Phi for All

Right, gaining knowledge has nothing to do with it. It's all about my ego. In ten years here, I've never seen anyone come close to expressing any of these views successfully. With no evidence to prove their points, they devolve into hatespeech, so the admonition about slurs against groups is really an issue of flaming, not political correctness. Productive discussion can't happen if the language used is intended to anger. "Be civil" is our #1 rule because it makes it easier for everyone to talk, not because we're afraid of offending anyone. I guess that's not as obvious as I thought it was.

This may be a faulty memory, but I remember watching the show with my daughter when she was much younger, and I recall MLP being much more cutesy and girley. I think the show changed at some point, possibly aiming more humor at the adults who were watching with their children. I remember loving Warner Brothers cartoons as a kid, then rediscovering them as an adult and realizing all the bits that went right over my head as a kid. Lots of political and social humor in those old cartoons that kids don't pick up on. My daughter is still a fan as a teenager, and I've seen some of the shows recently. They do a lot more character development than most kids shows. I'd be willing to bet these adults who like the show like it for certain characters more than anything. The plots are sort of convoluted, which again may be more appealing to adults than kids. The few episodes I've caught lately seem to mention what's happened in the past more often than most situation shows. This seems to inspire fandom since it's not always easy to follow along if you're only catching an occasional episode.

Are you talking about the fly, or its larvae? This, repeated over and over on each of your posts, makes me think you want us to do your homework for you. Not cool.

I've never heard of applying bacon to a myiasis infestation. A layer of petroleum jelly over the area is supposed to prevent the larvae from breathing, luring them to the skin's surface so they can be removed. Maybe the bacon suffocates them the same way? I'd rather use Vaseline and eat the bacon myself.

Very well said. And exactly the way science should work, updating always to the best supported explanations. And this is the part a preacher will probably never understand. They have no intention of ever changing their minds. They don't feel the need to "update [their] own thinking" because they've joined here to spread the word about the idea they've locked onto (thus closing their minds to discussion in any form). They falsely consider their own logic to be faultless and ignore efforts to show them otherwise. They're happy to take questions from the audience gathered around their soapbox, but they don't really want anyone trying to refute their Truth.

Force implies interaction with another object. Perhaps you mean energy? Plenty of that around at the time.

! Moderator Note Moved from Politics to the Lounge.

I think, if one is really honest with oneself, having people talk at you is frustrating. And we do seem to attract our fair share of soapboxers who don't want discussion, they want to preach (no religious connotations intended) to the ignorant masses about whatever Light Bulb of Truth has gone off in their heads. I'm not sure why people join this site, which is clearly for discussion amongst peers, and then proceed to preach about whatever has wadded up their panties. Other members try to provide perspective, and it's often rejected in favor of the rant. You can't discuss something with someone if your mind is already made up. Nobody wants to take their valuable time being open-minded with a closed mind. And ironically, it's usually those people who accuse others of being closed-minded because they aren't listening to the soapboxing. There really aren't a lot of moral judgments to be made as an SFN moderator. The owners set the rules, and they've asked some of us to help moderate and enforce those rules. Setting the tone is about all we do as far as leadership. We're more like cops who only get activated when someone ignores the rules. The rest of the time we get to do what we joined to do, discuss science with other humans.

I think you're judging the majority based on a narrow view of one end of the spectrum. You hear the worst stories about kids who don't come out of their rooms to experience the real world, then suddenly we're creating monsters everywhere. There are always going to be things young people try that old people object to on some grounds or other. And still we don't have a population full of psychopaths, even though the media wants us to be worried enough about it to make their advertising effective.

I don't think altruism is the right concept, but it certainly seems like a cooperative empathy. Stuck in the water, too small to get out, the bear knows at least one thing he can do. That he could assess the situation like this seems very empathetic, that he would act on it seems cooperative, in that they both had a common goal (which was essentially "do what it takes to get the bear back to his lunch"). Captivity and domestication probably factor heavily. In the wild, I doubt the bear would have missed out on his omnivorous pleasures in favor of vegetables. It's hard not to let anthropomorphism make these moments fuzzy. It's so interesting to see this kind of behavior.

OK, this is too much. When you're ready to think outside of black/white/good/evil, when you're ready to accept that concepts like these are extremely nuanced and subjective, when you're ready to acknowledge that something may be bad for you but good for someone else, this might become a productive discussion. Right now it's just loud guessing with dart board definitions.

That much of a precious metal could indeed glut the market, unless strictly controlled. DeBeers keeps the price of diamonds high this way. If we found that much platinum, it's unlikely we would pay off the national debt though. That would have a lot of far-reaching effects, just one of which would be no more US Treasury Bonds. A lot of investors rely on our bonds because they're so safe. Banks wouldn't know where to put their money. We could sure pay it down quite a bit. I wonder what the consequences of the US going to a Platinum standard would be? Btw, the only reason this is viable is because you stipulated that the net profit was in the trillions. How you could get that much profit is another question entirely. Remember that the rest of the platinum available was mined here at a fraction of the cost of asteroid mining. It's more profitable per ounce.

50% off on spiral notebooks?

I'm having a hard time with these variable definitions you're using. Atheism is a lack of belief, I'm not sure how the absence of something can be defined as "militant" or "hardcore". It's like saying, "I don't collect stamps, and I'm really a knowledgeable hardcore militant intellectual about that". You really need to think about your definitions. You claim to be an atheist, yet you also claim "I'm even against God in the normative sense". Why do you need to be "against God"? He doesn't exist, remember?

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please. Also, for those who don't want to open strange attachments, can you repost the part of the function you're talking about here?

"Reason" definition #1: An statement that explains why something is the way it is. "Reason" definition #2: The power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way. I think you're conflating the definitions, but they're very different. Reasoning (#2) is beyond a rock's capabilities. They have no minds. There are many reasons (#1) why this is, the foremost being that they are inanimate. Reasons (#1) aren't always reasonable (#2). You don't have to use reason (#2) to come up with a reason (#1), but it helps. Species evolve. Rocks do not. "Things" should not include rock and stone in your examples. Upheld?! Please define and clarify how a stone can "uphold" anything without being consciously placed to support it? By "forces", are you talking about geophysical forces involved in the formation of minerals, or are you talking about wise forces behind creation?

Style?! Please define and clarify. Style has aspects of choice that rocks don't possess. Please define how you're using the word "reason". An earthquake would provide the force and thus the reason a stone might roll downhill, but an earthquake is NOT a reasoning entity. Similarly, a mountain goat might accidentally dislodge the stone. A reason without reason. Do you see why "there is reason behind it" and "there is a reason behind it" are two very different sentences, using the same word differently?

Guesses shouldn't be posted in such assertive terms, it makes people think you're speaking in capitals, talking about Truth and other subjective concepts as if they're universal. I don't think so. Haven't we gone past the idea that your belief is religious? Even if it is deistic in nature, deism is not a religious outlook. Deism is pretty much opposed to religions based on words from God, miracles, or any other direct involvement from a deity.

If you can ask this, I don't think you're using "believe" the way I use it. If this is an "answer" to a query you have, how can you not believe it, especially as I go back and re-read your firm assertions about it? I personally separate belief even further into Faith, Hope & Trust. I can see how you may not have faith in your answer, as you seem unwilling to live your life according to this belief, changing your behavior the way many people of faith do. Yet you defend it strongly with no evidence, which seems like faith. I don't see any way to trust your "answer", because it involves a supernatural entity (your whatever non-God/non-deity with the wisdom behind creation), about which no evidence can be gathered. