6
6 Like Show
0 Like Show
8
8 Like Show
0 Like Show
View more

Chilean, raised roman catholic, currently agnostic, PhD physicist, currently in Med School for Medical Physics (UPDATE: completed my degree! I am now a PhD in physics and medical physics!). plays the bass guitar... anything else, please ask!

Comments

“Scientists do not join hands every Sunday and sing "Yes gravity is real! I know gravity is real! ...
TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 1, 2018:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7KpH9_I2Dw
Guys: is there a double standard?
TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 1, 2018:
I'm 45 and don't have kids but want them. Sadly, dating older women would always be just for fun and not for my long term family goals... which is why I don't date older women. :(
✌️? peace and pancakes to any who will have them. @skado I apologize if this is not exemplary of...
TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 1, 2018:
Like god, you'd have to provide a solid definition, preferably testable, for me to entertain said idea
WOMEN ONLY: What is your race/ethnic origin?
TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 1, 2018:
If you post " other" please post what you're answer is. Please note that' human' is not other for that would mean you don't consider white or black or brown people human.
MEN ONLY: What is your race/ethnic origin?
TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 1, 2018:
If you post " other" please post what you're answer is. Please note that' human' is not other for that would mean you don't consider white or black or brown people human.
Why doesn't god intervene when innocent children are being raped or starved? It is typically ...
TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 1, 2018:
"Why doesn't god intervene when innocent children are being raped or starved?" Why should he? After all, we don't... we go about our lives and go to our jobs and take our pleasures... and yet we exist. So if we don't, why should we expect a god to do what we don't do for ourselves? "At the same time religious people will say "God sent hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, wild animals ect.. to punish people due to one sin or another"" Just because a religious says something doesn't mean it's true... anymore than just because a non-religious says something it means it's true. Maybe god did send a tornado to punish a bad person but not all tornados. Maybe god isn't in charge of the weather and the religious are just using that as an excuse. Maybe all tornados have at their heart and evil man. Without data to prove with possibility is which, neither religious nor non-religious can claim "intent" or "meaning" or "lack of intent" or "lack of meaning" behind these events.
Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People? | HuffPost
TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 1, 2018:
About that opening line: Here is where they get their opening line. Notice that the author jumps from three quotes which he interprets as saying atheists are smarter (but can be interpreted as saying nothing of the sort) straight to 1920 with nothing in between So "widely remarked" comes down to 1 quip from greece (none from rome) and two quotes from the bible. (Let that sink in; *he is claiming the bible says that the religious were fools and the skeptics were wise*) And a "millennium of correlation" talks about a 1 quip from greece and 2 bible verses and then we fast forward to 1920. Does anyone bother doing the research on these sorts of things or, like the theist, just because what is written reaffirms your belief, you'll believe it blindly? https://www.scribd.com/document/353313392/Why-is-Intelligence-Negatively-Associated-With-Religiousness
Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People? | HuffPost
TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 1, 2018:
The meta-study upon which this is based is flawed and the fact that people (mostly atheists) believe in it is just another example that confirmation bias is a commonality across all belief and unbelief systems. After all, the majority of medical doctors (hardly dullards) and nobel prize winners in science (hardly unintelligent) are/were theists, a slap in the fact of this conclusion and if we wanted to go there, we would claim that theism is in fact more intelligent than atheism... yet that claim isn't, nor should be, made... or should it if the statistics back it up? hmmmmm Here is a Cornell University statistician making short work of why the meta-study is flawed. "Zuckerman cobbled together over sixty studies. Their Table 1 shows that the mechanism to measure IQ was different in different locations. The proportion of males varied from unknown, to low, to 100%. The measures of religiosity differed at different locations. Religions were also hugely different (is it the same to believe in animism as Protestant Christianity?). The samples, particularly in developed countries, were college kids, but elsewhere more non-college and precollege people were used. The lowest sample size was 22, but most were a hundred or so, with one topping out at over 14 thousand. And we already mentioned the widely disparate years the samples were taken. . Data of every flavor was observed, data that should not be mixed without an idea of how to combine the uncertainty inherent in each study and in how, say, kinds of IQ measurements maps to other kinds of IQ measurements. In other words, data which should not be mixed, because nobody has any idea how to make these corrections." http://wmbriggs.com/post/8767/
The most chilling four words in a relationship: "We need to talk."
TheMiddleWay comments on May 31, 2018:
I thought it was "I missed my period."
27% of American agnostics believe with certainty there is a God compared with 23% of European ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 31, 2018:
What's wrong are polls using muddle definitions, nebulous questions, and imprecise binning. In terms of muddled definitions, there is a huge difference between the atheist and the agnostic and those who claim nothing in particular. The later two could be reasonably considered to entertain some religious belief while the former clearly could not. In terms of nebulous questions, they will often ask "How certain are you that god exists?" Well, as an agnostic I don't know how to answer that question since it's not a 50%/50% chance nor 0% nor 100%. For an atheist, the same... if you are 99%, does that mean you are certain 99 days and then 1 day you are a believer or uncertain? Does that mean that every day there is a 99% chance you will not believe but somedays that 1% comes up and you do? Unclear to try to put these complex beliefs on a single number scale. Finally, in terms of imprecise binning, when you put atheists and agnostics in the same bin, you are bound to get interference. Some atheists call themselves agnostic and for them that is no problem. But some atheists do not consider themselves agnostic and vice versa and thus putting them in the same bin muddles the result. In short, while some of the results from these surveys can be trusted, such as what percentage believes vs. doesn't believe, others are two muddled to draw any conclusions from... this article is just one example of said confusion and why we should be very careful about conclusions from surveys, even ones as reputable as Pew.
