beecee

The world generally speaking, saw Trump as a coniving, crazy, raving right wing dangerous, blithering idiot. It certainly was not hard to expect the next President to be saner then the Trump rock bottom choice. As an Aussie, I quite like Biden and cannot understand why his popularity is so low in the poll. My only criticism, is that it would be far better if he were a younger man, or that the democrats did not have someone younger to handle the job. I have no qualms about Biden nominating a black woman, and again see it simply as a matter of public recognition for a large section of the American community. It seems a real non event from where I'm sitting.

There's nothing scientiufic about it either. But hey! we are in the religious section and open to fantasy. Again, I define this thread irrational as per the title. But it isn't just confined to a belief in any particular deity as I listed previously. As I have explained many times, no one is out to destroy your subjective contentment, but don't pretend its science.

I see the highlighted bit by me as false, and while there maybe a small minority that don't maintain a creation/ID myth, they still certainly maintain, mythical overtones re communion with nature, transcendence, karma and other such concepts that invokes out of this world type of experiences. Again that doesn't sound like science to me. https://edge.oregonstate.edu/2017/08/23/the-science-of-karma/#:~:text=“In the Buddhist point of,and OSU's Contemplative Studies Initiative. Karma, however, is deeply personal. “In the Buddhist point of view karma is a psychological phenomenon. It happens because of the way the mind works. It’s not some general force that exists in the universe. It’s not the hand of God,” says John Edwards, director of CLA’s School of Psychological Science and OSU’s Contemplative Studies Initiative. “The basic idea is that your own behaviors and actions lead you to experience the world in a certain way.” :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Psychology of course is best described as a "soft science" Just out of interest, my biggest argument in this thread, is the irrationality of the subject at hand, as described by the title......Is it rational (for an athiest) to believe in religion? Atheist= a person who does not believe in a creator/deity/ID/god Religion = The belief in a super duper omnipotent being/god, and the supernatural and the paranormal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion Rational = A belief based on reason, logic and evidence. https://www.google.com/search?q=rational+foundations+of+religion&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=rational&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i67i131i433j0i67j0i67i131i433j69i60l3.2928j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 "Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching"

And in the meantime, despite all the sanctions so far, the war continues. Thanks largely to the resolve of the Ukrainians as reported and evidenced, and their unexpected successes, despite also huge losses and deaths.. In the meantime, the Russian public is also sufferring while at the same time having their media and news outlets controlled, meaning effectively thay are being lied to. And many have been arrested for daring to protest Russia's war mongering. And the war goes on... Better we try other means like ceasing the peacemeal sanctions and letting them have all that we have in the way of sanctions and limitations...Like throwing them off the security council for starters...that and building an Iron curtain around Russia. Sure, some NATO countries and others may feel the after effects, but again, the war goes on. Will the wholesale implementation of all possible sanctions work? We cannot really say, but we also know that the present system is not working. The other is as mentioned, the hope that a Russian military or nonmilitary person may take Putin out, permanently. The downside of course being someone possibly worse may take the reigns, with even itchier trigger fingers for nuclear missile launching. The third suggestion is probably the most distasteful, in telling Putin that NATO and the west will withdraw all suggestions and accusations of genocide. (In reality of course he needs to face justice, and if found guilty, sentenced and hung!) Dictators, while obviously starving their general population/public of news, also prefer to be admired/looked up to and revered. Putin I don't think would be any exception, if he could avoid having the public and the military know the truth. There is already reportedly some desertions, and unofficial/unordered retreats from some Russian infantry and armoured divisions, so some restlessness and doubt about the legitimacy of this war is already considered. Will it work? Again, like the other two, we cannot really say with certainty. The only certain factor of course, is the war goes on, bombing of innocents continues and Ukrainians are dying.

Interesting article, still though based on the soft sciences at best.

About what? What I said previously before your interuption...... I stand by both statements. I asked you a question previously, thus, Why would you object to taking out a maniac, that may have/could have potentially started a nuclear war? The only other alternative is for him to do the right thing as Hitler finally did. Let me ask it again. Why would you object for someone taking out Putin? Perhaps WW2 may have ended earlier if the attempts on Hitlers life were successful.

Can't argue with any of that reasonable reply. Thanks. Again, essentially nothing so far has worked, and that was the reason for my "perhaps" suggestion, after all else is tried and failed. I'll answer your less then genuine (imo) question....No you did not say definitively that you know, but you most certainly did suggest and infer other possibilities, just as I have never set any of my suggestions or replies in concrete, but all encouched with perhaps, and the reasons. That's the situation at this time, we can't be sure of anything, other then so far despite the horrendous losses, and the continuing support of Ukraine by NATO and other nations, it is having no effect in stopping the carnage. Are you interested in stopping the carnage? and trying all methods possible, short of a third world war and nuclear reprisals?

