Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. There's been mention of phases one can go through. Common thoughts that a lot of people tend to ponder. The above is an example. I'll tell you how a lot of people move from the phase of thinking above into further phases of looking at it. The reasoning above can be applied to anything from fantasy, fairy tale, or improve imagination. How about the celestial tea pot? What if we as humans don't have the capacity to prove the celestial tea pot's existence any more than Tommy can prove sight exists exept by some outside source that he must have faith to believe in? He essentially has to take our word for it that seeing is real even though he may never experience it himself. Now this example is where some people claim to have experiences the CT. We haven't personally experienced the CT. But we can take others at their word that they have experienced the CT. Or we can use Santa, Tooth Fairy, Vishnu, Kali, and YHWH just the same. Almost any claim can be made that something exists transcendent to your knowledge and understanding. That's an important take away here. Just imagine how many claims you can make about something transcendent and how impossible it is for someone to prove a negative, that is, prove that what ever you make up and place in a transcendent realm doesn't exist. At some point, a bigger issue can start to come into focus. There's no way to prove a negative, first of all, and there's no reason to every try. Because it's not up to someone who's skeptical of an extraordinary claim to disprove the claim. It's up to the person making the extraordinary claim to prove the positive claim. If they can not, well then they had better consider not making the positive claim because it's untenable, and therefore not worth making to begin with. Right? It's not worth claiming that a CT, Santa, Tooth Fairy or YHWH exist. It's entirely pointless. And just because you may think that maybe out of all of these untenable claims, one of them may really exist, doesn't matter very much in the grand scheme. Because you can't prove it even if it were so. What's meaning or purpose of something that might exist, which can not be proven to everyone? If it can be proven, that's one thing. But we're talking about something that can not be proven, which, people claim to have experienced anyways even though it can not really be proven? These phases can go on and on. Here's where I'm at, to make it very simple. I don't know if any gods exist. I don't know if any make believe assertion really exists. And I don't care that I don't know for sure. It doesn't bother me. It's all very pointless even in the event that any do exist. What does it matter if something exists transcendent to the universe? Whatever it is, we obviously don't know what it is, because, it's TRANSCENDENT or beyond the universe, therefore beyond the capacity to actually know. I don't believe that anything does exist out there from the world of human mythology, folklore, fairy tales or make believe because why should I? I have no good reason to positively believe in things that (1) are obviously coming from the realm of human assertion and imagination and (2) are not provable to begin with. If they are provable, then I'll take up positive believe no sooner than when they have been proven, not sooner. Why should I positively believe in any unproven, whether about gods, fairies, a CT, or some cosmological model asserting what exists beyond the universe? The fact is that we don't know, and in not knowing, I would be positively believing in something that's absolutely wrong. This thinking can progress even further, with further questions arising. But I'll leave it there for now. That's a guide to critical thinking for the time being.
  3. Yeah, I caught that too. As big oil transforms into big hydrogen... I haven't really looked at hydrogen consuming products. Can these apply across the board to automobiles, planes, boats, etc., etc.?
  4. I discovered this after making a rather large donation to one charity and then having it pop up in the news for irregularities. Now I check Charity Navigator and a couple of other sources before donating. I want my money to go to organizations that are secular, apolitical, spend the overwhelming bulk of their money on their mission, and that do not pay their CEOs an outrageous amount. I have discovered well-known charities that pay their CEOs $600 thousand or more, which to me seems morally wrong.
  5. Here is an interesting view of the situation, a piece by David Roberts on Vox. Here is his opening paragraph: Back in 2017, I wrote a piece speculating that the Mueller hearings might bring America’s epistemic crisis to a head. That crisis involves Americans’ growing inability, not just to cooperate, but even to learn and know the same things, to have a shared understanding of reality. We have sorted ourselves into polarized factions living in different worlds, not just of values, but of facts. Communication between them is increasingly difficult. This is sort of like some of the threads here with some of our Christian friends, wherein the issue boils down to what someone accepts as true. Here's a link. It's a rather discouraging piece but I recommend it: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/16/20964281/impeachment-hearing-epistemic-crisis
  6. Now Chick-Fil-A seem to be backtracking on their own backtracking: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/19/chick-fil-a-backtracks-anti-lgbt-donations/
  7. Yesterday
  8. Still pondering my next reply.....have been busy at making a living. Apologies for the delay.
  9. @Edgarcito, @Justus Here is what SCIENCE is doing for our ten-year-old sex slave: https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/behindthebench/combating-human-trafficking-with-dna-analysis-dna-databases-legislation-policy-privacy-protection-and-public-outreach/?cid=GSD_HID_SBU_R01_CO_cp1301_pjt4868_colxxxxx_0SO_fbK_OP_AWA_AT_S18_trafblog
  10. Quite true. Look at the Bill Clinton impeachment for example. Regardless of which party is in power everyone's overriding motivation is their own reelection by their target support base. Of course they all have to juggle that with corporate bribes being under the radar as much as possible. But as has been mentioned, single issue voters, that is most voters, are quite good at forgiving or ignoring the shenanigans of their elected representatives as long as they at least talk favorably about abortion, gun control, gay rights, or whatever their pet issue is.
