Phi for All

I didn't say religion fell. I said religious explanations began to fail as our knowledge of the real world increased. God(s) always filled the gaps in our understanding. We used god(s) infinite power to explain what was going on with the thunder and lightning and the seasons or whatever. As we improved our knowledge of the real world, the gaps where superstition and supernatural speculation were needed become smaller. At some point, you have to ask yourself if we really need god(s) to explain anything. Personally, I think early tribes of humans developed the ability to think ahead further and further to insure their survival. It's easy to see how forward thinking could lead to seeing tigers in the shadows. It must have seemed like magic to early humans when one of their own predicted that an enemy was nearby but couldn't be seen. People like that would end up being revered for their ability to keep the tribe safe from unseen enemies. And it's very easy to see how that would lead to imagining unseen friends as well.

I think our imaginations created religion, and when religion's explanations began to fail we developed science. Imagination is a function of high intelligence, and as evolutionary pressures selected those traits we began to move beyond what we could see and started imagining things we couldn't see.

Conversion requires you to think that everyone else is wrong and you're right. When you think you're right based on faith, you're now insisting everyone else is wrong based on things you can't possibly know. It's one of the most irrational processes I can think of. No one has ever been able to tell me why faith is considered a strong belief even though it doesn't rely on evidence and rational thought. It seems more like false confidence that you guessed correctly from among the thousands of religion choices. So you choose to throw out what we do know by claiming it's invalid because it's not "the full answer"? That's not how science works. We seek the best available explanation. We don't need to know what caused the Big Bang expansion to observe what happened afterwards, and make accurate predictions based on those observations. Again, I think you're stuck on this concept that if you don't know everything, you know nothing. I don't think there's as much debate about those types of physics problems as you think. Please give examples of where you think there is controversy with any of the concepts you've mentioned. I personally don't believe a god exists at all, but even if I did I would stop short of telling him how to run his business.

#87 Download a free Live Wallpaper app for your smartphone. Search for one that involves something that will reduce stress, make you smile or reinforce what you want to do with your clean lungs. I've got one that shows a beach scene, with a small island near, and the waves are looped so they just come lapping at the shore over and over. I can take a quick few seconds out of my day and imagine the wind in my hair, sand between my toes, swimming out to the island and being lightly winded instead of yarking up a lung.

How is science "helpless" in its explanation of your marble? What else do you need to know about it? I don't understand why you wave your hand at an imagined gap in our knowledge between your marble and when our universe changed from a hot, dense state to more like what we see now. What do you find inexplicable about your marble? I think you may be caught in a logic loop. You complain about duality, but can't explain how someone could understand bliss without having experienced something different to compare it to. Similarly, you think there are answers for us in improving our knowledge of what went on at the exact moment of the Big Bang expansion, but what do you expect to relate to now? Our universe isn't anything like what it must have been like the nanosecond before expansion. You seem to suggest that because we don't know about that, we don't know anything. In my experience, the harm comes from religions that choose an evangelical approach. Religions that focus on personal growth and a personal god don't seem to cause as much harm as those that seek to convert everyone they can. Everyone feels that their god is right for them; when you start thinking your god is right for everybody, that's when you cause harm, imo.

! Moderator Note I'm going to ask the participants here to all take a breath and refocus. There have been some misunderstandings, some defensive displays, some principle championing, some nit-picking, and some really great analysis of a controversial issue. Now let the breath out and decide where you want the rest of the discussion to focus. Thank you.

I normally look to mooeypoo for all things Hebrew, though she may be a little light on circumcision experience. I don't know if she reads Ancient Greek. I'm sure in this case that the reference is to the ceremony, not the surgery. It's supposed to be the start of a covenant with God that keeps being reinforced throughout the life of the worshipper. I think being un-circumcised is like making something like it never was. It may be a cultural thing, like saying, "Your DEAD to me!", erasing all past history. If you don't keep the laws, your whole spiritual life since you were eight days old, your connection to your people, will be un-done.