I don't intend playing your games.

Don't mind freckles, its the tatooed boobs that put me off!!! Personally I don't really care what color hair any woman has....I'm a legs man!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-gyDZ1Jdjo Blokes?? Don't care.

Already answered...... Now I must ask, are you seriously asking meaningful genuine questions? or have you still got a bee in your bonnet? Let's rehash this obvious bee which I originally ignored to placate you...... you asked...... I gave that answer again with the following highlight which you seemed to have taken exception to.... you replied..... This is what you claim you didn't understand...... Please, can we end play time? Please? What we can be sure of, is that we cannot be sure of anything at this stage, other then the continuing horrendous losses on both sides, and the continuing support of Ukraine and its people by NATO and other nations.

Where did I say I know? I said perhaps. ps: I have edited the previous post if you would like to reply.

Perhaps he would still like his people to think good of him? Like other dictators of the past. Perhaps for the same selfish reasons as above. And his general unpredictability. In turn why do you believe you know he wouldn't secumb to the reasons I have given? Like I said, perhaps...😉 That's the situation at this time, we can't be sure of anything, other then so far despite the horrendous losses, and the continuing support of Ukraine by NATO and other nations, it is having no effect in stopping the carnage. Are you interested in stopping the carnage? and trying all methods possible, short of a third world war and nuclear reprisals?

Like I said, perhaps. Perhaps. That's the situation at this time, we can't be sure of anything, other then so far despite the horrendous losses, and the continuing support of Ukraine by NATO and other nations, it is having no effect in stopping the carnage.

Perhaps. But he doesn't seem to care either way, and/or about any consequences. And while no international police force is likely to arrest him, it may have some affect on the average Russian citizen, knowing that their leader was not a criminal.

Any and all challenges of atrocities, war crimes, as a sweetener if you will, to withdraw, that "may be" effective if he is backed into a corner, and may go to placate the average Russian Joe Blow, ( or keep them in the dark) when this debacle is finished. I thought that was pretty clear. Just a thought though.

I think the WIKI definition, covers all contingencies including my definition. On the second statement, all I can say is that again any thought of ID is unscientific, as is all supernatural and paranormal explanations. And I suspect all religions when we get down to the nitty gritty, requires some form of ID, if not then mythical overtones re communion with nature, transcendence, karma and other such concepts that invokes out of this world type of experiences. That doesn't sound like science to me.

While I agree that we cannot be sure of what will happen if Putin was taken out, we also can never be sure what Putin would do when backed into a corner...so far the atrocities, the use of outlawed weapons, chemical being the latest rumoured to have been used. He could still, (if things don't go his way) decide to use tactical nuclear weapons. Perhaps NATO and the west may need to forget about the atrocities and war crimes, and offer this to Putin as an exchange to cease his maniacal war. I wouldn't like it, but perhaps if he is backed into a corner, he, (Putin) may see it as a way out. For NATO and the west, it would be the lesser of two evils, although morally acceptable in stopping this war. Just a thought.

Bertrand has quoted many wise utterences, one being, "science is what we know; Philosophy is what we don't know" Nonsense. You put the cart before the horse. All science says is that we have no evidence for anything supernatural with regards to any magical creation of the universe. The onus is on those claiming thier magical spaghetti monter of choice did it, to show evidence of that myth. And obviously that chance is gradually lessening everyday and is constantly being pushed further and further back into oblivion as science gathers knowledge, makes further observations, going back further and further in time. Isn't it? The irrational thread title is "Is it rational (for an athiest) to believe in religion?" I have already given my own and Wiki's definition of religion. And aaalso Atheist. I didn't specifically say it was. I was addressing another member. What I have said a dozen times now, is that the thread as per the title, is irrational. Just read some of the carryings on last night, and yes, you are correct. I'm also out of here and this irrational merry-go-round.

Generally you don't prove a negative, that's silly. The onus is on you to show evidence for any magical being, pink elephants on Mars, or fairies at the bottom of the garden......Dawkins dooesn't need to prove anything...Dawkins simply shows that no evidence exists for any magical or supernatural being, it's that simple. https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm#:~:text=One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim.&text=It is possible to prove,be capable of being proven. Not sure where you got your quote from or whether it was out of context or not. But again, the onus is not on science to show there isn't any god. The title of this thread though remains irrational.