Why do christians speak of peace when their bible is so full of war.
TheMiddleWay comments on May 31, 2018:
Simple logic: *People are hypocrites. Christians are people. Therefore, Christians are hypocrites.* The hypocrisy lay not with Christianity in particular but with people in general.
What’s the thing you hate most about dating websites?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 31, 2018:
Lying is a kindness you give yourself. Honesty is a kindness you give others. So which you rely upon is a good indicator of how selfish or giving you are in a relationship. ;)
Is ignorance bad?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 31, 2018:
Not at all. How can you be blamed for not knowing something that you don't know you should know?
Q. What's white, old and largely responsible for global warming? A. US Congress.
TheMiddleWay comments on May 31, 2018:
US Congress: "I think we can cause the Earth to warm up by a few degrees!" Industrial Revolution: "Hold my beer; I got this."
What constitutes evidence? What constitutes proof?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 31, 2018:
I came up with this little ditty a while back to distinguish claims in science v. philosophy v. theology: ---- Science relies on logical, mathematical, AND empirical evidence in support of its claims Philosophy relies on logical, mathematical, OR empirical evidence in support of its claims. Theology does NOT rely on logical, mathematical NOR empirical evidence to support its claims.
Do you believe all religions are the same, or that some are worse than others?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 31, 2018:
All religions deal with the fundamental mysteries that humanity grapples with: where did we come from? Where are we going? What is the best way to act towards each other? Etc. All religions also deal with trying to make humanity better. The fact that different religions see how to accomplish this in different ways, some by worshiping this god but not this one, some by abstaining from eating others by not, etc, fundamentally all religions really do promote the ideal that we should strive to be better to ourselves and for ourselves. That's the ideal. The practice is where things go wrong. To err is to be human and thus to err with religion is the ultimate testament to the humanity behind religion. In terms of worse, there are too many metrics to answer that as a single yes or no. Some religions are less credible than others. Some religions are practiced more faithfully than others. Some religions preach more peace than others. So yeah, for me, on my metrics, some religions are worse than others. But even the best are still acted upon, interpreted, and promoted by humans and will err. And your metric will invariably not be the same as your metric so and there is no guarantee that my metrics are good metrics. As such, I try to avoid judgments on worse or best and instead, address a religion on a claim by claim basis, person by person, incident by incident basis. To do otherwise, IMO, invites too much bias and stereotypes. So on the whole all religions are the same: they have the same purpose, they strive for the betterment of humanity (even if that betterment is just for their believers) and on balance, most offer as much good as they offer bad.
Does intelligence lead to atheism?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 31, 2018:
I feel that's a bit like putting the cart before the horse. Intelligence doesn't lead to atheism or theism or agnosticism but intelligence will allow you to better support your atheism or theism or agnosticism.
The Bible - I find the lack of respect people in this room give to the Bible disturbing. Its early ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 30, 2018:
I give respect exclusively to people not inanimate objects. It's impossible for me to show respect to a flag or a book or even a country. It's only possible to show respect to another person because that person can then verify that they feel respected or disrespected by my actions.. As such, to point out areas where the bible got it right is not respecting it anymore than pointing out areas where the bible got it wrong disrespecting it. I'm agnostic and I see the bible the same as any other book: a book, written by people, perhaps divinely inspired, perhaps not, but still written by people and read by people with bits that are right and bits that are wrong like most other books in the world.
Do you consider religion to be a contagious mental illness?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 30, 2018:
If you believe it, you don't have science on your side: "A large volume of research shows that people who are more R/S have better mental health and adapt more quickly to health problems compared to those who are less R/S" https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/278730/
Today's little feature... on desktop, you should now be able to mouse-over a (and most usernames) ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 30, 2018:
Me likey! NIce!
Trump 2020. Make half of American great again!
TheMiddleWay comments on May 30, 2018:
How many people recognize the Thanos "half" allusion being made here?
Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 30, 2018:
"I believe the simplest explanation is there is no god." -- Stephen Hawking "I don't believe the in 2699 gods" -- Ricky Gervais "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." -- Albert Einstein "I believe in god, only I spell it nature" -- Frank Lloyd Wright -------------------------------------------------- **"I am confident that those who believe in belief are wrong" -- Daniel Dennett**
Ways to be blocked from my Agnostic account. 1: Be a Trump Supporter 2: Announce this to me ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 30, 2018:
PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER
Religious indoctrination is child abuse. Yes or no?I know this topic has been brought up before ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 30, 2018:
How many of you that were taught religion as a child and feel that is child abuse have actually confronted their parents and specifically called them "child abusers" to their face? How did that play out?
