disillusioned

There are 4 steps: 1) Be nice. 2) Don't talk about yourself. 3) When explicitly invited to talk about yourself, deflect. 4) If forced to talk about yourself, stick to predetermined, "normal" parts of your life that you are ok with discussing. Keep it light, and deflect as soon as possible. People mostly want to talk about themselves. For the most part, they aren't actually that interested in you. And, unless you disavow them of the notion, they will usually assume that you are pretty much like them. I just exploited this until I became more comfortable with myself. And to be honest, I still exploit it with everyone that I don't care about. The people I care about are the only people I open up to. Like I said, I'm not sure this is a healthy approach. But there it is.

I don't think there's an easy answer here. When I left, I dropped basically all of my former relationships other than family. When connecting with new people through school and work, I made a concerted effort to appear as normal as possible. No discussion at all of my background. I pretended to be normal until I adjusted to being out. I don't know if that's a healthy approach, but it worked for me.

It isn't clear that John actually wrote those books. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works Even if he did, though, it doesn't follow that they were written truthfully. Put simply, they can be rejected as easily as any other "holy" text from any other tradition.

Posted for general interest. Neil Turok is a physicist who feels very similarly to me on issues of inflationary theory, string theory, and general issues pertaining to the so-called multiverse. But setting that aside, this is still a wonderful lecture, giving a cursorial summary of most of the more interesting bits of an undergraduate physics degree. Enjoy!

Wanna explain to me how he'd go about becoming the leader of the federal conservatives in time for our next election? If you seriously think that he has even a minute chance of becoming Prime Minister in 2019 then you clearly have no clue how our political system works. Strictly speaking, it's possible, but there is no serious chance of this happening.

You mean Doug Ford? Yeah, not gonna happen.

Projected presidential race in 2026: Jerry Springer vs Maury Povich.

Welcome! Very glad that you found us, and that you found your way out.

So this is just wikipedia, not a scientific paper, but let's start small, hmm? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise Note that global average sea levels have been rising. Note also that not every location has seen sea level rise. These are just facts.

Jess, I'm sorry you're dealing with this. You said she was never really a friend, and isn't really a part of your life. In that case, if it were me, I'd probably just reply something along the lines of "Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm really not interested." If she wants to know why, then it's your call how much you want to share. I'm definitely with Jeff, though, about keeping it in writing. Many things are easier to handle if there's some time between responses.

This seems to entail that your vision and confirmation experience are not, in and of themselves, convincing. They happened several years ago, as you have said. In the interim, you have repeatedly argued here that Christianity is false. So clearly the vision and confirmation experience do not suffice, even for you. Something else has changed. I would reflect on this, if I were you.

If this all happened years ago, is there a reason why it has only recently become convincing to you again? What changed, H?

It is absolutely not the claim of every scientist who speaks publicly about climate change. I've attended lectures on climate change. In all cases, the lecturers emphasised that they are not advocating any particular policy changes, nor are they trying to incite alarm. They are presenting the scientific facts, and the predictions that are drawn from the models that those facts lead to. There is absolutely a point in having this discussion, aside from inciting alarm. All of science aims to learn what the hell is going on. Environmental scientists, atmospheric chemists, etc, are studying the environment, making observations, making models, and making predictions just like all scientists do. They present their results, just like all scientists do. They are working towards science, not alarm. Now, of course, some of them also express their personal opinions with respect to what people should do about this issue. But if and when they do that, they are no longer doing science, they are expressing opinions on social issues. They are perfectly entitled to do this, but they are not speaking as scientists when they do. It's been a while since I watched the video in the OP, so I'm not sure the extent to which the presenter in this particular video crosses into this kind of persuasion. But I've seen plenty of other videos where the speakers either abstained from discussing alarm entirely, or expressed clearly that their recommendations for what humanity should do are just their opinions, and not science. It is absolutely false to claim that all climate scientists are working towards the underlying agenda of alarm. No, it isn't. When a doctor says that smoking causes cancer, she is not trying to incite alarm. You can choose to be concerned or not. Science says smoking causes cancer. When cosmologists tell us that the sun will eventually reach the end of its life, that Andromeda is headed our way, or that the vacuum of space is likely unstable, they are not trying to incite alarm. They are just presenting scientific facts. You choose to be alarmed, or not. When biologists tell us that life has not been specially created, it has evolved over millions of years, they are not advocating for atheism. Sure, some of them also advocate for atheism, but that has relatively little to do with the science. Plenty of biologists are religious. When climate scientists tell us that CO2 levels are increasing, and that increased CO2 leads to increased global temperatures, they are not inciting alarm. They are just stating scientific facts. If you find the data alarming, that's your problem. Also, the data does not have to be seen as alarming. It's very possible to accept that climate change is happening, that CO2 emissions are driving it, that it is a very real problem, and even that, unless we take drastic steps, it will have extremely negative effects on our lives, and to still not be alarmed by it. I should know. This is where I sit. Now, of course, some people do get carried away and attempt to incite alarm. But to say that this is the basis of the claims of climate science is simply not correct.

Alarm is not part of the science. Alarmed is what some people become when they learn about the science. Obviously if one is skeptical of climate change, one will not be alarmed by it. But one can accept that it is happening, and that CO2 emissions are driving it, and still not be alarmed by it. So no, it doesn't boil down to alarm or no alarm. People's reactions may boil down to that, but that's not the claim.

This drawing of parallels between science and religion smacks of ignorance. I see this kind of thinking all the time in my professional life. It is disturbing to see it here. Yes, sometimes scientists get carried away. And, just like all humans, they can be corrupted. But there is no conspiracy. There is no faith required. Where there is a need for interpretation, there are clear guidelines regarding how to interpret data correctly. There's no subterfuge, in general. But we do sometimes need to go beyond what we can see with our own eyes. That's just the way things are. We must be careful not to equate "I don't understand X" with "X cannot be understood". Yes, we should be skeptical. But there is a very significant difference between skepticism and cynicism. Say "I'm not convinced by X" if you must. But to insist that X is actually bullshit is to make another claim entirely. Just saying.