Brain creatures?

Word comments on Jul 14, 2020:

There is in fact evidence for gods. Maybe not the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God, but nonetheless there is in fact evidence for gods. Brain is the structure. Mind is the operation on the structure. A dead brain would not appear to have a mind. Mind is the activity of a living ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 16, 2020:

@Word * facepalm* Keep defining words into meaninglessness you convicted pedophile rapist (you know, one who makes up gods related to Mexican food). You still haven't answered my objection to the verse later in John chapter one that is self-contradictory and continue to spout biblical nonsense as if that book of fairy tales * means * anything in regards to how we define words, let alone whether it is evidence of anything. (* hint: it's not *)

Florida Superintendent Says Kids Choose to Be Gay. How Does He Know?

SCal comments on Jul 16, 2020:

I think most do choose. All behavior is learned from environment.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 16, 2020:

@SCal I believe they are actually taking about the motion of the month and the ability to produce negative pressure to obtain milk. That is not taught. I don't even know how you * could * teach that. Your claim, "Babies suckle because they have a mouth and learn from their time in the womb to be nourished by a host" doesn't hold water because they don't use their mouths in the womb for nourishment.

Florida Superintendent Says Kids Choose to Be Gay. How Does He Know?

SCal comments on Jul 16, 2020:

I think most do choose. All behavior is learned from environment.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 16, 2020:

@Bobby9 You are still under the illusion, that's okay. I've learned it's a waste of time to try to convince people of this fact. I should have known based on how hard it was for be to come to the realization, but I didn't.

Florida Superintendent Says Kids Choose to Be Gay. How Does He Know?

SCal comments on Jul 16, 2020:

I think most do choose. All behavior is learned from environment.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 16, 2020:

Not only did @BirdMan1 bust out some very good examples that disprove your theory, but the fact of the matter is that no one chooses anything- free will is an illusion.

Brain creatures?

Word comments on Jul 14, 2020:

There is in fact evidence for gods. Maybe not the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God, but nonetheless there is in fact evidence for gods. Brain is the structure. Mind is the operation on the structure. A dead brain would not appear to have a mind. Mind is the activity of a living ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 16, 2020:

@Word But that's not what you said at the start of this. You said: > There is in fact evidence for gods. As written and accepted, Gods are thinking people. Thinking people are gods. Evidence for some type of Gods obviously does in fact exist because people exist as gods. So you * did * claim the Bible have evidence of a god. In fact, you said it was proof of it and called the claim of atheism illogical. > As written and accepted, Gods are thinking people. Thinking people are gods. Evidence for some type of Gods obviously does in fact exist because people exist as gods. Taco God is real and really exist. Atheism Illogical. > It is not evidence of its existance but let's you know what to look for as evidence. But there's a difference between evidence of a "Harry Potter style god" (whatever that means- I wasn't aware there were gods in Harry Potter) and evidence of a god from the Bible in that the evidence you claim is proof of the existence of good from the Bible is clear as day. Remember you said: > Thinking people are gods. Evidence for some type of Gods obviously does in fact exist because people exist as gods. That's a claim both of evidence for and proof of a god. Why is this so difficult?

Brain creatures?

K9Kohle789 comments on Jul 15, 2020:

I never fall for the "god told me", I ask which of the 3k gods are you worshipping? Also, there are other creatures that know about death. Cows in cow shoots where they're lined up for a nail to the head freak out and try to turn around. Why do insects run like hell from you when you're trying to ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 16, 2020:

@K9Kohle789 In energy that dissipates and changes into many different things, where would said knowledge be stored and how could it be accessed? Does the knowledge get split up or does all of your knowledge become contained in every divisible portion of energy? A whole living human body even loses its knowledge or the ability to access it if singular parts of it become damaged or inactive, why would just energy contain knowledge?

Brain creatures?

Word comments on Jul 14, 2020:

There is in fact evidence for gods. Maybe not the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God, but nonetheless there is in fact evidence for gods. Brain is the structure. Mind is the operation on the structure. A dead brain would not appear to have a mind. Mind is the activity of a living ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 16, 2020:

@Word 1. Yes, you are. You have said that cognition is logos and logos is god based on biblical text. 2. It doesn't matter. If no one has ever seen GOD then whatever assumptions you have about being allowed to label random stuff "god" based on arbitrary things like them having eaten a taco, is, even according to the text you are using as evidence, incorrect. That is the problem of a definition that is too vague. But you don't get to have it both ways. And what do you mean you have to get a better understanding of what this "John" means? That's the Bible book and chapter YOU are using as your "evidence that god exists". Now you're going to play dumb when he says something that completely obliterates your point? 3/4. I believe you are misinterpreting the definition "to call or invoke". It doesn't mean "to label". Additionally, if you are arguing that the process of labeling something * is * god, that, again, dilutes the definition to meaninglessness. 5. You're not saying anything different than what I said. Thank you for agreeing. Proposition- a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion. So a proposition that there are no gods is another way to say a belief or opinion that there are no gods. The article from Stanford you linked plays the same word games. They claim in the beginning that it should not be defined in the context of a belief, then conclude that it is a proposition of no gods. By very virtue of asking a question for which there is no definitive answer, you are either seeking inquiry (for which the answer cannot be yes or no) or opinion (which can be stated as yes or no with an implied 'I believe' preceding it). Think about the question 'do aliens exist'. Since no proof or evidence exists (yet) any statement of yes or no necessarily includes an implied 'I believe'. Not sure why you're not getting this either.

Brain creatures?

Word comments on Jul 14, 2020:

There is in fact evidence for gods. Maybe not the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God, but nonetheless there is in fact evidence for gods. Brain is the structure. Mind is the operation on the structure. A dead brain would not appear to have a mind. Mind is the activity of a living ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 16, 2020:

@Word So wait, so you're going on is that one verse from the Bible?! Okay, you have multiple problems here: 1. If your claim is that the Bible is evidence that god is real becomes circular reasoning when god being real becomes the evidence for the Bible being true. 2. The problem from John 1:18 that states, "No one has ever seen god". If people see each other, then they cannot be god(s). So people are not god as you have stated multiple times. 3. Your claim that you can just call something 'god' and that means the thing * is * a god. THIS is how you are diluting the definition of god. If you can call * anything * god, you can call * everything * god. If everything is god, the definition becomes so vague it is useless. (The same way that if I personally define convicted pedophile rapist to include people who create taco gods among a myriad of other things, no one will know what I'm talking about when I start telling them all of the people who I know are convicted pedophile rapists.) 4. > A very uncommon word for how it is used comes from Germanic origin of meaning to call or invoke and now in fact exist as a word in English spelt with the letters G, O, and D. I cannot find this definition anywhere. If this is needed to support your argument, can you please produce a source? 5. Your claim that: > Because atheism by defination says: no gods exist. Atheism Illogical. That is not the definition of atheism. Atheism is a DISBELIEF or lack of BELIEF in god(s). Just because * you * incorrectly use the word 'god' to define something doesn't mean that your personal definition of god is proof (or even evidence) that god(s) exist.

So what happened to the 'R' number then, which was so important just a couple of weeks ago, has ...

Mcflewster comments on Jul 8, 2020:

It was not local enough. I have no idea how they actually reach those numbers though. It should be as local as your local pub. Science is now investigating transmission through the air( as other viruses are) as opposed to droplet transmission ( transmission by droplets is where the coughs and...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

The problem is that an Effective Reproduction Number would change drastically all the time. Basic Reproduction Number wouldn't really change (once it was accurately calculated). Anyway, the number of people in the pub, how close they sat, how segregated the groups/individuals stayed, the size of the groups, if they wore any type of PPE, what the temperature, humidity, airflow, and potentially UV light penetration was, if there was air filtration, if there was any natural or acquired immunity among the patrons and at what percent, the percent of initially infected individuals, etc. etc.

Brain creatures?

