Phi for All

I'm not Christian, but I long for a modern world where people don't make incredibly ignorant statements about whole groups of people. Because it's just as bad as saying, "Believe or else!". It's saying, "All bad, no matter what!"

We definitely don't want to be giving medical advice over the internet. Can we amend your question to "Can steroids stunt the growth of internal organs?", so we can avoid non-professional diagnoses?

You start out like this, it's hard to go anywhere but conspiracy. This reminds me of a Kevin Nealon bit, about how nothing good ever follows the phrase, "Now hear me out." Kind of the same thing here. As far as I know, people have used litanies and chants outside of religion for teaching purposes. It's an effective technique, so I'm not sure I can fault the church for using it. I think you're misusing "artificially" in this context. Aren't your beliefs shaped by things you hear from others? Can you really develop your own belief system completely from within with no input in a modern society? And isn't that input obtained the same way you're claiming is artificially imposed? I do agree that it's an unfair influence to hold someone's alleged immortal soul hostage in exchange for worship. If I caught someone in a position of authority over my child teaching her about how real the goblins in the garden are, and how they'll catch her and burn her in their ovens for eternity if she doesn't behave properly and gift them with a tenth of her allowance, I'm fairly certain I could have that person fired, maybe jailed, hopefully not hospitalized.

I think you may find some parallels with kicking a bad habit like smoking (and no, I'm not saying faith is physically unhealthy). Your instinct is to reach for that cigarette, but after enough experience without them, that urge fades and hopefully the massive benefits of NOT smoking make you think less and less about why it was comforting. When you start acknowledging the greater freedom to breathe, the clearer head, and no more bad taste in your mouth, you begin to appreciate a lack of belief in god(s).

And this is why I object to trying to paint an upside to climate change. It's not that it doesn't need to be looked at, that it doesn't need to be studied. It's that this type of argument just fills all the crazy-balloons these deniers carry around so proudly. I mean really, look at the reasoning from ignorance here. This is a drowning man who is so grateful for the upside life-preserver he's been thrown. No need for worry or added expense, it all evens out, right?

I didn't get that feeling. More like saying one item doesn't belong on an otherwise good list? Which one of these things is not like the other?

Anecdotally, legend has it that O walked into a bar in Liverpool in the summer of '84 and ordered a round for the house. As everyone stood there dumbstruck, a 5.4 magnitude earthquake hit 65 miles away in Wales and cleared the bar of customers before orders could be taken. To this day, nobody knows how he did it.

Thanks for bringing us back on topic. This thread's original focus was that Christianity and science could come to a mutual point regarding creation, and that was further clarified to define creation from a Biblical standpoint metaphorically, rather than literally. In fact, it's been pointed out that the literal perspective (Creationism rather than creation) is what causes any friction in the matter. And now you keep showing us why the fundamentalist approach is doomed to fail. Rather than deal with the issues, rather than provide the evidence to support your points, you repeatedly choose to derail intelligent discussion with hijacks and red herrings and anything other than what people have been begging you for: Something of Substance. So your behavior in this discussion is now supportive evidence for this statement: Creationism will never have the support of science because of its disconnection with truth and reality, but science and religion can both agree that we don't know exactly how life on Earth began. There's your connection.

YES!

I think ignorance breeds fear, and that most people combat it in two ways. You can dispel the ignorance by learning about what you fear, and then both the fear and the ignorance are defeated. Or you can dispel the fear alone by having faith in your god(s).

That alone should raise red flags. What else in life is like that, immune to observation, yet credited with doing so many things that also have natural explanations? At a certain point, you find yourself repeating all the platitudes that cover religion's sins - "God moves in mysterious ways" was a favorite catchall - and it just seems like you're trying to protect a house of cards from the slightest breeze of criticism. To me, that concept that god(s) can evade observation, know everything, be everywhere, and do anything, is like writing a blank check to a con man, then promising to believe in him with your strongest, most reason-proof form of belief, your faith. Can I ask, were your parents atheist or theist or both?

Oh my gosh. I wouldn't worry about the weather. It's being tracked by satellites using precision time made possible by atomic clocks owned by the US Naval Observatory, clocks maintained by professional physicists like our Dr Swanson. This is a novel new tactic, though, I'll give you credit.

So an argument that's sound is also valid, but a valid argument isn't necessarily sound, is that right?

I'm pretty sure Bohr was referring to the fact that the molecules that make up everything are mostly nothing themselves. If it looks solid but is made up of basically nothing, is it real? I think I could set up an imaginary situation where my rational thoughts might lead me to an irrational conclusion. But what would that show us beyond that it's possible? This sounds suspiciously like someone getting ready to stretch a concept beyond all recognition to fit some preconceptions.

