Now you're walking back from "much more clear who was responsible" to "conjecture". — boethius

You are the one conducting conjecture. This is the problem, you seem unable to understand what others write and come off as deeply confused.

What you fail to do is account for the undisputed fact the US threatened to blow up the pipelines. — boethius

They didn't threaten that, they said "end it", which can also mean working with Germany to end their dependence on it. The way you interpret it is akin to how conspiracy theories form.

If you want to propose an alternate theory, you need to take into account the undisputed facts. — boethius

Your "theory" doesn't have nearly as much support other than your own conjecture over your own interpretation of something that isn't directly linked.

You need to say "I have this theory that it was the Russians that conspired to blow up the pipelines and make it look like the US did it by taking advantage of the fact the US said they would do it, all while totally not being a conspiracy theorist conjecturing about this conspiracy theory I have" (or is it only a "conspiracy theory" if it's not the Russians somehow?). — boethius

I'm not doing anything other than pointing in the direction of new evidence. It's you who's conjuring up rants through biases and fallacies in order to dismiss all of that because it doesn't fit what you believe.

You do not even have the beginnings of a proposal. — boethius

I don't claim to, I have talked about possible motives and pointed at the investigation done by these journalists. My "lack of a theory" does not mean your theory is right, it means that I go where the evidence is and conclude that the most plausible perpetrator is Russia. But you're the one who claims to have the truth on your side based on conjecture.

I get it, Western media simply ignores the US president threatening to blow up the pipeline — boethius

You still go on about this even though that never happened. If you are this confused on how to interpret reality or how to carefully interpret what is happening without adding your own beliefs, then no wonder you write as you do. Because the foundation you present is already flawed, but you formulate entire arguments on that foundation, which makes everything you say break apart.

So ... why would the US threaten to blow up pipeline — boethius

You keep doing it.

Even in the realm of conjecture, you're idea should cohere with the known facts. — boethius

This is the most blatant attempt at turning the tables. What I pointed to is actual evidence. What you call evidence is a highly speculatory interpretation of a president who actually didn't say specifically what you constantly write he said. It's you who are doing the conjecture, it's you who are conjuring up new ideas of what constitutes evidence. And then you say that I should stick to "known facts"... are you actually delusional? You haven't even gone through the new findings and just dismiss everything and then said something like that... you're fucking hilarious :rofl:

As I say above, if you're theory is the Russian's did it and Biden is a moron for doing the Russians the favour of making empty threats about the pipeline, I don't have a problem with that theory. Conjecture all you want Russia is the master of strategy and perception and US officials are dunces that have no idea what they are talking about or why. — boethius

Strawman again... seriously, get your medicine or whatever. The problem with your way of making arguments is that you write out what you want the other person's argument to be about, and then you counter-argue it. Instead of that, go where I pointed and look into that material because so long as you ignore that you are making a fool out of yourself.

Is only because the US president threatened to blow up the pipelines in Public. — boethius

Again... mr one-trick-pony can't do anything else than parrot this thing over and over and over thinking the amount of time you say it, it's gonna be more real than the last. He didn't say it like that, YOU are the one interpreting it this way and then you build an entire conspiracy theory around it sprinkling fallacies and biases all over the place.

So, at least start your presentation with — boethius

I'm not gonna dance to your pipe just because it makes it easier for you. :rofl:

For someone who does so much mental gymnastics, you're not doing nearly enough to avoid the obvious conclusion which is: — boethius

Stop writing out what you believe others should write just because it makes sense to you. It's lunacy.

Which, again, where is the disagreement? — boethius

I'm not playing your games, your foundation for your argument is so fucking speculative and far-fetched as the entire foundation for it and your entire dismissal of many months of investigations by the group of investigative journalists I've pointed to just shows how desperate you are to have things your way. You simply seem unable to comprehend how deep your head is in the sand. You can't will yourself into being right.

We both agree both the US and Russia had opportunity to blow up the pipeline. — boethius

Why would I agree that the US had the opportunity or reason to? I specifically gave a motivation as to why the US wouldn't, which, as with everything else just wooshes right over your head. Once again you are trying to position the one you debate against into a position you decided by writing what you believe and then try to demand the other to agree with you. Moving the goal posts.

If it wasn't the US then how do avoid the conclusion that Biden is a fucking moron for threatening to do it before hand ... — boethius

You never fucking understand what hindsight bias is, do you? And you never understand that your entire argument is based on what you believe his speech meant. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't change the fact that your argument is too weak, it has a tremendously weak foundation and premise. And as long as you ignore the new findings you are just showing everyone how desperate you are for your conjecture to be right, so much so that you try to manipulate your way to it by writing long sections where you try to change other's arguments into what you want them to be. The question is if you do it on purpose or are completely clueless. But you are behaving like the usual stereotypical conspiracy theorist. It's the same attempted tactics, the same inability to understand bias and fallacies, and the same errors in reasoning.

You have the facts presented by the investigative journalists. Dig through it. If not, then you are dishonest in the discussion and only interested in being right. And then you need to understand hindsight bias and understand why your argument is thin as aerogel. Until then, you simply act like a delusional conspiracy theorist.

I agree that, for example, holy days can become everyday holidays. I was thinking of more elaborately symbolic ceremonies like the Catholic Eucharist becoming meaningless without their symbolic dimension. — Janus

Some things survive and others not, it matters little since the religion isn't practiced anymore. Midsommar still means something to people, but it means nothing for anyone in terms of pagan beliefs. Other pagan traditions and rituals that had more belief built into them are of course gone.

Of course, people love festivals, because they love colour, dressing up, dancing and eating and so on. You don't really need any excuse to do those things. Here where I live such activities may be scheduled simply on, for example, the third Sunday of every month. — Janus

And this is what I mean. Increase the incentive for people to do stuff like that, it is healthy for the community and individual in a society. But for that to happen we need less work hours filling up our lives with stress and lost time.

What is the problem with "newly invented spiritual ideas" and what has scientific knowledge got to do with celebrating, and how could the latter become corrupt through lack of the former? Your "vision" sounds somewhat like a scientistic prejudice. — Janus

Because this spiritualism and supernatural beliefs produce negatives in other areas. Why do we need them? It's not prejudice it's looking at the positives of religion and removing the negatives. There's no wonder that smaller spiritual movements today in the West are dominant in other factors like fact-resistance and conspiracy theories. The focus on supernatural stuff can make people invent practices that aren't positive for the self or the community.

There's no point in having those things when the positives of ritual behavior and traditions can exist without supernatural angles.

As I noted earlier, Auguste Comte, founder of sociology and of the idea of positivism, attempted to create just such a secular church movement, The Church of Man, although it never really took off. IThere's still a Church of Positivism in Brazil, I read. ) — Wayfarer

Except I'm more advocating the removal of anything that reinstates religious themes and iconography. Rituals and traditions doesn't need a church.

Like "karesansui". For example, having the time and consistency of focusing on a long process for making tea each morning is a form of ritual. The problem is that our modern world has removed much of the time required for having such rituals. We stress to the next thing all the time, never standing still. If we lower the amount of time we work each week, people will be able to give time to common day rituals that help meditate the mind and ground it.

What I'm advocating for is a society that culturally have a focus on these types of things. Just like we have a bedroom for sleep and society is built around our need for sleep, we could shape society to give people time and incentive to include such rituals into daily life.

Some will say that religion answers only psychological needs, but that itself is reductionist. According to anthropology and comparative religion, religions operate along a number of different lines to provide social cohesion, normative frameworks, and (most of all) a sense of relatedenss to the cosmos, by providing a mythical story which accords a role to human life in the grand scheme of things. — Wayfarer

Of course, but I'd argue that to be a different issue. The frame of mind a person have on existence is an existential one, but I focused on the practical benefits of rituals and traditions. I don't think we need supernatural stories that inflate people's view about themselves as profound. I even think that such stories can inflate our ego as a species so much that we forget the importance of ecology and being in sync with the environment.

For instance, many native and cultural practices in African nations have a focus on man being equal to nature. So they developed farming techniques that were in sync with the ecology of the environment, instead of dealing with it as if they were masters of the land. It's this inflated ego that many nations that formed in the west have from religious stories of man being above nature that have formed an inability to balance our society towards nature. Climate change, or rather the unwillingness to actually do what is necessary to fix the problems, is probably rooted in this mentality that has been deeply planted by these religious stories.

Today, African strategies for farming have started to become important for sustainability because it's a deeply rooted knowledge that we benefit from being transformed into large scale practices.

So I don't think religious stories are important other than being used and considered like normal stories, never confused to be real, but allegorical.

The difficulty with science replacing religion is that it provides no basis for moral judgements, it is a quantitative discipline concerned chiefly with measurement and formulating mathemtically-sound hypotheses. Strictly speaking there is no 'scientific worldview' as such, as science operates on the basis of tentative (i.e. falsifiable) theories which are only ever approximative. It is a method, and maybe an attitude, rather than a definitive statement as to what is real. (Hence the interminable arguments about 'qualia' and whether human beings actually exist.) — Wayfarer

As in my initial post, I don't think it will replace religion because they are two different things. Moral judgements doesn't need religion either since we've perfectly invented moral tenets without the need for religion. Most of our modern laws are based on philosophers ideas on ethics, not religious. We don't need religion to become morally balanced and looking at what mostly polarizes the world into conflict, religion is up there. Science can't help with morals, except the study on how we biologically functions in terms of it, but philosophy can handle questions of morality.

Point being, there are a number of cultures who's religions were less supernatural and more focused on nature, functioning well or even better than other types of religion in terms of practical applications and existential guidance.

That we can't rid ourselves of religious beliefs and fantasies because they are somehow essential to the human condition is something I think is false. Structuring society based on taking the good parts of religious practice, things proven positive for mental health and well being, and reforming them into non-religious applications, like my tea example above, would give us the benefits and remove the negatives. I am not convinced believing fantasies to be real is helpful for the individual and community, it is basically the same as believing in conspiracy theories and no one that is morally balanced would argue that conspiracy theories is a good condition. Some could say that conspiracy theories are good because they focus us with a needed skepticism of our surroundings in order for us to ask the right questions, but it's this difference that I'm talking about. We don't need the conspiracy theory, we just need to become better at skepticism without it. We don't need religion for morality, we need to focus on morality itself. We don't need religion for rituals and traditions, we just need to form society in a way that includes similar practices in order to increase mental health and well being.