Word comments on Jul 14, 2020:

There is in fact evidence for gods. Maybe not the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God, but nonetheless there is in fact evidence for gods. Brain is the structure. Mind is the operation on the structure. A dead brain would not appear to have a mind. Mind is the activity of a living ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@Word Alternatively, I could just define 'god' as anything that contains no matter and cannot be detected in any way. Then, by its very definition, it is impossible that there could be any evidence of any god. The point you're missing is that when we redefine on a personal and individual level, it amounts to nothing more than personal opinion, and opinion is not evidence. You claimed: > There is in fact evidence for gods. But your opinion, or even the opinions of millions or billions of people, is NOT evidence. When a majority of the world believed the Earth was flat, was that evidence of its flatness?

Alternative lifestyles should all get equal protection?

ChestRockfield comments on Jul 15, 2020:

This is a really good question. As one who understands humans do not have free will, being fat, whether a result of genetics, gluttony, disability, medication, ailment, or combination thereof, is essentially no different than any of the other categories that you mentioned. I have not answered your ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@Word That makes no sense, of course they could still oppose equal rights for the other included groups because presently, the equal protection laws aren't needed to protect fat people. That's like saying the nineteenth amendment shouldn't have been opposed by any men because it included verbiage in it that prevented men being denied the right to vote based on their gender. They * already * had the right to vote, so adding them to the law doesn't functionally change anything for them.

What natural phenomena could be considered all-powerful?

piphirho comments on Mar 31, 2020:

What does "all powerful" mean? More powerful than anything else? Kinetic energy cannot make something go faster than the speed of light. It can be overcome by gravity, a collision, terminal velocity... many things. You have to define what it is to be "all" powerful before such a question can be ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@Word How did kenetic energy get into a state where it was kenetic energy? Are we just aimlessly arguing about the beginnings of matter?

Brain creatures?

Word comments on Jul 14, 2020:

There is in fact evidence for gods. Maybe not the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God, but nonetheless there is in fact evidence for gods. Brain is the structure. Mind is the operation on the structure. A dead brain would not appear to have a mind. Mind is the activity of a living ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@Word Again, you are diluting the definition to meaninglessness. I have decided to include in the definition of 'convicted pedophile rapist' anyone who creates gods that are related to Mexican food. Because I have done that, I can fairly call you a convicted pedophile rapist. Do you yet see the problem with arbitrarily changing the definitions of things to the point that the word becomes useless?

What natural phenomena could be considered all-powerful?

piphirho comments on Mar 31, 2020:

What does "all powerful" mean? More powerful than anything else? Kinetic energy cannot make something go faster than the speed of light. It can be overcome by gravity, a collision, terminal velocity... many things. You have to define what it is to be "all" powerful before such a question can be ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@Word So by that rationale, wouldn't "energy" by more powerful than kenetic energy because it would also include potential energy?

Brain creatures?

Word comments on Jul 14, 2020:

There is in fact evidence for gods. Maybe not the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God, but nonetheless there is in fact evidence for gods. Brain is the structure. Mind is the operation on the structure. A dead brain would not appear to have a mind. Mind is the activity of a living ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@Word Of course there is. You are claiming there is evidence of god (actually, you are claiming that god exists) in contradiction to the OP, I am showing why your argument is not sound.

Some thought my duct tape face mask was a little on the kinky side. What do you think?

Lorajay comments on May 11, 2020:

I don't know about kinky but when I see a bushy beard, I wonder how many viral droplets stick to it. Someone should do research on whether men with large beards get the virus more often. It has already been established that males are more susceptible to the virus.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@Word Nope. Facial hair is a huge disadvantage in proper mask usage. The larger the gaps between your skin and the mask, the less protection you have from getting or transmitting disease. It's why we have to shave for our mask fittings at the hospital.

Some thought my duct tape face mask was a little on the kinky side. What do you think?

TimeOutForMe comments on May 15, 2020:

Nah don't think it's kinky. It looks like a short cut to comply with wearing a mask, which isn't a mask as your mouth is not really closed. Your beard could catch droplets, you touch your beard, you touch your face and the rest is history. Let's not make fun of the reality of this dreaded virus....

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@Word But it doesn't * filter * your breath. If you think a surgical mask to stop Covid is the equivalent of a chain link fence to stop a river (which is a poor analogy itself because river would be analogous to breath, not Covid, and we're trying to stop droplets with Covid in them, not your breath) then what do you think your beard hair is equivalent to, a couple of sticks stuck in the mud at the bottom of the river? I'm shocked your boss would allow this, but I guess bosses can be clueless too.

Brain creatures?

Word comments on Jul 14, 2020:

There is in fact evidence for gods. Maybe not the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God, but nonetheless there is in fact evidence for gods. Brain is the structure. Mind is the operation on the structure. A dead brain would not appear to have a mind. Mind is the activity of a living ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@Word Yes. You are. > There is in fact evidence for gods. This is a contradiction to the OP. You follow it with your "evidence". That is a debate/argument. > accepted that "logos is god" from John 1:1 Accepted by whom?? That's an interpretation of bronze-age beliefs supposedly written and/or inspired by a god that couldn't even do a better job of explaining the natural world than elementary school science. > Your defination of god is not necessarily what I am discussing. What do you mean * my * definition? You are the one that is asserting that god exists based on a Bible verse. Even though a few verses later it contradicts itself. The point of the matter is that if you dilute the definition of a thing so much so that anything meets the requirements, you have essentially rendered the word useless. Let's say I start expanding the definition of the word 'food' to include anything that * anything * consumes for sustenance including sunlight and water. Then I continue to expand to include anything that can be broken down to make more of something (like rocks into sand) or converted into something else (like energy into heat). Then the sentence, "I need food" no longer conveys any concrete information. That is what the expansion of the definition of god in your comment has done. Not sure why you're having trouble understanding this...

Brain creatures?

Pedrohbds comments on Jul 15, 2020:

I agree about the religious part, but on the what we are i prefer the definition on the selfish gene. We are vessels built to protect and increase the probability of our genes to multiply, even the brain is just a trick of the fundamental replication unity that is the gene to survive and replicate.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@Pedrohbds Byproduct? Consequence?

Brain creatures?

Pedrohbds comments on Jul 15, 2020:

I agree about the religious part, but on the what we are i prefer the definition on the selfish gene. We are vessels built to protect and increase the probability of our genes to multiply, even the brain is just a trick of the fundamental replication unity that is the gene to survive and replicate.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

"Trick" implies intention...

Brain creatures?

K9Kohle789 comments on Jul 15, 2020:

I never fall for the "god told me", I ask which of the 3k gods are you worshipping? Also, there are other creatures that know about death. Cows in cow shoots where they're lined up for a nail to the head freak out and try to turn around. Why do insects run like hell from you when you're trying to ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

The question is whether you believe the energy that makes up your body and brain somehow carries with it essence of you? That's mostly what people mean by soul. Not that the human body can be burned or eaten to provide calories for something else.

Brain creatures?

Grecio comments on Jul 14, 2020:

If you don't believe in the hereafter, why would you want to live?

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

I don't understand your question. Your profile says you're an atheist, but it sure seems like you believe in heaven. What am I missing?

Brain creatures?

Word comments on Jul 14, 2020:

There is in fact evidence for gods. Maybe not the non-existent flying spaghetti monster sky God, but nonetheless there is in fact evidence for gods. Brain is the structure. Mind is the operation on the structure. A dead brain would not appear to have a mind. Mind is the activity of a living ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

You're just redefining 'god' to a definition that makes it exist. Thinking is God. Thinking exists. Therefore, god exists. But valid logical form does not alone make a sound argument. Watch. Jelly doughnuts are intergalactic space ships. Jelly doughnuts exist. Therefore, intergalactic space ships exist. For the argument to be valid and sound the premises must also be true. To redefine thinking people as god is nonsensical, even to your own book. A few verses later we have, "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God" which has several problems. "No one has ever seen god" Thinking people see each other all the time. Therefore, thinking people are not god.

I just got banned from FB for 30 days for this photo.

ChestRockfield comments on Jul 14, 2020:

You should make that 30 days 30 years. Fuck Facebook.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@Observer-Effect Yeah, shit is crazy. They have about 3 billion active users of at least one of their platforms spanning almost every country in the world (it's only banned in a handful) and it's worth over a half a trillion dollars. Their revenue in 2019 was higher than the GDP of 120 out of 186 countries at 70.7 billion. And they accomplished this all with only 10% of their users being from US/Canada.

