1

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is there a case for positive euthanasia for end stage Alzheimer sufferers?

« on: 08/07/2016 15:45:24 »

“In Numbers 31:15-18, after his soldiers had killed all of the men among the Midianites, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. Prior to this, the Israelites had taken all of the animals and goods of the Midianites and then burned all of their towns.

 If genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is a war crime, then this act of Moses was clearly a war crime…What possible reason could Moses have given in order to justify this horrendous act of genocide? After all, wasn't he the great "law giver"?

Moses claimed that Yahweh, the God of Israel, ordered him to do this, because the Midianites worshiped a deity named Baal Peor. The Midianites felt that Baal Peor was nature's god, the creator of the universe, whereas the Israelites believed that their god Yahweh was the creator. .. So, in effect, what we have here is a demonization of those people who refer to the creator by a different name. These people are accused of worshiping a false god.

I didn't realize that entire part was plagiarized from another site (http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html).  You probably would want to give credit when you do that to the originating site, lest the words be taken as your own.  But regardless, it was ironic that the very site you got it from devotes the whole page to actually dissecting that quote and tearing it to shreds in a very detailed way, and go on to give their assessment of what the real reasons were for.  It was interesting reading actually. 

"Then stand up and defend your religion" and at least, tell all of us why it is OK for "God" to murder little innocent boys and commit genocide against he Midianite people by proxy

First, it's the same religion and same god as yours, and the same moses.  I would ask you to stand up and defend the same. 

Because it is not ok for 'god' to murder innocent anyone.  The sad part is god is fictional and can't murder to begin with.  The problem is man committing these disgusting acts of murder in the name of this false creature.  Time and time and time again, murdering in the creature's name.  It's disgusting.  It's why it's laughable that atheists are the ones looked at as immoral, or needing moral guidance from the ignorantly religious.  So much death and destruction throughout history in the name of the false creature.  The last thing atheists need is moral guidance from a group of people who have throughout history been responsible for so many disgusting crimes against humanity. 

But again, this example of above is from the same bible and supposed orders from the same creature and same moses that you worship.  How do you defend it?

But those are just more rhetorical questions, since I guess technically a bible study class isn't what I'm on this site for.  Just couldn't help but see the irony in your questions.

through kind gentle Moses as depicted in Numbers 31

Apparently, he was neither kind nor gentle lol

Getting back to the subject of the thread I think euthanasia should only be used of those who have made it very clear while still in control of all their mental faculties that it is their expressed wish that this final act of love and mercy be done for them when they no longer have the means to do it for themselves.

I very much agree with that.

2

Just Chat! / Re: Hi, I'm just introducing myself...

« on: 06/07/2016 16:33:51 »

Welcome Scott!

I agree with a lot of what you have to say and am self taught as well due to my undying curiosity and love for science and physics.  I understand exactly where you're coming from; though most of what I think and believe is rooted in accepted science, I do love to do thought experiments and theorize about those things that science has not yet understood.  In fact, thinking about those things is what I do as I focus to fall asleep literally every single night!

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does mathematics give us a true reflection of reality?

« on: 28/06/2016 23:39:47 »

Let calmness and tranquility proceed your posts, lest you intend to offend your hosts. All things in moderation.

Is this your own? I love it!

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does the subjective ''visual'' experience throw difficulties on time dilation?

« on: 22/06/2016 15:26:30 »

Yes indeed, but so people understand me I wish to precise with my meanings.

When you miss-use the words, they don't add understanding.

For several years science told me I was wrong about my subjective experience explanation of ''gin-clear'', yet you agree with me, this tells me nobody understood me because they only looked at my ideas from an objective perception. Your two words you gave me will expand my ideas and now get them understood.

No, I'm not agreeing with you in the way you think.

I'm saying that what you feel about something, or how you perceive it, is your business.

Where you are wrong (and this applies whether or not you sprinkle the latest words you've learned into your posts) is in using your subjective experience to pass judgement on reality. Those several years where science told you you were wrong, science was right.

The experiments are correct I do agree, but what you are not objectively considering is that the objective experiments are done in the subjective whole of ''gin'clear'', a whole that is constant in it's ''gin-clear''.
It may indeed take 8 minutes for a photon to arrive from the sun, but subjectively my interpretation of distance  is correct and we ''see'' the start and end point of the photons journey subjectively simultaneous.

Again, you show how you are trying to overturn objective science with your subjective experience. That'll never work.

Subjectively, you may well think you see the start and end point of a photons journey simultaneously; but that has absolutely zero impact on reality.

Actual experiments have shown that light travel is not instant, so you can't in reality be seeing the start and end simultaneously. How you feel about it can not overturn those experiments.