We don't need a church or any such structures, we need a culture that gives room for contemplation in itself. Nothing of that has to do with science replacing religion, it has to do with us not needing religion to cover the positives religion provides. It is a society that we don't really have right now.

... Obviously I was referring to Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh — Tzeentch

By linking to a channel of a known conspiracy theorist and disinformation spreader. I failed to see the obviousness and the fact that you did kind of shows just how bad you are at understanding sources.

nearly day-by-day account of the Nord Stream bombing, directly incriminating the United States. Hersh who, by the way, has a proven track record of bringing US misdeeds to light. — Tzeentch

Where's the evidence? You are still doing what conspiracy theorists do and connect dots by wishful thinking. Where't the actual evidence?

It's rather cute you are trying to dismiss the poster of a YouTube video - as though the poster is in any way relevant - when the video features former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice outright admitting their preoccupation with European energy dependency. — Tzeentch

You are still unable to understand that this does not equal guilt of the bombing. It's conjecture. You also fail to explain why there's any motive to bomb it. The EU is an ally to the US and after the invasion there's already began a switch away from Russian dependency for energy. Bombing the pipeline while Germany is already dismantling their need for it has no function. Russia however, just as with their propaganda strategies, aims to split the west into conflicts with each other so as to not have a united front against Russia. That's their aim and it's well established. So, what does a bombing of Nordstream at this time? Russia directly pointed blame against Ukraine, then the west, then the US, just as they already do with other propaganda strategies. The intention is to seed doubt so that the west starts to blame each other. And you are among the ones who they play like a fiddle in order to spread this doubt. So, you are the one who's making a fool out of himself. You don't even understand the conspiracy rabbit hole you're stuck in.

It is not worth my time for something as low stakes as the question of whether Russian ships (civilian, military, covert) are in the Baltic doing what they would normally be doing in peace, and much more-so in war time. — boethius

Oh, the good old debate strategy of dismissing everything saying it's not worth your time... and then just continues to write a long follow up anyway :rofl:

And of course you just ignore everything said and just go back to normal strawmans. It's pathetic actually.

However, since no one is debating at the moment anything remotely important (such as if the cost of the war to Ukraine is worth the benefits so far or then expected benefits in the future and if whether the Western policy to supply is in Ukraine's interest, the West's interest or then just the arms suppliers interest) I will pick apart your delusions for the benefit of the casual follower to this discussion. — boethius

Why are you shifting focus? Shifting goal posts is another strategy of dishonest interlocutors. I have no interest in dancing along with these biases and fallacies. I can feel my intelligence taking damage just being around your dishonest writing.

I have zero problem defending that I am defining the US as the lead suspect. — boethius

Of course, just pick and choose and when the blame comes into question, move goal posts and try to prove it that way.

In any crime, someone who credibly states they intend to do that crime beforehand makes themselves the lead suspect. — boethius

Hindsight bias. You have no evidential link other than conjecture.

You accuse me of ignoring this "important evidence" of some messages or whatever — boethius

Strawman. And of course, you ignore to look into it. Your way of ignoring things like this makes you unable to actually do any kind of investigation. That you don't understand that you suffer from Selective Perception Bias like this also moves you into Dunning Kruger territory.

To make a credible case it was someone else, you need to first explain why this threat by the US was not actually credible and we should dismiss it. For example, perhaps it was a bluff ... or perhaps it wasn't a bluff but the US and Russia were in a race to blow up the pipelines first and Russia just so happened to win that race because they are so competent and crafty. — boethius

Perhaps, perhaps perhaps. Any more dots to connect through conjecture in your water tight accusation towards the US? You would have been laughed out the court room if you had the same level of burden of proof required in there.

Blowing up the pipeline had no purpose for the US when the invasion had already had the effect of moving Germany and Europe away from dependency on Russia. The changeover was already happening so there's no point in bombing a pipeline and hurting allies. Russia, however, have everything to win by the chaos it produces. You are just blaming the US because it rhymes with your personal opinions.

For, if it's actually in Russia's interest to blowup the pipeline because they are "masters of perception" a la Soviet: — boethius

Then obviously, if making a bluff to blow up the pipeline plays right into the hands of the "Vlexler" you are a complete fucking moron for making that bluff, as it's literally blown up in your face. — boethius

What are you talking about? It had the intended effect, you're here playing into exactly what Russia wants to have; the west fractured by gullible people and muddying the waters to the point that when there's even tangible evidence of the act you continue to push for your personal opinions, using every bias and fallacy possible. Russia has everything to win on fracturing the west, it can have the effect of governments stopping shipments of weapons to Ukraine because the people have started to doubt everything. Russia even stated how Europe will "freeze" this last winter, which is an odd thing to say after the explosion. Why isn't the fact they said that equally guilty like the half-demented president quote? Maybe because there's more tangible evidence pointing towards Russia. Things you ignore out of inconvenience for your personal opinion and conspiracy ridden narrative.

If you're argument is "Biden's a fucking moron, delusional senile ol' goat that is liable to say whatever comes into his mind on live television and his words should be ignored — boethius

No, it is that his chaotic mumbling makes it deeply unreliable for interpretation, especially when you do it through hindsight bias and conjecture.

We are not, in fact, in disagreement. You just don't want to call a spade a space or then offer some other theory as to what Biden's words meant, why they don't matter, or why did matter but the Russians got to same plan first ... in which case why is it in Russia's favour if the US was planning to do the exact same thing? — boethius

I have already described three times now what the possible motives are, but you don't care. Your mind seems to wander through conspiracy-land being both confused and paranoid.

Excuse me? — Tzeentch

Vanessa Beeley, it's who you linked to if you had any idea.

That's quite simply untrue. I support everything I say here with tangible arguments, and most of what is discussed is directly related to my own academic field. — Tzeentch

Your arguments aren't tangible just because you say so and especially since the premises you provide have such a weak footing that they're simply just your subjective opinion based on nothing else than what you believe to be true and then seem to call Vanessa Beeley a world-renowned journalist as if she were in any shape or form more valid than the top investigative journalists that conducted the investigation I referred to.

The fact is still that your conjectures are fundamentally weak against the findings of these journalists. And these findings are in support of Russia being the most likely suspect. In the real world, outside of your fantasies and biases, these findings are so far the strongest there is, and any person able to understand what is and what isn't strong evidence have no problem understanding the significance of this.

I think this thread has fried some people's brains. People are so deeply lacking in the area of understanding biases that it's sometimes impossible to converse with them and this thread is clearly such a place.

The US blatantly stated it was going to end Nord Stream. It has been trying to change European energy dependency since the Bush administration. — Tzeentch

Yes, that doesn't mean they blew it up, that only means they want to end the use of Russian gas in their allied nations because of how the dependence on it create problems, as we've see when sanctions were drafted. It's also a pretty stupid way to "end it" since it would just be rebuilt. "Ending it" means making sure EU is choosing something else than Russian gas and oil. But you are interpreting that as attacking it. It is nowhere close to any admission of guilt, it is Selective Perception Bias.

We have almost a day-by-day account of what happened provided by an independent, world-renowned journalist. — Tzeentch

Day to day of what evidence? What's the tangible and real evidence here, all I see is you having Selective Perception Bias.

Are you saying that Vanessa Beeley is a world-renowned journalist? Is this the kind of person you are using as a source calling her a world-renowned journalist? Are you for real? :rofl:

Vanessa Beeley (born 1963/1964[1]) is a British activist and blogger[2][3][4] known for sharing conspiracy theories[5] and disinformation[2][6

You mean that the actual top investigative journalists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland are less trustworthy than a proven liar and disinformation blogger?

It's this kind of bullshit that is enough to show how low the level is in terms of rational deduction on your part. It's this kind of things that show why the conclusion that you are just another useful idiot for Russian propaganda is accurate.

The fact that you believe one has to be brainwashed by Russian propaganda to believe the US is a likely suspect is just rich, and probably points towards an effort of projection on your part. — Tzeentch

You are brainwashed because of how you deduce anything in your arguments, using known conspiracy theory bloggers and wild conjecture through Selective Perception Bias. You have nothing tangible to support anything you say, only your biased opinions. It's so intellectually empty.

I don't entirely disagree, but where I live this fills people's time already. There's a veritable cornucopia of lifestyle shit in the west available to fill people's time - writer's festivals, philosophy groups, food festivals, recreation opportunities, etc. Most of it very middle class and aspirational. — Tom Storm

I'm not talking about materialism or pseudo-intellectual activities, but a changeover in dedicated time to work versus activities of meaning on a wider scale that does not revolve around the same materialistic capitalism that is already filling people's lives.

I tend to think this is more apropos -

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.
- Blaise Pascal.

As true now as it was generations ago. :wink: — Tom Storm

And this is partly what I'm advocating for as well. It's why I mention mediation as a crucial part of psychological wellbeing. The problem is that these practices are somewhat hijacked in people's minds to be automatically religious or spiritual. What I'm arguing for is to dislocate religion from them and form a new cultural routine with such practices and rituals built into everyday life. It's a fundamental change to how people live. Like brushing your teeth, it is a vital normal part of everyone's daily life.

The answers I get in here when I mention "ritual" just shows how hard it is for people to separate it from religion and spiritualism. "Ritual" does not equal any of that, "ritual" is a repeated act that forms a psychological baseline in which the mind returns to known position. It is probably the reason why nostalgia is so powerful. It is the return to something familiar and important to balance against processing new information.

So in a world with an overload of information, rituals can ground people while meditation can focus thoughts.

I'm not convinced the rituals and traditions can survive without the "supernatural and spiritual elements" that motivated them in the first place and without which they lose their meaning. — Janus

Yes they can. As I described above here, "rituals" does not equal anything supernatural or spiritual. "Ritual" simply focuses on a repeating practice or act that ground the mind. It can be used as a purely health-based practice for better mental health in its basic function.

And we already have traditions without any religious foundation having any meaning. Thanksgiving has no religious background and even if Midsommar has pagan roots, there's literary no Swede who celebrate Midsommar in any religious manner. These are traditions that have formed a social and collective event in which non-religious rituals ground the collective and individual to a familiar place. There's no dance around a maypole to celebrate any religious or spiritual thing, the dance is just done because it is part of the celebration and it grounds people into a community as well as letting our minds rest towards new information.

