Rocky

The reason this didn't come up with a preview is that there is an emoji in the description. Neil de Grasse Tyson talks about eternal curiosity.

Not that the way I look at the issue matters to anyone (no homework assignment here ) but I see the question of raising a child as an atheist is a question distinct from but still sort of related to morality without religion.

What happens when society stops worshipping God? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zuckerman https://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/phil-zuckerman/

Wow. I like the "ever learning" part of that, but wonder about "never able to come to the knowledge of truth." One of the most profound "truths" I've learned over the decades seems to be that the more I learn, the more there is TO learn. Problems to be solved, individually and societally, present questions to answered. So far, these ideas, concepts and notions are abstract. I also wonder if never being able to come to the knowledge of the truth is also abstract... or if it becomes relational, or only understandable when reflected upon in the context of whatever problem humankind faces (or faces down) at any moment. For example, society apparently has learned how to harness physical power to escape the gravity and atmosphere of Earth. In that context, "we" have come to fundamental knowledge of certain physical truths/realities. So, in terms of the OP, you posed to us, is there some particular context or for a specific problem you want to come closer to knowledge of truth? That could open up the entire realm of philosophy for endless discussion. In terms of "throwing money at" particular problems to solve them, are you curious about any other strategies to solve any given problem(s) other than public or private investment in potential solutions? ----- On THAT subject, a book that found me over the last week on that very problem, Big Bets: How Large-Scale Change Really Happens, does in fact explore questions of complexities a society encounters when it (or some people in it) want to solve potentially massive problems. Money, in this context, is a proxy for resources. Relevant resources to solve problems include time, the effort of experts, manufacturing facilities, and so forth. From the Goodreads blurb about the book and its author, Rajiv J. Shah is no stranger to pulling off the impossible, from helping vaccinate 900 million children at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to a high-pressure race against the clock to stop the spread of Ebola. His secret? A big bets philosophy—the idea that seeking to solve problems rather than make incremental improvements can attract the unlikely partners with the power and know-how to achieve transformational change. Part career sweeping memoir, part inspirational playbook, Big Bets offers a master class in decision-making, leadership, and changing the world one bet at a time. Shah animates his strategic insights with vivid behind-the-scenes stories, memorable conversations with household names that helped shape his approach to creating change, and his own personal growth as an Indian-American from an immigrant family looking for a way to belong. He distills his battle-tested strategies for creating change, arguing that big bets have a surprising advantage over cautious ones: a bold vision can attract support, collaborations, and fresh ideas from key players who might otherwise be resistant. Throughout the book, Shah traces his unlikely path to the Rockefeller Foundation across a changing world and through some of the most ambitious, dramatic global efforts to create a better world. ----- Nevertheless, your question inspires me. It also has me recall Albert Einstein's reflection on imagination. “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” ― Albert Einstein and my current favorite bible passage: 2 My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, 2 turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding— 3 indeed, if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, 4 and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, 5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.

Humans, even those not suffering any form of dementia, are quite often prone to misguided rationalizations. It also has occurred to me over the last day or so that Christianity (and plenty of other religious belief systems) present/impose an adversarial worldview to any and everyone who embrace it. I'm not saying I completely disbelieve God, but reflecting on my last four or five decades, I can't say I've benefitted from this particular adversarial framework.

Eloquent. Poignant.

https://www.guilford.com/books/The-Mindful-Self-Compassion-Workbook/Neff-Germer/9781462526789 https://www.amazon.com/Mindful-Self-Compassion-Workbook-Yourself-Strength-ebook/dp/B07FJQ8WS1/ Beats the heck out of condemning oneself for not complying with cult demands. A person who accepts his/herself is able to fit in, "belong," or feel comfortable with healthier groups.

I wonder... if human perception which has obvious limits causes humankind to recognize some things without being able to investigate the scientific bases for the given phenomenon. This YT clip is long, but not as long, yet still understandable (or at least a listener can follow the words) by speeding it up. I find 1.75x workable for this purpose. Brian Greene is a scientist, author, and a darn good teacher. At least he tries to make things accessible for people who are not physicists. (yes... er, NO, this is not a homework assignment.) If you're interested, fine. If not, also fine.