Not my research or authorship, but good details.

nicestuff comments on Jul 13, 2020:

The numbers are perhaps somewhat misleading and endlessly debatable. But the point remains that the virus not only kills some people but maims many others. As for the economy, the administration in the U.S. is far more concerned about profitability for the 1% and re-election in November than they ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@AnneWimsey I don't know what you're trying to say. @nicestuff wasn't talking about anything other than how misguided the administration is/was and was absolutely correct about it. I'm a nurse working the front lines of this pandemic, and was preaching how bad this was going to get long before most everyone else. By mid March I was explaining how this virus was already 37 times deadlier than the regular flu and way more contagious. I was keeping a personal spreadsheet of US and global data points, and trying to educate people why what the administration and some of what health organizations were telling the public was not true. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE...

I just got banned from FB for 30 days for this photo.

ChestRockfield comments on Jul 14, 2020:

You should make that 30 days 30 years. Fuck Facebook.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 15, 2020:

@Observer-Effect How so? Do you know that in some countries "Facebook" is the word for "internet"? It's millions of people's only way of accessing things online.

Mental Midget in Trenton

Cast1es comments on Jul 14, 2020:

They're willing to risk the lives of their children ? ? ?

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 14, 2020:

They do every time they bring them around priests. 😝

Not my research or authorship, but good details.

dumasarok comments on Jul 13, 2020:

This is a list of unsupported assumptions the most glaring of which assumes that 100% of the population will become infected. This is a preposterous assumption. This line of reasoning would equally apply to many communicable diseases, Influenza would probably be far worse. Nice try Franklin, no ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 14, 2020:

@dumasarok You're right, I'm sorry. I am kinda touchy about the drastic mis/disinformation campaign regarding Covid.

Tuesday, ‎July ‎07, ‎2020 GOD - as - ENERGY - being One Self - thru U - an – animal ...

Fit50something comments on Jul 14, 2020:

Didn't you post this drivel once before?

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 14, 2020:

Not just once. Look at his posts. This is the only shit he posts...

Not my research or authorship, but good details.

dumasarok comments on Jul 13, 2020:

This is a list of unsupported assumptions the most glaring of which assumes that 100% of the population will become infected. This is a preposterous assumption. This line of reasoning would equally apply to many communicable diseases, Influenza would probably be far worse. Nice try Franklin, no ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 14, 2020:

@dumasarok > In the type of conversations we engage in here we normally don't get into all inclusive essay style posts so generalities are common. You're really gonna try to pull a fast one like that? Earlier in the comments section you called someone out for not citing which fallacy they believe you used, and now you're gonna pretend like it's a super casual discussion? Remember? > No logic? Could you point out the logical fallacy or logical inconsistency that you object to. If you can do so I will be happy to correct my error. Get the fuck out of here. And what did you mean " * we * normally engage in here"? I've been here longer and have participated much more than you have, so you can keep your 'tips & tricks for success' pointers to yourself.

Not my research or authorship, but good details.

Trod comments on Jul 12, 2020:

IMHO, hospitals are over inflating the numbers. If they show it as a COVID death, they can get extra money from the government. So, they pressure these doctors to say that its COVID related death based on a pre existing condition.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 13, 2020:

You don't get to just lie and claim another cause of death. That's not how it works. A doctor, risking malpractice, would have to state a false cause of death on the death certificate. Are you getting your info from Fox News?!

Not my research or authorship, but good details.

dumasarok comments on Jul 13, 2020:

This is a list of unsupported assumptions the most glaring of which assumes that 100% of the population will become infected. This is a preposterous assumption. This line of reasoning would equally apply to many communicable diseases, Influenza would probably be far worse. Nice try Franklin, no ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 13, 2020:

@dumasarok You made it sound like the normal mutating recurring Influenza virus we deal with every year would be worse than Covid 19 if there was 100% infection rate. If you are taking about a SPECIFIC strain like the H1N1 that caused the 1918 pandemic, you should have stated that. * Obviously * if the deadliest flu pandemic ever had a 100% infection rate it would be worse... but that's a circular argument (i.e. a deadlier virus would be deadlier).

Not my research or authorship, but good details.

Theresa_N comments on Jul 13, 2020:

The latest data is that this is like the "cold." Same family of virus. Immunity might last less than 90 days perhaps much less. Antibodies last just a few weeks. The vaccination must account for this. We may need it much more often than the "flu" vaccine.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 13, 2020:

@Freedompath No, that can't be right. When it gets warm outside, it's going to go away like a miracle. I have that on good authority from someone who had a really big uuh brain.

Not my research or authorship, but good details.

dumasarok comments on Jul 13, 2020:

This is a list of unsupported assumptions the most glaring of which assumes that 100% of the population will become infected. This is a preposterous assumption. This line of reasoning would equally apply to many communicable diseases, Influenza would probably be far worse. Nice try Franklin, no ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 13, 2020:

Influenza would NOT be far worse, or even worse at all. The death rate is WAY higher from Covid, and the non-lethal side effects are way worse as well. Where are you getting your information?

Not my research or authorship, but good details.

nicestuff comments on Jul 13, 2020:

The numbers are perhaps somewhat misleading and endlessly debatable. But the point remains that the virus not only kills some people but maims many others. As for the economy, the administration in the U.S. is far more concerned about profitability for the 1% and re-election in November than they ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 13, 2020:

@AnneWimsey He's not saying that they will be successful, just that that's what their thinking was (which is accurate).

What started me on the path toward agnosticism was when I decided that if I was going to be a ...

Aristippus comments on Jul 13, 2020:

A comment below mentions "Jesus Camp", Take a look at the video and see what these people are doing to children. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNMRDmf3000

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 13, 2020:

Jesus Camp is FUCKED. Anyone who hasn't seen it should.

What started me on the path toward agnosticism was when I decided that if I was going to be a ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jul 13, 2020:

In grad school studying physics I can upon and important revelation: Science is the best way humans have figured out to find out objective truths in the world. Yet, science can't answer, much less address, the fundamental question of god(s). Yes, science can disprove claims of the religious ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 13, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay Not to mention that Pascal's Wager has problems of its own. Namely, does it "count" if you're only believing just in case?

Interesting to see how many members of Congress and other elected officials as well as businesses ...

bookofmorons comments on Jul 7, 2020:

Seems the Swamp may need more draining

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 12, 2020:

@HumanistJohn Well, unfortunately it doesn't seem like even the ones we put behind bars serve any time, so I'll take death.

Before the germ theory of disease became popularly understood, it was common to believe that sick ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jul 10, 2020:

One of the major problems I see with this, as there would be to agreeing we'll just call that which makes us sick spirits, is that those who engage in this type of labeling are rarely, if ever, the ones who will discover what the actual cause is. Religious people who end all inquiry into something ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 12, 2020:

@skado > What functions in favor of evolutionary success might not look pretty to the casual modern observer. Yes, but it begs the question if it was actually necessary for the evolutionary success of mankind. There have been countless other species that have existed on Earth and there is no evidence to support the need for religion for the evolutionary success of any of them. Obviously, there's no way to know or test this, but it's interesting to think about. * I guess it also depends on how you define evolutionary success. * > It's a part of our “DNA”. See, I struggle with this. I have argued with Pentecostals before about their claim that speaking in tongues is naturally occurring, i.e. not learned. There aren't a bunch of children walking around of other or no religions that are speaking in tongues, so that doesn't really seem possible. Just because it has been around this whole time doesn't mean it's * part * of us. Unless we broaden the definition of religion so much as to include rudimentary ritualistic practices, but aren't we then diluting the word to meaninglessness? It's why I don't agree laying a urinal on its side is art - if EVERYthing is "art" nothing is "art". Maybe that's what I wasn't getting about your OP and your distinction between what you referred to as religion and corrupt religion? About a definition of religion that doesn't even include a deity or higher power? With how different those things are, it seems like we need a different word for it other than 'religion' to communicate appropriately. It's interesting about the theory of the origins of religion. But this may be related to my misunderstanding above. > If you don't think art purports to be truth, what do you think it purports to be? Better not tell Keats or Cézanne. Umm, art? We are using a different forms of the word 'truth' in these two instances. For comparison, people don't talk about the fictional novel called The Bible or the The Quran. > Thinking that truth can be conveyed only in descriptive prose I never said that.

