Phi for All

No, he's a mis-skeptic. These folks think skepticism is an eternal condition. They hide behind "I don't just take you at your word, I want proof", then never bother to look at any. They want proof, not evidence. Mis-skeptics think skepticism means rejecting anything science-y, no matter how supported it is. They don't understand that a true skeptic accepts the preponderance of evidence, when it's shown to him. But really, this guy is a creationist. You can tell he's lying, because he's talking.

Except I don't think people become Atheist for a certain advantage. I think people become Atheist when they learn enough to realize that faith is asking for your strongest beliefs and giving you nothing substantial to base those beliefs on. Knowledge of the natural world is expanding, closing the gaps where gods still lurk to lure the ignorant back into the Iron Age. I think of it more like unpulling the wool from one's eyes. Unless you're talking about the obvious advantages of rational thought, less fear, and more time for brunch on Sunday.

It's the same old garbage. We've stopped bothering with it too much here, and just link them to TalkOrigins. It's a waste of time to discuss this with them. They came to their conclusions emotionally, so reason isn't going to help at all. Pointing them to evidence just makes them convinced they're right and we're covering something up. The real problem is they don't know enough to know how little they know. It's a little like the Dunning-Krueger effect, but it's worse because this is a conscious choice on the part of the creationists. The data is out there, they're too afraid to read it since they've probably been arguing ignorantly for many years, and deep down they may know that if they click the link to TalkOrigins, it will knock the cards over and destroy their whole house. That said, I'd rather not discuss someone's stances unless they're here to defend them. Not that this guy could, but we must stay intellectually honest when faced with this kind of absurdity.

No offense, but this makes it seem like you haven't understood the real argument here. Those converging studies showed that conservatives tend to make decisions using an area of the brain more associated with emotional memory than liberals, and liberals use an area more associated with detecting and solving problems. The contention is not about crazies on both sides, it's about how making serious decisions based on mostly emotions is NOT a good way to approach politics. In fact, it's so counterproductive and detrimental that it's a little insane when you look back and see all the wacko decisions made in the last several decades. People are more easily manipulated when they don't think things through, and rely instead on fears and hopes.

Why do you want a newer website? TalkOrigins has everything you're asking for. I consider it to be the best resource for questions from laymen on the evolutionary process, and how science has debunked creationist misinformation.

! Moderator Note Sven Hendrix, this is discussion site. We don't allow advertising, but if you'd like to reprint some specific points so we can discuss them here, that's acceptable. If all you wanted was more blog traffic, sorry, can't help you.

I wasn't offering anything to replace it. What are subsidies on well-established industries, like oil and sugar, if not diminishing public funds directly? Wealthy corporations are moving headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes that pay for things that the wealthy use the most, like highways and airports, and at the same time they're lobbying against minimum wage hikes and welfare. That's probably not political conservatism, it's just what their CFOs told them would make some extra profit. Why do so many people play the "redistribute the wealth" card when it comes to repairing the inequality? It seems like an attempt at a strawman argument. If you're talking about taking someone's money they've already earned and redistributing it among the rest of us, I don't know anyone who's arguing for that. Changing the tax laws, tying wages back to productivity, this is the type of redistribution I'd like to see, and we know it will work because it already has. And try that money-isn't-everything line on someone who has no money. They aren't that worried about their spirituality.

This is so completely irrational, I have to suspect you've given up on thinking and are just trolling for reaction. Please take this the right way, because I only want to help. I think this is a case of you not knowing enough about the subject to know how much you don't know about the subject. It happens pretty frequently in science. I used to see it in theater as well, beginning actors who thought they could tackle Shakespeare. These are pretty common flaws, misunderstanding what a theory is, misusing the words logic and proof, and assuming a skeptic assumes that everything is flawed. Skeptics don't accept things without evidence, but once they confirm the evidence, even skeptics accept mainstream knowledge. They don't always remain skeptical. Our problem now is that most of the conclusions you have were arrived at emotionally, so no amount of reason can change your mind. Knowledge is the only thing that will help, so I hope you were kidding about not being interested in scientific methods or mentality.

I've often found there is more common ground than most perspectives can see. Nobody wants people to starve. And nobody wants freeloaders diminishing public funds, either. Now if we could only agree that it's the poor that are starving, and the rich that are diminishing public funds, we could fix it.

I wish more people would come inside. In here, we know the only commitment is to the evidence. I'll trust the most supported explanation until something else comes along that explains more, or has even more evidence. This isn't a case where you have to only dance with the girl that brought you. If I see a prettier theory, I'm going to take her for a spin.

