GammaGlobulin

In addition, although I LOVE cats, I now worry that the neighborhood cat, which is also black, might pose a threat to my striated-heron family. House cats, as I know, are responsible for the "decimation" of local bird populations. Next time I see the black cat aprowling, I will do my best to chase him away. Bad Kitty!

Feeding them anything was just my poor attempt at sick humor. And, I would never feed local animals any of cheap cake-like bread coming out of my bread machine, anyway!

It's really so very TOUCHING for me to be able to see these tiny black, furry, ping-pong balls up so close, walking on their short toothpick-legs. You cannot even see that they have heads, in fact; they are THAT full of fluff.

My Dear Bird Friends, Recently, I have been blessed with the presence of a newly-moved-in Striated Heron which occasionally wanders around in my garden carrying worms dangling from beaks. Sometimes, they will approach to within about a foot of me. How is it that they know I will not eat them? Normally, I cannot approach birds without them taking wing whenever they see me. What is so different about this bird family? Should I try to feed them with the sweet tasting cake from my bread machine? Is it my smell they like? Can they detect that my demeanor is not threatening? Do they look into my eyes and just know that I mean them no harm? Also, the tiny children of the adult pair are just so cute. They look like nothing more than black super-furry ping pong balls with legs. I bet each little one would be nothing more than a bite-sized morsel if I were hungry. Therefore, I do not plan to eat them. Also, each little one is probably just full of worms. So then, why do they approach me without fear when other birds fear to tread so close? Curiously yours, Gamma

Not really. It is those scientists who base their work on "belief" and that are guided by "faith" who obviously are not relying on any evidence to support their claims who are pseudo-scientists. Pseudoscientists are NOT scientists, obviously. This is by definition.

He did a surprisingly good job when he interviewed my fellow-alumnus Elon. Really he did great. Such a change from his normal self. You can watch the interview by looking on YT for Musk's interview with Piers. Really nice job, and better than most.

This link is actually rather good. So, the BBC is obviously still good for many things. (I wonder if the guy in the photos doing planks might be the BBC's wine editor.)

Here is a clear and concise answer to the main question posed in the OP: "‘Asahna Bucha’ Day, also known as ‘Asalha Puja,’ or ‘Dhamma’ Day, depending on which region you’re observing it in, is a Buddhist festival celebrated on the full moon of the eighth lunar month. Usually, this falls in July of every year. This religious festival honors the Buddha and commemorates his first-ever sermon and the establishment of the Buddha’s ‘sangha’ — known as the ‘Four Noble Truths.’ ‘Dukkha’ (suffering), ‘tanhā’ (craving), ‘nibbāna’ (the state beyond the challenges mentioned), and the eight-fold path, which is the route to ‘nirvana,’ make up the noble truths. Buddha’s sermon in which he outlined these teachings became known to his followers as the setting in motion of the “Dhamma,” which is a crucial concept with multiple meanings in the Theravada Buddhist faith. This first sermon, which outlines Buddha’s first structured discourse following his enlightenment, contains the essence of all his subsequent teachings. After he delivered his sermon leaving his followers speechless and contemplating, one of the participants requested to be a disciple. Buddha granted him that honor and, in doing so, established the first order of monks." https://nationaltoday.com/asahna-bucha-day/#:~:text='Asahna Bucha' Day%2C also,in July of every year.

I like Scotsmen but No True Scotsman does NOT apply in this case: A scientist is one who follows the principles of Science, and the process of science which definitely does include the Scientific Method. A pseudo-scientists who calls himself a scientist is free to do what he chooses; however he is NOT a scientist unless he follows the principles and processes of Science....which DOES include the Scientific Method. This is fundamental. And, here, we are NOT speaking of "PURITY", or degrees of the Scientific Method. THIS is why your argument has NO relevance to my statement which you quoted, which is "It is my opinion that any scientist who truly believes there is a god is ipso facto NOT a scientist, but something else. And that, furthermore, that "something else" is a stain upon the very name of Science!" So, "how is science different from other ways of describing and explaining nature, such as philosophy or religion? Those endeavors also seek to make sense of the world around us, and they often play an important role in society. But the scientific view of the world is based on hypothesis testing and verifiable evidence. Indeed, one of the distinguishing characteristics of science is the willingness to follow the evidence—and to correct itself when new evidence is found." (Campbell Biology)

Did you say they died at age 76? How odd. The periodicity of Halley's comet is only 75 years. Twain lived 74 years. Therefore, numerologically speaking, this is rather a coincidence. Maybe there actually IS a god, after all.

Please don't remind me.

This might be helpful for those pondering about whether or not they should become atheists, and why. This is why this scientist IS an atheist.

You mean that you entirely MISSED the Scientific Method video, a lecture by Feynman? It was posted there, plain as day.

My pleasure. Feynman is great. Far better than counting sheep, and you can actually learn something before you nod off.

If you want to know about Cognitive Dissonance, then you should start with FESTINGER, so that you actually KNOW the meaning of the term. Cognitive Dissonance is not as simple as some might imagine.

This topic is NOT about religion. This topic is about SCIENCE, and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and also about super-smart people who demand evidence before forming opinions, and about Feynman. How did you like the Feynman video, by the way?

As for Einstein: When he uttered, "God does not play dice with the universe.", he was NOT speaking of GOD in the "literal sense", and ALL scientists realize this. "One of Albert Einstein's most famous quotes is, "God does not play dice with the universe." But there are two huge errors in the way many people have interpreted this quote over the years. People have wrongly assumed Einstein was religious, believed in destiny, or that he completely rejected a core theory in physics. First, Einstein wasn't referring to a personal god in the quote. He was using "God" as a metaphor." (https://www.businessinsider.com/god-does-not-play-dice-quote-meaning-2015-11) It's just INCREDIBLE how NAIVE some people (so many people) can be!!!!

Your statement is COMPLETELY FALSE!!!!!! Bohr was a complete atheist! "Bohr enjoyed Kierkegaard's language and literary style, but mentioned that he had some disagreement with Kierkegaard's philosophy.[87] Some of Bohr's biographers suggested that this disagreement stemmed from Kierkegaard's advocacy of Christianity, while Bohr was an atheist." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr#:~:text=Bohr enjoyed Kierkegaard's language and,while Bohr was an atheist.)

I stated: 'As everybody knows, there is still great stigma attached the word "atheist"' Do you disagree with my statement? I do not see how you can. There is stigma attached to self-identifying as an atheist. Everybody knows this.

This is sometimes true, and religiosity in China during the past years, since 1949, is just one example of what you suggest.

I am suggesting NOTHING, REPEAT NOTHING, of the kind. There are PLENTY of dumb atheists, one can reasonably assume.

By "people", do you mean "super-smart" people and/or scientists? Because we are not talking about religion, belief in god, and the opium of the masses.

Please feel free to present your EVIDENCE for your statement in your next comment. Thank you!

This topic is really NOT about the general population, as should have been CRYSTAL clear from the Topic Heading: "Why IS It That Super-Smart People, Almost INVARIABLY, Turn Out to Be Atheists?"

Please clarify what you mean by "physical", because otherwise your question is impossible to address.