  11. There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office GOP strategist Mike Murphy said recently that a sitting Republican senator had told him 30 of his colleagues would vote to convict Trump if the ballot were secret. Former Senator Jeff Flake topped that, saying he thought 35 Republican senators would vote that way. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911 Not that I’m advocating it, you understand . . . .
  12. Impeachment means filing the charges, which requires a majority of the house. Conviction requires a 2/3 majority of the (republican-controlled) senate, and that is why Nancy has been reluctant to do it. If 66 senators vote to convict, that means acquittal, and an eternity of “I’m innocent,” “witch hunt,” “treason,” “disgrace,” etc.
  13. Unfortunately, that issue is often merely the name of a political party.
  14. Isn't impeachment just a matter of a majority vote by the house of representatives, though? Therefore, the offense need not be real or substantial.
  15. Probably Canada needs 'saving' from the liberals. Send in the armed forces. To semi quote Palpatine "To ensure the security and continuing stability, Canada will be made into the fifty-first state of the United States of America for a safe, and secure, society!
  16. It's a little late in the game for people to change their minds. All the impeachable offenses have long been on the table, with mountains of evidence of all kinds, and the only thing left is to decide if they can be overlooked in the name of party, agenda or mandate from God. Mueller left it in the hands of Congress to do their duty once the facts were assembled.
  17. Most people are single issue voters. If Satan himself promised to make abortion illegal conservatives would vote for him.
  18. Can you imagine any information or circumstances during the impeachment inquiry where you might change your mind about your position on impeachment? 65% said no. And if you scroll down, the partisanship is grotesque. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/780540637/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-say-impeachment-hearings-wont-change-their-minds (I am not trying to start a debate about whether the [expletive deleted] should be impeached, just pointing out how people make their decisions. You might as well take a poll at the Alabama-LSU game about who should win; or whose religion is the right one.)
  19. Sounds like Venezuela and Canada might both need some "democracy" soon. 'Murka, fuck Yeah!
  20. None that I'm aware of claim to know for certain whether or not others are elect, but they seem quite confident that they themselves are.
  21. Quite true. A lot of charities' CEOs take a lot more for themselves than the Salvation Army's CEO. I donate blood to the Red Cross, but I don't give them a dime. I have donated money before, but I stopped when I found out the CEO was getting an enormous salary. Nobody should be getting rich off a charity, and they certainly don't need my money if they can justify giving one person an exorbitant amount that far, far exceeds what I have to support a family on.
  22. It is indeed exhausting. I get that Christians like to support Christian businesses, Masons like to deal with other Masons whenever possible and all that makes sense. There is a lot of false information for those who "vote with their pocketbook" and therefore it takes a lot of work to discover which businesses agree with you. Also, AFAIK the Salvation Army is one of few charities that don't skim most of the money and provide huge salaries for their top people. Yeah, they generally support Christian ideals and agendas but are also helping people at the same time. I think maybe we just have too much information available to have simple lives anymore.
  23. The Salvation Army is “controversial” now? This business of supporting or boycotting businesses because of their religious or political views is exhausting. No wonder the culture has become so polarized. This will not end well.
  24. For some or maybe most oil sand and oil shale deposits, extracting hydrogen from them may be a more economical process and resource than trying to extract oil by distillation from these materials, especially as the article states, a "cheap new process." For most of these deposits it's not presently economical to develop these fields. But if they can no do it just by pumping down pressurized oxygen into a chasm, as the article explains, even with just a a marginal profit, then this new process will be very valuable. But hydrogen production has never been free or pollution free, or a throw-a-way by-product of oil production. To produce oil and its associated products, natural gas etc. finding, drilling, pumping, and refining nowadays is a very expensive undertaking. From tar sands and oil shale deposits, the cost of producing oil is often not economically feasible. For highly viscous oil deposits, hydrogen is purchased as an input to the distillation process to crack heavier oils and tar into lighter materials that can be further distilled into gasoline, diesel, and asphaltis materials. Therefore hydrogen from oil fields and nearly all other sources is far from free or pollution free. I know they have been selling hydrogen from oil well production for more than a hundred years. It is used for countless industrial purposes as well as for a small hydrogen fuel automotive industry. If they can produce hydrogen from oil sands and oil shale deposits more cheaply than producing petroleum from these deposits if even possible economically, then the price of hydrogen will go down and the number of pollution free hydrogen consuming products will increase.
  25. Sure is interesting. While the result from burning hydrogen in a car is water and heat, the production of the hydrogen isn't pollution-free.* But even then the reduction in pollution would be dramatic. _______________ * https://ucsusa.org/resources/how-do-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-work
  1. Load more activity

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.