swansont

They did, in fact, have separate water coolers for a long time, and SCOTUS decisions require a majority. But this doesn’t rebut the point; it only attempts to rationalize minority influence.

And yet slavery was supported by Bible followers. If that book can be used to support and deny slavery, just think what other things it can be used to support or deny, based on the wants of the individual? How can it be a moral guide if that’s possible?

Your errors are omissions, so this is not possible. You show me where you’ve explicitly explained how causality is invoked. Show where you’ve provided a transform that changes a photon to a muon.

Counterpoint: social science? not so much. There’s a reason social science and natural science are in separate categories.

Who, specifically, to whom do you refer? And you say “us” so you must count yourself among that group, but your posts urging folks to consider something beyond science, do not convey unconditional faith in it. Yes, natural and social sciences, not science in general. It points to a lack of rigor and possibly poor framing of questions, among other issues. Don't paint with such a broad brush.

1 LY is 9.461 × 10^15 meters By inspection, the number seem to at least approximately match

I think that ship has sailed Religious people owned slaves, and used the Bible to justify it, since it’s mentioned in there. Your reasoning would suggest that abolition is an atheistic immorality pushed upon society.

But these are generally agreed-upon issues. Not the cases where religious groups, in the minority, exert influence. Abortion is but one example of this. (but this is not an invitation to start a debate about abortion) Nobody has claimed otherwise. Straw man argument. Because there are other laws/rules that don’t have this overlap. It’s not the generally-agreed-upon issues, as I already mentioned, it’s the fringe cases. Yes, one can say dishonest things. It’s usually a red flag when someone admits that they do so easily.

Probably because religious jerks are continually forcing people to live their lives a certain way. If they kept their noses out of other peoples’ business, a lot of us wouldn’t give a flying f&$* about it. But as long as that happens, “because God said so” isn’t enough; you’re going to have to give real evidence of invisible sky buddy. You might deem evidence “unnecessary” but unless you have examples of people intruding into the lives of theists, demanding it, I think that’s a mischaracterization. I’ve never had anyone ring my doorbell, demanding evidence for God. I have had numerous people do so, trying to spread their religious word.

This is such a load of crap. How about stop telling us what atheists think or believe. Even if you are an atheist, you don’t speak for anyone but yourself, and atheists are no more of a monolithic group than religious people are

The agreement was there would be no fact-checking

! Moderator Note I’m not sure what this is, but 1. it’s not physics 2. There is a thread already open

Every year homeopathy doesn’t win a chemistry Nobel, the dilution increases, boosting its chances of winning.

! Moderator Note Closed at OP’s request

Sure. But since I offered no such axiom, this is a bit of a straw man To an extent, yes, but science is so interconnected that for anything that’s not a new or cutting-edge finding, you have corroboration in the form of follow-up studies, and/or technology based on the science to support the idea that it’s right. In the former case, it requires a massive conspiracy for that faith not to be justified, and in the latter case, you’d need an entirely new and probably undiscovered paradigm to explain why the technology works; either it’s being covered up (again, a massive conspiracy) or you need scientists to be completely inept. Not personally witnessing or experiencing something does not turn this into religious faith.

Repeating this does not make it true. You have asserted this, but provided no model and no evidence of it, as is required. Further, you haven’t shown how any of this is an issue of causality.

Harrot has been banned for repeated preaching and racist/sexist bad faith arguments.

I was careful not to say that physics doesn’t answer why questions, so this is moot.

And you are free to find them loathsome. But if you start thinking you can execute people who don’t measure up to your standards, where do you draw the line? You fall into “first they came for the socialists…” territory, and while it might seem like a slippery slope argument, we (should) all know how that played out. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... The bottom line is that no, you don’t get to demonize groups or make them seem subhuman. Bad things tend to happen. It simply can’t be permitted. (and this is not delving into the barbaric nature of executions)

Lorentz transformations are mathematical, so yeah. I’m not sure what you mean by physical explanation; nothing about the meter stick physically changes, as I said, so there’s nothing “physical” to explain. The contention was “SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed’ “why is c invariant?” is a different question. Physics is an attempt to try and explain/predict how nature behaves, not why it is the way it is. The claim that nothing is shrinking is based on c being invariant. The ramifications are predicted and experiments confirm it. That’s in the domain of physics. “Why” is in the domain of metaphysics.

! Moderator Note That was not the proposal, and preaching violates our rules. Leave religion out of discussions that aren’t about religion.

Still not evidence

But there wasn’t, so your whole point is a distraction. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter to this issue; you claimed that “to exclude men, wich (sic) are half of the population, from the healthcare project is just medical nonsense.” and a service that caters to women is not evidence that men are excluded. I can personally attest to the fact that men can and do have access to cardiologists. According to your horrendously flawed logic, the existence of e.g. a women’s soccer team means that men are excluded from playing soccer. Which is abject nonsense. You haven’t presented evidence that they aren’t, but one has to recognize that equal treatment does not mean treating two groups the same.

Plus a paper from 1982 probably has follow-on work, which would support, rebut or constrain the proposal.

That’s not evidence of anything. It’s like concluding that unexplained flashes of lights in the sky are aliens. edit: it’s even less, since at least flashes of light are evidence of something.