Phi for All

Many people without the knowledge can't do the critical thinking necessary to check an explanation for soundness on their own. Instead they make up supernatural elements to fill the gaps in their knowledge, leaving them with nothing but faith to gauge the strength and trustworthiness of what they think they know. It's extremely difficult to move someone from a stance they took emotionally.

For the purposes of our rules, preaching (or soapboxing) is defined as pushing an idea without evidence or support for it, yet insisting its correct while ignoring reasoned, supported arguments against it. It's against our rules because it's a waste of time trying to discuss anything with a preacher, or anyone unwilling to change their mind after hearing the best supported argument.

This is why I feel, as a species whose intelligence has evolved to a high degree, it's so very important to learn as much as you can about the natural world. When you don't know things, others who do appear unintelligible and silly. You can't know what you don't know, and your ability to judge the trustworthiness of data you receive and put together reasoned explanations for various phenomena is impaired. That's when you either make things up, or start believing others who just made things up. This is why I'm a weak atheist, and treat god(s) the same way I treat stamp collecting.

I'm drawn to a more Humanist stance (which is weak atheism) precisely because it appeals intellectually. Setting aside the supernatural (until it can be naturally and scientifically observed) is the only intellectual format worth pursuing, imo. The other big problem with this statement is that it assumes all atheism is the same. Personally, I think strong atheism isn't supported by rigid methodology, but not all atheists believe there is (are) no god(s). edit: cross-posted with iNow, who said it better - most atheism is a lack of belief.

! Moderator Note Daedelus approached us to coordinate this with the Admins and Mods. We've helped out a member in need before, so please feel free to participate (or not). We wish Daedelus the best of luck in funding his treatments. Thanks to everyone for spending your time here, in reasoned dialogue and intellectual honesty. SFN members are fantastic!

NortonH has been banned, since warnings and suspensions had no affect on his love of breaking the rules.

Vaccinations are, by definition, much more about populations and can't afford to be selfish and subjective. Are you serious with this?! If people can't trust doctors because of your bullshit fear and ignorance program, how many will die because they didn't seek medical help? You're using Misleading Vividness as a fallacious argument regarding children, when the real damage is being done by you and others like you, killing children every day with your vaccination hoaxes.

Move someplace with more consonants (silent ones don't count). Avoid Ohio and Utah, they're just as bad (you don't want to be a Utahn).

Better than Iowalot.

I disagree completely. ANY thought?! No way. The anti-vax conspiracy has caused untold damage to the credibility of medicine in general. Some thoughts are just plain stupid and harmful.

How does claiming evolution to be a fact change this? Evolution happens (how could it not?), and the Theory of Evolution explains the process. One is fact, the other theory and subject to change as we discover new evidence. As to the OP, it's highly unlikely any present theory is going to be completely overthrown (although the methodology allows this could happen). There's simply been too many successful predictions based on mainstream theory to throw it all out. Changes will happen, but they're refinements rather than total game-changers.

So those who don't oppose something definitely play a part in making it happen?

This is whataboutism. The GOP has learned to mimic Putin's tactics in using it against democracy. Another blow to our information process, and one that's hard to forgive.

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/12/18087224/trump-conspiracy-theory-florida-recount This is one of the most disheartening aspects of the Trump presidency. His outrageousness and the sorry state of our media allows him to lie about fraudulent voting, while law enforcement officials shake their heads and try to reassure the People that they've been doing their jobs, and there's nothing to investigate. There's zero accountability from the WH, and people are dying from the conspiracies he spreads. Truly one of the saddest points in our democratic history.

Not with you it doesn't. You have a history of broadening definitions to suit what you feel like saying. Here, you seem to be saying "Sometimes you can forgive without forgetting, but that's not holding a grudge", which is a great example of how your treatment of words dilutes their meaning and impact wrt understanding and clarity. I don't know whether you're mistreating "forgiving" or "grudge", but you're definitely working outside most people's interpretations. So what are the consequences of your forgiveness, or lack thereof? If I stole your cellphone, you wouldn't forgive me, but you also say you wouldn't hold a grudge. What would you do? If I gave it back, apologized, and you still didn't forgive me, my observation would be that you're harboring some deep-seated feelings of resentment.

! Moderator Note Menan was banned for breaking the rules, but for this sentence he should be banned from ever touching a computer again. This ignorance is willful.

! Moderator Note Oh, you're going to have to do MUCH better than that for the mainstream science sections. Isn't it pretty clear by now that you have a LOT of learning to do before you start refuting known science? Thread closed.

Evolution is the change in allele frequency within a population over time. The theory is not about creation at all. If you feel the need for a creator, you can claim it created the process, but science has explanations that don't involve anything supernatural.

This must be one of those times when you redefine everyday words to suit your argument. Sometimes withholding forgiveness is NOT holding a grudge! Your position is more unclear.

! Moderator Note This may not be the site for you. Our rules state members should not be forced to go offsite or watch videos in order to participate in discussions. It's almost impossible to accurately quote bits from a video without replaying it over and over (and nobody has time for that). If you can post your ideas in a better format for discussion, you can open another thread on this. Open it in Speculations, and support your ideas with evidence (because all the science you claim to refute has TONS of it). This thread needs to be closed. Sorry.

You really had to go out of your way for this bit of misinterpretation. If you're trying to hate-hijack this thread, please go away.

Excellent observation, and one most should be able to identify with. For years I tuned out when my wife and her sister talked about fabric, because it wasn't my cuppa. One day something they said sparked my interest. I started paying attention, and now I'm not so ignorant about fabric anymore. I removed a barrier that was stifling my ongoing education.

Any mixture of chemicals that keeps the paper from being burned by the lasers will do.

If you put an egg (boiled or raw) in vinegar for a day, the acetic acid releases the calcium carbonate from the shell, making it pretty rubbery. Then you use your favorite procedure to get it in the bottle just like the peeled egg. After another day or so, the remaining calcium in the shell pulls carbon from the CO2 in the bottle, and the shell hardens again, leaving you with a hard-shelled egg in a bottle that will confuse and amaze.

! Moderator Note You need to understand that the professional scientists who've responded to your posts are trying to help you learn. Science discussion here is all about clarity, and understanding. There is no conspiracy by all these people to wind you up. You're ignoring the knowledge being offered in favor of ideas that are being refuted with each reply. That's preaching, or soapboxing, and it's against our rules. If you can't offer solid evidence to support your ideas, then the folks who can support what they claim win the tip of the balance, yes? The best supported explanation is what mainstream science works with every day. So please, either try to support what you're claiming, or listen harder to the mainstream explanations offered. Discussions requires a fair amount of listening, and it's clear from the replies that you're being listened to, but not returning the favor.