Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/28/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
  2. 2 points
    Business idea: www.christianho.com "Meet other horny believers who only like to identify as part of the dominant religious culture but don't care about the rules. Chat, meet up, talk dirty to other "believers." Get those rocks off and still be guaranteed a ticket to Heaven. Thirty dollar per month love offering. Money refunded if you end up in Hell."
  3. 1 point
    A Proposed Star-drive propulsion system that would Enable Interstellar Travel: NASA’s Helical Engine Design that Uses Closed-Cycle Propellant. by William Brown | Nov 5, 2019 | Science News | https://resonancescience.org/nasas-helical-engine-design-that-uses-closed-cycle-propellant-a-proposed-stardrive-that-may-enable-interstellar-travel/ This experimental propulsion design belongs to a class of designs which can be called fuel-less. Such designs require power but no source of fuel which shoots out the back of the craft. This design is a type of ion drive, but one without any exhaust to it. It is a closed system where no new ions are needed or exhausted. Its proposed power source would be a nuclear reactor. The present design could not lift the craft off of the ground in the first place, but if in high orbit would enable the craft to progressively accelerate toward any planet or star at speeds only limited by the structure of the craft. The most well-known of such a hypothetical propulsion system is called EM drive. Although there have been a great many tests on proto-types of this design, the jury is still out as of Dec. 2019, whether the design really produces thrust, or if its apparent thrust is produced by heat or another factor which would negate its claim of thrust. Upon reading the above design concept it seems very interesting but many would say that such a fuel-less propulsion design violates the laws of physics and therefore could never work, just like the “impossible” EM drive they would contend. If we were ever able to build a working model of such a device its first use would likely be for planetary travel. Instead of 9-12 months traveling to mars it might take only three weeks. Once such a craft would reach maximum velocity, about half way to its destination, it would need to turn around and decelerate for the other half of the distance. For power it could use a small fission or fusion reactor, with no fuel other than the conversion of reactor power to electrical power. Of course a fission or fusion reactor could provide propulsion by itself without such a device, as long it was not too heavy for lift off by itself or by rocket power. But such devices like this, or the EM drive, are still in the planning or testing phases. Who knows when, or if, any of them will progress beyond proto-type design, but since NASA is in charge of this design it is in good hands and will progress as fast as funding would allow. Lockheed’s version of a small nuclear-fusion reactor is supposedly moving forward. If or when it ever goes into operation it could be used for both commercial, and government power generation programs. As a propulsion system such a craft could also be light enough to lift-off from Earth. It probably wouldn't need any of the devices discussed above and by itself could totally transform the Earth by clean power generation, roughly at the same costs or possibly lower than the prices we are now paying for power. But if its cost for power generation would be much higher to generate power, this would not be a problem for spacecraft where the only need for fuel would be the reactor. Maybe the biggest contribution for such a light-weight reactor will be for space travel. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29074/skunk-works-exotic-fusion-reactor-program-moves-forward-with-larger-more-powerful-design If any of these devices have the ability to lift off from Earth in the first place, they would not have to acquire great speeds like a rocket because all would provide continuous acceleration. Those that would not have such initial lift-off power could also be a hybrid type of jet going up like a conventional jet, then use their lift engines to fly into orbit and then away from the Earth's gravity. Such aircraft that could at least lift off their own weight could fly like a conventional aircraft with wings until it could no longer get lift from the atmosphere. After that it could just continue upward into space applying more power, then fly to the space station(s), space hotels and colonies, colonies or orbiting stations on the moon, mars, the asteroid belt , exploration trips, etc., as slow or as fast as they wanted to go. Once away from Earth's gravity and having momentum the craft would gain velocity by continuous acceleration using very little power. They could go faster outside the plane of the solar system, for safety’s sake, to have less contact with small matter. For landing, they would decelerate before they reached Earth or planets so they could land like an ordinary big jet on Earth, without all the atmospheric frictional heat that the shuttle had. In time such devices and craft would expectedly be far less expensive than our present space transportation systems, and more versatile whereby such craft could land easily on the moon or on mars at locations and times related to outside temperatures. A great many spacecraft would eventually be involved, government and private. Commercial passenger flights would follow as colonies would also become public from many governments. For small fusion reactors and beginning colonies, power could be generated for colonists from the spacecraft alone to start with.
  4. 1 point
    A big part of it is that those in religion and cults have been programmed to give a fuck about what those in their in group think of them. Therefore Muslims are invested in what other Muslims think of them, and Christians are invested in what other Christians think of them etc. People fear social isolation. You can only walk away when you no longer give any fucks about how high the stakes are in doing so. And they are high in many cases. Marriages and relationships and families fall apart or are divided, and friendships come to an end. Many may remain (and keep their opinions to themselves)out of simple fear of this loss. Edit: this fear can be an unconscious motivator that prevents people from questioning their beliefs
  5. 1 point
    Bad idea. I was raised liberal Christian, my husband was raised in a fundamentalist family. Our marriage was great... until we had children and began to argue about how best to raise them. The conflict increased when our two eldest children resisted the religious indoctrination, began to express opinions of their own and no longer wanted to attend church. By that time I had deconverted and my husband blamed me for leading them to hell. He reverted to the extreme fundamentalist upbringing of his nutcase family. Long story short... we are divorcing now.
