So the explanation for the translating being completely wrong is the author wasn't actually writing Egyptian?

Except for some reason we can't actually see the trees (I'm not sure what you mean by seeing them).

So instead we ask what would we expect if there were trees? Well there would be leaves on the ground. Why aren't there leaves? The wind must have blown them away.

Ok, there would be wooden furniture and houses. But then we look and all the houses are brick and the furniture metal and plastic. So you say they must not like to build with wood.

Ok, then there would be fruit in the markets, but there isn't any. You say they must not like fruit.

The problem is that every time there's a test that could endorse the Mormon narrative you end up finding an excuse to explain away the difference.

Joseph Smith claimed there was a sword with the golden plates. Assume we had some fancy sonar that could identify the type any material underground, and, starting at Cumorah Hill, we scanned the earth 100m deep for a 20 km radius.

Would you expect them to find any swords or other metalwork from the 4th century?

Others are biting on the other topics so I'll just mention the genetics bit.

Weren't the people described be Semitic? In that case there would be signs of Semitic DNA in the Native American population, if the genes have spread through the genepool then genetic drift won't eliminate all traces. And the things they describe aren't population bottlenecks, for a bottleneck you really have to reduce the population to a small portion of their overall numbers. If a Semitic population had been there for several centuries the DNA would have spread throughout North America. To wipe out that DNA you'd have to drive the Native American to the brink of actual extinction.

It's not about knowledge it's about evaluating evidence and arguments. Mormonism isn't just claiming a couple Semites showed up in North America, it is claiming four major kingdoms surviving for almost 1000 years. The problem isn't that there aren't ways you can explain away the evidence, it's that every time there's a way to test the claims of Mormonism you end up having to explain something away.

Why couldn't the plates be investigated by an impartial authority, or the original text transcribed? Well the angel didn't want that.

Why does the little we've seen of the scrolls from book of Abraham have nothing to do with the described text of the book of Abraham? Well it was written by a Jew who wasn't writing proper Egyptian.

Why is there no evidence, genetic or archaeological, of these four huge middle eastern kingdoms that lasted a millenia or more? Apparently Moroni wasn't talking about the Native Americans after all.

Imagine that tomorrow someone discovered the book of Abraham scrolls hadn't been destroyed in fire, and were found intact in some forgotten collection, or some expedition on Cumorah found a bag containing some golden plates and the bag was carbon dated to the 1830s.

They items in question were then scanned and put online. My prediction is that the plates would turn out to be gibberish and the book of Abraham would have nothing to do with Joseph Smith's translation. What do you think the result would be?

Is there anyone on the planet using TLS heartbeats via TCP for anything except exploiting this bug? What is even the point of heartbeats without DTLS?

Bugs are bugs yet decision to enable a mostly useless feature for non-DTLS by default in my view is not so easily excusable.

The difference is in battery voltage vs service voltage. (Power = volts * amps)

Lets assume smartphone battery operates at 5 volts. (mine does anyway)

5 volts * 2 amps = 10 watts

Now lets see how much power you get from a typical wall plug in US drawing those same 2 amps.

120 volts * 2 amps = 240 watts

24 times power from wall plug vs battery at same amperage.

Power is available.. question is selection of voltage allowing for desired charge rate while optimizing design/safety/cost constraints.

The objective reality is that this process has been observed to happen in the brain. Repeatedly; consensually; experientially.

The open question, at least for me, is, is there any reason to think that this is the only, or even the primary, mode of neural operation?

Sand will indeed avalanche following the power law when it's poured on top of itself. But it does something completely different when it is suspended in turbulent water, or melted into glass, or just sitting there on the beach (seems to have an affinity for the inside of bathing suits as I recall, though it's been a while.)

Perhaps avalanche at criticality is "the" answer. But I think we're quite some distance from declaring that particular win. I'm all for the exploration, though.

Many atheists are angry not at religion, but at what the religious have done to them. From blue laws to the subjugation of women to vilification of sexuality to 9/11 to bibles in courtrooms and required oaths to god and silly sayings on our money and all manner of other current-day evil, atheists have legitimate gripes that they are being abused for no other reason than those contained in religious thought.