I think you've adopted this "Be fair and hear them out" approach, but again, you don't understand the position I'm arguing (based on your continued misrepresentation of it). Creationism makes some very specific claims that allow science to unequivocally shout, "FALSE". It's not about creation, it's about creationism. It's not a guess at something even science says, "We don't know yet", it's outright lies and propaganda trying to get the Bible taught in public schools. And that's why it seems like we aren't listening. They're really only clever to people who don't check facts. They're con men and liars. Ten years here I've been hearing the same arguments refuted, then repeated, over and over. Classic example of an emotional response overriding your reason. Congratulations, you're trying to stop the mob from driving off the rabid dog in their midst. Actually, this is more like a lying dog that just wants to waste our time. In case that's not a joke, here is a good guide to Logical Fallacies. I'll say it again again, it's not supposed to be personal. It's all about the science, backed up by evidence to make it trustworthy and worth our time and resources. edit to add: Sorry, posted this after closure.

A lot of the logical fallacies I've studied in terms of written arguments (taught to me by English teachers) have loose mathematical formulae associated with them, or are expressed with those symbols. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fallacy of assuming that since A precedes B that A is the cause of B. Same with False Dilemma, the fallacy of assuming that claim X or claim Y is true, so if claim X is false, claim Y must be true.

Lots of courage in that, man. Here's my Gospel: an early human, guarding the tribe from predators in the night (let's call him Dirtnose), looks into the darkness and wonders if a lion could be sitting right there in the shadows, there but unseen. The idea festers, he thinks about all the things that might be there, he even tosses his spear into the night a few times to test his idea. And then one night, he's right. He stares into the shadows, imagines the beast crouching there, and he let's fly with his spear.... The tribe is amazed when he shows them what he did. Dirtnose imagined something he couldn't see, something that was out to get the tribe, and he killed it where it hid. This idea spreads like wildfire. What else was out there, unseen, that might pose a danger? Could things be unseen even in the daylight? Could there be things unseen that weren't trying to kill the tribe, maybe things that could help the tribe, make the crops grow, make the hunt more successful? Dirtnose becomes Seer of Shadows. It's not hard to see where this leads. Someone will eventually be put in charge of matters dealing with the unseen, and you have your religion with its leaders, its teachings, and its fervent followers. Fervent mostly because everything that happens that's horrible happens because someone offended the gods. So it sounds like you've been infected with some weak atheism; you'd be happy to believe in god(s) that could offer some rational support for belief in Them, but until He/She/It/They can oblige, you're going to assume they don't exist. There are rational explanations for almost everything that's ever happened to you, except a few you really wondered about, and in the past that made you think there are some things only religion could explain. Now you realize history has shown you the rest most likely has a rational explanation as well. Congratulations, on squeezing the last bit of god from the gaps in your knowledge! Who in your life is going to take this news the hardest?

I'm not sure which option you'll think I'm taking. Pick one, and I'll just explain to the best of my ability. This is the one I'm going to point you to, SillyBilly, because it's a typical example of you making things up, assigning motives you couldn't possibly know, asserting that this is the way things are. It's the major example in this thread (and I don't want to bring other threads up here). It also seems to be at the root of your problems with science, imo, and maybe that's why you champion creationism, this misunderstanding that disagreement means censorship and ridicule. Historically, religion has used this to keep the flock together, so maybe it's just ingrained in you to see criticism as evil. That particular instance, which SillyBilly quoted in his original objection, was exactly as you describe it. But I most certainly accused him of it later, so I guess it doesn't matter, except to highlight how crucial critical thinking skills are. I keep feeling like the new objection here is that, in this compromise between science and religion over the topic of creation, creationists (defined here as those who believe in an inerrant Bible, and that the Earth is a fraction of the age science claims) aren't being fairly represented. Is that just me? The problem here is that science is more than happy to say, "We don't know yet" when it comes to how life formed on this planet, which leaves a fairly nice blank slate for theists [edit] and their perspectives. But scientists can't (yes, can't) consider any explanations from creationists that doesn't tally with reality. Measurements we trust for everything else don't magically get a pass just because a fundamentalist claims the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Logic isn't what you think it is. It's a branch of mathematics. What you're thinking of, what Mr Spock should have been saying in all those shows and movies, is rational, not logical. Nowadays, people use logical to mean, "That makes sense to me", just as they use "theory" to mean, "An idea I've come up with that makes sense to me". So the real question is, is there such a thing as being too rational? I suppose this is as opposed to being too emotional, which we know can cause problems. Can you give me an example of someone being too rational?