Interesting to see how many members of Congress and other elected officials as well as businesses ...

bookofmorons comments on Jul 7, 2020:

Seems the Swamp may need more draining

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 12, 2020:

@HumanistJohn I was referring more to the shady shit they do that's * technically * legal but fucks the spirit of the law in the ass. I think the most glaring and awful example of this is when that shit box McConnell refused to hold any hearings on Garland. * Sidebar, how fucking happy are you going to be when that slimy motherfucker dies? *

Before the germ theory of disease became popularly understood, it was common to believe that sick ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jul 10, 2020:

One of the major problems I see with this, as there would be to agreeing we'll just call that which makes us sick spirits, is that those who engage in this type of labeling are rarely, if ever, the ones who will discover what the actual cause is. Religious people who end all inquiry into something ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 11, 2020:

@skado > The thing that you call religion I call corrupt religion I don't see a difference [anymore] between religion and corrupt religion (i.e. all religion is corrupt). > The evolutionary roots of what I call authentic religion are not good or bad; they just are. It appears to me that the authentic aspect of religion was never “intended” as a means of accurately describing the material world, but as a means of balancing some of our more primitive instincts for the purpose of social cohesion. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 'authentic' here, because it seems likely that the beginnings of religion was about explaining the unknown. The sun, tides, lightening, everything man didn't understand was explained with gods. > Should we ban all literature that uses figures of speech? Should all fiction be made illegal? None of those things purport to be truth. If they did, I would agree they should be banned. A good example of this would be face swapping or other altered videos like deepfakes. Making it look like someone said or did something they didn't should be [I believe * is * ] illegal.

Before the germ theory of disease became popularly understood, it was common to believe that sick ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jul 10, 2020:

One of the major problems I see with this, as there would be to agreeing we'll just call that which makes us sick spirits, is that those who engage in this type of labeling are rarely, if ever, the ones who will discover what the actual cause is. Religious people who end all inquiry into something ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 11, 2020:

@skado > We also speak figuratively. But agreeing it's "okay" to think this way is part of the problem. Just as it would be if the doctors at your local hospital thought a visit from the chaplain was a better part of the treatment for your infection than IV antibiotics. > We also live in a subjective world. I disagree with this. We live in an objective world we experience subjectively. Just because someone thinks they are offering protection from spirits, escaping souls, or diseases by saying "Good bless you" after a sneeze, doesn't mean any part of that physically changes. And not attempting to align one's subjective experience with reality is sometimes benign, but most often dangerous. > All I’m saying is that if we insist on interpreting every human utterance as an objective description, we may get the impression that the speaker is more “deficient” than they actually are. I don't really understand the thinking here. It almost seems circular. It's basically saying if we stop recognizing one's deficiencies, we won't see them as deficient. Regardless of * how * one means to say it, saying, "I'm sick because of spirits" is always equally wrong. And, as before, if you wouldn't want the luxury of unchallenged deficiencies to be a trait your hospital staff has, why would you be willing to afford it to anyone else? > The main point of my post is that the root of religion isn’t falsehood. It’s metaphor. Except it's not a metaphor. Most major religions are centered around creation, not evolution. A story of creation can't really be a metaphor for evolution, and that drastically changes people's outlook on things. [Not to mention that a vast, vast majority of religious people do not treat it as a metaphor, which means it would be irresponsible to be blind to this reality when determining how to deal with it. Think of the way the FDA responded to the imitation marijuana. Had they ignored it because it was sold as and "intended to be used as" incense, they would have been horrifically derelict in their duty.] But even if we were to grant that all religion is, and should only be followed as, a metaphor, that doesn't mean that once precise enough language exists to explain the nature of reality without said metaphor, that we shouldn't insist on it. I mean, what exactly is the benefit of the metaphor about putting gay men to death? And how is it any better than being an out and proud bigot?

Interesting to see how many members of Congress and other elected officials as well as businesses ...

bookofmorons comments on Jul 7, 2020:

Seems the Swamp may need more draining

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 11, 2020:

@HumanistJohn The Dems are just complete wimps. I know taking the high road would be the only way back to a respectable government, but it's clear that will never work. They need to get down in the shit and start fighting fire with fire.

Before the germ theory of disease became popularly understood, it was common to believe that sick ...

Allamanda comments on Jul 8, 2020:

I'm very broadly in agreement, except for the last paragraph - I don't think most of 'us' (who don't follow a prescribed religion) belittle or demean those who do SO LONG AS THEY ARE SINCERE. The sincere and moral believer who tries to do good mainly has our respect. It's the misuse of these creeds ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 11, 2020:

@Allamanda Well, at least in the US, sincere religion is even more political/dangerous than the regular opportunistic version.

Before the germ theory of disease became popularly understood, it was common to believe that sick ...

Allamanda comments on Jul 8, 2020:

I'm very broadly in agreement, except for the last paragraph - I don't think most of 'us' (who don't follow a prescribed religion) belittle or demean those who do SO LONG AS THEY ARE SINCERE. The sincere and moral believer who tries to do good mainly has our respect. It's the misuse of these creeds ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 11, 2020:

@Allamanda But that's almost all of them...

Before the germ theory of disease became popularly understood, it was common to believe that sick ...

Allamanda comments on Jul 8, 2020:

I'm very broadly in agreement, except for the last paragraph - I don't think most of 'us' (who don't follow a prescribed religion) belittle or demean those who do SO LONG AS THEY ARE SINCERE. The sincere and moral believer who tries to do good mainly has our respect. It's the misuse of these creeds ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 11, 2020:

Does voting for people who want to take away women's reproductive rights or ban same sex marriage make their religiosity intolerable enough to deserve the ire of the non-religious? Or as long as they're polite to our faces it's all good? See, I don't see what they're doing as simply a difference of opinion or different political philosophy.

Before the germ theory of disease became popularly understood, it was common to believe that sick ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jul 10, 2020:

One of the major problems I see with this, as there would be to agreeing we'll just call that which makes us sick spirits, is that those who engage in this type of labeling are rarely, if ever, the ones who will discover what the actual cause is. Religious people who end all inquiry into something ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 11, 2020:

@skado The conclusion to you piece... > To belittle people who have felt the weight of greater reality, and who wish to live in harmony with its dictates, just because they are yet unaware of the scientific description of it Are you not asking us to treat religious belief as a normal or even heightened awareness of the nature of reality instead of some sort of deficiency?

I love being able to have reasonable conversations with like minded people (godless skeptics), but ...

Sgt_Spanky comments on Jul 10, 2020:

I've been in favor of more believers here for the two years I've been posting but any suggestion of trying to bring in some Xians to up the religious diversity of the site is typically met with resistance. For some reason, a lot of people seem to like an echo chamber. Not sure why.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 10, 2020:

I agree with @AmyTheBruce. You can literally go to any other social media platform and argue with Christians all day long. Why infect this place with them too? Also, there's nothing saying they * can't * come here. You * can * be an agnostic Christian.

Bill Nye on why we should all wear a face mask - CNN

Jolanta comments on Jul 9, 2020:

I shall find myself some nice material and get out my sewing machine.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 9, 2020:

If you're making "dude masks" of a larger size that have vent ports and good nose pieces (with a print other dudes would be jealous of), I'd buy a couple.

An somewhat 'unusual and interesting' thing happened yesterday in relation to the "Pope Paul Skelley...

ChestRockfield comments on Jul 9, 2020:

Why no pictures of these letters?

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 9, 2020:

@Triphid I strongly recommend Google Photos. Free unlimited storage and instant backup. I'll never lose another picture again.

