Religious belief drops

Quote: kenarman

The truth is that the pepper reflects sunlight at a set wavelength. Different receptors might interpret that frequency in different ways.

When you have DoubleGold blocked and only see his posts through what other people quote, it often feels like being on psychedelics.

Kinda fun actually.

It would be 800,000 people based upon 8 billion population.

So some of those persons might see a red, pink, or orange pepper and everyone else a yellow pepper, ignoring brightness.

--------------------------

Color Blindness
.
.
.
Blue-Yellow Color Blindness

The blue-yellow type of color blindness is rare. This type occurs in about 1 out of every 10,000 people and affects men and women equally. It causes problems distinguishing between yellow and red and between blue and green.

Most people get this type from an eye condition, such as:

Glaucoma
Optic neuritis
Diabetic retinopathy
Age-related macular degeneration
Central serous retinopathy
Optic nerve damage

The two types of blue-yellow color blindness are:

1. Tritanomaly
People with this type tend to confuse blue and green, as well as orange, yellow, and red.

2. Tritanopia
Tritanopia means you can’t tell the difference between these colors:

Blue and green
Purple and red
Pink and yellow
It also makes colors less bright.
.
.
.
https://www.visioncenter.org/conditions/color-blindness/

------------------------------------

I located an interesting report out of the UK.


The UK is among the worst in adhering to religion relative to other countries.

The recent report shows younger people believe more in hell than their elders, for some reason.

---------------------------------

Belief, faith and religion: shifting attitudes in the UK

May 2023
.
.
.
Page 12:
.
.
.
Younger people are more likely than older people to say they believe in hell

Belief in hell has declined among
older cohorts, to the point that they
are now less likely than younger
groups to believe in hell.

For example, 32% of Gen Z and
Millennials say they hold this belief,
compared with 18% of Baby
Boomers and 24% of the Pre-War
generation.
.
.
.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/lost-faith-the-uk's-changing-attitudes-to-religion.pdf

---------------------------------

Quote: DoubleGold

So if I claimed there is no God.

Would that be absolute truth or relative truth (self-truth)?

It can be, 'Your truth,' I guess, even though that's a phrase I really can't stand. In that sense, relative. If you think the statement rises to the level of truth, that's fine.

That's what makes me an Agnostic; I don't think there's a God, but I wouldn't make an actual claim either way.

Quote: DoubleGold

"What if there is no pepper?"

It can be scientifically proven.

We "know" there is a pepper.

"In the case of the pepper, the, 'Absolute truth,' would still be a matter of perception and language."


Another phrase for absolute truth is absolute reality.

It implies being real (not imagination nor illusion).

"in this specific instance, it doesn't actually matter whether there was an object or not."


Then we could not scientifically prove it.

You don't know that there's a pepper, at least, not the pepper I referred to. It could be scientifically proven, I think, for now, that I ate a pepper...but there might not have been a pepper at the time I said there was.

If you couldn't scientifically prove it, then you're agreeing with me. My point was I knew there was a yellow pepper yesterday at the time I wrote it, but you couldn't KNOW that, but rather, took my word because you perceived I had no reason to lie.

In any event, we're not talking about language, at this point; I have no interest in arguing about, 'Absolute' truth or reality. Whether something is absolute, or not, is not useful when it comes to our experience and communication.

There are several of these animated videos.

The 3D digital code (DNA helix) controls the actions within a living cell (see video).



I've been writing 2D computer code for most of my life.



So some questions are, how did the code get there and how does each species of every living thing on Earth get a variation of the code?

Keep in mind, if there's a bug in the code, a living thing could die.

So the code had to be precise.


We're talking super-intelligence.

------------------------------

The Inner Life of the Cell Animation

Jul 11, 2011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y

-----------------------------

Quote: Mission146

It can be, 'Your truth,' I guess, even though that's a phrase I really can't stand. In that sense, relative. If you think the statement rises to the level of truth, that's fine.

That's what makes me an Agnostic; I don't think there's a God, but I wouldn't make an actual claim either way.