Religious indoctrination is child abuse. Yes or no?I know this topic has been brought up before ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 30, 2018:
No because of straw man: claiming teaching a belief is child abuse is a straw man because it's a lot easier to argue against child abuse than it is to argue against parents teaching children No because of slippery slope: a person that claims teaching our children our beliefs is child abuse will also claim that teaching them that their country of birth is the greatest country is child abuse, that teaching their male born son "how to be a man" is child abuse, that a certain scientific theory is right but others wrong is child abuse. No because of society: there is NO child abuse agency that recognizes religious upbringing in and of itself as child abuse. No because of the alleged abused: I don't see any evidence that the majority of children who had been raised in a religious household view their parents as child abusers. No because of the First Amendment (in the USA at least): to promote that teaching your child your beliefs is child abuse is in violation of first amendment rights of free speech. ---- Bottom line is this is a laughable ploy, spearheaded by Dawkins, for atheist beliefs be the legal beliefs and theist beliefs be the illegal beliefs. Thankfully, in the USA, we recognize that all beliefs are legal. It's all the more hypocritical when you consider that countries that actually do the opposite, make atheism illegal, are viewed as barbaric and uncivilized. :P
Any scientist here actually awake to the fraud of the medical establishment?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 29, 2018:
Well I am a scientist and I work for the medical establishment treating cancer every day. So you'll have to be more specific for otherwise I know not of which fraud you speak.
Hey folks, this is my latest painting. Painted in oil on canvas. I went to my local dog park with ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 29, 2018:
I like it ! I take photos cause I can't paint (lol) and thus have tremendous respect for those that can. Here is my critique: - Crop out the easel... the paint on it makes it distractingly busy. - Otherwise, (and this is my photographer eye speaking) the top 10-20 perfect of the painting, where it's all white, is needlessly empty. You could crop it out to draw more attention ot the actual painting or add some substance, like birds or other clouds - I love the blue for the sea and the dock perspective, gives the painting movement.
I was thinking about the whole cyberpunk concept of transferring the contents of a person's brain ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 29, 2018:
Has anyone seen the Black Mirror episode "White Christmas" and "Black Museum"? Both touch upon these topics in disturbing ways...
I was thinking about the whole cyberpunk concept of transferring the contents of a person's brain ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 29, 2018:
Check out Tad William's "Otherland" series. GREAT read. Don't want to spoil it but touches upon what you talk about
Anyone like Snarky Puppy. Can I post YouTube clips here?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 29, 2018:
They're no Skinny Puppy but I kinda like their groove!
What is the religion that when you meet someone you think it is the MOST ridiculous [Stupidist] ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 28, 2018:
Pastafarianism is an obvious choice: it is ridiculous by design! :D
I came home to find someone had stolen my dictionary and my thesaurus. I have no words to express ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 28, 2018:
It gets worse... I'm stealing this post!!
@admin can I get an agnostic t-shirt for my dog?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 28, 2018:
How many points does your dog have? ;)
Kungs vs Cookin’ on 3 Burners - This Girl - YouTube
TheMiddleWay comments on May 28, 2018:
I do not. Or 3 burners. I'd need to listen to them both before I form an opinion. There are sections here that I like and other's I'm more "meh" about is why....
Arizona state education standards see evolution deleted | Ars Technica
TheMiddleWay comments on May 28, 2018:
"The new standards were developed by a team of more than 30 educators, after which they were submitted to the Arizona Department of Education" Who are these 30, how were they chosen, and how are they vetted?
Hot Chip - Easy to Get - YouTube
TheMiddleWay comments on May 28, 2018:
I'm fond on them all. It's easy to claim their latter are better but even The Warning has classics like "no fit state" or "a boy from school"
[youtu.be] Hot Chip-Easy to Get
TheMiddleWay comments on May 28, 2018:
Ha! Before long their whole discography will be on here!
Think Jodi Foster could/should run for political office in the U.S. ? Bet she'd win.
TheMiddleWay comments on May 28, 2018:
Not likely. She doesn't have the recognition she might have had years or decades ago. Nor has she been visibly political over the years. Sure, she'd have an outstanding resume for outstanding movies but not much else as I see it. Sure, she wanted to "resist" Trump, but what liberal hollywood star didn't. Just don't see much benefit in having her in office but hey, if she does and wants to, more power to her! Nothing preventing her from trying!!!
The most important question you've been asked today
TheMiddleWay comments on May 28, 2018:
Top or Bottom?
Do you split the bill when you go on a date?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 28, 2018:
First date, not really: the person asking the other one out on a date should pay the bill. Most often this is the man (shitty, but true) but if a woman asks a man out on a date, they should be willing to be the one to pay. I've always asked, I've always always paid for that date. Now, when you are DATING on the other hand, then yes... you either split the bill or go back and forth paying the bill. That is the only equitable way to keep a relationship if both people are working. If one person isn't working, well, then, yeah, I might pay for my fair share but ask for equality in other ways (like have her drive or have her leave the tip). However, (and this has only happened once), if my date doesn't want to pay, doesn't want to drive, doesn't want to tip, doesn't want to do anything, that is a HUGE red flag and I once broke up with someone over it. TL;DR: First date, no. Subsequent dates, yes.
Who created God?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 27, 2018:
The answer is obvious: God's God! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc
So it's a scientific fact that the moon effects the oceans on the entire planet; i.e. tides and ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 27, 2018:
"So it's a scientific fact that the moon effects the oceans on the entire planet; i.e. tides and such." Does it really though? Probably not the way you think.... Let's clear some common misconceptions about how the moon affects us, shall we? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwChk4S99i4
Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Zero - YouTube
TheMiddleWay comments on May 27, 2018:
She defintiely chanels a bit of siouxsie from siouxsie and the banshees....
Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Rich - YouTube
TheMiddleWay comments on May 27, 2018:
MMmmmmmmm Ruby Rose!!!!!!!
[youtu.be] Yeah Yeah Yeahs- Soft Shock (Karen-O=the booombs)
TheMiddleWay comments on May 27, 2018:
Yeah!
Brian Eno - Baby's on Fire [HQ] - YouTube
TheMiddleWay comments on May 27, 2018:
This is the same Brian Eno that also does ambient stuff?? Weird!
Atheism is Over – Debunked - YouTube
TheMiddleWay comments on May 26, 2018:
All I could think of during the religious videos was... The Nozzle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8yQhXDquII
🤔 Philosophy of religion must end because there is no truth in religion. Religion must end ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 26, 2018:
Philosophy isn't only about truth; it's about lies as well. Example: the liar paradox. Religion is based on evidence; personal evidence. Example: I prayed and I got better. Faith is not the anti-thesis of intellectual virtue; lying and cheating are. Example: Claiming that you are an expert in a subject you've never studied. Faith solves the problem of what to do when you have little to no knowledge. Example: I have faith in my doctor though I have no knowledge of medicine. Faith never pretends to be reliable. Example: Even though I had faith in my doctor, she turned out to be a fraud. Faith never pretends to tell us things about nature, workings, or it's orgins. Example: The faith in my doctor doesn't tell me anything about medicine, how they work, or why I should or shouldn't have faith in them. Faith is a noun. Trust is a verb. Thus faith is not trust. Example: I have faith in my doctor and trust that she will cure me.
So with John Lithgow being cast as Judd Crandall in the new remake of Stephen King's Pet Sematary, I...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 26, 2018:
"Sometimes dead is better" If the first movie is any indication, this is very very very true.
I found love on Agnostic.com! We went from "We'll probably never meet because of the distance but ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 26, 2018:
Fantastic! Congrats for taking the risk and reaping the rewards!!!!
Republicans Call For Christianity As ‘Official Religion’ of US
TheMiddleWay comments on May 26, 2018:
"apparently unaware or unwilling to admit that the U.S. is a nation founded upon secular values." No. It wasn't. It was founded on no values, neither secular nor religious. It accept that any value system the people want is fair game in government and public life, be that value system secular or religious, as long as *all* value systems have a chance to be represented. The establishment clause clearly prohibits the establishment of one religion over another, or one system of belief over another. It doesn't prohibit the practice of religion within or without government or that individuals cannot use religion in the performance of their daily duties. Further, claiming that we are "a secular nation" is very bit in violation of the establishment clause as claiming we are "a religious nation". Thus, clearly, obviously, any attempt to establish one system of belief over another, be that system secular or religious in nature, is doomed to fail. No matter what Lane says, the establishment clause is very clear on shutting it down. But NOT because we are a secular nation... but exactly because we are a nation that admits all beliefs, secular and otherwise, without establishing one belief above the other. *Separation of Church and State is a fallacy.* It is not in the constitution and merely a sound-bite used to try an establish one set of beliefs, the secular, above and beyond all others, such as the religious. *The Establishment Clause is the reality.* It is what is actually in the constitution, it is what is actually law, and it claims that no religion, no system of belief, be they secular or religious, will be established above another.
Should I let my 11 year old watch Deadpool? Is there anything genuinely subversive about anal sex in...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 26, 2018:
DP is rated R. I contains lots of sex, lots of violence, lots of foul language, lots of blood, lots of death. There is NO way this is appropriate for an 11 year old.
Hello all! New to the site and looking to make some likeminded friends. If more comes out of it, ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 26, 2018:
Hidee-ho! How did you gain your title of Queen Evil? Was it by blood... or by BLOOD!? :D
We non-believers are often challenged by the religious right with the accusation that we are evil ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 26, 2018:
Unless you achieve a human "hive mind" where everyone agrees to the same truth and same knowledge, this is objective morality is impossible given that every society, culture, and individual has access to different truths and knowledge. So for example, moral rules about the use of money run into immediate problems as some people and cultures don't believe in money, that it should be done away with, while other people and cultures see money as necessary and then opinions vary as to how to use it. This is just one example where unless you convince every person in every culture in every society in every time from here on out that money is needed or not, you can never have objective moral rules about it and as long as there is one local subjective moral rule, a global objective morality is impossible.
In my opinion, everyone should know how to program. I knew as soon as I saw the internet that I ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 26, 2018:
Absolutely! The 3 R's should be expanded to 4 Reading 'Righting 'Rithmatic 'Rogramming Not only is programming and essential life skill in todays modern word but it also changes your mind set, how you think about the world, how you set up and solve problems, the same way that learning how to read, write, and do math does. Absolutely. Programming classes should be mandatory learning in all schools, public and private!
Playfulness "The playfulness that is so conspicuous in Taoism and Zen is not an indication of ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 26, 2018:
Wholly unrelated to the topic, how are you getting that awesome grey background, itallics quote breakaway? I love using quotes but it often get's lost in the text... your method is outstanding... how are you doing it?
