Phi for All

The 24/7 cycle does seem to force journalists to rush stories to be the first to report. Again, the emphasis is on ratings and profit rather than on accurately informing the public the way it should be. This in particular seems to be a big problem. Stories that require depth get skimmed with this method, and as Ten oz mentions, waiting for a story to develop gives us more to go on than a cursory, kneejerk appraisal. On stories like that, putting spin early in the news cycle seems foolhardy. I think is why they don't source themselves, and why the news gets to be more and more vague, so it can appeal to the most viewers.

I think his real downfall is thinking that anyone who responds to a religious question is being emotional, no matter what. He misinterprets passion for a subject for a lack of critical thinking, and immediately thinks it's all emotion. We're all geeks and science nerds here. You can't say something demonstrably wrong without getting corrected. It's a break in an established pattern up with which we shall not put. That we apply our critical thinking skills in fervent replies shouldn't be misinterpreted as emotional. It's a deep-seated need for clarity and detail that pursuing explanations via the scientific method ingrains in its users.

Sure, you may get a few rep points, but at the cost of playing patty-cake with every crackpot who flashes his big ears?

We've had a lot of knowledgeable people join and then leave for whatever reason. Maybe too much speculation, or too many crackpot discussions. When I see newcomers that show promise, I admit I try to upvote their best posts. It's usually not hard, they're some pretty smart and capable people. Some of these people are probably women. I don't go by names and avatars, I go by merit.

You probably didn't know this, or bothered to check, but if a moderator is involved in a discussion, we leave the moderating to the rest of the staff. Would you deny us roles in the discussion as members, just because we also volunteer to help out? Moderator notes are usually green or red. But if you can show where I "moderated" you unfairly, please do.

So the main thrust of your argument is that the "atheist opinion" isn't based on reason and reality, that it's every bit as much of a religion as any other. You state this after all the posts showing where you are wrong, and just continue to wave your hands and insist we're wrong solely because we're atheist. Yours is a weird proposition. I've studied religion and religious beliefs for thirty years, and you have so little to support yourself that it's a bit embarrassing reading your posts. You don't understand when an argument comes from reason instead of emotion. You don't understand that evidential support removes the need for emotionally-based ranting. The fact that you reported half the people involved in this discussion, insisting they're all off-topic with their replies, shows me you are out of anything halfway reasonable to talk about, and you just need to discredit your detractors, because that's what preachers do.

Your definition of faith makes no sense to me. I break down my belief system into trust, faith, and wishful thinking. Explanations that have valid evidence to support them earn my trust. I don't really have to "believe" any more, I can trust that this explanation has been tested to the point where it's practically assumed to be true. Almost. Faith is asking me to believe in something that has no rational basis, that has no supportive evidence. It's actually asking me to give it my strongest, most unshakable belief, based on nothing but emotional surety. Wishful thinking is hoping something is true. I don't use this much either, but if it doesn't cause me to do anything life-changing, I can sometimes wish for things to be true when I know I can never know that. So it's very important what you mean when you talk about belief. It's an extremely nuanced concept, and I think you treat it too lightly, favoring your faith and ignoring reality for the supernatural.

I fail to see your distinction. The fact is, our federal government is our instrument for regulating what broadcasting is allowed on these reserved frequencies. They belong to the People, which means the government. Our government is how the People get things done when it comes to political operations. Free speech doesn't include the airwaves, nor does it guarantee access. We know this because they weren't around when the Constitution was written. Again, the People should be allowed to decide if they want their news "adulterated" by station owners, and others who have a HUGE conflict of interest when it comes to unspun information. As I said before, informing the People should be a part of our homeland defense. Accurate, unbiased reporting of what's going on in the world could have helped us stop so many of the bad decisions our leadership has made in the last 50 years.

You have some misconceptions going on here. You don't need a time machine to move through the 4th dimension. You're moving through it right now, at the rate of 1 second per second. The 4th dimension doesn't "stump" us. There's no edge. There's no "sphere". The universe is all there is, it isn't expanding into anything. It's not easy to visualize. Expanding, in our experience, has to have "room" to expand into. But not the universe. We don't know whether it's finite or infinite. I visualize a ball of matter the size of a whole galaxy. All the universe's matter in a single ball, uncompressed. Now I compress that ball until it's the size of the Earth. The matter is much, much denser. Now I compress it till it's basketball size. Extremely dense, incredibly dense. Now imagine we're going to expand that ball again, and we're going to slow down when it gets back to it's normal galaxy size. When I expand past that point, all the matter is going to start having space between it's constituent parts. This space is going to be homogeneous and isotropic, evenly distributed between the matter. As we keep expanding to the size of the observable universe, the expansion of space distributes the matter in the way we observe. No matter how large the expansion gets, it doesn't meet any "edge" or "void". Space itself is expanding, so it's not pushing against anything, just like the Big Bang isn't an explosion so much as an expansion. Does that make any sense?

Why would you think that? The evidence we have is that the galaxies and their stars are pretty much made of the same basic stuff, and their distribution is fairly even and predictable as well. Why should it "probably" have "regions that we never dreamed of"? Isn't it more likely that it probably has basically the same sort of stuff we see in our observable universe?

