A4E

According to wikipedia, Scandinavia and east Asia, and China, have a majority of atheists and non religious people. Do these areas then also have a high rate of disappointment in one's father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment?

I felt, and I am pretty sure others did too, that you are asking because you perhaps think that it would turn into a boring world. Your follow up post has this undertone. So even if it was not your intention, it is more provocative than curious. Its nice that you make it clear that you don't want to provoke though. It is an interesting question yes. But we have enough history to find transitions to compare it to, so that we get an idea of what the potential results could be: In a very early hunting gatherer time: "If we discover a way to make and control fire to be able to cook a wide range of vegetables and meat that are hard to eat raw, what would you do on a more frequent full stomach?" In a more advanced tribal time: "If we can figure out a way to more effectively transport things around so that we don't have to carry them with our hands all the time, meaning more spare time and energy, what would you want to be doing?" In a early civilized village time: "What if we will be able to make different symbols that mean different things on an object, which can be seen and understood by anyone else looking at that object, even without the person making the symbol having to be there to say or explain anything, such that information will be greatly increased among people, how would you spend your days?" In a rowboat time: "If we will figure out how to make our boats move across the oceans with drastically less strength needed on our part, which would make space in our lives to do other things, and also in more locations around the world, what would you want to do with your life?" In a pen and paper, postal time: "If we can create a way to send a 'letter' to a recipient on the other side of the planet in mere seconds, and such letters are being sent by the millions every minute, what would you do with your time on our planet?"

Looking at that thread, I am so happy that I stopped spending time in ordinary forums. It is definitely not psychologically healthy.

More of what I am doing now, since I will not feel I have to spend some time updating myself and contributing against bad people and bad ideologies. In my case more programming. I love it. But I have a feeling you think that we would reach a ceiling of knowledge and technology. Is your perception that there would be nothing more to discover or work towards?

The original meaning has nearly nothing to do with my life anymore. It was a kind of narcissistic cuIt. But I managed to get out of it and not let it get in my way, even though everyone knew they would be put to shame if they left. But it was shrinking for every year, so I guess I was fortunate that way. I grew fond of the 3 letter nick though, and it can be interpreted many ways, but I usually just let other people assign it a meaning if they want, because it can be fun. I am more than familiar with this. It almost killed my mother. Recently a friend of mine who is just as open minded as me had an old friend of his own (60 year old) who got cancer. It was serious and large, in the neck area I think. My friend researched online, and bought lots of apricot seeds and gave to him 3 weeks before he was supposed to start chemo. When he arrived at the hospital, they scanned him as routine before chemo, and the cancer was gone. I already knew about apricot seeds like 7 years ago, and we have been talking about a lot of things, but my friend claims that I never mentioned it to him...

I would like to examine your claim here. Do you mean the people in white coats dealing patented artificial chemicals to people, often making them more sick or even resulting in them dying. Or did you mean something else?

This is interesting. What do you use, or what do you do, in order to correctly identify which buckets to put into?

Wow. Awesome! I adored these videos of other speakers before, and have had ideas to make animations with FDR sound. But have also been wondering why no one ever made these sketch animations for FDR, until now I guess.