Florida Teen Dies After Mother Took Her to Church Coronavirus Party, Then Treated Her With ...

luckytobealive comments on Jul 7, 2020:

for earth sake, cannot anybody see how sick this article is to shame someone .... the tragic is someone died, who was 17 and was very well aware of her situation, being a former cancer patient...maybe she didnt want to live a locked up life, but to live...but the article title is just disgusting ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 9, 2020:

Leave her be? She practiced medicine without a license and killed her child. She should be in jail. Hydroxychloroquine has shown very limited positive results, but overall has shown to be ineffective or dangerous. Whether or not the decision to use it was related to her political views or how much of a fucking idiot the president is, is largely irrelevant. The issue is that even if it was effective in any way, it needs to be under the supervision of a doctor and, especially in someone with existing medical problems, preferably while actively being monitored. A for political angles, the president does advocate for gathering, not wearing masks, and "just trying what do you have to lose" a dangerous drug, so there's plenty to go on there.

COVID is Still Spreading, in Part, Because of Churches’ Irresponsible Decisions | Hemant Mehta | ...

Merseyman1 comments on Jul 8, 2020:

CHURCH SAYS : "Don't be so insensitive, you know we need the money from the collection plate or tithe, we can't live without it...if people gets COVID and dies, we don't care, Jesus will be waiting for them with open arms! "

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 8, 2020:

@jlynn37 People, especially religious people, don't do things based on what they know, they do things based on what they believe. The thought that they might go to hell is never on their minds because they believe they are bathed in the blood of Christ and that a simple confession of their sins is all that's needed for a one way ticket to heaven.

The following is part 1 of a 3 part series: "Understanding Donald Trump, Part I" I do not know...

snytiger6 comments on Jul 2, 2020:

If he loses the election, the statute of limitations would not yet have run out on his ebstruction of justice as outlined in the Mueller Report. So, he may end up in jail if he loses.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 5, 2020:

@K9Kohle789 I agree with all that (except for the part condemning the killing of animals in a particular way- if separating mother and young is legal for milk and veal production, we don't really have a moral leg to stand on for hunting) but the problem is as truly terrible as he is, Congress STILL failed to hold him accountable even one tiny bit for anything. If they don't even convict an impeachment, I doubt anyone would go after him and actually put him in prison. I think the optics of a president sitting in a prison cell is not something any state prosecutor will be able to stomach. Everyone is probably going to just be happy it's over and they're going to let him drift away into the trash heap of history.

The following is part 1 of a 3 part series: "Understanding Donald Trump, Part I" I do not know...

snytiger6 comments on Jul 2, 2020:

If he loses the election, the statute of limitations would not yet have run out on his ebstruction of justice as outlined in the Mueller Report. So, he may end up in jail if he loses.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 5, 2020:

@K9Kohle789 @273kelvin Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to see him behind bars, but I just don't see that ever happening to any president.

A Question of Morality -- Looking for Opinions -- Should saving a puppy mill dog just be written...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 19, 2020:

Wow, excellent question! WARNING. SUPER UNPOPULAR OPINION BELOW. I will, as I do with every other question about cruelty to animals for the pleasure of humans, come down on the side of: we have collectively agreed that torture of animals for our pleasure is okay. I personally do not see any ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 5, 2020:

@Nunya That douche face blocked me, so I can't see if he responded to me (which is not really fair, @admin . If someone comments on or replies to you that should be fair game even through a block). Do feel free to quote his whole comment in your replies. Anyway, yes, that's what he thinks. He can't grasp the fact that animal torture for meat is purely for pleasure and in no appreciable way different than any other form of animal torture for human pleasure.

The following is part 1 of a 3 part series: "Understanding Donald Trump, Part I" I do not know...

snytiger6 comments on Jul 2, 2020:

If he loses the election, the statute of limitations would not yet have run out on his ebstruction of justice as outlined in the Mueller Report. So, he may end up in jail if he loses.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 4, 2020:

@K9Kohle789 That's probably why Nixon died in jail.

So my parent's church which I visited for Father's Day is now experiencing members coming down ...

racocn8 comments on Jul 3, 2020:

Just imagine for a moment what would happen if, instead of paying out trillions of dollars to the unemployed and business owners, just a single trillion was spent on vaccine research. Maybe a little of that is happening now...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 4, 2020:

@racocn8 Umm, you just said > What if Trump had taken Obama's pandemic preparations seriously, and set to work on stockpiling PPE and ventilators for an inevitable pandemic, instead of trashing it all. So how exactly do you not get how poor outcomes are a direct result of his terrible leadership? He's failed on testing. He's failed on leading by example. He's failed on presenting a unified message on prevention methods. He's failed on everything. It's why other countries flattened their curve with their shutdowns and the US is spiraling out of control.

Report: Trump’s Rollback Of Clean Water Rules Will Poison 60% Of U.S. Waterways

freedom41 comments on Jul 2, 2020:

As long it's not within an 100 miles of him, he don't care.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 4, 2020:

Nah, what does he care? Water is purified before they turn it into Diet Coke.

So my parent's church which I visited for Father's Day is now experiencing members coming down ...

Surfpirate comments on Jul 1, 2020:

I suppose you could think of it as a delayed Rapture, so many will be taken home to the Lord.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 4, 2020:

Hopefully all...

So my parent's church which I visited for Father's Day is now experiencing members coming down ...

Archeus_Lore comments on Jul 1, 2020:

Oh, it could not be GOD, it had to be the DEVIL! . . . . . So I guess the devil was in church! Ha ha ha ha ha

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 4, 2020:

https://youtu.be/1uNpJyPpzXc

So my parent's church which I visited for Father's Day is now experiencing members coming down ...

FilthyMONKEYgirl comments on Jul 3, 2020:

I work in public health. This is not going to pass quickly. The narcissistic sociopaths are wreaking havoc on the U.S., completely unabated. Ignorance reigns supreme.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 4, 2020:

@alliwant Stupid people don't know they're stupid. The worst offenders are the hardest to fix. That's why Trump's base is still his base.

So my parent's church which I visited for Father's Day is now experiencing members coming down ...

racocn8 comments on Jul 3, 2020:

Just imagine for a moment what would happen if, instead of paying out trillions of dollars to the unemployed and business owners, just a single trillion was spent on vaccine research. Maybe a little of that is happening now...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 4, 2020:

It is highly unlikely that the bottleneck is money instead of time. Money could have been spent way better in other ways though. Hopefully people will realize a lot of the poor outcomes are a direct result of awful leadership, but I'm not holding my breath.

The following is part 1 of a 3 part series: "Understanding Donald Trump, Part I" I do not know...

snytiger6 comments on Jul 2, 2020:

If he loses the election, the statute of limitations would not yet have run out on his ebstruction of justice as outlined in the Mueller Report. So, he may end up in jail if he loses.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 3, 2020:

@snytiger6 Who's "they"? Other politicians? That's why.

Me: When is the craziness going to stop?

JacarC comments on Jul 1, 2020:

Too bad some of the list is wrong. And other bits are without context. But oh so, PC, and leftist.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 3, 2020:

Can you correct the errors please.

The following is part 1 of a 3 part series: "Understanding Donald Trump, Part I" I do not know...

snytiger6 comments on Jul 2, 2020:

If he loses the election, the statute of limitations would not yet have run out on his ebstruction of justice as outlined in the Mueller Report. So, he may end up in jail if he loses.

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 2, 2020:

There is about a zero percent chance we'll ever see an American former president in jail.

Well, this is just the beginning of Trump's Supreme Court.

