Diageo

Yes ReZ, while you may not be a target because you no longer have the protection bean, you are a target because you have the knowledge of what is the protection bean and are more likely to any more you get in the future. So please, tell us which bean it is. Now I look stupid... Confirmed townies are a target not because they are confirmed to be town for the mafia, but because they are less likely to be investigated, tracked, or targeted again, meaning the pool of possible mafia is smaller for the town to find.

If I'm mafia and lying about what the brown bean does, then I will be found out. If I have not lied, then you still have accurate bean information regardless of alignment. I could be lying about Sheikah but then the bean could be inaccurate. Regardless, we will be sure on what the brown bean does. You're top of my list now rummy.

Aww, nothing happened. I thought someone would have fallen but didn't die. That's not defying death. That's like jumping into a pool on the roof of a really high building, and then sitting on the fence.

On one hand, knowing which bean is for protection means we will be able to protect people when we want. It will allow us to focus on the beans that we know have the best effects. It will force mafia players to use good beans to appear innocent. On the other hand, those who willingly tell everyone the effects of their beans are more likely to be killed, as they are known to hold certain information and to continually divulge important town information. Although, if everyone tells everyone what each bean means, then no one is more likely for death than another. Which I think is the optimum strategy, and anyone against it would likely be mafia. The brown bean investigates alignment, and it said that Sheikah is town. It was either hold onto the information of who is town and be killed, or give away who I investigated and make them a bigger target. However, now we know which person we should protect.

Religion does have good effects and bad. But the good effects are things that do not need religion to sustain them. We can explain what life is about, you're just not happy with it. Your questions are vague and probably unanswerable because of their vagueness. Is there a bigger picture? What does that even mean? Nothing happens after death, just like before conception. You are either ignoring answers that already exist, or looking for ones that mean nothing. Atheism has some principles. Such as not believing in things that have no evidence to support them. Atheism doesn't need more principles than that. And it's not constant depression. That is solely your opinion. You want principles? Get them from something else. Social research, psychology, communism, whatever it is. There are enough principles out there, you don't need atheism to have it all. And it can be enough, you just need aversion therapy towards ingrained psychological aversions you have developed from others around you. Are you saying that everything that has good marketing is a good thing? Because if not, then that point is irrelevant. Yes I understand why people believe in religion. But I also understand that it is detrimental to the progress and well-being of society, and to myself. Codes of conduct can and have existed without religion, so has pleasure and torture. Life progress as well, aspiring to higher things, bettering themselves. These things are all attainable without religion. Exclusive member groups can also exist, places to exchange ideas, social interactions. Make one yourself. Meet with people who want to talk about certain things, talk about how you want to better yourselves and how, do it all without superstitious drivel. If you can do all that without religion then all that's left is either neutral or negative. Religion never had a monopoly on morality. There is a reason why religion exists, but it's not a reason to maintain it. There's a reason why obesity exists, it's still unhealthy. People's social and emotional needs can be catered to without lies. Atheism doesn't need an ideology. You want to talk to people? Make a discussion group, join a club. You don't need atheism to tell you what to do just like you don't need religion to tell you what to do. I don't know what Atheism+ is, but that is irrelevant. I have meaning in my life. Many other atheists do. I have freedom from belief in baseless lies as well. I have both meaning and freedom. You claim that atheism is depression, hollowness and meaningless. But it's not. You just see it that way. I'll finish with a quote from George Bernard Shaw: And if you have noticed, I have replied to Iun inline, and to Ville after his quote. Here's an example right here. In this forum, we can agree on some sets of morals, not because they are written in scripture, but because they are the right thing to do. We fulfil a social need by talking to others, by telling them our woes and sharing our pleasures. We get validation for our accomplishments and get told off for our trespasses. We are an exclusive group. We have everything good about religion without the bad (mostly).

Looking awesome.

I don't see a problem with only-children.* *Says the only child.

I've listened to it now while doing other things and it's just meh. I'll let the radio's and club's repeating chorus show me if it's worth any attention.

I really like the Great Gatsby. It gave me a feeling of "Love is destructive" which is rare and a welcome change. Whether that's what was intended or not is irrelevant. Also I really loved the music and listen to it regularly.

That's great, except for the fact that I never trade with anyone, battle anyone else or play it while I'm outside the house.

A new meta-analysis found that there is an inverted relationship between religiosity and intelligence. It's called: The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations. It says...

I'm going to assume you didn't watch the video. Because the religious experiences they were able to create repeatedly is out of body experiences, feelings and visions of a presence of several figures around them, feelings and visions of warmth and fire, and feelings and visions of being watched over and protected. All of these things markedly different than someone saying "Oh god", out of a reflexive cultural conditioning. I said "My god" when I got a fright from someone the other night, but that was not even close to a religious experience. I'm glad after all the effort I put into what I looked up and read, that I would get a response so well thought out like this. I sincerely hope you're joking.

Vote: Not to force anyone to eat a white bean. Really rolls off the tongue.

So super awesome physicists weighed the universe, checked it's curvature geometrically, and found that the total universal energy cancels to 0. Meaning an universe can create itself from nothing. Also, they removed all radiation and particles from a small location, seeing that nothing both weighs something and contains energy. Dark energy and dark matter. So yeah, awesome. Lawrence Krauss talks about it. Listen to this amazing guy here.