Thanks for your post. I am getting more and more sure that there is more psychology involved in debates like these in threads and offline, that perhaps no one understand yet. The backfire effect should be recognized and respected. I have seen and experienced my fair share of such an effect over the years, so I believe the backfire effect to be real. So mine and other people's approach to attempt to reach out or 'convince' other people of alternate viewpoints, may be pointless and even counterproductive. If you are not a friend, or an authority, this method just does not work in at least 98% of all cases in my experience. It has been my main method, but I have experimented with many other methods. For example, one time I assumed the role of a very rigid authoritarian humanitarian global warming alarmist, that was proclaiming and expecting most people to embrace a new invention. It is supposed to be a big facial mask that captures the Co2 you breath out, and then converts it into energy. Have no idea if it really works or not. The thread went on for around 50 posts, around 7 from me. It got the closet sceptics/deniers out laughing at the whole thing, but I doubt it had any effect on the believers who agreed with the seriousness of global warming, but was not ready to start using the mask. I realize that it may be time to put the main failing method, and other methods, on the shelf, and instead try out street epistemology that was presented to us in a thread here recently. It looks promising. I am willing to accept that mine and others main method is not working, and that I have been wrong for thinking and hoping it would work. I know that I cannot know 100% that humans were not on the moon, and that it may look arrogant when I call you believers. However, when someone is claiming that humans have been on the moon, and you accept that without seeing it for yourself by ie standing on the moon to watch them land, that makes you a believer, just like I accepted and believed it when the TV told me. When they show a video of a pod with a parachute landing in the ocean, it is we ourselves who choose to believe it when they say that it came back from the moon. In debate forms (like these in this thread) such things are completely mundane. There really is no way to avoid it. People (and myself) cannot stick on one item for too long as it will be boring and most people usually have like 100 other things to bring into the discussion. Also we automatically assume that other people are interested in more information. Again there might be a lot of different psychology going around. I know what you want to get at, but it is kind of non sticky, because I and others are the ones who were willing to reevaluate our belief in the moon landing to begin with. I have had my moments of turmoil. For example; "Is it I who am crazy, and everyone else who are levels above me, and I just don't get it? Those webpages say that humans have 10 major problems to overcome, and 40 other unsolved problems, before it would be safe to go to the moon. What is going on?? Should I just accept the story and ignore everything I have read??" This is why I made my previous post, even if some of the items was not posted in this thread before. Because I am pretty sure that it is not going to do it. Just is not going to work. Does not matter if it is crappy evidence or mind blowing evidence. I know from experience and threads like these that it is just not going to work, except building higher and higher pillars under the feet of everyone involved. That is why I would rather start asking questions and listen/read. I commend you for being motivated then. I have accepted for many years that if someone is really going to change their mind, they have to do it themselves, which also undermines debate forms. I am just as guilty as anyone to jump from one thing to another, but it does have to do with time and willingness to share as much as possible. So I guess people in threads are working against each others comfort level and making it harder that way as well.

I have a question for believers. What is it going to take for you to reevaluate your belief? We know that... 45ish years passing without returning, is not enough. No commercial tourism to the moon, is not enough. No moon base, is not enough. An astronaut saying in 2015 that "right now we can only stay in (low) earth orbit", is not enough. Photographic experts criticizing the photos, is not enough. The Apollo astronauts severe lack of aerobic capabilities on the moon, is not enough. Photos of the lunar rover, with no tracks behind or in front, is not enough. Featureless backgrounds on photos supposedly taken on the moon, is not enough. Inescapable heat issues, quote: "The astronauts could not have withstood the intense radiation on the surface of the moon whether it be infrared (heat) or other electromagnetic radiation. Just considering the heat radiation alone, standing in the direct sunlight, the space suits would have been incapable of maintaining the immense temperature differential (with reference to body temperature) as the temperature in the sunlight would be far greater than what we experience here on Earth. The temperature on the sunlit surface of the moon is at least 250 degrees F. which is well above the boiling point of water. In short, there would be no effective means of stopping the build-up of heat. Convection as a means of dissipating heat wouldn't work as there is no atmosphere on the moon." ...is not enough. The very real dangers of the Van Allen radiation belt, is not enough. Russian officials stating in July 2015 that they want to investigate if US really did go to the moon, is not enough. Chineese rover allegedly finding completely different soil samples on the moon, is not enough. A complete no show of stars in all photos, is not enough. The rock marked C, is not enough. The layered cross hairs: Quote "The cameras used by astronauts during the moon landings had a multitude of cross-hairs to aid with scaling and direction. These are imprinted over the top of all photographs. Some of the images, however, clearly show the cross-hairs behind objects in the scene, implying that photographs may have been edited or doctored after being taken. The photograph shown above is not an isolated occurrence. Many objects are shown to be in front of the cross-hairs, including the American flag in one picture and the lunar rover in another." ...is not enough. Duplicate backgrounds used for scenes that are said to be miles apart from each other, is not enough. Photographic film showing no effects of space radiation, despite NASA themselves allegedly showing space radiation effects on photographic film in an experiment in 1994, concluding that photographic film is pretty much useless in space... is not enough. Neil Armstrong and a multitude of other astronauts refusing to swear on the bible that they had been on the moon, is not enough. Not sending monkeys or any other animal towards the moon before people, to see if it is safe, is not enough. NASA losing the original moon landing film, is not enough. All moon landers successfully landing on the moon, and lift off, and return the people to earth, even though Neil Armstrong was unable to land one on Earth, is not enough. The first moon landing astronauts looking like they were being tried for a crime in the follow up press conference. Certainly not like they had just been to the moon... is not enough. Everything else in this thread, is not enough. Scores of people, with websites, and in threads like these, bringing up countless anomalies and issues that I did not... is not enough. So what do you believers think it is going to take for you to reevaluate your belief? I really honestly would like to know.

