Looking at those issue critically, they do seem imaginary. — stoicHoneyBadger

So climate change.

• The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and other human activities. Most of the warming occurred in the past 40 years, with the seven most recent years being the warmest. The years 2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest year on record.
  
  
• The ocean has absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 100 meters (about 328 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.33 degrees Celsius) since 1969. Earth stores 90% of the extra energy in the ocean.
  
  
• The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 279 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2019, while Antarctica lost about 148 billion tons of ice per year.
  
  
• Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska, and Africa.
  
  
• Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and the snow is melting earlier.
  
  
• Global sea level rose about 8 inches (20 centimeters) in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and accelerating slightly every year.
  
  
• Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
  
  
• The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.
  
  
• Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30%. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the ocean. The ocean has absorbed between 20% and 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades (7.2 to 10.8 billion metric tons per year).

What’s your critical analysis of this evidence?

The second joke ever told was a knock knock joke.

One day after the fall God went to see Adam & Eve in paradise but couldn’t find them so, hoping to draw their attention, he knocked twice on a tree.

Feeling embarrassed, Adam timidity responded, “Uh, who’s there?”

“Betta”

“Betta who?”

God boomed, “Betta pack your bags cuz it’s eviction day in Eden!”

On in particular got my hackles up - "The eternal soul (Vitalism): was Darwin wrong?" It is not primarily a religious thread and I found it really useful. — T Clark

Love your objection to the claim of Darwin’s alleged thrill-seeking nature, noting how the frivolous swashbuckler spent forty years studying worms in his backyard. :lol:

The psyche gravitates toward the acceptable vent for hatred and frustration and disappointment. — frank

Would you care to elaborate on this, Dr. Freud?

Sci-fi, yes. Trek, a bit, but Babylon 5 and The Expanse are more my cup of tea. I like a decently long arc, something Trek never got right; and those ridiculous time travel episodes, including the most recent Picard series, are insulting. — Banno

Yeah I’m a huge nerd too.

That mouthguard looks like the Enterprise from Start Trek... — Banno

It does, not that you mention it. I wouldn’t have pegged you for a Treky or sci-fi fan.

I didn’t read any of the titles that Banno listed earlier and now they appear to be ghosted so I can’t make any judgment about fairness. Generally, it seems to me that “believers” have ample opportunity to express their “beliefs” on this forum. I know from personal experience that that is not the case in religious forums, which are far far less tolerant of other views, if they have any tolerance at all. So the difference is that religion seems to require intolerance and philosophy seems to require openness to various views, though all views will be looked at critically.

In the world at large.... sometimes. — T Clark

Protection from atheists or other “believers”? The latter is most typical, I think.

Incidentally, I flagged a post for the first time today. A blatantly racist post and my flagging had no effect, so apparently the mods are supportive of bigotry pluralism.

It bothers me that the moderators, who have such knee-jerk reactions to any hint of prejudice for any other vulnerable or protected group, don't provide that same consideration for religious beliefs. — T Clark

You consider religious folk vulnerable and in need of protection?

If your wife wanted to go out and work, leaving you at home with the kids, would you accept that? — Sir2u

No way, he wouldn't have time to meditate, workout, be creative, express his worrior spirit reevaluating axioms, or do any other man stuff. Besides, it would set a bad example for Jr. moronicHoneyBadger and possibly turn the little guy queer.

Frank posted a self-portrait, and if I may make an indelicate suggestion...

Check this guy out, worships Mammon but still lives in a dump.

As I've noted here before, atheism and religion are the only topics where bigotry is encouraged on the forum. — T Clark

Banno doesn't seem to be getting much encouragement in this topic today, assuming he's a suspect.

if blacks are committing more crimes than whites in the same circumstances, is it OK to say that it is because of racial differences ( lower IQ, higher aggression, etc. ) and that those circumstances need to be taken into account OR saying such things would be heresy, we should assume they are equal and if they are committing crimes, it is only because the white society somehow mistreated them? — stoicHoneyBadger

This is nonsensical because you begin by saying “the same circumstances,” ya racist piece of shit.

That Trump did not start any wars and did not betray any allies. — stoicHoneyBadger

The Kurds come to mind.

Compare the prices during Trump and Biden. — stoicHoneyBadger

The price of oil got too low during the lockdowns due to lack of demand. That had repercussions not immediately felt. I’ve read that there is a Goldilocks zone in the price of oil.

By blocking the construction of the keystone pipeline and revoking numerous off and on shore and drilling permits. Lower supply = higher price. — stoicHoneyBadger

Yeah, that must be it. The pandemic had nothing to do with it.

What wars did Trump start or encourage? — stoicHoneyBadger

You said "no wars" and I didn't know what that meant.

Probably its most productive times were somewhere in 50-60s. Now it seems to be in a slow, yet steady decline. — stoicHoneyBadger

You must mean the civil rights movement, yes, I agree that was a productive time. :smile:

Btw...

Gas prices were low, no wars, — stoicHoneyBadger

How exactly did Biden single handedly raise gas prices across the globe, if that's what you're suggesting? And no wars during the Trump administration???

So America was a productive adult only a couple of years ago. :lol:

I'm from eastern Europe and what I see going on in US, Canada, UK, etc. is perceived not as progress, but as madness. So we clearly have no desire to join this lunacy, we'd better stay with Poland, the Czech republic, Ukraine, etc.

It seems that civilizations go the same life cycle as people. First you are an infant, than a confused teenager, at some point you become a productive adult, but than inevitably turn senile and die. So all this 'gender neutral' stuff is as progressive as a progressing dementia. ;) — stoicHoneyBadger

My country elected Trump as its leader several years ago so yeah, something’s rotten in Denmark, but it ain’t dementia. When I look at history though, I’m left wondering at what point there existed “a productive adult.”

why are we born to suffer and die? — Constance

Why should I be content with someone else’s answers to that?