I gave my definition of religion in the second or third post, but here is the WIKI rundown..... "Religion is usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements;[1] however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3] Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine,[4] sacred things,[5] faith,[6] a supernatural being or supernatural beings,[7] or "some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life".[8] Religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of deities and/or saints), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions have sacred histories and narratives, which may be preserved in sacred scriptures, and symbols and holy places, that aim mostly to give a meaning to life. Religions may contain symbolic stories, which are sometimes said by followers to be true, that may also attempt to explain the origin of life, the universe, and other phenomena. Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs". <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, unscientific. If people chose "irrational beliefs" for whatever reasons, like an inner warm comforting glow and avoiding the finality of death, That's there choice. I am not a religious person basher...some of my best friends (including the Mrs) are highly religious. But when we have religion science bashing, or irrational rhetoric as per the thread title, then I tell it the way I see it. I havn't made any study of religion, (other then my school days at a christian brothers college) but the highlighted bit by me, is worthy of note, and the "God of the gaps" is applicable to christianty in the main. If I am painting all religions with the same brush, it is then the rationality brush as compared with science. Moral teachings and such, at least in any democratic westernised society, is not the exclusive right of religion, but that society in general.

Why would you object to taking out a maniac, that may have/could have potentially started a nuclear war? The only other alternative is for him to do the right thing as Hitler finally did.

https://www.livescience.com/first-interstellar-object-detected An interstellar object exploded over Earth in 2014, declassified government data reveal By Brandon Specktor published about 9 hours ago Classified data prevented scientists from verifying their discovery for 3 years. A fireball that blazed through the skies over Papua New Guinea in 2014 was actually a fast-moving object from another star system, according to a recent memo(opens in new tab) released by the U.S. Space Command (USSC). The object, a small meteorite measuring just 1.5 feet (0.45 meter) across, slammed into Earth's atmosphere on Jan. 8, 2014, after traveling through space at more than 130,000 mph (210,000 km/h) — a speed that far exceeds the average velocity of meteors that orbit within the solar system, according to a 2019 study of the object published in the preprint database arXiv. more at link................. the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.07224.pdf Discovery of a Meteor of Interstellar Origin: ABSTRACT: The first interstellar object, ‘Oumuamua, was discovered in the Solar System by Pan-STARRS in 2017, allowing for a calibration of the abundance of interstellar objects of its size ∼ 100 m. One would expect a much higher abundance of smaller interstellar objects, with some of them colliding with Earth frequently enough to be noticeable. Based on the CNEOS catalog of bolide events, we identify the ∼ 0.45m meteor detected at 2014-01-08 17:05:34 UTC as originating from an unbound hyperbolic orbit with 99.999% confidence. We infer that the meteor had an asymptotic speed of v∞ ∼ 42.1±5.5 km s−1 outside of the solar system. Its origin is approximately towards R.A. 49.4±4.1 ◦ and declination 11.2 ± 1.8 ◦ , implying that its initial velocity vector was 58 ± 6 km s−1 away from the velocity of the Local Standard of Rest (LSR). Its high LSR speed implies a possible origin from the deep interior of a planetary system or a star in the thick disk of the Milky Way galaxy. The local number density of its population is 106 +0.75 −1.5 AU−3 or 9 × 1021+0.75 −1.5 pc−3 (necessitating 0.2 - 20 Earth masses of material to be ejected per local star). This discovery enables a new method for studying the composition of interstellar objects, based on spectroscopy of their gaseous debris as they burn up in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Even if she was not the most capable person, generally speaking, (but still extremely quailified) and as per the addage "justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done" isn't the concept of both male and female being represented, as well as whites and non whites, worth adhering to? I would also be of the same opinion if the whole five judges most qualified (is that the number) of the US supreme court, were all black and female. I would see the necessary representation of at least one white male. Now that is a problem! and probably part of the reason why the political divide in the US, appears so distant from each other.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I am absolutely flabbergasted how some can twist facts to suit any particular sickening agenda they wish! To repeat myself again, the best that can happen is that some Russian citizen take this war criminal out, (Putin) by whatever means at their disposal.

As answered by wiser heads then myself....that is a nonsense. Both the supernatural and the paranormal are unscientific concepts. Taoism is described in WIKI as "Taoism (/ˈtaʊɪzəm/, /ˈdaʊɪzəm/) or Daoism (/ˈdaʊɪzəm/) refers to either a school of philosophical thought (道家; daojia) or to a religion (道教; daojiao); both share ideas and concepts of Chinese origin and emphasize living in harmony with the Tao (Chinese: 道; pinyin: Dào; lit. 'Way', 'Thoroughfare' or Dao). <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be kind to my Taoists friends, at best then a myth? in the same way as Camelot, Authur and Merlin? I loved those stories when I was a kid! And as I have mentioned before, I don't really label my self as Atheist, or Agnostic for that matter, simply a lay person who sees the rationality in science and the scientific methodology. More to the point "cannot rationally concern itself" with. The smart religions though, (Catholicism) then reluctantly agree with concepts like evolution and the BB, with their own biased "god of the gaps" reasoning. Not sure what that "quote" is supposed to illustrate, except as an excuse for brain washing kids? Berty also said....."The world is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper". Bertrand Russell