I live in a small hippie village, and such things are celebrated in entirely new, creative ways. The quality's not always great, but the vitality and enthusiasm is there, and no reliance on long-standing traditions. — Janus

And this is what I mean, although, in too small communities, such inventions can have a tendency to incorporate newly invented spiritual ideas or become corrupt by a lack of scientific knowledge that is found on larger scale societies.

It's the larger scale of western culture I'm speaking of. A changeover of how western culture is without dismantling its foundation. A balance and synthesis of a more sustainable living (in terms of psychology) with the fast moving progression of western culture.

You seem to claim this is some sort of backup for NATO's claims. — boethius

No, what I refer is that navy and military investigators, as well as independent ones who went over what the journalists found agreed that what they found is significant. That is a confirmation of it being important, it doesn't mean this investigation is in any form of alliance with these military officals and investigators. It's like you don't even attempt to understand any of this but just boil everything that is said down to some unintelligent interpretation. It's like speaking to a child.

To make it clear for your mind. These investigators are not working for or with the official investigations that have been conducted both by military, navy and civilian actors. This investigation that I am referring to is its own investigation, looking at sources that the other investigators seemingly didn't use.

But if you want to pretend there's some "independent journalism" that is stronger evidence than the lead suspect saying they will do exactly this thing, believe what you want to believe. — boethius

"lead suspect" is something you have made up. In no way is the US any lead suspect other than through Russian propaganda and people gullible enough to eat that propaganda without a second thought. It's this presumption that makes you acting out bias towards what you already believe, and me only referring to the evidence at hand.

And of course, you ignore to even study the findings that have been presented. You just dismiss it and continue with your narrative of "lead suspect". It is a fundamentally biased and faulty deduction on your part. A normal useful idiot for Russia basically.

Which is the central problem behind the idea the Russian's blew up their own pipelines, as there was far less destructive means to shut them down, restrict gas supplies while also keeping the leverage on the table in the future. — boethius

Only in your faulty deduction. Russian propaganda and methods include creating conflicts between western nations in order to weaken them. It's the foundation for why they interfered in the 2016 election. It wasn't because Trump was an ally or anything like it, it was because he stood for the most chaos inflicted by US on itself and other Western nations. This has already been clearly described by many including people like Vlad Vexler, focusing on the shift from Soviet propaganda before the wall fell to Russian propaganda today.

But you don't seem to be able to understand these motivations, or rather I think you just ignore it because it is problematic for your argument. You are part of the problem that is what Russia want by this type of actions. You are the one who ignore actual evidence and continue to focus on a narrative that you have already decided, downplaying and strawmanning everything that is a threat to your own conclusions and arguments. You have no evidence that is tangible in any form that would be of significance. You have a wildly speculative interpretation of a speech and calling the US "leading suspect" without anything to back that up other than conjecture. The difference here is that I go where the evidence is the strongest, the actual evidence, and I don't conclude Russia to be guilty yet since the evidence so far can only point in that direction. But it is a far stronger direction than these wildly speculative interpretations you are doing and has been doing throughout this thread while ignoring everything that is remotely a threat to your own opinions.

This type of ignoring anything that is a problem for your argument is called Selective Perception Bias and it is the very foundation of everything you write in here. This is why it's hard to take your arguments seriously. They're so obviously flawed with ignorance and bias.

Some seem to think that the development of the state, capitalism, etc., lead to this nihilism. Not the other way around. — praxis

I think that you must first abandon a power structure like the church-state in order to replace it with a capitalist state. We replaced high authority with market authority and individualism in which you are your own god.

I see free market capitalism and our extreme individualism as emergent aspects of leaving a religious church-state system. If you place the individual at the center and remove Gods and pantheons, you are left with a being that self-governs itself as the highest authority, which is what free market capitalism, neoliberalism, and individualism focus on.

Attempts at having other authorities than Gods and priests have been made and it's just created hell on earth in another form. So we have removed actual human authorities and surrendered to a system of capitalism that's so integrated into our lives that it functions more like a Lovecraftian eldritch horror that has absolute authority over us. We are unable to see the beginning and end, unable to know where this being exists. It hides in the stock market, in materialism, in individualistic dreams of more more more.

Maybe it is irrelevant how nihilism, individualistic egoism, and capitalism came to be what it is today, only that when "God died" we were so desperate to get on with this new life of ours that we abandoned aspects that didn't require religion, but were essential to psychological well-being.

Social dance at a neighborhood nightclub, with a group of people dancing to the same beat in coordinated patterns, can be as zen as sitting still with a group at a temple. — praxis

Absolutely agree, but not all do that on a regular basis. Most lose this part of them when they get older, which means they need something else. And we don't need temples, we don't need archetypes of religion, we need a new framework.

It’s all there, we’re saturated in meaning, purpose, community… anything a church could offer. To think that we need to be spoon fed like children is ridiculous, and actually impairs growth by design, because religion is designed to make followers dependent. — praxis

I'm absolutely against any kind of spoon-feeding of anything. I'm arguing for just what you talk about. We need more community events, more places for people to meet. We especially need a better rework of our work habits, we need less time working and more time contemplating and meditating, which doesn't mean the same as sitting in front of a sunset getting all spiritual, it means creating a foundation of calm in our daily lives that balance against the hellish nature of neoliberal capitalism that we've been caught in.

What I mean is that society, on a larger scale, may need to advocate for a more healthy balance and a better perspective on materialism than what marketing is feeding to everyone. We're stuck in the desert of the real, believing that everything is fine.

That's the narrative. — Tzeentch

That's the facts. He's a former signals intelligence officer, meaning, he's an expert in the surveillance of radio communications and he was listening in on communication. There's even a section with him analyzing the communication behavior to determine the experience of the person using the radio.

He tracked the vessel to the point of its stated science mission position and then it deviated from its mission to go to the pipeline right at the location of the explosion.

You can speculate all you want, but the capability of the ship and the tracked route confirmed by two sources as well as intercepted communication back all of this up. You don't seem to get that it wasn't a military vessel, it was a civilian science vessel with the military on board, based on the analysis of the communication it had with the mainland. The introduction of him in the documentary shows him directly listening in and you're interpreting him only checking emissions? This is why I doubt you actually have looked into any of this, you are missing points all over the place.

I think you simply lack the practical knowledge to understand my objections. — Tzeentch

I think you lack the unbiased ability to look at these findings correctly. And what practical knowledge? Your ability to interpret a half-demented president?

Except that the story goes that they didn't mask themselves. — Tzeentch

They didn't mask against someone intentionally looking for it in the way they did in this investigation. Because it wasn't normal military practice, as stated by the military and navy if you paid attention.

Apparently they left port with their name plate on display and kept their active sensors on, without apparent reason other than it being very convenient for the story. — Tzeentch

As a science vessel, you know, trying to hide in plain sight. You seem to be very confused as to what actually happened.

What it shows is that I understand how these systems work and what constitutes an actual ship identification, rather than a dramatized collection of circumstantial evidence. — Tzeentch

How these systems work doesn't help if you utilize them for masking yourself. They traveled with a stated mission to a place in the Baltic Ocean to "do research", then went dark and went to the location of the explosion, before returning again.

Tracking a vessel with underwater operation capability, two times deviating to the same location where the explosions happened is not circumstantial evidence, and it's far more proof than any conjectures you draw up about who's responsible. Where's your actual evidence for anyone else?

What exactly was unconventional about the methods? The method is never really explained, but from what I gather they used AIS data, passive intercepts and satellite imagery; that's about as conventional as it gets. — Tzeentch

The satellite stations in Tromsö are not used for gathering this kind of information. And yes, they are explained, if you actually watched all of it.

It sounds like you are confusing territorial waters with Economic Exclusive Zones. To reach Bornholm island there is no need to enter Swedish territorial waters, and Bornholm Island itself is located in the Danish waters. The sabotage was conducted on the border of Danish territorial waters and the Danish/Swedish EEZ border. — Tzeentch

It sounds like you don't know how the Nordic nations' navies collaborate in the Baltic Ocean. It doesn't matter if it's right outside the borders. Do you think we have surveillance only within our nation's borders? How do you think we intercept subs before they enter our waters? The case point is that we have technology specific for spotting Russian subs and you suggest it would be better for Russia to use said subs. Not a very intelligent strategy really.

If you want to live in a fantasy where Sweden sees all that happens in a noisy, shallow sea like the Baltic, be my guest, I suppose - shows what you know. — Tzeentch

Not at all, but you know even less about our Swedish navy and its capabilities. The point is still that operating with a science vessel doing a covert op is far less likely to attract attention than going in with a Russian military submarine. That you think that would be a better strategy just shows how little you know about the conflict events that happen all the time between the Swedish and Russian navies. They're constantly pushing away Russian subs who get too brave thinking they're invisible. It would be the most stupid strategy ever to use a Russian sub for actual operation so close to Sweden, but hey, maybe you live in a fantasy where that is a sound strategy.

Because NATO and Russia have been practically at war since February 2022. I'd expect western intelligence agencies to keep tabs on literally every Russian vessel they can, especially in the Baltic and Black Seas. — Tzeentch

Explain how you do that practically with hundreds of thousands of Russian ships. First, you keep most intel gathering on military movements in the Baltic sea, then, as a priority, you need to keep track of movements in Ukraine, around the borders of Ukraine, Russia, China, and its borders, since that's a potential conflict as well, not to mention other places in the world like, as a recent example, Sudan. You also need constant surveillance of the Black Sea. After you've positioned all analysts to every priority target you then have hundreds of thousands of ships to keep track of around the Nordic region and need to constantly monitor everyone and their movement in order to spot deviant behavior.

So, I'm asking you to explain how in practice you would allocate these resources to effectively be able to spot the rapid deviant behavior of the specific ship that was pointed out in this investigation.

Because it's rather ironic that after you call it fantasy that Sweden would be able to monitor the entire Baltic Ocean (which is a strawman because that's not what I said), you argue that NATO would be able to cover all of this around the world including all the thousands of ships that this specific ship was a part of. Seriously, you're not very consistent in the capacity anyone has of surveilling ships. According to you, the Swedish navy doesn't see much, and the signal intelligence officer shouldn't be able to gather much, but NATO should see everything all the time, because that is in line with your conspiracy theory about them.

What findings? — boethius

The findings by the investigative journalists that were just released. Are you illiterate or just ignorant?