"One of the most unexpected gifts you can receive is an early loss. Missing out on a job you really wanted. Trying a business idea that fails. Suffering a heartbreak. An early setback can become the catalyst for a wonderful next chapter—if you channel the emotion effectively. Disappointment is a hot burning fuel. Let it light your fire to become better." James Clear, author of Atomic Habits James Clear seems to be all about showing people how to shed their victimhood and maximize their agency. In that regard, I'm most grateful (besides for YOU, dear reader) for being on the doorstep of the next chapter of my life. As a nephew noted to me recently, I have a voice and can reach (some) people. I'm excited to see what that will look like as I am about to embark on my 70th trip around the sun. I must have blinked somewhere along the line, because I could have sworn I had just turned 34 and had my first offspring. The ride has been kinda bumpy. But I'm still upright and more thankful than ever.

There are ways around it. Balaam's a s s or a$$ or a.s.s.

You might be right. It's available to psychoanalyze a group by deciphering behaviors of people in the group even if one is not able to see into the heart of the individuals.

So, the more we ponder this cult facts website, can we be more certain it was generated by an AI? And will this computer science professor inadvertently provide TWI lawyers with legal theories on which to litigate over the matter? It's hard to say right now. As to being able to recognize the site was built using AI, I think back to 9/11/2001. When the first plane hit the first WTC tower, it wasn't immediately certain it was an act of terrorism. After the second plane hit the second tower, it was easy to infer it had been a coordinated terrorist attack. I don't consider THIS (development of the cult facts website) to be a coordinated terrorist attack, but it's probably fair to surmise each of the cults included on the website will characterize it as such????

Yes, that IS the key word. I certainly wouldn't venture a guess on any legal theory they might advance. Even if I had a guess, I wouldn't tell them. Further, I would surmise they WILL have such a conversation with their legal advocates well before they'll reach the acceptance stage and resign themselves to having to address any lingering deficiencies in their practices. Imagine the kind of resistance to change Stephen King wrote into his alternative history novel 11.22.63 to demonstrate the past's resistance to Jake Amberson's efforts to change it.

More power to you in that endeavor.

Intriguing insight. Yes, my first impression was that it took a LOT of work to put it together. My second impression was that much of it could be exaggerated. Then again, maybe that was my first impression and that it took a lot of work was second. Wired dot com says Large language models (LLM tools) like AI chatbots seem to be everywhere. If you understand them better, you can use them better. Your insight, that it's likely whoever put it together, did so with AI, seems very intriguing. You probably hit the nail on the head as far as what they could learn about how to more honestly handle "research." Will they? Maybe once they get people who know how to use the new AI chatbots. Then again, maybe not. My hunch is they'll see if their lawyers can figure out a way to get the page about them taken down before they get to the acceptance stage and decide to revamp the HQ corporate culture.

Somebody put A LOT of work into this linked website. Overall, the site is not limited in its research/claims/explanations of the cult with which we are most familiar. However, the eye catching claim at the top of the page for TWI is "Up to fifty high-ranking members conspired to coerce followers into having sex with the leaders" https://www.cultfacts.com/cults/the-way-international If you don't want to check it out, that's okay with me too.

Intriguing. To answer your question directly, I suppose YES, she could have been. But in and of itself, it proves very little, perhaps only that she values her time and surmised it would be very unlikely you would be interested if she continued the exchange. To ponder other possibilities... may or may not stay with you for a long time.

YES!

Indeed.

I appreciate your criticism. Even though I'm not recognizing the constructiveness of it.

You make some good points there. As to not clicking on links without knowing what it is, THAT is why I post the preview. If that doesn't interest you, fine. Don't participate in any discussion about something you don't care to view. However, I pick up a bit of an attitude in your comment. I do, however, disagree with you about not providing a starting place for discussion. Pardon me if I didn't provide ENOUGH discussion to interest you. I certainly did NOT give anyone a homework assignment. If there are other things contributing to your mood, I wish you well.

Isn't that STILL you declaring judgment on a person for their words even when you don't know what's in their heart? Fine, you don't like it. Fine, you "mind less..." but how does that impact what you believe your responsibility as a Christian would be to such people? Whether it's apparent incongruity about their salvation or anything else? I mean, come on... I'm not judging you. I'm just asking you to judge your words and your actions.

Attack? What attack? Wasn't I merely posting my opinion? Touchy much? Are you saying "freedom of speech" protects you from someone reflecting on and calling attention to what you post? Are you saying people who claim to be Christian DO have to justify themselves in words? Whatever happened to no one knows, other than God, what's in the heart of a person? I mean, it's not like putting someone on trial for a crime, is it? So, WordWolf, are you saying you have an opinion about Kristin du Mez' testimony? If so, why not just post it in terms of what your response is to her words?