Phi for All

It's so frightening to see this kind of thought process being played out by adults living in this century. So many people think like this, hold this kind of perspective about our world. It's hard to imagine anyone cynical enough to think we could spend so much and do NOTHING to make the world better. It implies a great deal of contempt for humans, imo.

I disagree. It seems fairly obvious that science is a tool of reason based on observation. It doesn't work with religion, which is all about faith and NOT having evidence to back up your beliefs. The only "cold war" is when religion tries to imply it has the kind of evidence science looks for. It doesn't, never has, never will until god(s) become observable enough to make predictions that science can test. Your argument (unless you're like SillyBilly, and aren't making any), implies this is more a difference of opinion, an argument across a fence, rather than religion trying to gain merit where it isn't warranted. There is no war; when religion tries to make physical assertions about reality using supernatural powers (think Shroud of Turin), science can refute them every time. And when religion falls back on god(s) that are unfathomable, unobservable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being(s), then science is completely useless for measurements since it relies on the natural rather than the supernatural.

This just shows me that we're capable of improving our knowledge. Until we have to deal with those who can't, then it's rational thought versus wild guesswork and wishful thinking. You're basically arguing that the old way of thinking was good enough for a LOT of people for a looooooong time, so why should we change? I have an answer but I'm sure it won't impress you. It's rational.

Oh, give me a break. This is what backtracking the cosmic expansion leads us to. If you use the attic of your mouth a bit more thoroughly, you realize we can only analyze OBSERVABLE galactic redshifts to get this data. We use known physical laws to calculate the characteristics of the universe back to that time, but we have to use only the data we've observed. Seriously, duh, how else did you expect science to do this? We don't look for proof, we use theory because we can't say for sure that what works here works everywhere every time. If anything is intuitive in science, it should be that.

How do I copy paste when answering to a topic? The copy paste in the toolbar does not seem to work. This is a copy/paste. I would use my computer's shortcuts for this. This is a quote. It copies what others have said so you can make your reply more specific to what was said. You can use the Quote or Multi-Quote buttons at the bottom of every post.

I'm sure it helps to justify your own beliefs to claim that atheists use faith the same way as theists. For me and many, atheism is more like not participating in the process. We don't actively disbelieve, we just see no need. Viewed from this perspective, if atheism is a religion, then not-stamp-collecting is a hobby. I'm sorry to hear about your brother. I'm also sorry you chose to view his atheism only in the light of religious practices. You seem to be saying that the Golden Rule, respect for elders, and other ethics points are strictly religious lifestyle choices. I think perhaps he was just a good man who didn't need a god to be a good man. So that's the metric for a realistic belief system? It could apply to a bunch of sedated lab rats as well. For me, it's become about the proper use of rational thought versus emotional thought. Both are necessary for our development, but we use emotional thought far too often. Reason is a better tool to use when describing reality. Emotional thought is often light on data, and relies on guesswork and wishful thinking.

A huge part of the problem is that religion has too many views. Science quibbles over its own interpretation of data, but uses theory to continually refine their explanations, and consensus usually agrees with the one that has the most supportive evidence. There are tens of thousands of religions and sects within those religions. Very few agree on even the basic tenets. I think it's a mistake to treat them all equally as valid, but there isn't a way to determine which has more reasonable perspectives. None of their gods is willing to be observed doing anything predictable so science can measure and study it. They remain supernatural, thus negating the efficacy of science to explain them. The views of the religious aren't being treated unfairly. They aren't being supported adequately enough to withstand a more rigorous approach to reality. IOW, they're complaining about the heat but refuse to leave the kitchen.

! Moderator Note As a science discussion forum, rather than a legal action forum, this type of thread is inconsistent with our purpose. Staff recommends the same advice we would for a medical problem, seek a professional who can help, nobody here is qualified to make internet diagnoses. Do NOT post it again. Thread closed.

As I understand it, the matter expanded when the conditions for its extreme density were released with the expansion of spacetime. It would reach a point where it was no longer dense enough to be required to remain together. Matter was then homogeneously distributed until it cooled enough to begin separating and forming the bodies made of elements we're familiar with.

You don't sound like an adamant crackpot insisting he's right despite the evidence to the contrary, so I'll offer this advice, FWIW. You have new data to work with, and that will allow you to reshape the information that forms the foundations of your research. In addition to what you're currently doing, always make time to go back and learn some basics. It's called mainstream science because it represents our best current explanations of reality. Also, be careful of analogy ("dark matter and space act like water"). They usually explain far less than is needed and require stretching to fit, always a danger.