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 30, 2020:

Right decision. Unlike many people's misconception, separation of church and state is not in the constitution while The Establishment clause is. If something can be done for secular schools than it should also be done for religious schools. That's not such a hard concept to understand and once ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jul 1, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay No I'm not. The school itself is not a law to be tested. Schools can be as religious as they want. The law I'm testing with The Lemon Test is a law that allows tax money to be given to religious schools. > by allowing religious to apply for it it does not inhibit religion Not giving someone money is not inhibiting them. Inhibiting a religion would be like making it illegal for them to print and distribute materials. They are not entitled to our tax dollars. Maybe if they paid any taxes I could see it. > by allowing any religious or non-religious to apply for it it doesn't promote any one religion As soon as the tax dollars put more money in the coffers of one or more religions (and provide for more people to be indoctrinated into said religions) it promotes those religions. Notice, the test is not whether the law promotes one religion or one religion over another, but simply if it promotes religion, which giving tax dollars to a religion most certainly does. > you inhibit religion in favor of non-religion Again, not giving a religion money is not inhibiting them, and considering test one calls for a secular purpose, promoting secular use of the funds is completely in line with SCOTUS' intent here. > they now need to determine what is religious and what is secular This I half agree with. Yes the government does need to make that determination, but they already have long before this tax credit. The government has recognized religions (which I don't agree with) in order to allow them tax free status (which I also don't agree with). But this bill does not require they do anything new to keep the funds going to secular purposes, so that does not cause a failure of test 3. In no way does not giving money to religious organizations prevent people from believing what they want to believe or infringe on citizens' rights to practice said religion.

Well, this is just the beginning of Trump's Supreme Court.

barjoe comments on Jun 30, 2020:

Who thinks that?

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 30, 2020:

@barjoe I wasn't saying a lot of Democrats are, I was saying a lot of the ones who... But yes, he's actually very progressive but people are morons.

Well, this is just the beginning of Trump's Supreme Court.

barjoe comments on Jun 30, 2020:

Who thinks that?

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 30, 2020:

And a lot of Democrats who don't think Biden is progressive enough.

Well, this is just the beginning of Trump's Supreme Court.

Sticks48 comments on Jun 30, 2020:

All of those pissed off Bernie folks need to keep in mind the next POTUS could appoint two Supreme Court Justices. How does 7/2 sound? Bye-bye Roe v Wade. This is no time for a protest vote or a non-vote.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 30, 2020:

Fuckin' thank you. That's what I'm saying.

Well, this is just the beginning of Trump's Supreme Court.

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 30, 2020:

Right decision. Unlike many people's misconception, separation of church and state is not in the constitution while The Establishment clause is. If something can be done for secular schools than it should also be done for religious schools. That's not such a hard concept to understand and once ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 30, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay Agree with @FearlessFly Not only do I disagree with giving religious schools public funds, I don't even agree with giving private non-religious schools public funds (but that's a debate for a different time). Money paid to religious schools for tuition can and does make it into the coffers of religious organizations who in turn use it to push religious ideologies and effect legislative change. While I don't think I'd have cracked the door open with the ruling on bussing the way SCOTUS did, I can see how they did. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem like there would be a huge disparity in funds related to where all of the children are driven. However, the tuition, at least to me, seems to clearly violate the first amendment. Any time tax dollars go to support one or more religions in any way it violates the rights of all citizens. So while it is true that the actual phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, the necessity for it to prevent establishment in whole or in part of a religion is implicit. To determine this, SCOTUS has used The Lemon Test. Step 1 asks if the action has a secular or non-religious propose. Educating children in a religious school with religious teachings is clearly not secular or non-religious. Step 2 asks if it has a primary effect that advances or inhibits religion. I personally believe that teaching religious beliefs on par with the likes of math and science absolutely advances religion, and shifting those public funds from public schools to a private religious school would make it the primary effect (otherwise, what is the difference when they could have just used it for a non-religious private school instead and avoided the court battle). Step 3 asks about fostering unnecessary entanglement. I think this one could be argued either way, and since it seems clear it fails the first two tests more egregiously, there's not much point arguing the third.

"The story I’m about to share with you about Joe Biden is special — in fact, I’m fairly ...

48thRonin comments on Jun 28, 2020:

Well I’ll never say that he’s never been a good person but it still doesn’t outweigh the bad that he did as a senator. And yes he’s better than trump ( no shit ) but we still deserve better as a nation and hopefully we will be given that opportunity again in 2024.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 29, 2020:

@48thRonin The goal of giving the Executive Branch back to the Republicans? Duverger's Law tells us a third party will never hold a plurality, so any time a third party candidate runs, all they do is hurt the party that actually had a shot at winning that most closely resembles their own. Assuming Biden wins, Nina Turner is going to lose horribly in the general, I can guarantee that now, and she will almost certainly cost the Democrat that gets the nomination (Biden) the election. This, in turn, will make Democrats hate her fucking guts and it will be political suicide. If Trump wins, then she has a shot at the Democratic ticket (even though no one knows who the fuck she is right now). If she doesn't get the nod, the same rules as above apply.

"The story I’m about to share with you about Joe Biden is special — in fact, I’m fairly ...

48thRonin comments on Jun 28, 2020:

Well I’ll never say that he’s never been a good person but it still doesn’t outweigh the bad that he did as a senator. And yes he’s better than trump ( no shit ) but we still deserve better as a nation and hopefully we will be given that opportunity again in 2024.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 29, 2020:

@48thRonin Super cool. So even if Biden wins he'll only get 4 years.

"The story I’m about to share with you about Joe Biden is special — in fact, I’m fairly ...

48thRonin comments on Jun 28, 2020:

Well I’ll never say that he’s never been a good person but it still doesn’t outweigh the bad that he did as a senator. And yes he’s better than trump ( no shit ) but we still deserve better as a nation and hopefully we will be given that opportunity again in 2024.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 29, 2020:

@48thRonin As an Independent?

"The story I’m about to share with you about Joe Biden is special — in fact, I’m fairly ...

M4Amama comments on Jun 28, 2020:

I'm hoping he uses that humanity to help push Medicare for All (NOT a public option) legislation, criminal justice reform, humane immigration issues, The Green New Deal, and many other progressive justice-for-all issues. I'm not holding my breath.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 29, 2020:

@SeaGreenEyez My comment wasn't emotional, and nothing you said or linked proved anything I said wrong. All you did was show the other side did it too. (But I wasn't the one talking about my side being so progressive on prison reform, so my side also being guilty is irrelevant.) Yeah, I read The First Step Act before I posted, which is why I said, "So a bill reaches his desk, likely through no action on his part, and his signing it makes him some champion of prison reform?" But him signing it doesn't mean he had anything to do with it getting there, or that he necessarily even agrees with it. (Politicians sign/sign on to stuff they don't agree with all the time for many different reasons.) The fact that he wants to send his political rivals to prison, send reporters to prison, send vandals to prison for TEN YEARS, and puts kids in cages (even if the other political party did it too) speaks volumes to me *and hopefully everyone else* about how progressive this asshole is regarding prison reform.

"The story I’m about to share with you about Joe Biden is special — in fact, I’m fairly ...

48thRonin comments on Jun 28, 2020:

Well I’ll never say that he’s never been a good person but it still doesn’t outweigh the bad that he did as a senator. And yes he’s better than trump ( no shit ) but we still deserve better as a nation and hopefully we will be given that opportunity again in 2024.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 29, 2020:

@48thRonin What is it you are expecting her to do in 2024?

"The story I’m about to share with you about Joe Biden is special — in fact, I’m fairly ...

48thRonin comments on Jun 28, 2020:

Well I’ll never say that he’s never been a good person but it still doesn’t outweigh the bad that he did as a senator. And yes he’s better than trump ( no shit ) but we still deserve better as a nation and hopefully we will be given that opportunity again in 2024.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 29, 2020:

@48thRonin I mean, what I said was likely the only two options...

"The story I’m about to share with you about Joe Biden is special — in fact, I’m fairly ...

M4Amama comments on Jun 28, 2020:

I'm hoping he uses that humanity to help push Medicare for All (NOT a public option) legislation, criminal justice reform, humane immigration issues, The Green New Deal, and many other progressive justice-for-all issues. I'm not holding my breath.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 29, 2020:

@SeaGreenEyez Prison reform? So a bill reaches his desk, likely through no action on his part, and his signing it makes him some champion of prison reform? The fucking guy who puts kids in cages? Sorry, I've never heard Trump speak about prison reform as one of his causes. The motherfucker that got his racist, sexist followers to incessantly chant "Lock her up" about his political rivals? The guy that wants 10 year prison sentences for people who deface Confederate monuments? Give me a fucking break.

