So if my barbecue catches fire, and I put it out with a fire extinguisher in 2 minutes. Then I say “the flames were huge, they went so high planes would have to divert”. Than someone quoted that in the headline, without context. You would say it wasn’t a misleading headline?
I suppose they could include a picture of a whole house on fire as well as long as someone showed them that picture and said that is what it was like?

How ya figure. Maybe just don’t use misleading quotes in the headline. It’s not that hard.

Just because someone said it, doesn’t mean it is misleading.

AI slop, or brainwashed person. Does it really matter? No, both hallucinate.

But God created everything. So he must have created Evil or it wouldn’t exist.

Yeah certainly bad enough they didn’t need a misleading headline to get clicks.

Not to make light of it, but I still hate misleading headlines. Seems most were lied to about work, travelled there and then were trafficed. Which is a lot different than “no woman is safe”. They made it sound like people were roaming the streets abducting any woman they chose anytime… still a horrible thing. Sadly it shows you what men will do when given the opportunity.

Wait a second. You argued that God made the babies… so if the babies were going to be evil… he made them that way. That sounds more like evil to me.

Something, something, can’t prove a negative… While valuable research, it doesn’t prove no harm is done. It can only provide evidrnce that the harm they tested for didn’t appear to happen. That is a kind of important difference.

I see. Focusing on the least relevant thing I said to avoid the main point that you can’t contest. Thanks for confirming that.

As for the committee… how do you think the new testament came into being. Some person collected all the writing he liked and declared it the new testament. Then everyone else said sure… we would like to buy a copy…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

By the time it came into being, the church was an organization with power. Such an organization always draws ambitious humans who crave that power and influence. The new testament was crafted to help grow that power and influence.

It is very likely in my opinion that Jesus never even claimed to be the son of god. Probably he was a very charismatic person who actually cared about the well being of people. And so he got popular with the people. Which is why he had to be killed. Then ambitious people leveraged him and his popularity to get what they wanted. Several other modern religions took a similar road.

Interesting. None of that is evidence that God exists. Without a doubt, someone going by the name Jesus (or something like it lost in translation) existed. And a religion was founded based on him. Lots of things happened. People wrote down a lot of things. But those people all had a bias. The vast majority were trying to build a religion. So without a doubt, they embellished and picked the “witness” accounts that supported what they wanted to say.

As for the 3 famous figures mentioned at the start. The same is true. Historians often say that we don’t know the real truth, just what was written.

As for the new testament. It was created by commitee. They hand picked stories and such that created the picture they wanted to present. And plenty of religious historians have pointed out that Christianity borrowed concepts and stories that worked well from previous religions.

So all that proves is that a human being going by the name Jesus existed and had a very influential life. It proves nothing of God.

Do sure the evidence for the god you believe in.

I very much agree on the don’t take the terms too seriously. They are just labels. Not entirely arbitrary, but still mostly arbitrary. That said, I do think we are due for a medical revolution anytime now. So I don’t think 200 years. But certainly plenty more time.

There’s no evidence for God period, so your “because” doesn’t support your statement. Of course you also don’t seem to understand basic logic. The lack of evidence never “proves” anything. The presence of evidence “may” prove things.

The kid spread religion online. God killed him for it. Pope makes him a saint. God facepalms and says “How many more kids do I have to kill to show you that you should stop wasting time in church and just be a good person”.

I like the cut of thier jib.

It should be required to name the country and state/province in the headline of an article. It sounded like a place in the UK. This goes for cities in the US too. I don’t know all of them either. But of course the goal of news isn’t to inform.

On the spectrum is short for on the autism spectrum. What that realky means is that there are several characteristics, all of which are spectrums themselves, which have a subset that is associated with autism. There is basically a formula for calculating a score that combines them and if it is in a certain range, they call it autism.

All and all, autism is a syndrom, which means they don’t know what causes it or even what it is. They just take a bunch of people who have similar symptoms and lump them under a syndrome so they can try and study it better. Same as IBS. Most likely there are multiple different causes that may very well be unrelated.

Gotta take some serious gonads to fly a plan over a missle ship. Those pilots are getting free drinks wherever they go.

If it’s running on a k8s cluster, a lot of people do ttl the nodes. Guess the simulation isn’t using persistent storage for people. Lol.