"Uniformed" means the statement is wearing official clothing. "Uninformed" is what you meant, but it certainly doesn't apply to EdEarl. In fact, it applies more to you. Your statements about US schools is VERY uninformed. I don't know what part of the country you're in, but in my district if kids want to pray before a test, they're welcome to. They just can't require everyone else join in. They can do just about anything that doesn't require others to participate, or that disrupts classes (I guess if your religion requires you to loudly chant, they might not be able to accommodate you). It's obvious you have some heavy prejudice regarding Muslims. Christian much?

Perhaps your ideas aren't ready for a rigorous review of the sort we do here. And this is nothing compared to professional peer review. We keep our criteria for science topics fairly strict because we assume people who come here with their pet ideas aren't looking for sloppy science. We assume they want an honest review of their work, and that often starts with the basics. It would be foolish indeed to continue a discussion based on flaws and misunderstandings. Btw, I was one of the folks who used the rep system to show my displeasure at your insults. It wasn't because of your ideas, but rather your behavior. That's how most folks use the system. It's not really for saying, "I disagree with you", it's saying, "Hey, settle down, be civil!".

The OP's not going to let this go. He's not interested in being shown he's wrong. He's a preacher. He uses emotional arguments all the time, and doesn't see a difference when people are telling him their arguments are based on reason instead. He thinks we're being emotional when we say we see no evidence of god(s). He has no idea what critical thought or faith-based beliefs are in the first place. It's like arguing with a child. Notice that none of this is attacking him personally, just his behavior, but he will not agree. He'll argue something to the effect that his behavior and his person are one in the same, and can't be distinguished.

OK, barely coherent. Best of luck. Thanks for your time.

I don't think there should be a wheel. I don't think anyone should be able to spin that wheel in a direction that supports private agendas. I think our news sources should be required to give us facts, and let us choose how we use that information to direct our own ships. That's all, just the news. They need tighter regs on truth in advertising overall, and a few other tweaks to keep things honest, but I'm not talking about changing the format of anything but the news. Neutrality agreements used to be required as part of the charter to use federal airwaves. Why are we giving that away again? Isn't that a stupid way to negotiate, Mr representative of the business party? Freedom of speech, when used to inform Americans of the events that shape their lives, should be held to its highest standard. Informing the People is a daily duty that's part of defending the country. We need to raise the bar back to a point that makes us proud again.

! Moderator Note Since this thread's been answered, and it's just inviting some to hijack, it's now closed.

Explain please how asking for evidence to support an assertion like "God did that!" is "emotional and gobbledegook response". You didn't address the questions asked. I don't say there is no god(s). I'm a weak atheist, which means I don't think there is a god, I'm not willing to say there isn't, but so far there's no good evidence. That's not faith-based at all, not even a little. That's a reality-based assessment. So I don't believe in god(s). That doesn't make me anti-god(s), any more than my non-stamp collecting makes me anti-stamps. In other words, I don't fit under the blanket you're using to condemn atheists. What's up with that?

Certainly not Drumpf or Clinton. Sanders, definitely. We have good models for this. Pre-Reagan Fairness Act, and the BBC News is a good example of state media that informs. In fact, BBC News is one of my best perspectives about the US. It gives me a base line between the extremes of FOX News and Huffington Post.

Homogeneous and isotropic expansion aren't intuitive concepts, that's for sure. It's hard for many to imagine expanding without expanding into something else.

I'm only talking about the kinds of regulations we used to have, the kind that allowed journalism with integrity. Didn't I mention Chet Huntley? Check out some of his broadcasts, tell me where his bias was, please.

I like to break things down a bit more, to avoid this kind of simplistic, non-nuanced explanation. Lots of folks think we need to make everything as simple as possible, but I don't think that extends to broad concepts like knowledge. So I start with data. Bottle on a table tells me little. Half-empty, blue glass gin bottle on a huge, 20-seat mahogany dining table in a lavish private dining room gives me enough data to put together some information. The wealthy owner of this home was drinking alone in a room meant for a party. I can look for more information, and if I find a single-serving microwave tray, no glass to drink from, I might be able to conclude that the owner is either very depressed, or his servant has the night off, or he's depressed because he lost his money and can't afford servants any more (among other choices, I'm sure). That's where I start thinking of what I've learned as knowledge. Everything before that really had no relevance and meaning to me.

So perhaps some kind of regulation of the news media needs to happen. Like the scientific method guides and mandates how we explain our reality, and holds a scientist's feet to the fire, maybe we need to put back in place the restrictions that used to give us a more balanced and informed view of the world. As you imply, sometimes an authority needs to simply say, "For this type of function, you need to stay above these guidelines". Journalism might actually be trusted again.

He's done some programming, and thinks the logic is equatable. And we're straying into Crackpot Bingo territory here, what with the Galileo persecution that's now coming to the surface. I think we just have to write this one off to Dunning-Kruger.

I'm thinking back to all those times you never mentioned that you don't believe in Tiger Woods....

Some of the outer planet's moons will become interesting places when the sun encompasses the orbit of Mars. Maybe we vacation on Pluto for a while and see what shakes out.