I can't say I personally want to be involved in community type rituals, contemplation, traditions or meditation. — Tom Storm

Compared to many religious practices, it would of course be voluntary. You don't have to, but it's there as part of a culture that balances against the current Western culture that is slowly killing us with stress.
And you're already somewhat part of this, wherever you live I'd guess there are traditions that happen that aren't linked to religion, but function as celebrations of some sort, a social event. People opt out of those all the time and compared to religion, no one is really judgemental of those people.

Do we have evidence that people were less stressed or happier, or more connected to what matters a hundred, two hundred years ago, when religion still had power in the west? I knew three of my grandparents pretty well. They were born in the late 1800s. They did not seem to think so. — Tom Storm

No, we weren't happier before, but we have another type of stress today. And we have a society that has removed many of the dangers of living that existed back then. This has led to another type of stress. The modern world does not distinguish stress that can be correlated to a certain danger, like the need for food or shelter/home. Today, stress is vague, exists all the time, and never rests. This is because of things like social media, smartphones, internet in general, and a change to what "work" means in people's lives. The constant connection, availability, the constant work creates a system where we never really rest, think and contemplate. People even make it a business with self-help books and other bullshit that stress out people more because they need to "book rest" into their calender.

What I'm talking about is a society where we structure these things into everyday life. A culture that incorporates rest, meditation, and contemplation as part of everyday practices. Creating rituals that can be followed without having the burden of spirituality and religion attached to it.

Is there any compelling demonstration that people's lives are better with ritual and contemplation? How would we demonstrate this? — Tom Storm

There's been many studies on the positive effects of meditation and boredom (specifically contemplative). Studies conducted used one group living with these day-to-day practices and the control group without. Sleep became better, mental stability and health improved, and stress levels lowered.

Would lives not be generally enhanced if people just slowed down the pace and stopped social media and eating shit? (Such dreams are possibly only a middle class option.) Is it perhaps the case that meditation's benefits are down to the person not being at McDonald's, swiping away on their phone, or similar? — Tom Storm

Of course, but isn't it better to find a balance between technology and life rather than trying to say "stop it". Why not have practices normalized like brushing our teeth for our dental health? Instead of forcing people to abandon something, we can add practices that mitigate the negatives. When people feel the health benefits, they will do it just as they do exercise. It's just that mental health and stress issues haven't been worked into the culture as much as how we, for example, exercise more as a way of life nowadays than before.

I'd be interested to learn who is actually experiencing Nietzsche's nihilistic hell. — Tom Storm

We all are to one degree or not. The materialistic consumer neoliberalist hell that we have is a result of this nihilism. People live in it more or less. Gods are replaced by corporations and things, we look up to authorities that provide us with tech and stuff. Church is a stuffed mall. We're already in it and it has even become a Baudrillardian hell in which we are blind to what is real and what is a constructed simulacra of life. This happens when people never stop and contemplate anything.

They are swooped away by a tide of commercialism, brainwashed by commercials forming the ideal lifestyle that they can never reach. Life is not real anymore, it is a never-ending journey to reach the lifestyle that commercials show. The American dream has been replaced by a fictional pseudo-heaven shown in commercials for products. The coastline drive in the luxury car, the influencer billionaire life having a mega party, the morning brew on the porch of a house no one can afford. And the more people live in these dreams, the less they realize they are losing their lives in a stressful fight to reach these heavens.

On the whole, connection to people seems a better guarantee of enhanced mental health and happiness from what I've seen. — Tom Storm

Hence why I suggest society focus more on non-religious social traditions. Let's have more things that bring people together physically around things that people love, good food, contemplative discussions (note debates), experiences, games parties, live events etc.

While rituals are things done as an individual, social traditions act as collective acts. Both with the intent of focusing life towards something other than nihilism and the Baudriallardian desert of the real.

The evidence you are talking about is literally ships near the scene of the crime. — boethius

No, it's about their behavior and their function. Once again, dig into the actual findings instead of continuing this biased charade.

Literally right through Danish straights. — boethius

Yes, and the deviations are the things that they investigated. As well as the fact that these ships entered Danish waters (not international) with masked armed personnel, deviate from their planned routes and enter restricted areas where they should not be. Sweden has been driving off Russian ships and subs on occations for years, but at the moment it's almost done on a regular basis.

So you don't know what you're talking about.

There are civilian satellite photography taken every day of the entire earth that you can purchase.

And you think CIA spy satellites would need a "specific target" to track something as large as a ship in critical waters in the heart of NATO ... during a war in the region? — boethius

If you had been looking into this, you would have understood that there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of civilian-marked ships that are used by the Russian military and navy as covert ships around the Nordic region. And if you knew anything about the Baltic region you would know that it is not "the heart of NATO" and has never been up until maybe when Sweden joins NATO, which hasn't happened yet. But the key factor here is that your idea of it being easy to track all ships as you imply is just not correct. This is the foundation for why they probably used such a ship in the first place because there's simply no way for the CIA or NATO to track all ships and if they mask their intent right up until they deviate with a commercial tracker off, they won't be noticed other than by something that tracks an entire region or someone who's dedicated all their time to just looking at deviations. And then there's the fact that there's no war in the Baltic region and ocean. Where do you think the intelligence people are looking the most? Ukraine and the Black Sea of course.

Painting CIA and NATO as an all-seeing eye that has superhuman capabilities of spotting everything everywhere is not a counter-argument to the findings presented. Because these findings were used with unconventional methods. Which may be key to why they spotted it and not any intelligence agency. If Russia knows the tactics and methods of surveillance, they would plan a covert op to hide from it, but not unconventional methods like the ones used in these findings.

So, if the investigation hasn't shared all it's evidence, and that's just normal, why would we come to any conclusions? — boethius

Because... once again, if you cared to look into these findings that are a result of investigations since the explosions occurred, you would understand that the conclusion is not undisputed guilt towards Russia, but that there's enough evidence here to point at Russia far more than any other perp.

But you don't care, you just conjure up your own conspiracy theory based on official investigations not releasing evidence in an ongoing investigation and some far-fetched interpretation of a half-demented president.

If this was a murder case and you would say: "If the prosecutor isn't releasing the evidence for the public to see, then there has to be some corruption against the accused", no one would judge you as being anything other than another conspiracy nutjob. If the normal practice in criminal investigations is to keep the evidence confidential, then in investigations that revolve around national security and war it would obviously be even more so. To say that this confidentiality is "evidence of guilt" on the investigator's part is just conspiracy theory nonsense.

The problem here is these countries (who have material evidence) coming out with partial evidence without presenting the rest, so we can see if it even coheres with the material evidence. — boethius

Nations, NATO, or the CIA isn't part of the investigation that has released these findings I'm talking about. If you are this confused about who's doing what and what evidence is where then it's no wonder you're acting like a conspiracy nut.

Bad faith at best, fraud at worst (if we're pretending to be in court and 'normy' laws apply to the parties involved). — boethius

I'm using "court" or normal legal practices as thought examples in order to show just how weak your "evidence" is. The thing is that these new findings that have been released paint the clearest picture yet, it's the most conclusive evidence yet. And you are doing everything you can to dismiss their relevance without even having much of an insight or care for the details. This is the behavior of Russian trolls or of people brainwashed by their propaganda strategy. They show a hilarious example of this with a "people's journalist" who questions everything in the same manner you do, and then they track his history back to being paid by Russia to keep feeding misinformation and disinformation to the public in order to plant doubt. So that even when there are clear hints, through evidence, that Russia is in fact behind the attack, the seed of doubt produces useful idiots who keep spreading this doubt.

There's no such thing, except maybe acoustic signatures, which weren't mentioned. They mention a handful of visual characteristics which we are then to assume are present on the irrecognizable white blotches we see on the satellite imagery. — Tzeentch

False, the navy former officer specified the ship identity and the tracker before it was turned off was linked to the exact ship. If you paid attention to the material you would know it wasn't identified by the "white blotches". The "white blotches" were correlated between locations the former officer registered and with the satellite images in order to confirm travel paths. So you are clearly wrong and once again try to strawman their findings.

To reiterate, this would have been basic stuff. Literally the first things that would have been done when trying to discover whodunnit - check positioning logs, satellite imagery, and data from the numerous listening installations that line the Baltic coasts. — Tzeentch

Doesn't matter if they mask themselves among the hundreds of thousands of ships in the area. There's literary a section focused on how they didn't use the satellite system in Tromsö that they used to detect this. And it was the combined tracking between the navy officer and those satellite images that created a map of the ship's travel path. The whole point was that the initial investigators missed it because the satellite system in Tromsö isn't used for investigations. It was the idea of the journalists to use them.

For this information to just 'pop up' out of nowhere — Tzeentch

It was months of investigation in order to find something conclusive. Compared to your wild speculations, real investigators actually take time to verify to a point where it has substance. That takes time, and that's what investigative journalism is about compared to whatever bullshit clickbait the rest of the journalist world conducts.

It's kind of the opposite of what this thread is, where everyone is just spewing out wild speculations as soon as something happens. It's also that kind of behavior that lock people into biases, so deep that you are unable to do anything but try so very hard to dismiss all of this in every way possible.

We never get any real insight in the actual data that was used. — Tzeentch

This shows that you just skimmed through everything.

A secret technique which we never get any insight into, and is somehow unknown to professional militaries who have access to every type of surveillance imaginable? — Tzeentch

You don't understand why they were able to track in the way they did. The unconventional methods used are not anticipated by Russian covert ops, and not something planned against. Using civilian ships in the way they did is perfect to circumvent intelligence agencies who monitor these areas because of the sheer number of ships in use. Do you think this is the first time in history that civilians were able to spot operations and intel that intelligence agencies missed?

If you're going to accuse me of "pulling ideas out of my ass" then maybe not display your ignorance so blatantly. — Tzeentch

My ignorance? I'm pointing to the only fucking tangible evidence that has been publically available and you call me ignorant? Ger real

Their submarines can lay mines and launch divers, underwater vessels and drones. — Tzeentch

And the Swedish navy is an expert hunter for Russian subs. Do you know how many they've pushed back from our waters over the years? Do you think the presence of our navy is less after the Ukraine invasion? Do you think it's intelligent for Russians to use subs in Swedish waters when our entire sub fleet has been specifically built to counter Russian submarine designs? I guess if you had been the leader of this operation it would have failed spectacularly. Swedish submarines and operating personnel is proven the best in the world since we took out US flagships with ease. What would be the most intelligent way to do this operation then? Disguise as a civilian ship that has the capacity to do fast deep sea minisub missions of course. The Swedish navy is actively looking for Russian subs and military ships, they aren't focused on these civilian ones. The report that there are thousands of these pseudo-civilian ships is big news in the Nordic region, our governments are now initiating actions based on this investigation.

