Phi for All

Please understand that this isn't a social site, it's a science discussion forum, more akin to a classroom or conference table than FB or Twitter. Our priority rules call for civility always, and we don't attack people who have ideas. We do, however, attack the ideas. This is what science does, the way it stays healthy, relevant, and focused on each step of the process. Nobody is being impolite by correcting mistakes in your idea. They are trying to help. It would be a very good idea for an author to listen to experts in the fields he chooses to write about. Now is the time to fix mistakes, before they creep into your book unwanted.

My fault, I moved it here from Homework Help. I left a redirect notice for the OP, but not a note in thread.

Go to your profile page: http://www.scienceforums.net/profile/132808-scherado/?wr=eyJhcHAiOiJmb3J1bXMiLCJtb2R1bGUiOiJmb3J1bXMtY29tbWVudCIsImlkXzEiOjEwOTYzMSwiaWRfMiI6MTAxMTkyOX0= On the upper left, where the blank picture icon is, there is a link to change it. It should be fairly intuitive from there, or you may have to play with it a bit. We've recently upgraded software so nobody is an expert yet. I've changed the other part, the cover photo on my profile. My pic was too big, but it let me center it and use a portion of it, which was good.

This is a very big problem. You want to write a book, but you can't recognize someone trying to help by correcting your misunderstandings. You're making mistakes, you come to a science site to discuss science with more knowledgeable people, and you're claiming they are the ones who are wrong. Very big problem for a writer. What?! Disagreeing with you is not the same as shunning you. You're wrong, and people are trying to help. Why are you irritated? Didn't you come here looking for knowledge?

! Moderator Note So, "they are wrong, I am right", that's supposed to pass for an argument on a science site?! With drawings as evidence? You can open this topic up again if you come up with anything that supports it, but this one is going in the dumper where it belongs. Please try harder. Rigor is your friend.

! Moderator Note The topic is reconciling science and religion.

! Moderator Note I'm going to pretend that's a reported complaint and shut this down. The title makes my teeth ache.

! Moderator Note These posts have been split from a mainstream topic. I post them here to show how ID proponents mislead and obfuscate any discussion with poor logic, semantics tactics, and constantly avoiding any actual support one could call reasonable. It's the same old creationist hogwash, and they decided to use the word "intelligence" instead of the actual concept.

If the definition of expunged being used is standard, then the record was erased completely. It would be weird to use "expunge" if you could still access it. On the other hand, I've never heard of anyone but a juvenile getting a misdemeanor expunged. You're usually either convicted or the charges are dropped (which is different than expunged). Employers would check a state database, so you could do the same. I saw one through your state .gov that charges $25.00 for a criminal records check (search "criminal records check" when you get to the .gov site). Alternatively, there may be a way you could check your own record through the state for free. It seems reasonable that you should be able to know your own status without paying for it.

Why are you asking people on the internet when your doctors are available before the operation? Smoking is the principal cause of COPD but not the only one. You need to feel comfortable asking these questions of the team of professionals working to keep you healthy. They need to know your concerns. Please consult them ASAP.

! Moderator Note Your attempts to cover up mistakes and ignorance and deflect attention negatively are agonizingly transparent, danking. Next time you post (not in this thread, which seems to be done), please focus more on the science and less on trying to make yourself look better by being uncivil. It's a poor tactic.

This is why I acknowledge faith as a form of belief that requires your full conviction without any supportive evidence. Hope is a form of belief that's similar to faith by having little to support it, but it rarely requires your full conviction the way faith does (especially religious faith). Trust is the form of belief that is arrived at by delving deeper, finding supportive evidence for your beliefs, and using a methodology that ensures each step is sound. All forms of belief, each with a differing basis for that belief. Those who are convinced there is a god(s), and make a wild leap changing their entire lives to suit this belief, do so based on faith. Those who believe somehow their "soul" or "energy" will live on after their body dies, but don't feel the need to change their lives to support this belief, are using hope to believe that way. And those that insist on being skeptical of claims, who need to know exactly how their information and explanations were derived, who use critical thinking to remove the wishful bits from their belief system, those folks are using trust as the benchmark of their beliefs.

Iirc, I've mentioned to PGJ many times in his earlier threads on the same subject that his definition of belief was too restrictive not to cause trouble. Of course, I offered my personal belief distinctions between faith, hope, and trust (my own obsessive concept). All are types of belief, but the bases for each is different, and important. I would most definitely agree with a statement that faith is not necessary to do science, but I think trust is. I think one can remove most (all) faith from one's belief system and function very well, thanks. But for critical thinking, you need information and explanations you can trust. That's the type of belief I prefer. As for the rest, I dislike the talk about god(s) inevitability/possibility as long as all this redefining of terms is going on. The OP and all the links and videos talk about changing and redefining what it means to be a god, based on a fairly narrow definition of atheism.