An advantage to be sure. Perhaps not bending over also keeps the arms closer to the body for better core strength? Or more naturally lets you lift with your legs more than your back? That's the feeling I have. It sounds plausible though, being able to shift the striking edge closer to the target seems like it would increase the depth of the cut. If I swing a straight blade, the hilt, my hand, and the striking edge are meeting the target in a line, and I'm timing my strike to meet the target at that moment when it's all lined up and my strength is being used most efficiently. But if I'm swinging a blade where the edge is already a couple inches ahead in the swing, it seems like the power point in my swing is now in an open wound instead of just starting one. That's something I hadn't considered. Doesn't that mean that if the snow is really deep (where it would be great to save your back), you shouldn't use the offset since you'll have to toss it over a higher bank (thus negating the back benefits)? The angle is changed, you're right. Here's a kopesch: With this example, you can more easily see how the blade is going to reach the target ahead of a straight blade. But will that take better advantage of that point where you strike? In baseball, it's that point where your wrists "break", you expect the bat to meet the ball at a point that will send it where you want. An offset to a baseball bat wouldn't make sense since you aren't just trying to hit the ball as hard as you can. An offset to a bat might mean your home run over center field gets fouled off left, but with a sword, that point of impact always needs as much advantage as you can get. I'm just not convinced there is any real advantage with the sword.

Thanks for this. We've gotten this objection a bit lately ("I don't want to argue...."), and I keep meaning to mention it. I was going to frame it in a legal sense, like presenting a case, but I think proposition or point is much clearer. And as you said, a proposition or point is not a personal opinion either, it's something you state or assert as being true, with the tacit promise that you'll support your points with evidence.

I think it's a big mistake to assign a single motive for the whole system. In my experience, opinion isn't why people give rep points. It's mostly about how well or poorly they've reasoned, and is highly affected by attitude. Friendly, funny, reasonable gets you green; insulting, whiny, irrational gets you red. Remember too, if a scientist seems frustrated that you're going against the mainstream, it's not because you're rocking the boat. It's probably because you're not paddling. Or your paddle is full of holes. Or your paddle is too small. Or you forgot to bring a paddle. All the history I've read tells me science developed because God was a poor explanation. It's quite the spin to say the foundation of science was understanding God. The point of people bothering with science was how much more trustworthy science was than religion.

At the professional levels, this is happening as much as humans need it to happen. If you're talking about science discussions here, the big problem, again, is that a certain level of science education is necessary to make assertions about it, and if that's not there, no amount of anonymity is going to help hide the fact. People who don't really have the knowledge to understand a scientific concept, but somehow know it's wrong, AND they have the perfect solution, those people stick out like pearls at a picnic. And I don't know how to explain that it isn't about superior knowledge, or looking down one's nose at the amateur. That isn't it at all. Scientists can be extremely nit-picky, especially when it comes to terminology and definitions, but that's not what happens when an amateur comes in to tell us we're doing it all wrong. We don't want to defend our knowledge, we don't want to belittle the amateur, and we don't want to make ourselves feel superior. We want the amateur to go back to school and learn what he's talking about and then see if what he's asserting still makes sense. Or... or, I guess the amateurs could ask questions instead of trying to correct the pros. That might work. Btw, your knowledge can't hide in anonymity, but other factors can. The administrator for this site started out as a smarmy little know-it-all vanilla member that pissed off many people with his attitude. He was smart, though, anyone could see that, and he learned to build his critical thinking skills until he could back up his know-it-all behavior, all the while he was a student. I think he's old enough to drink now, I don't know how many degrees he has, but the little bastard was like eleven years old back then, holding his own with some of the smartest people I know. Science is a meritocracy. If you want equal time, think about what equal time really means.

I have a question about two different tools, both with handles that are offset out of line with the working end. The first is a snow shovel: Does this offset handle confer any real physical advantages? Is it easier to lift when full because my arms are at a better angle to take advantage of my strength, or could I do the same thing with a straight handle by holding it differently? Or does it only seem easier to lift? The second is a sword. Both the falcata (shown below) and the Egyptian kopesch have a slashing blade offset an inch or two from the handle, putting the blade forward of where it would normally be when striking a target. The idea is (or so I've heard), as you strike with the offset blade, the center of percussion is changed, and by the time a straight blade hits, this offset blade is already an inch or two into the target. Sounds great, but is that really a physical advantage? Is there more momentum to provide more force to the blow when the blade is offset forward?

OK, this at least tells me it's your personal experience only, and you aren't trying to make a claim about all atheists. This kind of statement won't get criticized for lack of support, but it's also just an opinion, very subjective, and holds as much weight as anyone else's opinion. I need to get one of those heavy-duty irony meters if I'm going to keep discussing things with you. You, who have little to no knowledge of science, are judging other people's knowledge of science?! How does that work? I don't know much about... say, art restoration, and for this analogy you don't either. How would either one of us be able to accurately judge whether someone else was an expert just from talking to them the way you did with the atheists? Wouldn't most of their terms and descriptions go right over our heads? And if that happens, we might either assume they know what they're talking about, or we might assume they sound wrong. Wouldn't an expert and a fraud sound equally wrong to us who don't know what we're talking about when it comes to restoring art? I can't help it, but thinking I could judge someone's knowledge in a subject I knew little about seems arrogant, and maybe a little self-centered. Ironic, huh?