That would make them a hypocrite if they eat animals or plants to live. To me, that's more evil than killing to eat. Evil is subjective. It shouldn't even be in our conversation unless we agree how to define it. How do they know they're happy in the first place without something to compare? What's the difference between happy and extremely happy if happy is all you know? And I think you'll find that sadness is the opposite side of happiness, not pain, so I don't think it's a good move either. But this is built in to the methodology. Science isn't looking to prove anything. It gives us a trustworthy way to observe the universe and gather evidence to support conclusions we make about what we observe. We ask questions, but we're looking for explanations, not answers. Answers can't change, but explanations can always be changing to be the best available. If you're talking about a god that we can't directly observe, then it IS about the supernatural. We have natural laws that we observe the universe operating under, so if something can circumvent those laws or make it where we can't use science to observe and test and hypothesize about it, it's supernatural. Unless, of course, you have an example of something a god is doing that can't be explained by natural means.

This odd concept we have of "right" overcoming "need" gets us into lots of compromising positions. We should value all life, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the reality of survival. To me, it's disrespectful to the animals and plants that keep us alive when we moan about having to kill them to survive. It's a necessary process, acknowledge it, honor it, keep it honest and respectful. But don't pretend like it's wrong to kill and eat other animals and plants. None of them would agree with you. Interdependence is a very efficient way to maximize the use of resources. If someone has been fat all their life, they know nothing else. If you want them to be truly motivated to lose weight, let them be skinny for a day to see what it's like. Sometimes it's hard to know you want something else if there's no apparent choice. In science, the term is unfalsifiable. There is no way to show something supernatural to be false. This is a basic premise of the methodology science is built on, that to be considered as a trustworthy explanation, an idea has to be capable of being wrong. Gods who refuse to let themselves be observed or their actions to be consistent and predictable are acting outside of the natural physical laws science is designed to support. If both concepts are unexplainable, perhaps both are wrong and there is another explanation.

God hates colored fonts.

It's a hand-held scanner, iirc. It lets you take multiple small samples of tissue for analysis rather than a single core biopsy sample (which can cause complications). The small samples are more akin to being poked with a syringe, aren't nearly as invasive, and can put together a pretty cost-effective diagnostic process. The scanner has a chip on board and uses the smartphone only as an interface for reading the results.

How do you support this assumption? Historically, advancements in a particular field, even primarily technological ones, mean an increase in people needed to implement them. Advancements in automobile technology led to more computerized systems that required less maintenance, but we still have need of auto mechanics. What you're going to see is more people with access to healthcare around the world. This is going to require more doctors, not less. Someday, when everyone who wants medical care can get medical care, this may be a problem, but until then I think we don't need to worry about a surplus.

Faith doesn't seem to be the right word to use in regards to rational intelligibility. If something is rational, I should be able to follow the logic used to arrive there, test the methodology and form similar conclusions. But if I do that, I'm not really taking it on faith, am I? I don't understand your definition of blind faith. Many religious texts talk about priests telling the people that their god has commanded them to go vanquish their enemies. Gods frequently commanded their followers to go kill people. How can you have "faith" (which is supposed to be a very strong form of belief) your god would never command you to kill people? This seems right to me. I don't have faith in science, I believe in science because the methodology used is rational and predictable, so I can count on it to be accurate. Faith seems to ask me to believe without all the supporting evidence and logical processing of that evidence. Faith seems to ask me to believe very strongly in things I can't possibly know.

Isn't "faith" and "blind faith" the same thing? What makes faith "not blind"?

Circular reasoning. "The reason why there is a god is because it created the universe" assumes god(s) exist already. It explains nothing. Or a god set them in motion a long time ago and now they're still moving but not being "controlled". Like you can turn on your dishwasher and set that process in motion without actually physically controlling the way the dishes get washed. Or a natural force set them in motion a long time ago and now they're still moving but not being "controlled". Like when an earthquake makes a big rock roll down the mountain, it's going to keep going without anyone "controlling" it until it has no more energy.

Maybe it's a "job" we can afford to lose. I've never thought modern business models suited medicine very well. Business is all about growth, and medicine should be about reducing illness. We could focus on growing good health, but that would mean giving up many of our convenient medical practices in favor of a much more daunting preventative approach. Preventative medicine isn't as profitable as surgery and pushing pills. But I don't think doctors are in danger of being unemployed. There are always reasons to have a skilled human mind in charge.