You are just throwing out ideas in an attempt to counter all of this but there's no depth to any of your ideas. Pun intended.

That's begging the question, isn't it? — Tzeentch

How is that begging the question? It's inductive reasoning based on Russia's actual practice with civilian ships right now. And you fail to realize that YOU are the one doing "begging the question". "Biden said this... so that's begging the question of why the explosion happened after it". "NATO is keeping evidence quite, so that's begging the question, what are they hiding". You don't seem to understand what begging the question means.

How many ships in the Nordic region have the letters "CC-750" on their hulls, hm? — Tzeentch

You mean this ship? Because this is the one they tracked



And of course, why would anyone track a ships location pre-explosions? You are suggesting that they should have spotted these ships before the action, but how would they know? How would they know to track this ship? The findings by these journalists were possible because they found a way to track ships in this region post-explosions. The actual intelligence agencies were surprised by their findings. There's been further interviews with counter-intelligence personnel basically being surprised by what the journalists were able to achieve and it's now part of the investigation going forward.

Are you sure conducting underwater sabotage in broad daylight with a submarine tender would classify as "covert and intelligent"? — Tzeentch

This just shows how naive you are about what covert means. It's not a Mission Impossible movie. Real operations use any means necessary to stay covert. In real life, there can be far weirder things like inflatable tanks, which fool intel personnel more than people realize. If you think that going down with a Russian sub into Swedish waters, where Sweden is world-leading at countering Russia, down to the very design of our military naval equipment and conducting the operation at night like some Hollywood movie, is more "covert" than operating within a group of thousands of other ships, only deviating a short time to a location along the pipeline that is located in a place where Russia could spin the blame towards others than if they had done so closer to their shore, and then slip out playing "innocent ship", then you have no idea what covert ops mean.

Once again you are stretching things too thin for your counter-arguments to actually work. What will you think of next I wonder?

Some even question whether Daoism or Buddhism qualify as religions. — Janus

If removing any supernatural and spiritual elements then they are closer to what I described about the essential need for rituals, traditions, and awe in a non-religious way of life. How the importance of traditions and rituals exist in the psychology of humans and that trying to rid yourself of every such form has a tremendous negative impact on our well-being.

I am as much of an atheist as they come. I think religion is pure delusion and fantasy. But I also think the pendulum from religion to atheism has been swung too heavily and with such power that we've lost some essential aspects of human psychology in relation to religious practice.

I think that one part of avoiding Nietzsche's nihilistic hell is to find a way to have rituals and traditions in a non-religious world. Like the tradition of Midsommar in Sweden, having no real religious ties anymore, and is more of a social tradition. Likewise Thanksgiving not needing any religious ties, but functions as a social tradition. And how basic meditation has been shown to clinically lower stress levels.

Many religions feature practices that on the surface are just praying and worship, but underneath it all have psychological impacts on our well-being. And there's too little study on the actual practices and how they could be utilized for better health and well-being, both psychologically and physically.

Especially in a world where there's an overload of information and sensory inputs. People are constantly becoming increasingly overworked and burnt out, and stress levels have increased so much that researchers have found it to damage the brain physically. But we have no strategy for handling it other than disconnecting and losing connection with the rest of society in doing so.

I also think that if society were to adapt into a place with more emphasis on methods of contemplation, meditation, social traditions, and other aspects of religion that don't require religion, we can more easily rid society of the negative religious parts but keep the good practical parts.

You are completely delusional.

Placing someone where they would likely be (a busy shipping lane) = weak evidence. — boethius

That's not the evidence, maybe you should just shut up and watch it in detail before guessing what it's about. Thinking this is about ships in a busy shipping lane just shows how ignorant you are.

There's no point trying to convince someone like you to do this since you've shown in this thread just how biased you are. Actually, there's a big part of the series dedicated to what you are doing, but you wouldn't know anything about it or would deny it.

All we see are blips on a map and the vaguest of satellite imagery. — Tzeentch

No, they have verified signatures for a specific ship. Nice strawman try to lower the significance of it.

Military ships aren't required to use AIS. The US navy sails around without AIS 24/7. Moreover, navies use a special version of AIS that allows them to manipulate the ship ID data. — Tzeentch

They are required to use them when exiting international waters. That's why Sweden chases out Russians all the time when discovering deviating routes and having them off.

Supposed 'retired UK intelligence officers' aren't the only one's listening in around the Baltic. — Tzeentch

There are hundreds of thousands of ships, he used his retirement time to specifically track ships around the Nordic region and mapping behaviors using a specific tracking technique. That is what he is actually doing, what you do there is to guess that Nato is doing exactly the same. So guesswork once again.

The idea that the CIA and other intelligence agencies can't produce more than a few blips on a map and the grainiest of satellite imagery is just the type of naivety that would make this theory plausible. Had the Russians been this obvious about it, there wouldn't have been a mystery in the first place. — Tzeentch

More guesses and attempts to downplay. Spy satellites that something like CIA uses require specific targets. They are super-advanced with high-resolution resolution, but you can't go back in time and just pull out images from all around the globe and you could do it less for tracking an object if you didn't know its location in the first place.

And then you say "If the Russians had been obvious about it, there wouldn't have been any mystery". That's not in any shape or form a counter-argument to these things, that's like saying "if the murderer had been obvious about it there wouldn't need to be any investigation". What the hell kind of argument is that? :rofl: It's this non-obvious and covert op that perhaps made it hard for advanced surveillance and the CIA to catch them in the first place. Because the surveillance that did spot them was a retired Navy officer who made it a 24/7 hobby to track ships' movements and deviations and then confirmed by one of the most advanced non-military satellite systems around, which, compared to your guesswork about CIAs capabilities for intel, actually do take images frequently. But as a drawback, it can only get the outline of the ship. However, the combination of two separate tracking methods that aren't traditionally used in tandem to confirm things like this, provided a confirmation of the ship's identity and behavior during the attack on the pipeline. It was this unusual combination that helped find this intel because it was a non-standard practice that Russians wouldn't have any intel on.

That you only believe that the CIA should have gotten better intel while trying to strawman the actual findings in order to paint the theory as naive is just so weak as a counterargument that it comes off as a desperate attempt to dismiss everything out of bias to what you already believed before.

Moreover, the Russians own the pipeline. They know where it is located and have the capacity to carry out the operation via submarine, completely covertly. — Tzeentch

You don't seem to know how well Sweden tracks Russian subs. A civilian-looking ship using small submarines is more covert than a large sub. And you also totally ignore the fact that there are residue and evidence left after an explosion. If they had used a Russian sub and torpedos it would have shown signs of that kind of attack. You're just pulling ideas out of your ass now without any regard for what the consequence of different strategies would be. To use a ship that is among hundreds of thousands of other ships in the Nordic region is obviously a much more covert and intelligent strategy. The fact that it required non-standard methods to spot the deviations is clearly a sign of that operation being smartly planned.

The story doesn't really provide evidence, nor does it add up. — Tzeentch

Because of what? You shrugging at the evidence and thinking the CIA "should have" spotted things because they are the all-seeing eye of the universe? You have nothing tangible whatsoever to support any other theory, while this is the best evidence so far. The most plausible culprit is Russia, you can't deny that just because you believe and interpret things about what CIA "should be able to do" and what a half-demented president vaguely said.

That much has been clear since the Cold War. — Tzeentch

Except, since the invasion, Russia has expanded this to include all civilian ships, not just a few specific ones. All ships are required to be able to aid in intelligence. You can find info about this if you cared to look up anything.

An overt threat by the US president and Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, both basically outright saying they will blow up the pipeline, is a very strong indication of guilt - yes. — Tzeentch

They didn't say they will blow it up. That's something you put together after the fact. As I said, try that in court and people will laugh at you because that's called conjecture and cannot be used in the way you try to.

I think it requires an ungodly amount of confirmation bias not to interpret that as such. — Tzeentch

Holy shitballs you are backwards with that. You don't even realize that you use confirmation bias, after the fact to spot this connection. You don't seem to realize that it's precisely confirmation bias that you do with that conjecture. And this thing is your only thing, as well as "CIA should have seen stuff".

How the hell can't you see how weak what you suggest is? You say that the evidence that has been presented is weak and yet you provide the weakest form of "evidence" possible. It's hilarious.

Yes I did. I'm just a little less naive. — Tzeentch

No, you are purely biased toward your own belief in this. You have no evidence whatsoever and you call me naive? Get real

Saying you're going to do something ... then that thing happening would definitely be used against you in court. — boethius

They didn't say that they were going to blow it up.

Mafia bosses who say they will whack a guy — boethius

They didn't say they were going to blow it up. Or whack anything.

In itself, is it enough to convict? No. But it's pretty strong evidence. — boethius

Actual tracking of Russian operatives connected to the time of the explosion is stronger evidence. What you are doing is conjecture. Get some basic justice knowledge if you want to conclude what is "strong evidence".

The evidence presented in this investigation is also not enough to convict, but it is damn stronger than all of your wild interpretations and conjecture of that speech. You need to prove that the intent wasn't to diplomatically dismantle the pipeline with Germany.

On top of this, you need something else than just that speech. You wouldn't win any court case with just that. The investigation has a lot more evidence to show. If you think that speech is enough against all that, then you're delusional.

NATO has access to the crime scene ... so why don't we see pictures of the crime scene, reconstruction of the explosive devices, any basic investigatory work at all? — boethius

Uhm... because ongoing investigations do not share such things? There are a number of investigations going on as well. Have you ever heard of investigations sharing evidence in real time? That's a good way for the perps to adjust their stories and prepare for when they're caught. Not a good strategy of justice, which is why such things aren't publically exposed.

And if you don't trust NATO you can check other people investigating. Like, for instance, what I've referred to.

For these claims to be something other than propaganda, the material evidence should be presented. — boethius

I've linked to the series. You can watch it. There's no NATO involved in that investigation.