Please add something to the discussion. A neuroscientist by the name of Michael Persinger claims that when humans became able to consider their own deaths, that this created massive anxiety, which developed another part of the brain. This part had to be everywhere, in all situations, and be bigger than themselves. A connection to this entity would allow the reduction of this anxiety, by creating a presence of "something" that unexplainable. He says this area is in the temporal lobes and has created a contraption to affect this area through electromagnetic stimulation. He was able to force participants to feel a strong presence of figures, entities, things of power, things around them. He was able to increase the feeling that there's something more. He was able to create repeatedly a strong religious experience. This experience, if occurring by any other stimuli, would make anyone believe in a higher power. It could explain why people claim to have powerful visions of words straight from god. Additionally, people with temporal lobe epilepsy, if suffering from a simple partial seizure, will feel a strong presence around them, and are likely to respond more positively to religious words. There's also a very interesting documentary series about lots of interesting questions. One of which is, did we invent god. In case your strapped for time. Children have evolved to be naive. Animals requires theory of mind to believe in god, thus apes cannot. Out of body experiences occur when there is a dissonance between the Kinesthetic sense and visual sense, which can be replicated in a lab. Minds are likely to try and create reasons for things when they feel they have no control. Talking to god or praying arouses the same parts of the brain in believers as when talking to actual people. Certain temporal lobes control the kinesthetic sense and stimulation of that part can create out of body experiences. Lastly since reality is really subjective and dependent to what the brain tells us, belief in god makes god real for those who believe in it (it also means they are crazy). I'm just going to talk to myself apparently then :p.

Reviving this because I've been watching a lot of stuff on the topic. I wouldn't say the supernatural stuff of religion is small stuff. People who genuinely believe in any of the supernatural claims either create a cognitive dissonance in their head where they actively try not to think about the topic, distort their view of the laws of the universe, reject explanations and understanding of actual causes and lose the curiosity of the topic. All things that I would consider "large". Also, any morality invented by people in completely different cultures, several thousand years ago, with very basic knowledge of human psychology and biology, are probably lacking in scope and content. Saying you agree with a religion because you see good parts of its teachings, is like saying you agree with a certain political affiliation because they have some nice views among their terrible ones. Just like political views, it should be taken as a whole. I read the thread over again to make sure I'm not repeating any topic that's already been discussed. Luckily it's mostly semantic. So I think this discussion ended prematurely and there's things I would like to talk about (if people would like to join me). I'm interested in the psychology of religion, why people believe in certain things from neurochemical, biological, cultural, sociological, circumstantial point of view. What it can teach us about human behaviour and thought, and even how it can be a clue into changing it. Another topic of interest is it's effect on our lives and scientific progress. What people think life on earth would be like without religion, for better or for worse. Would you be highly affected? Do people think that religion hinders science? Do people think people can be both good scientists and highly religious. The last topic I want to talk about is about trying to disprove religion. The scientific method involves falsification. It starts with the null hypothesis and compares that to the test condition. As such, you begin with an observation or belief, hypothesise on a rational observable effect of such a belief and then test it against the null hypothesis. If there is a significant statistical difference, the null hypothesis is falsified. If there is no difference then the effect is falsified. Of course it is dependent on sample sizes and the chosen alpha level, as it is statistical analysis, especially in psychology. So if we consider rational effects of absolute truths claimed by religion, if we are able to falsify the effects, we are in a sense disproving religion. Not in the technical sense of the word, but in the sense of the word used in science when analysing any non-superstitious-based behaviour. I will give examples from the catholic faith because it is the easiest. World created within the last 10,000 years, disproven. Noah's ark, disproven. Universe created in seven days, disproven. Shroud of turin, disproven. The birth story of Jesus, disproven. Effect of prayer, disproven. Wafer and wine literally transforming into flesh and wine, disproven. Soul holding personality, disproven. Soul holding memory, disproven. Then there are things that can be explained, and are effectively disproven. Religious visions, simple partial seizures. Possession, seizures. Miraculous healing, placebo. Feeling of tranquillity when dying, neurotransmitter release. If the bible holds absolute truths and these are changed, then they are no longer absolute, and discredited. I could go on and include other religions but you get the picture. So basically, any concrete claims religion has made that actually affects a person's life have been mostly "disproven" in the scientific sense. Would you agree then that it disproves religion? On another note. As quantum physics moves ever increasingly into the realm that is unintuitive, and shows something like that matter can be created from nothing, will that reduce belief in god or increase it? How will religion evolve in the future. On the arrogance of atheists. Assuming that these atheists are actually rational and understanding of the empirical scientific method, they admit that they don't have all the answers, have a curiosity to find the answers, and is willing to admit they are wrong with proper evidence. This is humble. Claiming you know the answers, that there are absolute truths, that you will not change your opinion in the face of evidence (since you have faith). This is arrogant. Let's also look at spirituality that is so often mentioned. So what exactly do people mean when they say they are spiritual or believe in spirituality? Is spirituality not either religious or superstitious (or both)?

Boy, the way you blowin' up my phone won't make me leave no faster, put my coat on faster, leave my girls no faster. I should've left my phone at home 'cause this is a disaster. Callin' like a collector, sorry, I cannot answer.

What does have to do with Pikmin 4?

These megavolutions just seems to add more hair. It might be very fun and engaging, but I'll wait to see how it works.

It comes from looking at paedophiles.

It is weird.

More people don't use it because more people don't use it.

Does this include the republic of Ireland?

I am in .

Didn't really understand this story.