Some go further and are mindful of religion's evil history, such as the crusades, the inquisitions, witch burnings and the like, taking those as cautionary tales of just how black and evil theism can get when it becomes the rationale that underlies the actions of the government. It tends to make us at least... twitchy, about modern day religion. Religion's current abject misbehavior when it interfaces with government very much appears to be a forewarning that perhaps we'd best get in there and put a stop to it, hence activism and negative characterizations (generally accurate ones, too.)

I don't hate religion -- in fact I have a large religious library and find it fascinating in terms of human behavior and can only appreciate and love the amazing art that it has brought to society from architecture to sculpture, painting and even some jewelry -- but I can sure tell you that my reaction to the various theist interferences with everyone else's politics, legal system, and even day to day life is nothing kind at all.

When theism can be characterized as a mode of thought kept to one's self and used to guide one's own actions, with great respect for, and isolation from, the actions of others, I have no problem with it whatsoever.

Humans, it seems, have the believe device built in.

My observation is that the "belief device" seems to be an aggregate made of of various amounts of fear, gullibility, emotional pain, ignorance and something I can't put a single word to, but characterize as "an unwillingness to settle for the actuality that we legitimately don't have answers to some questions." Any one of those things, or any combination of them, can be enough to trigger the leap of faith, and as you say, this is entirely independent of intelligence per se. Once that leap has been taken, trying to reverse it is very, very tough -- it's a different mode of thinking and frankly, it's not rational, which tends to cripple rational arguments right out of the gate.

I can even imagine that this had some advantages in building highly complex societies.

It certainly has proven to be an extremely useful lever to manipulate the population towards particular goals, some of which are often quite secular in nature, such as accumulating wealth, taking advantage of the sexual instincts, focusing power.

Theist means "belief in a god or gods." From there, many divergences, all with their own interesting takes.

Atheist means "without belief in a god or gods." From there -- same thing. Many divergences, all with interesting takes.

Across that divide, the atheist stands on one side of a very distinct chasm, and all Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. legitimately stand on the other. Most -- not all, but most -- arguments I see from atheists are about the reasons to be on their side of the chasm. In this sense, rolling fundies in with the most vague ideas of a god or gods and so forth is both appropriate and understandable. It may not be comfortable, but it really is what it is. Belief, or lack thereof.

When a theist brings up something specific -- say, a claim that the earth is 6k years old, or that Jesus was a real historical figure -- then atheist arguments tend to focus on the claim. That's because those claims are part of the theist reasons to advocate for their side of the chasm. And when theist A does not agree with theist B, there tends to be very fertile ground for someone to protest, "but that's not what we (or all of us) believe", which may be true enough, but doesn't address the actual back and forth that was going on, that is, between those that do believe that particular thing, and those that see that as invalid.

I hope that was clear. I tried. :)

There is no scientific way I could think of that lets us tell what happens with our "soul" after death.

Proof? No. Evidence? Plenty. The evidence thus far uniformly indicates that everything about "you" is brainops, which in turn are manifestations of mundane physics, that is, well within the bounds of what we already know of physics.

What do we know?

On the side that is evidence for things happening in the brain, we know that various portions of the brain are key for various types of thinking, memory, sensory processing, glandular and organ control. We know that when these regions are drugged or damaged, those areas of cognition and other brain function are impaired or stopped; and that in the case where permanent damage is not done, those functions return. Cutting the corpus callosum does just what we'd expect, it's 100% consistent with our presumption of brainops. Injuries and lobotomies; sensory impairment and stimulation. Further, on the small scale, the brain's neuron structure has served as a model for us to build computing systems that operate in interesting and suggestive ways. Children without brains do not function. People with unusual brains (think Einstein and savants) function in unusual ways. Large waste loads in the bloodstream that reach the brain reduce acuity and many other metrics. Anesthetics of various types provide anywhere from none to partial to complete shutdown of brainops, and you go with it.