Are you a friendly or unfriendly, atheist or theist?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 25, 2018:
Because several people have taken the concept of friendly or unfriendly to be literal, I invite you to read William Howe's 1979 paper where he defined the context of this poll: Reference: The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism William L. Rowe American Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 4 (Oct., 1979), pp. 335-341 PDF article: http://www.kul.pl/files/57/nauka/Rowe_The_Problem_of_Evil.pdf
The majority of Christians go to church because they are looking for friendship. They are lonely ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 25, 2018:
There are places for democrats to meet. There are places for republicans to meet. The existence of these places doesn't mean that reps want to be dems or vice versa. So no, I don't see having "the church of no-jesus" would sway more people out of "the church of jesus".
Are you a friendly or unfriendly, atheist or theist?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 25, 2018:
Don't want to much with the poll and risk reseting it. Here is the first line from that paragraph that got cut off. While the link is there for you to read it and the paragraph does give guidence on what friendly and unfriendly are in this context, this line is pretty important: "**We can call the view that rational, justified beliefs can be false, as it applies to atheism, friendly or fallibilist atheism. See the article on Fallibilism. **"
Are you a friendly or unfriendly, atheist or theist?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 25, 2018:
Please note that as per the quote, being friendly or unfriendly has nothing to do with how you treat them and everything to do with considering them rational or irrational if their views are unjustified according to you. Carry on. :)
Voters Complain About “Intimidating” Bibles at Philly Polling Places – Philadelphia Magazine
TheMiddleWay comments on May 25, 2018:
Strike one: if as an atheist you saw a person put down a harry potter book, would you be "offended" that they were trying to convert you to a harry potter fan? Strike two: if as an atheist you don't put any credence in the bible, why does it's mere precence offend you if no body is reading it or referencing it or forcing you in any way to recognize it. Strike three: And of course, there's the REAL reason the bible is there! From the article: "All poll workers must be sworn in, and a Bible can be used for that purpose, so the city offers the Bible as an option. It is in no way mandatory. “It’s like when you’re testifying in court,” Schmidt says. “There’s a Bible available to swear someone in, but you don’t have to use the Bible.” Three strikes: Your offense is out!!!! LOL
I think it's sad when people assume that animals have no conscience or thought and that pets don't ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 25, 2018:
The problem is that it's hard to differentiate anthropomorphization from reality. At what point are we addressing the reality of an animals mindset or intentions and at what point are we just projecting our own?
Are humans innately theists?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 25, 2018:
This anthropologist believes so: "Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose. He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html
Can humans think without language? Try it.
TheMiddleWay comments on May 25, 2018:
Picture Pages, Picture Pages / Time to get your Picture Pages / Time to get your crayons / And your Pencils! / Picture Pages, Picture Pages / Open up your Picture Pages / Time to let Bill Cosby do a Picture Page with you!
Science vs. Religion
TheMiddleWay comments on May 24, 2018:
"Science v. Religion" is a false controversy created by people that don't understand science or religion but want to push their anti-science or anti-religion agenda. Consider as evidence that the majority of people working in science have no problem with being religious while the majority of people working in religion have no problem with being scientific.
Calling all scientist! The NASA free download software catalog is out! Nothing says science loving ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 24, 2018:
Whaaaa!!!?? This is cool and (mostly) useless unless I'm building a space shuttle... but so cool and who knows, maybe there WILL be ton's of youtube video popping up of people building and testing space shuttles in their garages!!!!!!!!!
Last year, the local Catholic Church here in southern Delaware placed a thousand white crosses on ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 24, 2018:
Let me see if I understand you: you are irate that someone uses their property to exercise their first amendement right to free speech because you personally disagree with what they are saying even though what they are saying violates not laws whatsoever? Why not instead of trying to take away his right to free speech you exercise your own? Set up signs on your lawn in counter to theirs. Set up in front of their church protesting their claim. Set up stickers in your car presenting why your case is correct and theirs is wrong. Etc. In the USA, you rarely have the right to shut someone up but you always have the right to speak up yourself!
It is time to put up or shut up
TheMiddleWay comments on May 24, 2018:
"As Freethinkers it is our desire to protect those who cannot protect themselves." I don't think one has to do anything with the other: a misanthrope can be as effective a freethinker as a treehugger as I see it. Not saying a freethinker is one or the other, merely that our "free thoughts" about our responsability towards those that can't protect themselves is not automatically determined by being a free thinker. "Our position supports a free political system of the people not corporations or the top 5% of the population." I don't think that there is a freethinker creed that we had to sign to be freethinkers that makes this the case. LIke the above, it doesn't mean that your "free thoughts" led you to that conclusion but many "free thoughts" lead people to another conclusion and that doesn't make them less of a free thinker. "Where is the outcry against such actions.?" Not to diminish your desire to be active, because everyone should be free to pursue activism about things they care about, but there is no outcry because so far as much as we are not oppressing religion neither is religion oppressing us. They can call for the US to be a christian nation till you are blue in the face and it will always fail in light of the establishment clause. They can feel like they are being oppressed, repressed, any kind of press but at the end they still have to prove their case to the supreme court if they want major laws changed in light of that oppression (as is the case in the famous current "gay wedding cake" challenge in process right now). I guess my view is that there just isn't anything really for us, as freethinkers, to get all upset over for, if we are truly committed to free thought, than those that think this nation is christian or being oppressed are entitled to their free thought and the best we can do is simply do our best to not perpetuate the ideas they promote, to live a life and act and speak without seeking to oppress them and thus give them no evidence on which they can hang their beliefs. Again, I support your call to activisim just don't see that there is a singular free-thinking mindset such that calling all free thinkers to arms would be effective if that makes sense.