  6. 1 point
    Seconded. You're the (apparently) 2nd Christian in a short while that has come here looking for validation for being an openly sexual Christian. The point of this site is support for those who have been believers and have rejected the faith, and are now looking for others who have done so. Thus the suggestion that you take your questioning further. If you were under the impression we are here to celebrate "sin", you haven't got a clue what we are about. Many of us were fundamentalist believers, and a liberal approach to belief wasn't part of our world (in fact it was seen simply as being a disobedient brat in danger of judgment). If you want to believe, either believe all of it or reject all of it. In the meantime, we are Ex-Christians and this is a site for Ex-Christians to support one another.
  7. 1 point
    Geezer's thoughts parallel mine. And there is more I would suggest you think about. If you openly acted out your fantasies with real people, would there be any guilt? Is there any guilt now? If so, what do you do with it? If you found a church that approved of your behavior, would that free you from guilt? If so, you might try a Unitarian Universalist church. There are all kinds of people who go to their services, including cross dressers, etc. Another thought off the top of my head is, are you afraid of a regular relationship? If so, just keep on masturbating. That would be the safe thing to do. No body gets pregnant, or gets an STD. But if you hook up with people to do mutual masturbation , be careful you don't get beat up by, or robbed by someone who tricks you into a session. And if you do mutual masturbation, be sure your sperm don't get spilled on a wet vagina. I know of one pregnancy that reportedly happened that way. Those little sperm can aparently swim upstream. It seems to me you aren't sure about the Christian religion. Maybe about any religion?? Most of us here think religions are supersticious myths. And, are you sure about who you are as a person?? Maybe you need to work on those issues while you are thinking about sex. What do you want out of life other than sex? If you are looking for a simple answer to your situation, you might need to go elsewhere. Your situation and what you are asking about has the possibility of getting pretty complicated.
  8. 1 point
    And its also fear. They generate fear in folks and then provide the answer to that fear. "Where will you go when you die?" People are afraid of death and Christians exploit that. Then there is the whole "sin" thing; convincing people that they are shitty scum and that there is only one way to resolve that. The list goes on.
  9. 1 point
    We think of ourselves as rational creatures, but a lot of what we do is automatic, like Pavlov’s dogs. Belivers who have been indoctrinated since birth don’t see, hear, or understand things as a neutral observer would. I think about how I used to read the bible; when there was a contradiction or moral outrage, my mind automatically went into “harmonization” mode; “how should we interpret this so it all comes out right?” Not, “this book can’t be right.” Or, when prayers are not answered, “‘No’ is sometimes the answer.” And once you really believe the part about the existence of an invisible god and post-mortem judgment, you are afraid to question. For me, a big part of the falling away process was the negative example of certain people who were supposed to be the best and brightest of the faith. Also the over-the-top claims of my particular sect; “we are right, and the other 99.9% of christendom down through the ages is and has been wrong.”
  10. 1 point
    Our entire society in general and religious people in particular get constant, unrelenting indoctrination. Free thinkers must find their way on their own and encounter resistance all the way. We're fighting a huge propaganda machine. Atheists/nonbelievers/freethinkers don't have organizations taking in tax free money and programs to indoctrinate everyone from birth.
  11. 1 point
    I do agree. But it's hard isn't it? We who reject and react against pressure to convert to christianity have to find ways of politely (but does that work?!) but firmly giving our extimony and sharing the joy and fulfillment that we find in our nontheism. Otherwise we simply will be mimicking fundamentalism, I fear. On the other hand, I know I am not the only one who finds that christians do not wish to engage with these issues.....and we know why, sadly.
  12. 1 point
    For the ones that take it all seriously, reality itself is defined by the faith. They really think there is a being in charge, that there is a constant invisible war between demons and angels, that the words in the books of the Bible are true instead of stupid tribal myths that cannot possibly be based in history, and that when we all die we face that god for judgment. They can't see that they are in a cult like any other cult, and our cultures give church a default respect and honor instead of wincing and backing away from it like the Moonies or Manson family. My state has a legislator in the eastern area that is a white supremacist fundamentalist jihadist that wants to kill every male who won't submit to Christian law, and he apparently has a lot of similar believers that put him in office. Even most serious believers don't take things that direction, but they do consider it all real. Most who call themselves believers don't take it as seriously as fundamentalists do. I know gobs of Catholics, Lutherans, and Presbyterians that are believers by default, and it is just something they do as part of their identity and local culture. But it doesn't define reality for them. The rest of us are not believers, and being not something isn't really a rallying point until the religions become oppressive. I recently interacted with some Russian Pentecostal believers at a memorial service. Many of them had fond memories of me and my wife helping them adjust to life in America. But a couple of them see us as poison since we reject Jesus now. We were invited to Thanksgiving, but didn't go because it would be really awkward. We don't have anything in common with them now because for them the faith defines 99% of who they are and what they do. It is a constant programming of their minds and emotions, and the ones that see us as the toxic ones are guardians of the cult, and don't want us messing things up. It's a sad thing that we can't relate as humans for very long, but for them everything revolves around the faith. That's how cults stay in control of people, stay in power, keep the money flowing in, and foster new generations of believers to keep the machine working. But the more we can publicly and privately be real with people about the nonsense of belief, the more people will start seeing through it.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.