The ones I've heard about are portable scanners that hook up to your smartphone. It probably uses an app for the phone but the real work is done by the scanner.

Got it. Without using chemical or electric energy, I was thinking of adding to the compression factor of a golf ball by using a spring or compressed air to push the club face out a bit and add energy to the striker right as it contacts the ball.

What about springs and/or compressed air?

! Moderator Note You should use these two posts to start your own speculative thread. Much better than trying to change the subject during someone else's conversation. Do you understand? Rhetorical question. Please don't respond to this modtip.

I remember looking this up. Not nearly as great as I thought it would be. Golf balls are really well designed to be hit long distances by golf clubs. I can't think of anything using a human-powered striker that could smack something farther. If there are no restrictions though, a striker could be propelled by chemical or electrical means to shoot a projectile over distance. This probably crosses a line in the scenario you're talking about, though.

I can see your point, and if everyone involved could operate without lines in the sand, I think it would be the most honest way to discuss anything. But this would mean leaving a fairly clean interpretation of "personal attack" in favor of a much more subjective "asshole scale".

Both, I'm pretty sure. It's a compliment AND a fact, so I feel free to use it here shamelessly. It's easy to get caught up in moral dilemmas. I try to avoid broad solutions to nuanced problems. And eating these days isn't about killing, it's about eating something that was once alive, using a process we've adapted using the traits evolution selected for us. I respect that process and all its participants. I think religion was invented so people could get together after church for some fried chicken.

I think you're trying to rationalize the actions of other animals through your own highly intelligent human perspective. "Necessity" is another throwaway subjective term. As a species, our killing is just as necessary to us as it is to other species. We don't, as a species, kill for the sake of killing. There are always reasons for it on the level we're talking about here. Further, your argument about chicken wings is fallacious. You're Begging the Question about whether the wings are a bad choice. Again, you're assuming a choice that really isn't a choice. And we're not over-exploiting our prey. No chicken shortages that I know of. But food is the biggest use of dead chickens by quite a factor. Do you really believe we'd find better uses for all that meat? And before you suggest we feed it to other animals, tell me again why other omnivores get to eat what they were designed to eat, but not humans? Oh, right, intelligence. Hey, what if eating meat helped make us so intelligent? An Appeal to Tradition?! Seriously, what is progress for if not to improve on what came before? Granted, we're probably too concerned with the economics of eating, but we're managing to feed a very large population somewhat successfully. We need to make sure our efforts to increase health and longevity include a good hard look at the food we eat, but we have that now. We're headed in an appropriate direction, imo, and the last thing we need is a radical change in this arena. I'm not against radical change, but when it comes to something as important as the diet we've evolved to succeed on, I think in increments. Small increments. And we're doing that. Until someone comes along with the humanitarian guilt perspective again, and reminds us that insects are living beings too. Very tasty living beings when roasted. For me, I care a lot about the animals that die to sustain me. I want to acknowledge that, just because the intelligence of my species allows us to domesticate animals and raise them for the resources they provide, I'm not taking their lives for granted. I acknowledge the necessity of slaughterhouses and will always lend my support for humane treatment in that process. I also think the whole vegetarian morality argument is based on the No True Scotsman fallacy. It starts with the sanctity of all life, then ignores human needs, and settles with higher order animals like pigs, cows and chickens. If the sanctity of life was really the issue, insects and plants wouldn't be on the menu either. Not after you get a taste of designer cultured meat. Someday, maybe they can make it taste like broccoli.

Signalling his eminent departure, ADVANCE sent PMs to many of his detractors, informing them in no uncertain terms what he thought of their opinions. Apparently, if you tolerate homosexuality, you ARE a homosexual in ADVANCE's mind. I'll gladly wear that part of the label he pinned on me. And all Americans are rednecks, so I've got that going for me as well. I would like to formally apologize to the Bastard community out there. My temporary new usertitle is in no way to be construed as ridiculing this important sector of society.