Here starts real equality.
TheMiddleWay comments on May 24, 2018:
I'm reminded of this: "In presenting the star lineup of celebrities attending Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s royal wedding at St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle—whose attendees included Sir Elton John, Oprah, Idris Elba, the Beckhams, and others—The Guardian presented Amal as the “international human rights lawyer” rather than “George Clooney’s wife,” which is usually what newspapers annoyingly do." https://splinternews.com/the-guardian-s-royal-wedding-presentation-of-amal-cloon-1826166342
Help Wanted Posts Suppose member A wants someone to cut their lawn, but does not have a service. Is...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 24, 2018:
I strongly oppose allowing ads on this site This is a dating site. Any ads to "lure" people to your house under true or false pretext is ripe with danger of abuse or worse, criminal behavior. Further, you could have "silk road" like interactions such that illicit actions would be going on in this site and @Admin would be held liable, leading to at best a shutting down of this site and at worst, criminal charges and jail time for @Admin. Making it a set, visible, and enforceable policy will mean that we can flag ads as we see them to shut them down and thus minimize this risk. Otherwise, it can, and IMO will, get quickly out of hand to the detriminent of us all
Hot chip new single - Take it in - YouTube
TheMiddleWay comments on May 24, 2018:
NICE! Who was it that was saying just a few days ago that HC should be coming out with new stuff because they come out with new stuff about every 2-3 and it'd been 2-3 years from the last!?? It's like we say it and it happens! (EDIT: ok, false alert... this isn't a "new" single but maybe a new single when it was posted... still a great song!
Any Die Antwoord fans?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 23, 2018:
Hell yeah!
Have you ever saved a life ?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 23, 2018:
I once pulled a lady out of a flaming car wreck. I once gave aid to an old man who was pinned under a bus. And I work day to day in the treatment of cancer patients. So I'd say yeah, I've saved lives.
When is no evidence, evidence? When proving a negative! Does this mean that atheism is evidence ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 22, 2018:
According to this article, both science and religion have their share of people that believe their creeds without understanding and thus people whose belief is entirely based on faith and not evidence. The difference, according to the article, is in who you trust: Those of religious faith trust their priests; those of the scientific faith trust their scientists. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scientific-faith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith/417357/
Best Beatles covers II ://youtu.be/oL1JyDTq3Qc
TheMiddleWay comments on May 22, 2018:
Few covers are better than the beatles but this one is definitely a contender!!!!
Several of my colleagues are convinced that the building we work in is haunted, and can reel off a ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 22, 2018:
Download a spooky, but subtle ringtone for your cell phone. Try and make it bass heavy as that will be harder to localize Install it and test it so it is audible without being too loud. If it's too loud it will be easier to localize. Place your cell phone in the rafters, somewhere that is not in direct line of sight and off which sound can bounce. A place that is like a "bowl" like a recess or a corner works best. Now, use the spooky ringtone for one phone number and a silent ringtone for another number calling you. Start by calling from the number with the silent ringtone... the cell phone will put out EMF which will go through walls. Then at random intervals, call from the phone with the spooky ringtone. That will not only put out EMF but also put out sound. Now, I'm not sure if ghost hunters are hip to cell phone frequencies so they may be hip to the gag. But if not, that should provide at least an evenings worth of fun
Should public schools allow teachers...?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 22, 2018:
Yes. If students can do it, so should the teachers. From the ACLU: "**Some say that the Supreme Court has declared the public schools "religion-free zones"** or that the law is so murky that school officials cannot know what is legally permissible. **The former claim is simply wrong.** [...] Student Garb 17. Religious messages on T-shirts and the like may not be singled out for suppression. Students may wear religious attire, such as yarmulkes and head scarves, and they may not be forced to wear gym clothes that they regard, on religious grounds, as immodest" https://www.aclu.org/other/joint-statement-current-law-religion-public-schools
[youtube.com] @sadoi
TheMiddleWay comments on May 22, 2018:
Very cool! Nice groove, cool vid!
