Human culture existed for thousands of years before copyright, and during that long expanse there has been no lack of music, drama, prose, poetry, painting and sculpture. Strangely enough "content creators" did make a living.
They seem pretty certain now that plane flew for five to seven hours and they seem to have a very general idea of possible flight paths. The question of immediate concern was this a theft for the purposes of a mass murder of 230+ people, or to gain a large jet for some other purpose.
[noblebeast] The Discovery article makes it pretty clear towards the end that it is not religious belief, but religious activities, that are likely responsible for the cognitive benefits.
[inasity_rules] I am not sure we read the same article. Not to invoke an argument, but the TFA talks about listening to sermons and reading the bible.
Note that "listening" and "reading" are verbs that describe activities, not beliefs. So TFA in fact agrees with nobebeast's interpretation.
It even ends with 'âoeMy personal belief is that having a strong belief is key to getting the benefits,â Fotuhi said.'
So he contradicted himself in the article.
And we might note that both are possible. We have a word for beliefs that have pharmacological effects: "placebo". People tend to think that placebos are ineffective, but a number of studies have turned up cases of placebos having an effect on people who believe that they are actual medicines. In particular, belief that X can have an effect on a specific brain activity can easily lead to X having just that effect on people who believe that it will.
But the real problem with religious beliefs is that they have a history of leading to very negative effects on non-believers who encounter the believers.
Verify your facts. There is, for example, using vehicles donated as ambulances to transport nuns, and quite clear indication that it was never about the economics for her. She clearly was a power-hungry sadist.
In order to get a clue, you should look up "abstraction" some time. But if you are not interested in logic or science, then you apparently do not want a clue. Lugging science in with religion is a transparent insult though and not worthy of response.
I don't know if I'd agree that a person who is trying to save himself can't be a hero.... I would actually place the criteria for hero as being someone who actually personally faces some level of danger, and whether or not they personally overcome it, somehow manages to help one or more other people get past a threat that they are facing. A hostage victim who manages to foil the plans of the people who have taken them and others hostage certainly has a personal vested interest in trying to get out of the situation, but I wouldn't hesitate to call such a person a hero when his or her actions have saved the lives of others. I find myself ambivalent on your example of a pilot being a hero, however. I think I'd really be willing to use the word to describe a pilot only in circumstances where the pilot had shown personal creativity and resourcefulness in overcoming the situation that went far beyond what he or she was actually trained to do in such circumstances, and by all rights and reason they should not have survived at all.
To that end, ordinary people may become heroes, but heroes are anything but ordinary.
And Snowden didn't face any real danger by doing what he did. In the end, he still ran away.
That doesn't make what he did meaningless, it just means he's not cut from the same cloth as what I'd call a hero.
I don't know a lot of strongly religious people (the few I know seem to be pretty fucked up), and the mildly religious ones I know seem to be well able to keep that from interfering with their lives. Most people I know are atheists and do not see any pressing need to change that. Of course, where I live religion does not have a place in public discourse or polite conversation, you have to actively seek it out.
As to "going to be tortured for eternity", the most theologically sophisticated version I have heard of that was to stay "distant from God" (with the other atheists), with a strong implication that you actually get to keep your individuality and do not have to get into bed with a creep for eternity either. While the whole model strikes me as exceedingly contrived, should that happen, I will be fine with it. And atheists are more interesting people to be with anyways.
Heheheh, nice. And exactly true.
A transparent attempt to discredit me without any factual value.
The trick with "logic" is used by a number of religions targeting people of higher intelligence. (For example there are quite a few Christian splinter groups that use it.) It works by establishing some axioms that corrupt whatever comes out of the logical process. As any logical conclusion is only as valid as the axioms used, this works well. Often this little fact is cleverly disguised. Logic does not give you truth in any meaningful way, that is the job of the axioms. So while your religion is more sophisticated than the average and targets a different group of people, it is just the same thing in a better disguise.
There really is no need for me to research your particular mental malady.
Reduced mental capability can in layman's terms be described as "stupidity". "Cognitive dissonance" is something else.
You presume these people are religious. Very likely they are not, but are "authoritarian leaders" instead (https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/). These people will do anything to dominate their followers, professing to a "faith" is a quite common technique used.
The joke did not. (And I did laugh, it is actually a nice one
As to requiring empirical evidence, requiring it in a
Heroes don't run away from fights that they might find themselves in, simply because they know that they cannot win. That's what makes them heroes, and what really distinguishes them from everyone else.
Is it a narrow view of heroism? Perhaps... but I don't think that everybody is cut out to actually *be* a hero. In fact, most aren't.
That doesn't mean that every single person is not capable of doing tremendous good, or making a positive difference in the world around them, however.
But running away is just not something I can associate with heroism.
No.... someone who sticks it out and wins a fight can be a hero too... martyrdom is not remotely necessary.
But running away is not heroic.
Is what Snowden did a good thing? Yes... that doesn't make him a hero, however.
Because nature has shit loads of fusion reactors all over the planet that go critical all the time.
Actually, that's not all that far off from reality. Except that, in our solar system, nature has only one fusion reactor, which went critical roughly 4.5 billion years ago. Nature has been powered by the output of that one runaway fusion reactors ever since then. And life here has had to handle the fact that our power supply is available only about half of each day, so each species needs to develop ways of surviving a total failure of the power plant every day.