Of course, people could still say it was a setup, doesn't necessarily resolve anything, but the material evidence should be consistent with this story that the explosives were laid a few days before (or then a pretty good explanation of how the Russians faked how long the explosives were there). — boethius

Then look into the investigation then, that I talked about. What's the problem?

making zero effort to make their story consistent with the material evidence of the crime scene — boethius

I think the investigative journalists made a tremendous effort to show a story consistent with their evidence. I don't know what you're referring to.

NATO has not made a case — boethius

This isn't about NATO, it's about what the collaborative investigative journalists between four nations did to provide tangible evidence of Russia's involvement. It has zero to do with NATO so I don't know what you are babbling about.

Now, if we had seen pictures of the crime scene, catalogue of the materials used, reconstruction of the devices, would it prove conclusively who did it? No. But it would at least be a plausibly good faith investigatory process where we could argue based on actual facts of the actual crime scene. — boethius

You can wait for the investigations conducted by others than NATO as well as understand the fact that ongoing investigations don't share evidence (which doesn't mean they hide anything because, you know, that kind of conclusion is called a conspiracy theory). They have no obligation to share this with you in some "good faith" and it is also strategically stupid to release evidence before anything can be concluded. You are not an investigator and you are irrelevant to show evidence to.

However, you have the evidence from these journalists, which is far more conclusive than any bullshit that's been produced by this thread. In here, there's just conjecture and conspiracy theories. There's nothing different between this thread and some deep internet hole with other conspiracy nutjobs. Wild interpretations and confirmation biases.

These journalists have found tangible and clear evidence that points to Russia. It's not strong enough to deductively conclude Russia's guilt, but it's damn well better than any bullshit that's been conjured up by internet amateurs so far.

I've already watched it, and no actual evidence is presented.

I'm talking about Nord Stream, in case that wasn't clear.

That the Russians are floating around scanning the seabed with civilian vessels is nothing new. Hell, I don't even doubt they could have conducted the Nord Stream sabotage if they had wanted to. — Tzeentch

If you've actually watched it through and especially the third episode, then you are just ignoring the fact that the ship in question, the one with underwater operation capabilities was at the location of the explosions, turning off their commercial trackers, stopped, went back to Kaliningrad, turned off normal communication, went back and turned off their trackers again and held positions for a long period of time right at the site just days around the explosions occurred. Verified by both satellite and the former Navy operator separately.

So, we have a ship, built for underwater operations at deep levels, that went to a place, twice, that has no purpose other than being the place where the pipeline is located. While turning off trackers that all commercial ships are required to have on in these waters. While turning off normal communication back to Kaliningrad. While no other ships were reported in the area and no other ships were spotted on the satellite other than this ship around that time. On top of this, it's clear that Russian civilian ships are almost all involved with surveillance everywhere around the Nordic region, spying on everything based on their deviant movement from their commercial purpose, right at times when something else is in the area that would be of interest as intel to Russia. You then have the propaganda strategy of blaming in all directions, then boiling it down to one part, in order to make the appearance that guilt has been cleared up. The same exact propaganda strategy that Russia is using all the time to steer the narrative away from them after they've done something (which according to this thread is pretty obvious they succeed with), as they did after Butcha.

All of this (which is a brief summary of three hours), is also commented on by outside sources that verify the significance of their findings.

But you don't think any of this is significant because of what a half-demented president, vaguely said and you interpreted as an admission of guilt. That is your strong evidence against all of this? :rofl:

Seriously, all of this is enough to have the guilt heavily leaning toward Russia. Of course it isn't a picture of a Russian operative shooting a rocket launcher on the pipeline, but it's way more evidence than any other theory has shown so far (and any wild conspiracy theory in this thread), and dismissing this because you interpret what the president said as "stronger evidence" is just a conspiracy charade, either on purpose or just because brainwashery. I guess this thread really fried some people's brains, good thing I'm not a regular in here anymore.

But then again, I don't think you watched it at all. I just think you try to bullshit your way through this.

Where's this evidence? — Tzeentch

That's part of the whole body of evidence, it's one image that is able for me to provide since I cannot link the actual episodes because, you know, it's national television spread between all nations. So if you want the evidence, please go check yourself, use VPN, or whatever.

But you know, you won't do that and in your head, that means there isn't any evidence. I've tried to explain this to you, but you ignore it and still go on with "Where's the evidence" like that somehow is a counter to the evidence. That's just pure ignorance and being a dishonest interlocutor. But that's just how this thread seems to work, it doesn't matter if someone points and says, look there's some evidence for you all to take into consideration, it doesn't matter if I try to explain what it was, you just keep ignoring it.

If you want the evidence, go in the direction I pointed towards, or just keep doing this lazy charade, because I cannot provide something you need to actively watch yourself. If you don't want me to install a VPN or try and tune an antenna for you. :shade:

But here you go, I doubt you will care though
https://www.svtplay.se/uppdrag-granskning-skuggkriget

Alrighty, then. — Tzeentch

What report? I've said that these investigative journalists presented this evidence and it's been a multipart series of one-hour investigative documentaries in collaboration between the top investigative journalists in each nation and then aired on their respective biggest channels. It's then been confirmed and built upon by other news outlets and journalists further building on top of it and all of it has been with utmost care to verification because of the sensitive matter all of this is about. They've even had access to intelligence tools for deep tracking internet services for digging into people spreading propaganda and who's been shown to be paid by the Russian state.

But you say there's no evidence in... some reports? What are you talking about? If you don't care to dig into this yourself then there's nothing to talk about since you will just conclude yourself right by ignoring it.

All of this shows just how stupid this whole thread discussion is. There's actual evidence presented by these journalists, painting a far clearer picture than any fantasies, conjured-up stories, and wild interpretations that get spewed out in this dumpster fire of a thread. Instead of looking into any of it, you just claim to be right because you don't have the evidence served to you, but I question that you would even look at it then.

Here's one of the Russian soldiers on a civilian ship with a turned-off official tracker within Danish waters. These ships have been reported to be conducting surveillance all around the nordic regions and the other ship that was tracked to be at a stand still at the site of the explosions is a vessel with the specific capability of mini-sub underwater operations.



But yeah, there's nothing in this because you say so... give me a fucking break.

This is a bit cute, considering there's no evidence whatsoever presented in any of these reports. — Tzeentch

What are you talking about? What reports are you referring to?

And you really think that if they had footage supposedly depicting Russian ships conducting the sabotage, that the US would be so eagerly throwing its ally under the bus?

Get real. — Tzeentch

Maybe you should actually look into the evidence before conjuring up some scenarios and calling out people to get real.

To reiterate, the US story about a Ukrainian 'group' was full-blown panic in reaction to Hersh's story. There's no way they would have made such a move if they knew the official investigation was on the Russians' tail. — Tzeentch

I don't give a fuck about the US, this is an investigation by Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland with support of intel by former UK navy. If you want to discuss what US says and if it is true or not that has nothing to do with the evidence that these investigators found.

But all of this just shows how low the level is in this thread. There's ACTUAL tangible evidence on the table and it's still just who said what and what propaganda is correct in a never-ending circle.

Return with something more tangible after you've looked into the evidence in detail, until then it's just empty words on your part.

Half a year on they suddenly find a box of photographs of the Russians caught in the act?

Color me skeptical. — Tzeentch

It was their own footage, taken while they are heard asking the photographer: "are they aiming at us? Should we go? Let's go now"

This was WITHIN danish waters, not international waters.

Do you know how long investigations take? They've been conducting this investigation since the explosions, and compared to amateurs, they actually went through A LOT of scrutiny to verify, just like investigative journalists actually do, compared to amateurs with too much time on their hands.

This is not very good evidence at all, considering Russian ships regularly go through the Baltic and you have to go through the Danish straits (basically where the explosions happened) to get to and from the Atlantic. — boethius

If you had any interest in looking at the actual evidence, it is not just about ships going about their business. Their investigation is part of a long and large investigation into commercial ships being used for military operations. There are surveillance images of these ships showing heavily armed military personnel with masks to hide their identity so that it's hard to track their origin of operation. There are experts in both military navy as well as commercial shipping that examined the movement of these ships in relation to how they should move according to their function, showing them following US subs and other ships in surveillance moves rather than being used for commercial fishing. All while they turn off their sea traffic trackers at the moment they deviate.

This is just a short sum of the body of evidence they've gone through, but why would you care about that? It's not like you're a person who would actually lift a finger to go through it.

Sure, doesn't prove who did it, but declaring you'll "end" something and then that very thing you promised you'd end does get ended, results in two possibilities:

1. You did it, just like you said you would.
2. You're a fucking moron.

Feel free to go with 2, but don't pretend that what people say they're going to do doesn't matter and is not strong evidence. — boethius

Try that in court against the other evidence :rofl:

They also had a long investigation into people in western countries who on the surface are independent journalists who keep releasing pro-Russian concepts and propaganda, only to be proven paid by Russia.

The whole idea behind it being a post-soviet propaganda system that doesn't act on trying to convince Russia to be right, they only need to plant doubt into populations of other nations in order to get them into conflict with each other instead of focusing on Russia. It's the foundation for why Russia wanted Trump to win. Vlad Vexler has gone into those things describing the difference between propaganda before the wall fell and after.

I'd say this thread shows just the same kind of behavior from some. Disregarding any evidence in order to just plant enough doubt. That people still fall for it trying to dismiss pretty convincing evidence is just a tragic reality of it all.

It seems to be the same principle as a strawman to me, only used defensively, as you state. — Pantagruel

I think the difference is that in a strawman the act is to simplify and ridicule, but in this case the act is to retreat to something solid and simple. The difference being a strawman is an attack with simplicity in order to sound more advanced in response, while the other is a retreat to a grounded simplicity in order to sound like there's a good foundation.

I get your point, but I think the application of this fallacy has its own use rather than being the same as a strawman.

However, what I found most fascinating is the idea that qualia constitute the self, rather than being something perceived by the self.

As the article notes in relation to blindsight patients who function as sighted despite lacking visual qualia, "they don’t take ownership of their capacity to see. Lacking visual qualia – the ‘somethingness’ of seeing – they believe that visual perception has nothing to do with them." Extend this lack of ownership via lack of qualia to all qualia and the self itself disappears. — Luke

Am I right to interpret the article to suggest that we essentially dream ourselves into sentience? That the sum of our sensory inputs is formed into a collage that is us?

In that case, it somewhat confirms concepts I already had, intuitively, about consciousness.

