Area54

I think a suitable God to be honoured with worship is a God whom one would like to exist, but for whom there is only scanty evidence. Since I live in the dull weather plagued UK this has led to me becoming a Sun worshiper.

Which is likely to be more informative, an extensive range of written material, with accompanying illustrations and graphics, preservered on a varity of media, in a range of languages, or a the preserved bodies of thousands of generations? You seem to think it is the latter; I think it is the former. What is the reason for your choice? I think your "at all costs" is hyperbole. Is it? If not . . . . really?!?!

That is not an accurate representation of the current theory and thus offers zero justification for seeking alternative explanations. What is there to prevent it? I think you have already been told it is not an explosion, so why are you still mentioning it? Why? The only obvious reason is that you have misunderstood a explanatory diagram and have then chosen to ignore the correction. Why?

I am interested, but you have a tough up hill battle, across snow and ice, peppered with crevasses, sub-zero temperatures, howling gales and ever diminishing oxygen. Thus far all you've offered is fanciful, unsupported notions. Provide something of subtance by way of support and we can begin the journey. You might wish to start by addressing the point that the Moses story is considered mythical by many authorities - no enslaved Israelites, no crossing of the Red Sea, no wandering in the desrt. However, if you have another point you wish to take off from, go ahead.

I don't understand what you mean. I am saying that unconventional approaches should only be attempted by those who are experts in the conventional approach and the knowledge acquired through that approach. (Over time unconventional approaches that work become accepted as conventional. The rest are discarded.)

An unconventional approch to "doing and interpreting science" is important in advancing the fronteirs of science. However, to gian those benefits it iessential that the scientists using that unconventional approach are imitimately familiar with the conventional position. Unfortunately this is rarely the case for persons promiting their ideas on science forums. Imagination + Dramatic Novelty + In Depth Knowledge = Scientific Advance Imagination + Dramatic Noverly + Flimsy Knowledge and Much Misunderstanding = Nonsense

You have nailed it. While this does not alter the significance of the opposition it substantially alters how it should be addressed.

Rather than awarding negative reps to posts you don't like, why don't you address the point I made a moment ago? Is it because you have no answer? Or something else? I imagine your response will be yet another neg.rep. Still, it's something of an honour to be treated in much the same way as @Phi for All.

Almost every one of your statements is easily refuted. I've chosen one at random. Thousands of meters below ground the rocks have significant porosity. The pore spaces are typically filled with sea water. Why would the viruses and bacteria be unactivated?

According to the 20th Century humourist, former Presbyterian and balding Liberal Democrat, Area54, "All nonsense passes through three stages: First, it is conceived by a fool. Second, it is laughed at with disdain. Third, it is dismissed with a tinge of sadness for its author, the victim of Dunning-Kruger effect.

From my POV this cannot be said too often. Surely that presumes that there is always at least one time dimension in each expression of the universe? Can you demonstrate that is a necessity?

@49th parralel group Two questions: What is the source of your speculation? That is, do you have any basis for the speculations? Was your incorrect spelling of parallel deliberate?

Ah. That makes sense. I should get out more. Therein lies the explanation. I went to school in the sixties. If you've studied history you will know that sex didn't actually exist until May 1962! It wasn't until the 90s that I realised, on reflection, that one of my close school friends must have been gay and suffering mental torture every day. People didn't come out then. They buried themselves further into hell. We may have a long way to go, but we've already come a great distance.

I'm confused. Since when did gay become a perjorative term, as claimed in the OP? Never, as far as I know. I reluctantly accepted "gay" as the preferred colloquial term for those with a homosexual leaning. I say reluctantly because this new meaning of gay really screwed up some of the characterisations in Jane Austen novels! If I wished to refer to a gay persons sexual orientation in a positive, or neutral way then I would, as I have done here, refer to them as gay. If someone called me a faggot I would know they had tried to insult me. If I wanted to insult them, I would use something a lot more current than faggot. (i.e. I concur with @MigLpoints above.) Some have regretted the lack of science in the OP. I regret the lack of coherent structure and clear intent. Can you @ScienceNosalgia101 state concisely what your point is? Or points?

