shirgall

I didn't mean the "god of nature" and neither did Stefan, by my interpretation.

He's not telling people to become Christians but to appreciate the teaching of values and the urge to take action.

To answer your question, when was the last time you heard about a shootout over sales tax or the inclusion of SJW crap in High School Economics? What's is the case is that collectivists overreached and the backlash led to Trump, which was an opportunity for voluntarists. Ron Paul might have been an opportunity too, but he was unable to work against the GOP establishment.

More local control is preferable to more collective control. Thus, nationalism is better than globallism and states' rights are better than federalism... until we finally get down to individuals. Since you can have either open borders or a welfare state but not both, you have to pick which one you can shut down most effectively. Who's making arguments from effect? Political action, if effective, is preferable to violent action. I don't even know what you are talking about with the last one. So... did you have an argument or just a kitchen sink?

Looking for citations for all of Sam's unsupported assertions. He made a ton.

I didn't find any source for that figure in Adios America, but she cites an interesting book which I have not read called "Who Are We?" by Samuel Huntington that describes the history of immigration. That might be a good jumping off point. https://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-We-Challenges-Americas/dp/0684870541

Word salad is not nutritious.

My point was that concepts exist only when brains exist to think about them.

A photon is the smallest particle with a lifespan greater than a nanosecond that can impart information.

These abstractions are only invented and processed by conscious minds via chemical and electrical processes. When the brains processing abstractions die, those abstractions cease to matter (pun intended). Color of a certain wavelength, and fruit of a particular genotype, exist, but applying a general description and label to such things is not timeless, it's ephemeral.

The language of the universe is written in photons, as they are the tiniest amount of information transmitted from any place to another. I think constructions like Boss's post are poetic, but I would instead say Math being the language of the universe lends too much substance to an abstraction. One could say that the rules of math are solid and physical phenomena can be modeled with constructs that follow those rules, and that has led us to wonderful confirmed predictions in the past. In my experience, atheists don't ask the question in the original post. But since I don't hang with atheists that are collectivists, I'm not exactly dealing with the majority. The question I ear asked is "What evidence led you to believe what you believe?" and "What would convince you otherwise?"

If you are listening through and are volunteering to offer tags, an email to [email protected] indicating podcast number and tag cloud would be helpful.

Removed my emoji, I see.

Sense data!

Poisoning the well. Then you dive into plasticity when epigeneticists study *stable* phenotypes. Genes determine a lot and environment determines a lot. Even the genetic blueprint of a human requires a specific chemical environment to make a liver cell versus make a synapse. We are, however, far away from the subject possible genetic influence on personality. Let's circle back: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/brain/

An entire field of science gone with one assertion. https://infogalactic.com/info/Behavioral_epigenetics

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/754555/europe-terror-spain-anti-aircraft-weapons-jihadis-isis

I've always thought the answer was teaching critical thinking. Information is plentiful and easy to find so the critical skill is evaluating it, not amassing it.

Concern trolls are people that raise issues in the guise of helping but actually detract from a forum or a conversation by wasting time and increasing frustration.

Stealing from a famous wiki: Gazzaniga, M.S., & Heatherton, T.F. (2006). Psychological science: Mind, brain, and behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Marcus, G. (2004). The birth of the mind. New York: Basic Books. Loehlin, J.C., & Nichols, R.C. (1976). Hereditary, environment, and personality: A study of 850 sets of twins. Austin: University of Texas Press Goldberg, L.R. (1990). "An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59: 1216–1229. PMID 2283588. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216. Jeronimus, B.F.; Riese, H.; Sanderman, R.; Ormel, J. (2014). "Mutual Reinforcement Between Neuroticism and Life Experiences: A Five-Wave, 16-Year Study to Test Reciprocal Causation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 107(4): 751–64. doi:10.1037/a0037009.

If he does it too much, Paleolithic Women will avoid such a "stoner".

Concern trolling is raising a "concern" as if you are trying to help but are actually weighing down a discussion group with negativity and casting the subject in a bad light. A notorious use is raising emotional concerns about issues of logic.

The methodology of science requires conclusions contrary to credible (well-documented, with a trained eye for sources of error) evidence to be discarded. Peer review is used to discard a claim, not to support it. Consensus is not part of the equation. Anyone can participate. If there is instead persuasion, collusion, or coercion, it becomes politics, not science.

As a reminder, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is a unanimous CONSENSUS judgement of 12 "reasonable and prudent persons" evaluating the carefully curated evidence of a court. It's not the same as a scientific judgement.