I've had the idea that we essentially dream ourself conscious through a constant feedback loop, not only within the brain as we can read about in the article, but that we constantly get a feed from our surroundings that has its properties constant. We see a table and that table will not change its objective physical properties, form, color, smell, and taste, so the stream of input constantly generates a verification of our inputs to our dream state experience.

This is why our dreams act in such abstract and surreal ways, because the stream of verification is lacking. The feedback loop is only the previous feed of sensory information being looped within our minds and never verified by a solid objective reality. So it shifts in all forms, shapes, colors, smells, tastes, and touch.

It is also why when we take psychedelics, our mind process reality like a dream. Because our sensory inputs start to have interferences in both what they signal to the brain and how the brain loops that information, we start to instead dream in an awake state.

It can also explain how and why we change our personality depending on sensory input. When someone has chronic pains they might act with anger in everyday situations and they might even justify it as being part of their persona.

All of this is a side note to the article, but it verifies some ideas about why we experience dreams and psychedelics the way we do and how they affect our sense of self.

Several Russian military ships were observed close to the Nord Stream pipelines in the days before the gas links between Russia and Europe were blown up last year.

This was reported by a collaboration between top investigative journalists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. It was rigorously verified using a former Navy operative in England and through advanced satellite tracking. With confirmation from navy intelligence officers going over the material, simply concluding "With this evidence it is much more clear who was responsible".

With this, any claim that someone else than Russia committed the act requires a much better foundation of evidence than what has been delivered by these investigative journalists.

I think it is in essence the strawman fallacy. — Pantagruel

Nah, a strawman is overly simplifying an opponents argument, and/or making it ridiculous in order to counter-argue it more easily.

This is more of a defensive fallacy, first stating an arbitrary wild concept as an argument, and when the lack of scrutiny is pointed out, retreating back to something that is defined and backed up but has little to do with the first wild statement or in support of it.

I take this as an admission then that pi goes on forever. Finally — invicta

Pi decimals goes on forever, it is an infinite set. However, that is not what you said:

They’re one and the same — invicta

That you cannot see the difference between "decimals go on forever" and Pi is infinity, is what makes you confused and unable to understand what everyone is saying. You simply seem unable to understand the difference, either due to a language barrier or simply a lack of knowledge, but you simply can't seem to accept that you are wrong in what you conclude here.

Now then many have tried and many have failed in declaring pi as non-infinite…any other takers? — invicta

...but you just keep on going in some delusion that you still know more than the others even to the point where no one can take you seriously when you keep on trying to win an argument that is so globally and logically defined and accepted by everyone except yourself.

Why do you persist with this low-quality level of philosophical engagement? You need to up your quality.

Robert Kennedy is a democrat, or is this just a random rant about the republican party? — Tzeentch

It wasn't an answer to that post of yours specifically, I just entered the discussion based on the topic.

I don’t really care much what denotes what in mathematics but I do know that pi’s expansion goes on infinitely, hence me declaring it infinite. — invicta

You declaring something does not make it true. That's a sign of pure delusion and in terms of discussing philosophy, you've reached a dead end since there are no axioms surrounding any argument you discuss, your own opinions, or your interpretation of other's arguments. It's a dead end.

I still don’t see how or even why you’d object to that. — invicta

Object to you declaring new meanings of established mathematical terms, or object to Pi having an infinite set of decimals? The former, yes, the latter no.

I’m unclear — invicta

Correct

Still, π ≠ ∞

In mathematics, an uncountable set (or uncountably infinite set) is an infinite set that contains too many elements to be countable. The uncountability of a set is closely related to its cardinal number: a set is uncountable if its cardinal number is larger than that of the set of all natural numbers.

An infinite set is not infinity itself. You are confusing ∞ with π having an infinite set.

I don't know how to describe the simplest of logic here. I'm far from being a mathematician or anywhere good at it, but you don't have to be in order to understand basic logic. As an analogy, this is basically as logical as 2 + 2 = 4, but you are claiming that 4 is 2 because there are two 2s creating a sum of 4. All of this is basic mathematical logic and proper use of the terms. To say that π is ∞, is simply just wrong. That π possesses ℵ₀ of its decimals, is correct, which is just what you linked to as a description. ℵ₀ is an infinite set, the decimals of π is an infinite set... but π itself is not infinity.

If you're gonna use mathematical terms in your argument (whatever that is), then you need to use them correctly in order for the argument to make sense, otherwise you will get into back and forths like this because no one understands your argument when you are confusing everything together and don't seem to understand the basic terms you use.

So Pi goes on infinitely buts it’s not infinite, whatever dude. — invicta

π is not the term for infinity.
∞ and א is the terms used for infinity.

whatever Pi is not infinite believe what you want. — invicta

It's not belief, mathematics is mathematics, so you either learn it and understand it or you don't.

But before I leave to your own devices just a quick reminder of a couple of things. Pi is an irrational number, the circular circumference divided by diameter means that it will take roughly 3.14 diameters to recreate the circle. — invicta

What does this have to do with confusing infinity with pi?

Also, cutting the circle with metaphorical scissors creates a finite line, with finite length. Those scissors however don’t exist and neither does the circle as it’s just a close approximation or manifestation of such an infinity (and there are other ones too) — invicta

So?

As for the infinity symbol being a twisted circle, just consider this. There are more ways than one of seeing the same thing. — invicta

Does not change the terms and numbers used in mathematics.

keep believing that Pi is not infinite. I’m not here to change opinions but establish truth. — invicta

Pi's decimals are infinite, it is not a term for infinity. I don't know why you persist in talking about beliefs like that, you just sound deeply confused.

Where's your argument? What's your argument and what's the conclusion you're trying to convey? I've read a lot of posts by you since you joined but there's very little philosophical scrutiny and practice in your arguments, you simply tell others to believe what they believe and that you are correct anyway. It mostly seems like you're just bombarding the forum with posts everywhere but have little interest in actual philosophical discussion or accepting established facts. In here you're actually trying to establish your own interpretation of something that has no interpretative angle, the terms and mathematics are as objective as anything comes. Their use is established and there's no post-modern deconstruct of any of it because it's based on pure mathematical logic.

As long as Republicans can't break off from Trump and create a party with stability against the Democrats, the Republicans will always be pure chaos and bullshit.

The idea that any Republican would vote for Trump just to get Republicans into power is a ridiculously desperate need for power. It's like: "Let the world burn, as long as I can have the slightest seat of power".

If that is their ambition, then there's no moral soul left in that party whatsoever. I'd like to see the more functioning, stable, and intellectual Republicans break off from Trump and start their own party or seriously try and take over the Republican party by outing all the stupid morons who infected it. How far does it need to go before Republicans do this for real? Or are there so many morons in the Republican party that it's a doomed case?

Doesn't matter how you twist it, these symbols are established mathematical symbols and terms that have a specific use. ∞ and א are used for infinity in mathematics, while π is not.

This is what Banno is saying. The fact that the decimals goes on in infinity does not make π infinity. A property of a function or thing is not the thing itself. Your hand is not you, it's a part of you. If you say that Pi's decimals goes on in infinity, then you are basically saying π goes on for ∞ in level ℵ₀.

Basically: π ≠ ∞

There's nothing to really dispute in this, you're talking about mathematics, and in mathematics there are no real grey areas, it is what it is.

They’re one and the same, or at least our closest understanding and interpretation of infinity. Neatly summed up and expressed by — invicta

They're not, the sign expressed for infinity is simply ∞

Further, you have different levels of infinity labeled א (aleph)
Expressed as an infinite step, aleph-null, aleph-one, aleph-two, and so on.

Pi is not infinity, it is an irrational number that has its most common use in the measurement of circles, but it's much broader than that, featuring areas like trigonometry, probability, gaussian function, equation for the wave function etc.

Science will not replace religon because it has a hard time answering one very big question: "who am I?" Most religions say you are one soul in a world of many. Science currently has no good answer. You are consciousness created by the brain: how? If so then why? If consciousness is epiphenomenal and not a force of nature what is its evolutionary survival value?
Religion is based on superstitious faith but science also has faith that these questions will be eventually answered without a major shift in its current paradigms. — lorenzo sleakes

That science cannot answer those questions does not mean it gives validation to religion, it only concludes that all answers aren't answered yet. Throughout the history of science (modern non-biased science), we have been constantly answering "unanswerable questions" and religion has always moved the goalposts for "what science cannot answer". That doesn't mean that scientists have "faith" the unanswered questions will be answered, they don't care about faith in that way, they search for knowledge out of curiosity.

These attempts to create similarities between science and religion just seem like ways to try to place religion on equal terms or drag science down to some imaginary level, but it's not correct. Science and religion have two different functions and religion is not to answer questions, but to comfort existence. If people want a life without fantasy and superstition, they still need to find rituals, traditions, and awe that don't require religion. You can check my longer initial post in this thread for that.

As for answering the evolutionary purpose of consciousness, it has logic in how evolution and natural selection work. Human consciousness could simply have been the initial evolutionary trait of being unpredictable in both survival and hunting. With our other mental qualities being emergent side effects of this primary function. To say that there are no answers is to disregard the things we actually know, have researched, and tested.

I also think that many confuse scientists saying "we don't know" with "we don't know anything". It's a core tenet of science to not conclude anything as any truth-axiom. But something that has been tested and confirmed to an accuracy ratio of 1 000 000 to 1 is still considered "we don't know" by scientists, even if it's so confirmed that we utilize it for making technology that actually works based on such a finding. General relativity is still within "we don't know", but it is still confirmed and used in technologies like GPS. So, much of our cognition, much of our brain, and how we function is already very confirmed and used in medical science and practices, but a lot we still don't know. That doesn't mean scientists say "we don't know anything" or "we are wrong" or "religion is right".

I don't see why such a comparison would be relevant to the nature of science. — Tzeentch

In the context of this discussion pitting the search for answers to reality through either religion or science. Within that context, religion is inferior and also does not have the same foundation for why.

I think it simply requires the models to be accurate enough. That standard is usually set by some arbitrary measure like whether it provides adequate accuracy for practical application. — Tzeentch

Sure, the goal is still to reach as close to the truth as humanly (with our machines and tech) possible. Religion doesn't do that, it settles on what confirms the pre-decided and invented truth. If religious attempts to answer questions of reality actually tried to be accurate, it would collapse any confirmation and implode the belief that was supposed to be confirmed. This is why I position that religion doesn't really have much to do with science, only that there's an illusion of similarity through religion trying to answer scientific questions. But all of it boils down to seeking comfort through illusion, to comfort existence by confirming things without having to be thorough and accurate.