That Pope Francis. What a guy! Always pipping me at the post.

Height differences are not nearly so obvious when you are both lying down. Just something to keep in mind. Now, as to how to increase your height at your age, there is a simple solution. I believe it is fullproof. Go into space and spend some time in microgravity. You will stretch a few centimetres. Of course you lose it after returning to Earth, but you might stay tall just long enough to go talk to her. And perhaps she'll be impressed enough by your experiences as an astronaut she will overlook (pun intended) your height.

@CharonYThank you for your response. That's quite sad. I went to university because I wanted to learn; acquiring a degree was almost a side issue, related more to an inherent competitiveness and the possibility, if the degree was good enough, I could go on learning for longer. But that was against a backdrop where tuition fees were paid by the state and, because of the meagre financial status of my parents, I recieved a full grant (not a loan). The only person I would have been cheating, by cheating, would have been myself. I have difficulty getting my head around the concept of cheating. You mentioned laziness. Laziness is a different matter. I rather favour laziness. To me laziness involves using the most efficient method of learning things. That means understanding the principles, not parrot fashion, but at a deep level and furnishing oneself with enough examples so that the principles can be discerned in novel situations. I find one has to work really quite hard at being lazy.

Could you take an alternative line? Argue thus: "I'll accept for sake of argument that you are correct and you can resist adverse outcomes from a Covid infection. But that would just mean you have a first rate immune system, an immune system so good you are asymptomatic. Yet you are shedding viruses left, right and centre. And because you are confident you will have no problem you aren't being especially careful about social distancing. Result, you unknowingly infect half a dozen people, some of whom don't have your A1 status immune system and general good health. Do you want to be responsible for their misery and possible death?"

I'll just note that self confidence is one thing and patronising over-confidence is another. China is a member of the UN. China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The WHO is an adjunct body of the UN. I'm reasonably sure, until you show me reliable documentation to the contrary that WHO is obligated by charter to retain that connection. Not to mention the recognition that diplomacy can yield more than deliberate isolation. What about the governments that were appointed by the people and yet tells lies? Ought you not to exclude Saudi Arabia for its suspected actions? The UAE? Myanmar? Venezuela? A quarter of the African nations. (Just a guess.) If China is excluded then so should many more the world's nations. You really think excluding a substantial portion of the world's population helps solve a world problem? Send me your address and I'll send you a drawing board. You need to go back to it.

As @John Cuthber delicately suggests in his preceding post, the meaning of your post is not at all clear. I think what follows is what you meant: Rather than looking directly at theist versus atheist, lets look at attitudes generated by theism versus attitudes generated by atheism. When we do this we may find fewer differences than imagined. It may even be the case that atheists have attitudes and behaviours not unlike those of a theist, because such attitudes and behaviours arise from the basic character of the human mind, not from the professed atheism or theism. Does that match your meaning? If not can you attempt to clarify? Thank you.

While I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment I could have done with fewer broad white smiles, most of which looked like "smiles for broadcast", not smiles from the heart. The genuine ones were visible, incidentally, above the masks, as joyful crinkles at the edges of the eyes.

It is troubling to hear that. Either I am naive, or forty, fifty years ago there was more inherent honesty. I cannot recall any conversations about cheating with undergraduate colleagues, or any reports of it occurring. And there were no admonitions against it, presumably since none were thought necessary. Was I decieved, or have things deteriorated over the last few decades? What is your impression? Do you know of any studies into the phenomenon?

For me there is a disconnect between my understanding of knowledge and your knowledge of understanding. Or, to put it more directly, knowledge without understanding is merely data and as such your Einstein to Bhudda scenario evaporates.

@ScienceNostalgia101 Your solution appears to be . . . . Let's take an organisation that, while not perfect, has achieved considerable success over its lifetime and has a mature, effective organisation for observing and analysing problems and communicating warnings and solutions, disband it, set up a new organisation from scretch that excludes nations that are of great significance politically and demographically, then pretend this will be some kind of improvement. Perhaps a bit of a strawman characterisation of your proposal, but I'm just taking your lead.

To answer the question in the thread title, because there is no meaningful evidence to support the objective truth of any religion I am aware of.