. I gave you a scenario about my imaginary neighbors, I told you what they were thinking because they told me. I was asking you what you would do if faced with that situation in real life. You answered it, briefly, when you said you would tell them the truth. Ever since then, you've avoided answering further. I just wanted to show you how people can be wrong in their religious beliefs, like all of us can be wrong. The difference is, science uses information we can TRUST, so we don't get caught in a process where we just blindly believe things we can't support.

I'm not sure why what I said would confuse you in quite this way. By definition, evolution happens within a population over time. It's a mistake to think of individuals unless those individuals are successfully reproducing to pass their genes along to future generations. Oh, yes. +1

It's not YOUR religious belief, but you can't deny there are many people who attribute things they don't understand to their gods. They don't believe in evolution because they never studied it, they only learned to ridicule it. Evolution doesn't happen to individuals. We see whole populations evolve as each successive generation carries their traits forward to the next. To let you know that my neighbors didn't realize that, in the city, their taxes paid for city trash services. They didn't know where their trash was going, and assumed it was their god answering their prayers.

So you would explain that it's the city that sends trucks around early in the morning to collect trash cans, and not their god? You would correct their religious beliefs about trash pickup because you know the real explanation and feel it would be wrong not to help them?

Maths are used to model theories. The Lambda Cold Dark Matter model supports the Big Bang Theory, for instance. You're mixing standards here. Proofs are for maths (and formal logic). Theories are NEVER "proven", no explanation for anything in the universe is "proven". Theory is our best supported explanations, and the methodology works best if we always assume there's a better (or more detailed) explanation. When you think you've found an answer, you stop asking the question, so theory keeps us searching for better and better evidence for our explanations. Does that make sense to you? No, you didn't read what swansont said. Hawking radiation happens just outside the event horizon. Nothing is entering and then finding enough energy to leave.

Are you aware most communities in the US base education and sanitation expenditures on property values? In essence, this means wealthier areas receive more education funding, and better sanitation services BECAUSE they're wealthier. In poorer communities, far less is spent on education and sanitation so we get situations where "litter is rife", but you seem to be blaming the citizens for this. You make it sound like the rich are removing the stray trash cans themselves, so why shouldn't the poor? It gets removed quickly in the rich neighborhood because the trash services respond. It lingers in the poor area because the trash services don't respond, even after multiple complaints. I thought big corporations wanted to be normal people? My plan to implement your idea would be to raise the taxes on those big corporations to fair levels, tax top tier income so hard that the billionaires start investing instead of sitting on cash, and increase city services all across the board. Knowing that their government cares enough to invest in their communities, people will feel an attachment they don't now. I would welcome an effort to help citizens see the amazingness of nature and all it's bounty. I consider society to be a bargain between peoples. We agree to certain necessary rules (especially sanitation, health, and hygiene), and gain the benefits of working towards a meaningful level of prosperity and fulfillment. I want people to care about the environment we all live in, but I know it's difficult when big corporations pretend to care as they pollute and litter and also lobby away our social services and environmental regulations.

How can a question be incorrect? I gave you a scenario and asked you a question about it, so how can "this" be "so incorrect" that you don't know what to say? Pretend the scenario is happening to me and I'm asking you for advice. "Hey, mar_mar, my neighbors are from the country and don't understand that the city picks up trash cans that are put out at the curb. They think it's because they prayed for the trash to be dealt with, and God is answering their prayers. Should I let them keep thinking God picks up their trash cans, or should I tell them what's really happening?"

And this is because you haven't bothered to study science. You came here specifically to champion religion over science, without understanding either very much. Imagine this: someone from the country moves to the big city. They tell you they've been putting their garbage in a can next to the street, and praying to god to take care of it. And each time they do that, god takes away the trash. They believe trash collection is a matter of faith. They don't know any better, and it seems like a miracle when the trash disappears overnight. You have the power to educate them, and tell them about how the city collects the trash, or you could let them believe their fantasy. What do you do?

! Moderator Note Just a reminder that Paulsrocket has reached their first day posting limit of five posts. Tomorrow the anti-spam measures will be dropped.

Underrated? That's not what we did. We pointed out that the term "subconscious" is being phased out in favor of better descriptive concepts. We explained it rather well, I thought, but you must not have read that part. To recap, the term subconscious isn't applicable in the context you're using it, so you got some pushback (not underrating). Specifically, "one can't create a new work without participation of one's" preconscious, the stuff that you aren't thinking of right now but can recall fairly quickly. The preconscious mind is what helps you solve problems, and where you'll find what you call "intuition". Not entirely sure, but it looks like the unconscious mind and the preconscious mind are parts of the subconscious. So all preconscious thoughts are part of the subconscious, but not all subconscious thoughts are preconscious. Does that make sense? It's difficult discussing this with you since I don't think you care much about the actual science, and are focused on being right about your beliefs.

Well, there you go. Complete idiots. 1. The US has the lowest rate of inflation in the G7 countries. The GOP voters aren't being told this. 2. Immigration is vital to any growing democracy. The GOP voters are being misled about this. 3. The objection is basically, "I don't want to hear how I've been manipulated as an American!" GOP voters don't seem to understand this perspective. 4. This is a two-party system problem, another thing the GOP voters are constantly misled about. It's very sad and frustrating. Like watching Lennie with the rabbit, and trying to explain that he shouldn't hug it so hard, knowing he's not listening.