When people realize the psychological purpose of religion, it's much more clear that we need a rational replacement for the rituals and way of thinking that exist in religion, without slapping on illusions and fantasies. The psychological purpose of religion is important for our wellbeing and existence, the religion itself is not.

I don't think science discerns facts. I think it creates predictive models.

The idea that science produces Truth with a capital 'T' is what risks science being turned from a useful tool into a religion or ideology. — Tzeentch

In comparison to religion, it does, even if the inner workings of science essentially never claim to end in "truth". It becomes a semantics problem in the argument if we break down these words. By "truth" I mean some essential principles of comparison, like: Religion says the sun is the sun god but science have shown, through evidence that it is a magnetically bound gravity well of high energy matter forming other matter through fusion producing enough heat to warm us. We can science the sun further and find more complex quantum mechanical properties or even turn what we know on its head with new discoveries, but it is certainly more true than the religious claim. The same goes for pretty much everything that has been validated by science, especially things that became a foundation for some technology since that technology wouldn't work if our models weren't true in relation to the reality we create this technology within. Creating that technology requires certain truths to be valid and it's not really predictive anymore, but confirmed.

I think we see this differently. Explanations are explanations. Besides religious explanations do not always provide comfort. They often provide fear and trembling and terrifying obligations. — Tom Storm

Have you ever wondered why people enjoy horror movies? Comfort does not function with just being in a pink cloud happy place. Comfort through the invented authority that people get through religion is about getting guidance in thought and experience, emotional guidance requires emotional balance to be able to guide through the emotional range humans have. People don't seek comfort by being put in a room filled with soft pillows, they seek comfort by not being alone in experience. Especially having a mentor in such a place. When the mentors are gone, we invent them. The invisible friend, the actual friend who seems much more emotionally stable, the husband or wife, the authority leader who seems to know more, or... the higher power to surrender to because then, everything will be fine. All of them, guide the emotional journey of a person, even if it's a fantasy in their head. Religion is a form of storytelling in which the fictional characters become real in the minds of the believers. All in service of that comfort.

The key thing here is that I'm not saying anything negative about this comfort, I'm saying it is crucial, maybe even essential to our very existence. But instead of forming a society around a more rational approach to this need for comfort and authority, people confuse themselves into looking at religion as something other than what it is, giving it merits it does not or should not have.

The point for me is that both world views attempt to make sense of the world - explanations. How they go about it is of course quite different but that has no impact on the fact they are both trying to explain reality. — Tom Storm

The key difference is the approach and end goal. Science does it out of curiosity and the end goal is knowledge, understanding, and the will to create out of all the entropy.

Religion does it out of comfort with the end goal of proving that these comforting ideas are real or else render this comfort false. The driving goal for religious people to explain reality to be in line with their religion is to confirm, not to explain. This confirmation is driven by the fear of losing the comfort of the idea they invented as the foundation for existence. And through generations, it is hard to rid yourself of a comforting fantasy that has for hundreds of years been said to be true. Looking at history, the ones who proposed models of reality that went against the church or common ideas about existence were fearless in front of the safety of that comfort. For them, they upheld truth higher than comfort and through that, they were able to understand the difference between confirmation bias and truth/facts. As society matured and understood more and more it started to form rules surrounding all of this and then science as we know it today was formed, but this dislocation of the human bias only happened recently through historical perspectives.

As it happens, I have known a number of former evangelicals who have deconverted and most of them have stated that science has made the world a whole lot less scary on account of the supernatural not being the explanation of why we are here. — Tom Storm

Yes, that is true. Maybe because in scientific answers, the confirmation becomes actual truth (when proved). When something is explained it is no longer scary. However, it doesn't change the fact that horrors exist for real. The horrors of people doing others harm, the horrors of a faulty mind, the horrors of nature, the horrors of spacetime breaking down, horrors of alien life. There are a number of things that are still scary about reality without there ever being anything supernatural. They've just experienced that they don't need a supernatural layer of horror on top of all that.

However, as I've been saying, they still exist under the psychological need for comfort and authority over them, as all people do. The psychological relationship between the experience in religion and the experience of parents/mentors when growing up is missed whenever there are discussions about religion and science.

What I'm trying to point out is that we frequently equalize between science and religion all the time in discussions, when they aren't really the same thing. Just because both share some similarities in searching for answers, the surrounding factors, psychology, and so on, differ so much between them that we give the wrong framework around what religion is. It is also in evangelists' best interest to frame religion on equal grounds to science. But to talk honestly about these two, we need to study the fundamentals of psychology driving why people conduct science and why they live by religious belief.

Yes, but isn't the point that science and religion are both in the explanation business? — Tom Storm

No, religion as an explanation system comes out of the need for a simple comforting answer, comfort comes first. In science, there could be a level of comfort in trying to find answers, but scientists actively scale off comfort as it is the foundation of scientific biases.

The early humans didn't stare up at the sun forming a God out of it because they first wanted to find an answer to why that thing was up there being hot. They formed a story around it out of the need to comfort their experience of reality with having a new authority over them when their actual authorities (parents, mentors, and tribe leaders) died or weren't in charge anymore. The explanation side of it is a later product within religion by scholars who were drilled into a specific religion but wanted to find out more about actual reality. All of these scholars and "wise men" were the first scientists in history, before we had a rigid system that removed biases from studies, philosophy, and experiments.

The argument, however, is that religion is emergent out of the need for this authority, ritual, and comfort. That this is the psychological need that gets overlooked when pitching science against religion. To pitch science against religion, you must already accept religion as having equal merits in explaining the world and universe, therefore, such an argument already comes from within the fantasy of religion, not looking at the function of science of religion psychologically.

What is emerging is no longer the hard-edged materialistic science of the later modern period, nor the cliches and time-worn tropes of historical religion, but something that absorbs but exceeds both. — Wayfarer

This really does depend on the definition of "science" and "religion". You can have science presented as this systematic method of studying reality and religion as mere appeal to authority. — IP060903

It might be worth mentioning Science and Non-Duality. This started as a conference in San Rafael in California in 2009.

The mission of Science and Nonduality (SAND) is to forge a new paradigm in spirituality, one that is not dictated by religious dogma, but that is rather based on timeless wisdom traditions of the world, informed by cutting-edge science, and grounded in direct experience. — Wayfarer

Science will need to explain how consciousness can come from non-conscious stuff before it can replace religion. And I'm not holding my breath on an explanation. — RogueAI

It will become a religion. In many ways it already is. — Tzeentch

let it die and DON'T TRY TO REPLACE IT. — praxis

Both the Russian and Chinese Communist parties set out to eradicate religion, and to institute 'scientific communism', but both of them failed. — Wayfarer

Science and religion are two different things and there's no point in pitching them against each other because I'd argue that is a misunderstanding of the psychological function and inner workings of religion.

There's the argument that if humanity loses all knowledge about the world and history, people will eventually find out the same things in science, but religion will be whatever delusion that gets invented next.

Science is about facts and the pursuit of facts, it's always aimed at that goal, to explain and create a foundational and fundamental understanding of everything.

Religion is about comfort. Every human being is born into this world having grown-ups caring for them or at least having power over them. It's the first and most basic knowledge or experience humans have and seeing as how the first years in life tremendously dictate the psychology of a person, that experience is a powerful reality that isn't easily changed just because we're grown-ups.

This experience makes most people cling to nostalgia or another system that comforts them. Either by letting some authority care for them, be it a state or some power figure, or in this case, God or a pantheon. When people have grown to not need parents, or rebel against them, they are thrown into a world where having freedom and a lack of power controlling them can feel like pure horror. In Sartre's words: we are condemned to freedom.

The only way to escape the feeling of this overwhelming responsibility is to invent or surrender to a higher power in some actual or fictional form.

So, to answer the question, Science will not replace religion, because religion is an emergent form out of a basic psychological dilemma for people. The only way to change this fact is to reform how people view the responsibility and power over their own lives.

The problem with this is that it requires finding a meaning to existence that is more real than imaginary. And with nature and the universe's inherent meaninglessness in the perspective of our existence, that is a tall order.

The solution, and the thing that would eventually remove the need for religion, would be to find a strategy for meaning that is dislocated from religious fantasy. Something that can make people find meaning in the world and universe that we already have.

Then there's the case of rituals. There are hints in psychology that humans need rituals, or gravitate towards them all the time. We could argue that something like OCD is a form of "ritual disorder", in which rituals have taken over the mind and stress levels increase too much when trying to abandon them.

Rituals are a form of pattern behavior. We move into a pattern in order to soothe a chaotic mind. It could be that "rituals" are as important to us as sleep. A way to organize our emotions and thoughts.

So a second solution is to dislocate rituals from religion. There are many traditions today that don't require any religious ideas. Or they are based on old religious ideas that have been abandoned. Swedish Midsommar is filled with rituals that have nothing to do with its roots or that have forgotten its roots.

Then there's the case of "awe". Religion is often filled with awe over existence. But this is also something that can be dislocated from religion since it's not required to have faith in a fantasy to feel awe.

Awe can be felt in front of nature itself, in front of the universe as it is. The scientific concepts of how reality works, together with what we don't know about reality, what is outside the universe, etc. do not need to have less impact than a fantasy about it. We don't have to invent something to explain it in order to feel awe. People also feel awe standing at the foot of Mount Everest, or on the edge of the Grand Canyon, or seeing the rim of the milky way in a place without light pollution.

The only reason why religion still persists is that the work needed to build up these alternatives demands a lot of time and energy from the individual and society. We need more non-religious rituals and social and non-social traditions. We need a focus on the awe of nature and the universe as it is, and celebrate existence for what it is, not for what it's not. We need a focus on meaning and better guidance and mentorship from being a child to being an adult.

Science won't replace religion, because religion is based on a psychological need that cannot be met by science, only by a different way of life and a different way of how society works.

Religion has a totally other function than science and the idea that science will replace religion is based on the idea that religion has an equal measure of explaining the universe, which it clearly does not when looking at the track record. That is an argument that already accepts religion on equal terms, an argument from within the fantasy, not objectively studying these two things.