To clarify, that isn't what swansont said. If a star goes supernova, it dies but sheds its matter back within the universe. Our sun won't die that way, it's not big enough to support the kind of core-collapse that results in a supernova. It will go red giant instead, ending Earth but giving hope of life to the outer planets and their moons.

It's a time of shared camaraderie with fellow humans. I don't participate in anything that would be against my principles. If I make the mistake of judging all these humans based on the religions or traditions of their parents, then I won't be able to interact with them at all at a time when most people are in a fairly compassionate, sharing, cooperative mood. I would be the guy on the outside beating on the door of the church, telling them the warmth they feel inside is just an illusion. It would be ineffective. The view from a high horse is only personally satisfying. To deal with people, you need to be on their level to see their perspective. I'm sure there are. They would be great resources for guidance. There are many secular community organisations, but you have to make sure your local group doesn't have a religious agenda. Rotary International has been helping to wipe out polio worldwide, but some chapters have had criticism about bringing religion and prayer into their meetings. It's all about people, so find the right ones. They're out there, but be warned; they aren't prone to being judged. Probably stems from their avoidance of religion.

1. I observe the time off, the giving of gifts, the festivities and decorations with friends and family, the thankfulness and thoughtfulness of the season. I don't do anything remotely religious. 2. I do call myself a humanist if someone else uses a religious descriptor for themselves. I do it as a way to explain I'm not religious. 3. Don't bring up religion, try to use rational thought whenever possible, and pay attention to those who listen.

So it's not the size that matters, but how you make them wiggle.

YOU don't know for sure. Those who have studied this extensively know that the Theory of Evolution is our best current explanation for the development of Earth's diverse species. It's constantly corrected and updated. This is how science works, and you should know that by now. Thousands of smart people sharing knowledge globally, checking, rechecking, testing, measuring. Like evolution, it's an ongoing process. Unlike evolution, science seems to be geared towards improvement.

Not sure about insulation, but fiberboards are wood fibers mixed with resin to make sheets similar to plywood for sheathing, roofing, floor underlayment, etc.

! Moderator Note Thread closed, we don't bother discussing creationism here any more. Please visit TalkOrigins.org and all your misconceptions will be corrected. And btw, nobody calls it Darwinism. Darwin was ages ago. Science progresses.

For me, Humanism is more like this. I don't see any need for god(s) as an explanation for anything. I'm not anti-god(s), but since I see no real evidence to make me think otherwise, I prefer to invest my time and efforts in my fellow humans, with an idea towards a society where humans are considered more a part of nature, benevolent custodians by right of intellect, responsible for making sure we behave responsibly. Rational thought is needed for solving our problems, but religion is mostly emotional appeals. Emotions have their place, we base our morality on emotions a lot, but reason is needed when trying to discover what reality is. Humanism attempts to adjust our perspectives so we focus more on what's known, and how build on that to know more, rather than wasting time on supernatural wishes and guesswork.

I've tried to understand this statement for what it was meant to convey, but I can't get over how the words just seem to say, "When we have no idea what we're talking about, we use religion." If you can conceptualize something, how is it "far beyond our current understanding"? And when you say "conceptualize", aren't you saying, "You won't really get it, none of us do, but it will seem like you're closer to an answer because it will be supernatural and therefore won't really have a set answer." Forgive me, but this appears to be something that sounds really cool and relevant, but when you break down what you're actually saying, it has no real meaning. Lots of folks talk about how you can't know the mind of God, then they say stuff like this that implies they do.

It's technically false, since some infections like pneumonia can compromise the immune system and make one more susceptible to illness. There are many illnesses that can leave you too weak to fight back.

Analogies are like condoms. If you're going to stretch them for use with elephants, something is likely to break.

It helps you stay cooler, since you're able to dissipate heat more efficiently when the blood vessels are so close to the surface. When you get wet, larger ears also help use the water to remove excess heat from the body.

Most people learn the basics and thus give themselves a framework with which to judge future circumstances, before they start questioning this knowledge. If you start questioning before you grasp those basics, you can't possibly understand when the opposing answer you're attempting to consider is trivially wrong. It seems "backwards" to you. Some people mistakenly consider themselves capable of thinking outside the box before they ever learn what's in the box. They spend valuable time fooling themselves when they could be learning.

No, but it's necessary to react emotionally first, then allow your fears to have more influence on your decisions than your reasoning. This insures that you remain in ignorance, confirming your own biases, with no mechanism for improving objectivity. Many people use strong emotion when they find their knowledge lacking. Theists who are also anti-vac, AGW-denying tobacco defenders are just a subset of a broader group with a heart default instead of a head default.

You could just wait to see if the baby develops hairy teeth, then you'd know without paying for the test.