This is a concern to me in that something is just not correct somewhere in the objective science thinking and it is incomplete by not considering the subjective which is the interwoven mind experience.

Then you have no idea what science is.

You are ''attacking'' me and not discussing the actual content of the post in an objective manner, it is not my failure to communicate , it is a person's failure to discuss objectively what I have said in the past and what I am saying in this thread.  Your intentions are to defend all science, to say all science is fact and does not have room for improvement.
This is subjective education and the very fact that what you learnt you had to accept even if you had a biased opinion.
You are not being objective if you are not willing to think and only willing to reply defending the present information .
You clearly have not thought in any detail about the constant whole you and I subjectively ''see''.

The poster wasn't attacking you whatsoever, and was absolutely replying to content.  Trust me... I know the difference... lmao

But seriously, you seem hell bent on this idea of yours, and it honestly seems to not make sense, and your overuse as well as misuse of those words makes it even harder to understand what it is you're trying to say.  But I agree with the other poster's critiques completely.  Just because you have such a strong, subjective, biased opinion towards something, doesn't mean it has the power to overturn reality; no matter how much passion is put behind it, no matter how much feet stomping there is, no matter how many times it's repeated.  Science and reality just don't work that way.  But I find it just hilariously ironic how you are pointing your finger at the other poster and labeling him as biased, subjective and unwilling to learn...  Just hilariously ironic lol.

5

General Science / Re: "DNA Diets" : Are they junk science?

« on: 21/06/2016 21:15:53 »

How will you know that your poll is meaningful?
You might get 100 perhaps votes from companies selling these diets but what if all the users have died of malnutrition and are unable to answer?
Also you haven't included a yes, why not?

If they chose to vote perhaps instead of 'no' then their companies should fire them lol.

6

General Science / Re: Why does unhealthy food taste so good?

« on: 21/06/2016 20:08:03 »

Would it be wrong to state that maybe it's because it's meant to be good?  That as far as evolution goes, that maybe we've developed a liking towards it BECAUSE it's unhealthy?  That maybe we're meant to indulge in some unhealthy behaviors, that maybe nature intends us to only live to 50?  We must understand that it is our technology and medical advances that enable us to live so much older than we're meant to.  We're doing that on purpose; possibly in spite of evolution and nature.

Species evolve to survive as a species.  But by doing as much as we are to increase our life span we are also overpopulating the planet.  We're healthier, so we're living longer.  We're healthier, so we're having more offspring.  More born, less dying, overpopulated planet.  Eventually we will not be able to sustain ourselves, and our species as an entirety will be put at risk.  This goes squarely against what evolution and nature itself call for; which is for us to strive to survive as a species.

So maybe we like it cause we're meant to.  Maybe we're meant to die younger, meant to have diseases and ailments that keep our populations in check.  Maybe we're meant to have lower sperm counts and reproductive rates and all the other things that can come from unhealthy behaviors.  Maybe, all the health nuts and all the health food industry are actually doing is hurting our species in the long run, actually creating an unsustainable system that some day will come crashing down on the species as a whole, no matter how much red meat you avoided.  Maybe it's the ones who love unhealthy stuff and have no qualms eating it such as I do, who are the ones that are ultimately helping humanity and the planet.  Ehhh, i dunno lol.  Heck, I have no idea if I even believe whatsoever any of what I just wrote and it was more a mental exercise than anything... Just an impulsive top of my head answer to your question that popped in after I read it.  But hey, it is kinda food for thought... (no pun intended!)

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: In a multiverse, can two universes overlap?

« on: 20/06/2016 16:47:45 »

Unfortunately this is quite an impossible question to answer, and literally any and all answers you get would have an equal weight of credibility I would think.

But many do in fact believe they could overlap.  I'm not sure myself how I feel.  I guess, the way I see it, is that we're talking about two distinct spacetime systems.  Each of those systems may very well have their own rules of physics.  But since everything within a universe is contained, embedded, within its own spacetime, I would think the relevant question as to the possibility of multiple universes overlapping would simply come down to how spacetime itself interacts with itself.  We know how matter interacts with matter, energy with energy, etc.  But how does spacetime interact with a separate and distinct spacetime?  No idea what sort of theories if any might have been done on such a topic, but I would think that's the core question that would need to be answered.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: A MULTIVERSE???

« on: 16/06/2016 19:13:44 »

No, I don't believe humanity ever will, and most physicists I believe agree. Because we are bound to our spacetime, and cannot possibly escape it, as we are products of it, and anything we do or measure is within it.  To escape our spacetime boundary would be to escape time itself.  You would literally cease to exist.