VHS or Beta - You Got Me - YouTube
TheMiddleWay comments on May 22, 2018:
Saw these guys YEARS ago live out of the blue and they blew me away!!! This was back when you'd still buy CD's as merch (instead of get a DL) and I remember I was so impressed I bought their 4 song CD... something I'd never or rarely done before! It was their first album, "le funk" and it's electro funk... well, it's like nothing I'd heard before! Gotta say though, not really digging their lyrical based works (never seen or heard this song before). Didn't realize they'd gone in that direction and honestly, feels like they lost the funk. :( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAhgl98JNXY
Is it not as easy to say there is no god, as it is to say there is a god?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 22, 2018:
I agree with your stance. Obviously, clearly, and in any honest and fair debate, the person making the claim has a burden to support their claim. If the theist wants to claim there are gods, they have taken the burden on themselves. If the atheist wants to claim there are no god, then they have taken the burden on themselves. The only one's free from that burden are the skeptic or agnostic who don't believe in the evidence for either side but make no claims of their own. In a debate, it is common to dismiss the opposing side by shifting the burden of proof, by assuming that their position is the default and thus you have to prove your side but they don't, and other techniques. All this to avoid doing the hard work of making a claim and backing it up. After all, if I said you did not have a million dollars in the bank, would that obligate you to prove you have a million dollars in the bank or would I have to give proof that you don't have a million dollars in the bank? Obviously if I'm making the claim, you are under no obligation to prove my claim for us... it's I who need to provide evidence to support the claim that you don't have a million dollars in the bank. And note that I could try and claim that I've never seen you with a million dollars in hand nor have I seen you spend a million dollars. Is that evidence that you don't have a million dollars in the bank? Clearly not. If the theist makes the claim that gods exist, they take on the burden. If the atheist makes the claim that gods don't exist, they take on the burden. And if you don't want the burden, don't make the claim! ;)
Atheists, is atheism the default of the failed philosophical hypothesis of a god or is it the ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 22, 2018:
Claiming that your position is the default position is not an honest way to support your position. Theist do this all the time, claim that theism is the default position until the atheist has evidence to the contrary, and the atheist rejects that default. So why should we accept atheism as the default when it's nothing more than flipping the default of a theist which we reject? Here is a great article I found where the author shows how theism is the proper default... how atheism is the proper result... and ultimately why taking a default position is meaningless! https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/why-atheism-is-the-default-position/ And another from the same author drilling down deeper into the inadequacies of taking a default position in these kinds of debates: https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/do-default-positions-exist/
Just hearing this woman’s name makes me sick. [patheos.com]
TheMiddleWay comments on May 22, 2018:
It's a legitimate request, especially in light of the recent supreme court ruling in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, a ruling which makes total sense in light of the first amendment. After all, the establishment clause is about the government treating all religious beliefs fairly and not establishing one above all others. If we refuse funds to religious institutions for doing exactly the same as secular ones, then we are establishing secular beliefs, the government is promoting one set of beliefs over another, and that is clearly in violation of the establishment clause. So, as long as all religious AND non-religious institutions can request funds, the first amendment is being protected. The second that we allow non-religious institutions access to funds prohibited to the religious institutions, we are clearly violating the first amendment... and the supreme court agrees.
Have you ever been embarressed by what you have posted here
TheMiddleWay comments on May 22, 2018:
If I were, and I'm not saying I have, it wouldn't last long before I deleted it. ;)
Do you think the Pope really believes there are gods, heavens, and lives after death?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 22, 2018:
What if I were to ask you if you Dawkins or Hitchens really believe there are no gods, no heavens, or life after death? That they built their empire promoting that belief and thus if they actually stated that they believed, it would all crumble down. Is there use or merit to that assertion? Unless you have evidence that the pope doesn't believe or that Dawkin's does believe, to claim otherwise is to basically just hold a mirror up to yourself and promote your own bias, your own belief, your own view. In other words, you assertion that a person says one thing but means another says nothing about the honesty of that person's belief but everything about your willingness to project your beliefs onto others without a shred of evidence.
God is so huge
TheMiddleWay comments on May 22, 2018:
Such a great movie!!!
Mississippi "In God We Trust" License Plate Design Unconstitutional - American Humanist Association
TheMiddleWay comments on May 21, 2018:
I don't think legibility should be a metric here. After all, it is equally unconstitutional to put "in god we trust" even if it was in small print on a license plate and you had to get up close to see it. That's my opinion anyway and if we shouldn't have "in god we trust" on license plates, maybe we can use this as a springboard to get it taken off of money as well... not to mention the pledge of allegiance!
School shootings, will they
TheMiddleWay comments on May 21, 2018:
I voted for a lot of options: they will still happen with or without gun control BUT hopefully not as often. Yet the real solution is a change in society. I think that countries that have gun control and don't have mass shootings is because society was willing to accept gun control and having less guns and the laws followed. In other words, it doesn't matter what we put in the books, if society isn't willing to naturally follow those principles, what is on the books doesn't matter. Medication is another angle. I've heard it say that most/all the school shooters who were student aged where on some form of medication or another. I'm not sure if that is true or not but it is true that we medicate all manner of issues with our kids despite very shaky science on it. In the past it was anti-depressents and ADD medicine. In the present we see it in terms of puberty blockers and gender reassignment. Better living through chemistry is well established for adults but rarely for kids. So even if all shooters were not medicated, I would still not deny that the over-medication is affecting our kids in negative ways that may have a causal connection with resorting to such drastic measures.
Solsbury Hill by Peter Gabriel [youtube.com]
TheMiddleWay comments on May 21, 2018:
Amazing this is from 1977... sounds both older and more modern than '77!
Eugenics: When Scientific Consensus Leads To Mass Murder | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
TheMiddleWay comments on May 21, 2018:
It's a misuse of science when applied to political or religious motivations. But the principle of eugenics is actually sound; Just ask Thanos!
Tea or coffee?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 21, 2018:
I go back and forth: I go through a few months on a tea kick... then I switch over to coffee... then tea... etc. I'm actually courting a job in Seattle right now and if I get it, I may legally not be able to switch back to tea anymore! :D
Fun story time. I once had a religion teacher try to explain evolution (at my Catholic schools ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 21, 2018:
And this is why you shouldn't take science advice from religion... ...or religion advice from science. ;)
Sneeze comment
TheMiddleWay comments on May 21, 2018:
In Chile, as Roman Catholic as the entire country is, we don't say bless you. We say **Salud!** on the first sneeze (same a "gesundheit" ).... **Dinero!** on the second... and **Amor!** on the third.
