Conclave sweat threat: Who will be the next pope?

Because I believe it is false and harmful.

Evolution Philosophy predates Darwin by over 2000 years. It wasn't science then, and it isn't science now.

Micro Evolution, however, is confirmable by using the Scientific Method (i.e. real science)

Excellent question! I'll have to think about that.

well then you’ll have the problem of identity of indiscernibles

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ident...

essentially you are saying two mechanisms with identical properties are somehow different mechanisms.

I dont know what reality is. Tell me what a soul and reality is.

This likely means your reality is being decided for you. It’s a good idea to start consciously contemplating this question yourself with rigor and self skepticism.

Bros, reality, is like, that thing that gets checked by higher reality, is that right craig?

lol so u want to advocate for Adam and Eve. Yay incest

How could i do that?

-Ask yourself why it’s a good idea to value your life. Write down your answer.

-Write down the ways your reality effects your quality of life.

-Review your day at night. Compare how much time you spent thinking about the existential (truth, reality, quality of your life) vs how much time your mind was captured by other things.

-Write down in detail all the mundane things that captured your mind and for how long.

Start with this.

You sound like you're really fun at parties.

Time to grow up

Lol bro, your idea of "growing up" is having an existential crisis every 5 minutes. Some of us are quite content without that in our lives.

The only annoyance I get from your posts is that I almost never understand them. I don't understand all of this post either.

Innocent people and animals suffer all the time. Either this is absolutely true, or else the controller of the universe is fooling me, which would be a very sadistic thing to do.

That is not going to change regardless of my model of reality.

Even if your religion would make me happy as a clam, all that suffering would still exist, and I don't wish to be happy based on something offered by a cruel creator/controller.

What did you mean by "fruit" above?

I reread the section where Jesus tells someone how to follow him. I can get the interpretation of being prepared to leave your family, but the giving away all your possessions seems pretty strict. Especially when you consider that Jesus and his immediate disciples seem to have had no possessions apart from their clothes, and were willing to give even those away.

There's also the bit about it being either impossible or awfully close to impossible for a rich man to get into heaven. I know that pretty much all those Republicans members of congress are very rich (along with the President, VP, and most of the Democrats), so i can feel pretty confident that almost none of them will even be eligible for a Christian heaven just based on that single qualification.

You may be using the same mistaken definition of "advocate" as meaning assert as true, when it actually means to support or recommend.

I guess I do advocate the theory of evolution as a way to understand life on earth. But I do not advocate evolution itself, as I think it's terribly cruel and I would prefer that it didn't exist.

If religion can make you happy as a clam, then why wouldn't it make everyone else happy as a clam? Personally, I'd certainly wish to be happy if I had the choice and Lag and Craig seem to be pretty happy people - not to mention that the controller specifically states so if I do follow along.

Seems like you have to assume macroevolution is true to be able to make any statement about its mechanisms.

Everyone wouldn't have the same religion, and none of the suffering animals would have it.

Yeah but existence of suffering doesn’t cancel out the value of something that brings healing in the middle of it. A fire in a snowstorm doesn’t stop the cold, but it does help those who do choose to gather around it.

People turn down good things all the time, it doesn't mean that everyone needs the exact same thing/religion to find purpose or hope. So it isn't so much about what is true or not as opposed to what helps people.

Yeah that is a knock on one of my arguments, but I still wouldn't want to belong to any religion which was based on worship of the creator of all the suffering.

And even if I didn't have that objection, or the religion did not involve creator worship, I still couldn't choose to believe. Pascal was brilliant in some areas, but his "wager" makes no sense at all.

The social form of Christianity where worship is prevalent, this is the lowest form of Christianity. The primary reason to identify with the Christians is because they are the new chosen people.

Identify with them -> you become chosen. If one of the chosen suffer in this world, then God is shamed by that. This forces God to wake up and act.

Right now, your suffering has no affect on God. It seems to be common among atheists this idea that they are affecting God by not believing in him. Like it’s a protest or something. It’s not true. God is unbothered by protests. Even those who are devout, if they don’t identify as the entitled firstborn (the chosen son), then God feels no compulsion to extend himself for them.

To your final point, you have subjectivity and consciousness. You can manipulate your consciousness to believe in God. Like an actor playing a role. The voice in your head which says doing this is illegitimate and pointless — this voice is lying to you.

People have seemed to intuit that God can be manipulated, but it’s not achieved through worship or flattery. You have to shame God into intervention.

We each are given a personal portion of life to steward and capital ‘L’ Life is watching what each of us do with it. There is no honor in white knuckling it, enduring a hostile reality.

That’s my spiel. I won’t keep pushing.

In the falsification criteria you would have to assume any proposed mechanism is true in order to evaluate it. You don’t actually show that something is true, you assume it’s true and try to find data that entails a contradiction with some prediction of the theory.

If the proposed mechanism of microevolution is true, then the proposed mechanism of macroevolution is true, because it’s the same mechanism measured at different scales.

No, I'm using the same definition for advocate- support or recommend. I understand what you mean now, and I meant advocate the bolded part.