Gabriel must have been the one to explain how male believers get multiple virgins to wed in heaven, while females get just one man they'll be satisfied with. Do the females get a non-believer man, since a believer would be with his virgins? If a woman dies a virgin, is she part of a believer's harem, or does she get her single guy? Religious texts are so often contradictory, it makes you wonder how anyone ever thought they were pure to begin with.

It is a problem. It's easy to become convinced you are right and everybody else is wrong, and that you have important information to share if people would stop correcting you. People are just trying to help a layman out with some things he doesn't understand, but you're megalomania makes it seem like you're actually claiming authority in these matters. Laymen should be asking questions and learning the answers, not telling experts they're wrong.

If I say, "The sun is going to rise here at 06:58 tomorrow morning", I'm making a scientific prediction based on the preponderance of evidence. But you can't say my statement is true, because it's describing something that hasn't happened yet. It's not false because my statement is based on accurate historical evidence. And it's not unknown either, since the probability of something happening to prevent it are very small. The scientifically accurate way to describe this is, "the most-supported explanation". Terminology is extremely important. No truths. Proof is for maths. Evidence is the key in science.

I know the Jews have methods they use when making copies of their Bible to minimize the chances of any mistakes being made. Does Islam have something similar? That might preserve the text in its original language, but interpretation and translation are almost impossible to integrate into that methodology.

We have that, it's on each post right under your username. Freshness dating!

This is an example of a claim that science can falsify. I offer up this last page of posts as evidence. You clearly do NOT understand what a theory is, and you continue to display this in your arguments. The reason we NEVER want to assume we know a truth in science is because we'd stop looking if we thought we had reached "The Answer" or "Truth". Scientific methodology works well because we always assume there is more to learn, so we develop theories. BUT, we don't call them that until they've been thoroughly tested, reviewed, retested, duplicated, debated, and pounded on. If we huff and puff and can't blow the house down, if nobody can, then we may start to call an explanation a theory. If you equate any mainstream theory with guesswork, you actually show that YOU are the one guessing.

Please read this first then. I think TalkOrigins is one of the best sites for laying out just the facts, and showing where many creationist stances are just wrong.

Stick around and you'll find that the more you use the scientific method, the better your critical thinking skills will become. Welcome to SFN, and thanks for being so willing to learn!

I think purity is simultaneously a nebulous, improbable, and subjective concept. When it's used to refer to religious doctrine, you add all that emotion into the discussion, and you get nothing substantive, only opinion and flames. Can you explain what you mean by pure, so it's not open to so much interpretation? Does pure mean perfect? Untainted by anything (if so, explain how something gets tainted)? Or do you just mean "as originally written, word for word, without the slightest change"?

I don't agree. You're misusing the word theoretical. In science, if something has been tested as thoroughly as a theory, we don't say it's true but we say it's likely, or the most likely explanation, in the case of a theory like evolution, or The Big Bang. Theory is the best you can get in science. Truth is a philosophical notion, and proof is for math, not science. Science relies on evidence. We can prove something is false, we do that all the time. And if we don't have an explanation for something, we simply say, "We don't know yet". I agree with what you said about belief. If you can trust an explanation, belief isn't necessary. Belief often leads to unreasonable stances.

Please don't take this personally. I think your impatience is the root of your problems with science. Science is like peeling away a jigsaw puzzle stamped from the skin of an onion 100' tall. Each piece is understood best by seeing how the previous pieces fit. Your argument is for a quick fix, a way to toss out all that mainstream studying and just go with what this guy Sungenis is suggesting. I'm with Strange, I think you need to ask yourself why you're so quick to dismiss mainstream science with its preponderance of evidence in favor of an untested idea?

We do that here, but we do it within the framework of accepted methodology, so there might actually be some productive discussion instead of wild guesses and opinion and hand-waving. It's not for everyone, but most people here know that Wild West speculation with no guidelines is pointless. There are places where you can just toss your idea out with no structure to the discussion. I don't think they're as professional in their demeanor as we are here. Most of them just call you an idiot and ban you.

I hope you're one of those who needs to be sure and methodical about what you think you understand about the universe. Most folks here are pretty sold on science methodology. We like to trust our explanations as much as possible, and that means seeking confirmation of the evidence when you hear things like, "We have not been able to confirm anything as random".

Use the Search function. We've had numerous threads about complexity.

Did I miss something? What frame of reference are you talking about?