! Moderator Note We don't delete accounts, except for spammers, because it removes what you've written. What you've written is never deleted, but may get hidden or thrown in the Trash Can if it's off-topic, or is just repeating something that's been refuted. ! Moderator Note We can ban you if you like. You don't seem to like it here, despite not being able to stay away (you keep posting), and your attitude needn't be inflicted on those who've shown enough interest in your ideas to post in your thread. You make rash statements, then get offended when someone criticizes them. You bring too much ego to your attempts at science. We require a lot of rigor, and we're not for everyone. As you said, you should be able to find another science forum that doesn't mind your equivocation and inexact definitions. We wish you the best of luck in this. Please let me know if you'd like to be banned. Nothing you've written thus far will be removed.

You reminded me of another observed effect, switching drinks and getting sick. I've watched people drink shots of a single type of hard liquor (say Jack Daniels), and they only get tipsier the more they drink. But as soon as someone buys them a shot of something else (say tequila), they almost immediately feel sick and have to go worship at the porcelain altar. Psychosomatic, or physiological? If it's all alcohol and doesn't matter, wouldn't that mean it's all in their heads?

! Moderator Note A hijack involving non-mainstream speculation has been split off to here.

! Moderator Note I've split this into it's own speculative thread, since the new opening post was a non-mainstream hijack of a mainstream thread. Please read the special rules that govern this section, and do your best to support your argument with evidence, especially where you make assertions. Since this is about relativity, some maths would certainly help focus the discussion. No need to respond to this modnote in thread, but if you object you can report this post and another staff member will respond.

Sorry, but your dad did that, with the help of beer. Marijuana didn't rape your classmates, it was young men aided by impaired judgement. The kids who died at your school made bad decisions with the help of alcohol, but it wasn't the alcohol that killed them. The fact remains, the qualitative effects of alcohol and cannabis are apparent. There are many more non-abusers than abusers. What we're trying to figure out is if there's any general qualities that apply. It occurs to me that added sugars in wines or mixed drinks may have an effect with alcohol. Also, the body must treat cannabis poisoning in a somewhat different way than it treats alcohol poisoning. The liver takes priority detoxing alcohol, but I don't know what the mechanism is for inhaling or ingesting cannabis.

I suspect that's what a study would find, that people react individually to different recreational stimuli. I've known people who always seemed to have poor experiences with drinking, but did much better with cannabis as a recreational perception enhancement. OMG, really? How insane. I could understand injection into the veins more than risking my eyesight. Next up: Flaming Eyeball Shots!

Potency has to be a factor, but is there any data to suggest that any single category of alcoholic beverage reacts consistently across the population? IOW, are the happy drunks mostly drinking wine or beer, while the aggressive drunks mostly drink the hard stuff? To feather further, are the morose drunks drinking vodka, the gabby drunks drinking gin, and the ones who won't remember any of this tomorrow drinking scotch? I suspect the difference with cannabis is harder to pinpoint, since the effects are skewed by the delivery method. Inhalation and ingestion must have differing side effects, whereas the alcohol in any form is always ingested. Also, inhalation by vaping is said to be different (better?) than inhalation of the directly burnt plant. There seems to be a qualitative factor at work here.

So to support your idea, you're quoting your own writing about it as a source?! Isn't that like saying the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible? This is just more of you claiming you're right just because you wrote it. Meaningless.

He does not. He says he thinks "we're in the process of building some kind of god". That is FAR, FAR from saying "Gods are likely". You are exhibiting very poor critical thinking skills. You jump on semantics and redefine terms to suit your obsession. It's painful to watch, and I think I speak for most here when I say you have lost a key part of your perspective, and your idea will never help you build anything useful, because its foundation is seriously cracked.

My square wheel idea was brilliant, and proved how obviously smart I am. Square wheels solve so many pesky shipping problems for the tire industry, and when you drive it's like getting a shiatsu massage for free! Round wheels are responsible for people falling asleep at the wheel, and that will never happen with my square ones. It's an idea that makes a lot of sense, and I've spent years focused on trying to sell it. If only the hidebound round wheel users would just listen to my brilliance, instead of yammering on about how flawed the idea was to start with! All these years wouldn't have been wasted.

No. Atheists don't all believe the same thing. And many don't discount a god, but embrace the null hypothesis of "We don't know". I fail to see why your cherry-picking of an atheist saying there is a non-zero chance of god(s) is meaningful.

Listen, please. You tried many times to defend this dumb non-beliefism garbage and couldn't do it. You've been told to stop bringing it up. It's plainly impossible not to believe in anything (since you have to believe these words are actually being read by you). You need to stop applying this broken, misinformed, incorrect assumption to everything you think about. Your ideas regarding this subject are baseless, undefendable, and meaningless. You need to stop bringing it up here or you're just going to get banned. I'm not saying this as a moderator, I'm saying this as a long time poster here. You don't just get to claim things are true here. You have to support your claims with evidence, which you have NEVER done to anyone's satisfaction. I'm telling you this because you seem sincere, but you also seem to have fixated on some bad, bad, wrong ideas that are driving you off a cliff in terms of your science education. We can't steer for you, you have to learn to turn the wheel and get back on track. You're obviously smart, I know you can do this.