I have come to think that probability is a good measure of "truth" or at least things we believe. I usually start with the Sun in the sky as it's one of the hardest things to claim non-existence of. It consistently shows up, you can suffer effects from it, other people can see it, if you block its light from plants that require sun they will eventually die, and perhaps a number of other things one can claim to experience of it. I assign it 99.99% probability of existing. Then you evaluate other things based on scale. For instance, I put the existence of alien UFOs really low on the probability list. They meet very few proof of being there. While one can claim a lot of people believe in god, and even claim experiences from god, beyond that, the confirmation of consistency or reliable proof becomes extremely sketchy. Furthermore, most of them argue he mostly operates in a supernatural way which is a thing which as far as I know, there is no consistent way to evaluate if it even exists. The supernatural, that is.

...even if we live in a simulation, (like a SIMS world) where nothing is real, probability is useful. The more something interacts, is common and reliable in a SIMS world, the more it can be assigned a strong case of being important vs. conditions that rarely happen, even if nothing at all is real there.

Quote: rxwine

I have come to think that probability is a good measure of "truth" or at least things we believe. I usually start with the Sun in the sky as it's one of the hardest things to claim non-existence of. It consistently shows up, you can suffer effects from it, other people can see it, if you block its light from plants that require sun they will eventually die, and perhaps a number of other things one can claim to experience of it. I assign it 99.99% probability of existing. Then you evaluate other things based on scale. For instance, I put the existence of alien UFOs really low on the probability list. They meet very few proof of being there. While one can claim a lot of people believe in god, and even claim experiences from god, beyond that, the confirmation of consistency or reliable proof becomes extremely sketchy. Furthermore, most of them argue he mostly operates in a supernatural way which is a thing which as far as I know, there is no consistent way to evaluate if it even exists. The supernatural, that is.

I largely agree with you, but for me, the sun can be 100%, 99.99%, 5%; it doesn't matter. I experience the sun, and when I refer to the sun, people know what I'm talking about. In addition to what the sun actually does, vis-a-vis making life possible, the previous sentence makes the sun useful.

Let's say that there's some crazy metaphysics going on and the sun doesn't actually exist: What does that change for you and I? We still have this thing we call, 'The sun,' doing its thing.

Let's say you have 100 people and all 100 of those people say, "There is a God. It is the God of Abraham. He absolutely exists. It cannot be otherwise." In the context of those 100 people, the matter of the God of Abraham is truth; they'd likely say absolute truth.

Of course, 100/100 is 100%, so that makes it really easy for them, in isolation. When they interact with others, such as myself, I might say, "You haven't shown enough evidence for me to accept, as truth, this being you have described."

But, if 100% of ALL people did believe in the absolute truth of God, then that would be just as good as God being real, even if he wasn't. I guess that's more true with God than anything because, as they eventually die, it's not as if they'd ever know they were wrong.

Quote: Mission146

I largely agree with you, but for me, the sun can be 100%, 99.99%, 5%; it doesn't matter. I experience the sun, and when I refer to the sun, people know what I'm talking about. In addition to what the sun actually does, vis-a-vis making life possible, the previous sentence makes the sun useful.

Let's say that there's some crazy metaphysics going on and the sun doesn't actually exist: What does that change for you and I? We still have this thing we call, 'The sun,' doing its thing.

Let's say you have 100 people and all 100 of those people say, "There is a God. It is the God of Abraham. He absolutely exists. It cannot be otherwise." In the context of those 100 people, the matter of the God of Abraham is truth; they'd likely say absolute truth.

Of course, 100/100 is 100%, so that makes it really easy for them, in isolation. When they interact with others, such as myself, I might say, "You haven't shown enough evidence for me to accept, as truth, this being you have described."

But, if 100% of ALL people did believe in the absolute truth of God, then that would be just as good as God being real, even if he wasn't. I guess that's more true with God than anything because, as they eventually die, it's not as if they'd ever know they were wrong.

I think I assign probability, because I need some sort of rating system for everything that makes sense and puts it in a useful order for me.