I am sure I can answer for most men. If you prefer dudes, or at least girls that look like dudes, well, that's up to you. — stoicHoneyBadger

Possibility is a woman, if I’m not mistaken.

At the gyms where I live more men than women lift but the difference isn’t that great. Strong fit women are hot, btw. Are you just intimidated by them? Pools have slightly more men than woman, I would estimate. I’ve never done boxing classes but wouldn’t be surprised if there were a good amount of women. Incidentally, before Covid I would be among the very few men that did Zumba classes. Guess that makes me a girlyman.

Like Possibility say, ya need to join the 21st century, if only for your children's sake.

The four noble truths, Hindu metaphysics, and all we can think of is a just there as a "method" of grasping the world, a utility that serves one end: the security of well being. — Constance

There are non-religious approaches to that end. I think the utility is in binding tribes, which can offer well-being, but if well-being were essential then I think religions would be better at the task. There is no reason they couldn’t be better at it.

Not knowing doesn’t require faith.

So a woman only needs to be a good housekeeper and breeder?

firmly stand on your own intellectual feet. — stoicHoneyBadger

Sounds a bit insecure.

Be undisturbed both by your own monkey-mind or external circumstances. — stoicHoneyBadger

Teach them to be afraid to feel?

Be able to make a leap of faith when needed, to step into the unknown, to reevaluate all your axioms. — stoicHoneyBadger

Why make a leap of faith if you're comfortable stepping into the unknown?

Buddhism is a "way of liberation" at its core, not a metaphysics, which, as I see it, is its great virtue. — Constance

According to the instruction manual, Right View (twelve link chain of dependent origination, karma, rebirth, etc.) is doggedly claimed to be essential to liberation.

I still don’t follow. Concepts are interdependent and are meaningless in isolation.

Value is absolute. Not value here or there, but the presence of value as such is absolute. Try an argument from utility: the philosopher's evil demon is up to no good, and insists you torture one child for the weekend, or a thousand other children will be tortured for a thousand years a far greater intensity. Utility says go for the weekend, but note: this decision does not diminish one whit the badness of the weekend affair. Clearly, and this is the point, there is NOTHING that can diminish this, which tells us we are in the presence of an absolute. There is no way possible, it is apodictically impossible, to relativize this badness away. — Constance

I don’t follow. Torture weekend is not as bad, in the mind of the torturer, relative to torture millennium in both quality and quantity, assuming the torturer feels that torture is bad to begin with.

The fact that you only think that one side puts on a show — Harry Hindu

You’re a funny guy, Harry. :grin:

The Dems are more of a threat to liberty and free-thought than the Reps are right now. It's what happens when you are too weak to think for yourself - you become a victim of political or religious ideology. The weak-minded need a Big Brother -whether it be god or government. — Harry Hindu

Hilarious. The critical theory dog and pony show that Republicans have been playing, at the confirmation hearing and elsewhere, seems to have gotten you all riled-up. Mission accomplished.

This definition excludes those for whom religion has become mere habit.

Ritualistic habit with no thought of ideology or ultimate authority. — ZzzoneiroCosm

In that case, it can still be an identity and have influence. People who don’t think for themselves and just go along with the tribe are the ideal followers, actually.

This story is everywhere except, oddly enough :razz: , outlets like Fox News and Breitbart.

'We control them all': Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows ideas for overturning 2020 election before it was called

I'm still sticking with "an ideology that relies on ultimate authority," which to my mind covers its essential nature.

This last post was only meant to address your question about why science does not count as a religion.

So the candidates for an anchor that seem most promising are ritual, transcendent hierarchies and longing.

The question which for me is central to the thread is now why science does not count as a religion, given these anchors. — Banno

It seems to be the case that all forms of knowledge, including scientific knowledge, are ‘ideological’ in the sense that there is no neutral, objective body of knowledge that is not infected by the purpose-relative concepts of a group of inquirers. However, scientific knowledge isn’t woven into a meaningful narrative that offers…

àn ultimate scientific explanation. — Haglund

Saying Lord of the Rings is not an accurate account of the history of the world is neither useful nor cogent. — Banno

What if half the world “believes” that it’s accurate?

Dawkins has not the least inkling of what the term 'transcendence' means. — Wayfarer

This reeks of prejudice and close-mindedness.

but isn't a type of freeloading built into the human experience in as much as we benefit from the work/ideas/civilization of all who came before us, without making a single contribution? — Tom Storm

I think that moral behavior applies to the living and hope that those not living are beyond such concerns.

However in my view it offers a coherent undestanding of 'mind and cosmos' as it provides for a vision within which h. sapiens has a role, rather than being the 'accidental byproduct' as it is depicted by scientific materialism. And if indeed it can be discerned across so many cultures and periods of history in the forms of literature of those traditions, then that literature should be regarded as evidence and not simply dismissed as myth. — Wayfarer

It’s extremely generous to say that religion offers a coherent undestanding of 'mind and cosmos'. There is no shortage of roles for people to occupy and there’s no reason that we can’t find them ourselves. The fact that there are so many divergent meta-narratives indicates that they are myths.

Freeloaders take advantage of the cooperative nature of others for personal gain. That doesn't seem selfish to you?

If Frank is too skittish to express his objections maybe some else knows what he’s talking about?

I don't follow.

Basically it's simply that, according to our particular biology, cooperation generally propagates more of our genes than freeloading.