"The story I’m about to share with you about Joe Biden is special — in fact, I’m fairly ...

48thRonin comments on Jun 28, 2020:

Well I’ll never say that he’s never been a good person but it still doesn’t outweigh the bad that he did as a senator. And yes he’s better than trump ( no shit ) but we still deserve better as a nation and hopefully we will be given that opportunity again in 2024.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 29, 2020:

So is that assuming Trump wins re-election, or that Biden dies in office and his VP pick doesn't get the nod from the DNC??

Another one on religion

of-the-mountain comments on Jun 27, 2020:

A MAGA cult followers drink only US brewed Beer!!! Must be a quote by an elitist white supremacy cult member!!! LMAO!!!

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 28, 2020:

@redhog *Facepalm*

Another one on religion

K9Kohle789 comments on Jun 27, 2020:

I must be hardcore, iced tea with peach flavor vodka. Only noticed by dogs so WTH.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 28, 2020:

@LucyLoohoo My bad. Go buy yourselves bottles of whipped vodka, [diet] Peach Snapple, and [diet] Orange Sunkist. Mix up some of each of those drinks, and thank me tomorrow.

Another one on religion

K9Kohle789 comments on Jun 27, 2020:

I must be hardcore, iced tea with peach flavor vodka. Only noticed by dogs so WTH.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 28, 2020:

@K9Kohle789 Oh, I thought you were making a pun. "Whipped vodka" is vodka with whipped cream flavoring. (Like the aforementioned peach vodka.) So it's a peaches and cream or creamsicle drink, depending on the wash.

Another one on religion

of-the-mountain comments on Jun 27, 2020:

A MAGA cult followers drink only US brewed Beer!!! Must be a quote by an elitist white supremacy cult member!!! LMAO!!!

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 28, 2020:

@redhog My point is that unless my area is the only place in the country where people know how to brew, you thinking there are only 2 palatable beers must mean you have not tried enough beers.

I guess my question is why does God not want me.

mjwood comments on Jun 27, 2020:

Why does God not want you? Most likely answer--because God doesn't exist. I think there are only three other possibilities: God created us but does not involve itself in our lives at all, God's power is limited, or God is malevolent. An all-powerful creator god that cares about and loves us is ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 28, 2020:

@mjwood No, you are absolutely correct. While I don't believe this to be the strongest argument that points out the contradictory nature of the supposed attributes of the Christian conception of God, (as you stated) it would classify as one of them. (To be clear, though, I don't believe this is an argument against the existence of God per se, just an argument against the ascribed powers.) I think the subjective nature of the words 'suffering' and 'evil' are probably what weaken it the most. A very well known, truly awful "mother" got a raging lady boner for human suffering and thought it was a good thing. That said, in the entirety of human experience, whatever bounds you place on it, there will be a worst thing and a best thing, so it is impossible to eliminate the all of the worst things without eliminating all but one thing which I guess may be consciousness without any change or input whatsoever? But then you think, why wouldn't God want us to experience awesome stuff until you realize that something can only be awesome in contrast to less awesome things which would then, by default, be the suffering you want eliminated.

Another one on religion

K9Kohle789 comments on Jun 27, 2020:

I must be hardcore, iced tea with peach flavor vodka. Only noticed by dogs so WTH.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 28, 2020:

@LucyLoohoo Have you tried it? I probably drink and serve more drinks than everyone in this chat. You can sit there and make fun of some shit you haven't tried, or you can actually try it and thank me.

Another one on religion

of-the-mountain comments on Jun 27, 2020:

A MAGA cult followers drink only US brewed Beer!!! Must be a quote by an elitist white supremacy cult member!!! LMAO!!!

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 28, 2020:

@redhog Are you suggesting I live in the epicenter of the only people in the United States that know how to brew beer?

RETIRED SURGEON Sam Laucks, has this to say about wearing a mask: "I have spent the past 39 years ...

Ray13 comments on Jun 19, 2020:

This pandemic has really opened my eyes,as to how ignorant,our society has become. Went to the grocery store this morning, wore my mask - I also wear disposable latex gloves - and noticed very few people wearing masks, and some who did had their nose uncovered - including several store employees....

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 28, 2020:

@Bobbie63 I'm a frontline healthcare worker and I'm cool with it. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made by citizens for the survival of their democracy; this is one of those times. Also, we don't know how long this will last and how bad reinfection rates will be. It is possible a massive surge and death of patients will be a key factor in providing a change of leadership that we so desperately need to appropriately combat this.

Another one on religion

LucyLoohoo comments on Jun 27, 2020:

Right! You could be thanking your deity for fermentation, grapes, culture....all of that.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 28, 2020:

I mean, unless your dude can just make wine out of water without all that jazz...

Another one on religion

of-the-mountain comments on Jun 27, 2020:

A MAGA cult followers drink only US brewed Beer!!! Must be a quote by an elitist white supremacy cult member!!! LMAO!!!

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 28, 2020:

@redhog Sierra Nevada, Great Lakes, Left Hand, Founders, Bell's, Thirsty Dog and many more breweries all have more than two each. You need to try more beers.

Another one on religion

K9Kohle789 comments on Jun 27, 2020:

I must be hardcore, iced tea with peach flavor vodka. Only noticed by dogs so WTH.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 28, 2020:

May I suggest peach iced tea and whipped vodka? It's second only to Sunkist Orange and whipped vodka.

I guess my question is why does God not want me.

mjwood comments on Jun 27, 2020:

Why does God not want you? Most likely answer--because God doesn't exist. I think there are only three other possibilities: God created us but does not involve itself in our lives at all, God's power is limited, or God is malevolent. An all-powerful creator god that cares about and loves us is ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 27, 2020:

> An all-powerful creator god that cares about and loves us is logically impossible if evil and suffering exist. This is not so. Imagine for a moment God, being super benevolent, decides to remove the most evil thing in the world and the thing that causes the most suffering. And because he's all knowing and benevolent, he decides to do this before he creates the universe because, necessarily no one suffering the thing that causes the most suffering is more benevolent than one or more people suffering that thing. But then he'd know mankind would have a new thing that causes the most suffering, so he'd eliminate that ahead of time, too. Then the third, fourth, and fifth most suffering-inducing things. This would continue until he decided on a stopping point, that, due to our limited frame of reference would literally be the most horrible thing a human could experience. So with our currently frame is reference, it would be like eliminating SIDS and child rape backward until you were left with stubbed toes and incorrect use of homophones. So basically, maybe our child rape is the stubbed toes of what suffering was going to be before God got rid of perpetually flatulent mouth scabies whose farts turn babies inside out. That was a long way to say, though I love arguments against the existence of God, this is not a good one.

I’m struggling with the statement people make when they say they are Free Thinkers, Critical ...

chiara23k comments on Jun 22, 2020:

That's the beauty of not being tied to a religion...is not being forced to accept the whole package of that said religion. When you are free of a religion, you can freely believe in whatever you want to believe, or suspect to believe, or think to believe without any guilt or worrying about your ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 27, 2020:

A few points. Most religious people are not tied to the "whole package" of their religion. "Cafeteria Christians" comes to mind, and that's most of them maybe except for groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. All people believe and don't believe whatever they believe or don't believe through no choice of their own. (Just like Santa Claus as you stated later in your comment.) Try to start believing in Santa again. See if you can do it. Propositions are either believable to your brain or they are not. There are an innumerable amount of bits of information that go into your brain deciding on any particular proposition, but when it does, it'll take new input from the outside world to change it. If there is a non-physical "part" to living things I don't know how it would interact with them. Even if it could, though, why wouldn't it then be able to exist without the organism and/or that organism being alive? Ostensibly, it needs to obtain a sort of lifeblood from the organism that can only be transferred while it is living if it wouldn't live on after death (not just after the organism is consumed or destroyed in some way). I think a two part theory may need some investigation into feasibility.