Yes, she does not seem to have any particular problem talking about serious issues. But your nr 7 made me think a lot.

Awesome! Are you by any chance that rich guy in Montreal with a sea house? Sorry, was so tempting.

I am curious about nr 7. Could you explain why it is a red flag? And nr 9 could be interpreted to mean a lot of people today. Do you mean if it seems to be an actual body part for most of the day, and is given the most attention? Or do you also mean people who routinely spend around 2 hours on facebook, and 2 hours texting people per day?

Is it correct that you also have a fear of verbally criticizing other people? I certainly have that as well, but with close friends or family it is and should be easier. With a close relationship, it should be automatic and peaceful without any significant fear. Since else it can not be called a close relationship. It really hurts when I see someone I thought was good, turns out to have bad sides. I have been there too. In one animal abuse situation I was too cowardly to speak up, and I was in pain for at least 2 days. I did start to move the animals out of harms way but I am pretty sure that if I had done something more effective against continued abuse, I would feel better afterwards.

Thanks to OP for the video. Very interesting! And there seems to be a wealth of interesting talks with people on his channel. Hours and hours of engulfing and entertaining videos. Thanks again.

While this might be true, I have almost never seen someone easily shedding a belief. I myself had to do extensive research before I let go of some beliefs, even though I did not benefit anything else than perhaps a trust in world history being correct. Between strangers or acquaintances, I'd say shedding of beliefs almost never happen. However among friends, what you describe has much more merit.

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -Mark Twain Perhaps my favorite quote. Most people's knowledge will continue to be in disarray as long as brainwashed people spread their lies to young people.

Does it simulate being confined within a womb? I am sure babies can get scared or feel abandoned if something (warm) is not confining them. In the wild, it would be a real threat to its life. I don't think every baby will feel safe even if holding or playing with their hands or other situations where they are given freedom to move around, because from their perspective they have no clue what environment/situation they are in. ...If it could be proven that the baby did not have some other need that is.

I stumbled upon some Co2 research that I had not seen before, and decided to make a page about it.

Has children and says that you have to love them.

Yes We Can Change We Can Believe In Note that while "Yes We Can" may be nonsense, it actually is something sensical when played backwards.

Have you experienced these 2 situations yourself? Did you ask "Can I help?", What happened?? I am sorry to everyone contributing. I have some kind of mental block and don't want to reply. I don't want to deal with this memory. It still hurts that I did nothing significant and being too cowardly to do something afterwards. I am not in that country now though. I did not expect that I would turn into an angry jellyfish when seeing public child abuse first hand. One can only speculate if I would have done something if the abuse had escalated. Thank you for your support. I hope I will do something if there is a next time, because this episode seems to have left an emotional scar in me.

Never jealous and never suspicious of affairs. (conversely a good sign if present in moderation)

I don't think any garbage from him would have stayed with me. Reading your posts I started crying. This has really gotten to me. I am choking up. I don't think I have seen public child abuse before. The people working in the restaurant was very quiet and was just mostly looking down. Which probably means that it has been going on for a while. And there wasn't just the slapping, but also threats of slapping when she was sitting at the table.