On the side that is evidence for things outside the brain not having anything to do with it, we know that magnetic fields of great intensity have little effect; certainly magnetic fields of typically extant intensities have no detectable effect. Likewise, gravity -- flip you upside down, you can still think, etc. Likewise electric fields -- hang around a radio transmitter or a power pylon or a Tesla coil, you're still you with no significant interference. We even know why -- the various layers of skull and fluids and membrane form an excellent shield for just about anything that can't actually put several watts per centimeter into the target.

What do we know that indicates that "we", in any way, shape or form, are an intermediary for an external soul? Nothing. What do we know that indicates that there's more going on than mundane physics? Nothing.

At this point, it's kind of like the big bang. We don't have the actual, resolved answer in hand, but we have a *lot* of evidence that only points one way. Because of this, scientifically speaking, until or unless someone comes up with evidence for external force or coupling, the way to bet is: It's brainops all the way down (apologies for unauthorized recasting of turtle metaphor.)

If you don't want to bet that way, then that's great: go research your idea, and bring back the data, because data pointing in some other direction would be amazingly delicious. But... if you just want to sit there and ignore the evidence we have, claim that an idea you have with no evidence at all behind it is more likely... well, all I can say is you've left science behind and you're well into faith.

But science, in and of itself, does have a lot of evidence on this matter. Repeatable, consensually experiential evidence. It all hangs together extremely well. Everything, no exceptions, points to the "I" as being an emergent function of brainops. The consequence of software running on the hardware, to strain a computing metaphor.

There is no scientific way I could think of that lets us tell what happens with our "soul" after death.

If the science is right -- which there is no reason to doubt at this point, no evidence pointing any other way -- then when the brain shuts down, you go out like a candle that's out of wick, tallow and oxygen. You're where you were before birth, which is to say, nowhere. No brain = no you.

If the evidence is wrong or only pointing at an intermediate system of some kind... well, we have yet to discover even a hint of it that isn't wholly anecdotal, not consensually experiential, not repeatable. That's generally a very bad sign for alternate ideas. But as I said, it isn't proof. It's just the smart way to bet by every metric we'd call rational.

It's a little pithy but he did follow with some actual arguments.

How do you rationalize Smith's behaviour with the gold plates that nobody but him ever saw, and when the transcriber "lost" the translations (to see if Smith actually did have a source document from which he could reproduce the same translation) Smith then provided a different translation. How he translated some Egyptian scrolls into the Book of Abraham, but the scrolls in question have nothing in common with what Joseph Smith translated. What about the claim that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israelites, something proven false.

I'm just curious, I'm sure you're aware of these counterarguments, how do you deal with them?

Love does not exist without people.

Interesting. Love is a cognitive state, often accompanied by secondary hormonal and other physical effects. It can be discriminated on a brain scan, too, so the whole "can't be measured" thing is flat out wrong. And why you'd give the periodic table as an example for a cognitive state... inexplicable.

Love meets all the criterion of a pseudoscience, fantasy, scam.

No. It doesn't. Try again.

claiming fallacious things like absence of evidence is evidence of absence

That phrase is precisely correct. It does not say, however, that absence of evidence is proof of absence.

Evidence for one thing is also often evidence for something else. Example: I hold in my hand a yellow fruit. There's your evidence. It's yellow; you start there. That is perfectly good evidence for bananas, lemons, etc. Turns out I was actually holding a lemon. So the evidence for a banana, while perfectly valid in that context, was not adequate to prove the case.

This is what "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" actually means. It is saying that if you can't find any evidence, a, or one of, the possible conditions this may be pointing to is absence of that thing. Remember: saying something is evidence is not the same as saying the evidence is proof.

The US is supposedly selling Democracy, free speech, and freedom of the press.

Government propaganda, particularly covert government propaganda, has no place in Democracy. By using these methods to influence foreign populations not only is the US is undercutting its own message, they're doing through the agency (USAID) that is supposed to be spreading that message.

This is why sunlight is essential, because without it governments fall victim to group think and short sighted objectives and lose the ability to plan for the long term by standing on principal.

All hail Enlil, father of the Gods! Enlil's commands are by far the loftiest, his words are holy, his utterances are immutable!

Enhil kicked my dog, you insensitive clod