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 22, 2020:

This is a repost of a reply that was in a thread TMW is blocked from seeing: @TheMiddleWay A quick question that probably isn't much of a sticking point because I don't imagine either of us know for sure, but if the thing the black community found so objectionable was that she wasn't technically ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 27, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay > if a person was born male and starts calling themselves female, I'm pretty sure other females would take exception I just don't see it. I think you're in a small minority of people if you'd be offended and object to one but not the other. Like, if Sports Illustrated ran a headline about Caitlyn being the first woman to win a gold medal in the men's Olympics, you think people wouldn't have a problem with that, but if they said the first female to win a gold medal in the men's Olympics they would? I think these distinctions you are relying on to justify hating on Dolezal but praising Jenner are tenuous at best and disingenuous at worst. > But yeah, there is still an air of "appropriation" that would have to be addressed. Of course we can't know, but it sounds like you agree she'd probably be getting shit on still instead of applauded and given magazine covers as a champion, pioneer, or hero. > is a bit what the JK Rowling row is all about: she is against tranwomen appropriating female identity And what happened? She faced a huge backlash. I know I can't prove it to you, but all signs point to be being right about the lie not being the reason for the difference in treatment for these situations. > I can't predict that you'll see things my way but I'm hoping that you will. As is, I would guess there's practically a zero percent chance of that. Until I see a reason for the difference that holds up under scrutiny, I don't imagine there's any way my brain will make a determination that they are different. Even though we probably disagree on more stuff than we agree on, I'm honestly pretty surprised that you're still clinging to the lie as the reason. Please, just for a second, close your eyes and try to think about a white person being up front and honest and going on the news and saying they were culturally black and they were going to darken their skin and live as a black person from now on. If you see that going very poorly for them, especially considering all the "black face" controversy lately, then you should be able to admit you're most likely wrong that the reason Dolezal and Jenner's situations are different is because Dolezal lied.

I’m struggling with the statement people make when they say they are Free Thinkers, Critical ...

Gwendolyn2018 comments on Jun 24, 2020:

In the great scope of the universe, if a person is atheist/agnostic and claims to be "spiritual," does it matter?

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 27, 2020:

@Gwendolyn2018 We had 2 miscommunications on this part. I thought you were suggesting the natural world was nature, as you were taking about it (flower beds in the woods and such). The other was thinking I was suggesting the universe has intention and feelings. We can kill this part. But this is me getting back to you on the other part. Thoughts, emotions, and feelings are a combination of electrical impulses and neurochemical reactions. They can be measured with specialized machines like fMRIs and EEGs. Their causes are are a combination of the physical and chemical composition of the brain coupled with the entirety of that individual human's experience.

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 22, 2020:

This is a repost of a reply that was in a thread TMW is blocked from seeing: @TheMiddleWay A quick question that probably isn't much of a sticking point because I don't imagine either of us know for sure, but if the thing the black community found so objectionable was that she wasn't technically ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 26, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay So, I don't know if you're responding to my two comments separately, but you didn't reply to the 'is it appropriate to even ask' part. Also, you really think a trans person would reap global condemnation these days for lying about their sex? Honestly? I really don't. I think they would say that the circumstances were such that they needed to lie to protect themselves. I mean, unless maybe they were about to have sex with someone they were lying to, what harm are they really doing by lying, especially when there's so many people that aren't very enlightened on this issue. I'm willing to bet people would likely just say, well, he or she shouldn't have lied, but I guess I understand. I think the only thing that you've found to differentiate these circumstances doesn't seem like it would play out equally if the roles were reversed. I think that's a thought experiment that's good/fair way to test if a certain thing is the cause of a difference. Also, do you honestly think everyone would still be embracing Dolezal if she never claimed she was African American but only claimed she was black? I bet you don't, because you probably know most people wouldn't even make a distinction between culturally and ancestrally black the same way a majority of people used to [still] fail to make a distinction between gender and sex. Hell, I think I'm pretty progressive, and I wasn't even using clear language when this conversation started. The average Joe does though? Nah. Not buying it. They would all hate her just the same. That's two avenues to evaluate if her lie is actually the difference, and I don't think either holds water. It's also very curious to me that you think the future has me realizing I'm wrong. Our world is continually getting more progressive and more homogenous. It seems way more likely to me that people will embrace more "choices" in the future. There was probably a time when most people did not think transgendered people would be widely accepted, let alone applauded, celebrated, and draped across the covers of hugely popular magazines like People, US, Sports Illustrated, and Vanity Fair.

I’m struggling with the statement people make when they say they are Free Thinkers, Critical ...

Gwendolyn2018 comments on Jun 24, 2020:

In the great scope of the universe, if a person is atheist/agnostic and claims to be "spiritual," does it matter?

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 26, 2020:

@Gwendolyn2018 Isn't "immaterial sentient part of a person" almost the exact definition of spirit?? "Spirit: the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul."

I’m struggling with the statement people make when they say they are Free Thinkers, Critical ...

Gwendolyn2018 comments on Jun 24, 2020:

In the great scope of the universe, if a person is atheist/agnostic and claims to be "spiritual," does it matter?

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 26, 2020:

@Gwendolyn2018 I didn't mean nature, I mean what one believes about the world around them. Do they believe that the universe was created in 6 days 6k years ago, or do they recognize that's impossible and nonsensical? I don't know why you'd think from anything I've said that I'd think the universe has intention or feelings. Either way, I think that you can tell a lot about a person and especially how compatible you'd be by what they think about religion, politics, and philosophy in general, and thus, accurate, agreed upon definitions do a lot to get us to understand each other.

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 22, 2020:

This is a repost of a reply that was in a thread TMW is blocked from seeing: @TheMiddleWay A quick question that probably isn't much of a sticking point because I don't imagine either of us know for sure, but if the thing the black community found so objectionable was that she wasn't technically ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 26, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay It seems as though our entire impasse is centered around her lying and your belief that it matters. I would like to add one more point. If we didn't ask people if they were "really black" or ancestrally black, she wouldn't have needed to lie about it to protect herself from what happened to her. As I stated before, it shouldn't matter where someone's ancestors came from, so why are we asking in the first place? Is it appropriate to ask Caitlyn if she's really just a cross-dresser or drag queen, especially if she already stated she was a woman or transgendered woman?

I’m struggling with the statement people make when they say they are Free Thinkers, Critical ...

Gwendolyn2018 comments on Jun 24, 2020:

In the great scope of the universe, if a person is atheist/agnostic and claims to be "spiritual," does it matter?

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 25, 2020:

@Gwendolyn2018 I disagree. I think one's beliefs about the natural world aligning with mine are just as, if not more important than their political beliefs aligning with mine.

I’m struggling with the statement people make when they say they are Free Thinkers, Critical ...

Rodatheist comments on Jun 22, 2020:

I am proposing that the word “spiritual” gets a third definition in the dictionary, one that disconnects it from a religious connotation, and there is a group in this website created just for that purpose. It is called: SPIRITUAL: A Third Definition. You may want to check it out and join in the ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 25, 2020:

I read the into to the page. That doesn't make much sense to me. Why would you want to co-op a word that already has such a widely used definition that you want to distance yourself from?? That's like "peruse" meaning to read in detail AND look at casually, or adding the idiom "I could care less" to the same definition for "I couldn't care less". What sense does that make? You're still going to have to explain what you mean (even if you have a whole million people agree with adding that third definition), so it seems like it's just going to confuse people and waste time. On an unrelated note, I wanted to tell you all I'm a Christian. But not like someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Or one that grew up, converted to, or believes any of the tenets of faith of Christianity. I just really enjoy the food people make at the end of December for their Christmas parties. (This is why people think I'm an asshole...)

I’m struggling with the statement people make when they say they are Free Thinkers, Critical ...

Gwendolyn2018 comments on Jun 24, 2020:

In the great scope of the universe, if a person is atheist/agnostic and claims to be "spiritual," does it matter?

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 25, 2020:

Eh, words and collective understanding of their definitions are important. Let's say for instance you feel being politically aligned is important for a relationship and someone tells you they consider themselves a Democrat (which for the sake of the argument is a desirable trait) but later you find out they believe in trickle down economics, expanding the military budget, and eliminating social programs that "lazy people abuse to continue to be lazy". Would you not be a little thrown off by those beliefs that are generally in stark contrast to democratic ideals?