If a woman wants an abortion should the father have a right to keep the child?
TheMiddleWay comments on May 20, 2018:
In cases of informed consensual sex, both parties are aware and agree the the consequences of pregnancy given that that is the main function of sex, getting pregnant. With that prelude, unfortunately there was no way to vote for both. I would vote that a man does not have the right to his child and it can be aborted with the caveat that if the child is not aborted, the man has the right to bear no responsibility for the child he would have chosen to abort. Otherwise, I would vote that he does have the right to assume that responsibility and prevent the abortion with the caveat that the women has the right to bear no responsibility for a child she would have chosen to aborted.
WOTM: Apologetic Answers (or “an”swers) [youtube.com]
TheMiddleWay comments on May 20, 2018:
God insight into his and this Dennis cat's relationship and journey. But his definition of an apologetic is quite off the mark and actually, the opposite of common usage as I under stand it. An apologetic is one who does use reason, evidence, and philosophy to defend their position. it is not, AFAIK, the simplistic "puts their fingers in their ears and goes la-la-la-la" position he is espousing. Am I on track here or has apologetics come to mean the something else?
69 Visitors and no one says 'hello'
TheMiddleWay comments on May 20, 2018:
57 channels and nothing on. 57 channels and nothing on. He (LOL, Edit: HI!!!) and hope you are a springsteen fan to get the ref!
Hello. I wonder how many people here are musicians? By that, I mean they know how to read music,...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 20, 2018:
I play music (5-string electric bass)I read music, understand music theory, created my own music theory (which of course I think is better than all existing music theories LOL), and have loved music for as long as I can remember.
Let's Eat Grandma - two young women from Norwich, UK, who first met at the age of 4 and have been ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 20, 2018:
" who first met at the age of 4 and have been making music together since they were 13," So. F'n. Jealous. I want that... I want that so bad!!!!!!! (Oh yeah: I like hot pink and the lead's voice... the other two tracks... ok... but not stellar)
Anybody partake in this website: Sci-hub? this video link explains the dilemma very well. I agree ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 20, 2018:
First off, the arms dealer and the fact that swartz hung himself... completely irrelevant. Merely put in there to sway our opinion against the "evil" publishers. The immediate problem with these sites is that there is no accountability. When you are talking about things that are fundamentally illegally obtained, then how do we know that what was obtained wasn't altered, lost in translation, or otherwise manipulated by the site? Yes, we want to trust that these people have our best interest at heart. Yes, we rally around the single underdog versus the evil corporations. But I don't trust people I've never met "just because". And while it's all true: the researchers don't get money and elsevier has varied business interests, at least they are accountable for what they publish. If elesevier publishes something that is complete bullocks, that's on them. If these sites distribute something that is complete bullocks... well.. meh. No harm no foul as far as they are concerned. Yes, I think all science research should be free. Yes, I think all scientists should get some payment for their work. Yes, I think the current publishing models are unfair. But that doesn't mean that the solution is to encourage people to steal documents and then put our trust in those single people. Again, as much as I don't trust corporations, I trust individuals even less. And face it, if those companies hadn't had the infrastructure and been there to actually print those documents, those documents would likely not have gotten the exposure and have been there to be stolen in the first place! Yes, there are major problems in the dissemination of scientific content. But illegal actions, making public that which is not meant to be public, is not the solution. I mean heck, if you want your paper out there, there is NOTHING stopping you from making it public. It's a bit disengenous to publish through a big company, get their support network, their exposure, get your paper out there, and then have it get "stolen" so that more people can get it. If you want your paper our there and it's so good, upload it directly to academia.edu or arxiv.
I'm reading Michio Kaku's book Hyperspace, a very interesting read. It's premise is that the ...
TheMiddleWay comments on May 20, 2018:
"I chuckled at the concept of there being an idea that cannot be proven or disproven, it seemed familiar." I make the comparison between string theory and god theory all the time to theists and atheists. I point out that like string theory, god theory cannot (at this time) be proven or disproven and thus it is unwise to take a position pro or against it. Just like it is unwise to claim that string theory is true or false until we get actual data to guide us to the answer.
Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul | The New Yorker
TheMiddleWay comments on May 20, 2018:
I love Dennett because unlike the other horsemen, instead of just talking about how a life without gods can be good and peaceful... he shows us how it can good and peaceful by living said life. Whereupon the other horsemen are people of words alone, Dennett is also a man of action... even if that action is just sitting down and self reflect, something the other horsemen don't do much, if any, at all. I've always said: more atheists should take calm Dennett as a role model for how to act and promote their atheism instead of modeling themselves after the rhetorical Dawkins, the aggressive Hitchens, or the arrogant Harris.

Photos

0 Like Show
8
8 Like Show
0 Like Show
4
4 Like Show
4
4 Like Show
5
5 Like Show
0 Like Show
2
2 Like Show
0 Like Show
0 Like Show
2
2 Like Show
1
1 Like Show
2
2 Like Show
Agnostic, Skeptic
Open to meeting women
  • Level8 (102,687pts)
  • Posts121
  • Comments
      Replies
    1,887
    5,154
  • Followers 71
  • Fans 0
  • Following 85
  • Fav. Posts 2
  • Joined Dec 18th, 2017
  • Last Visit Very recently
TheMiddleWay's Groups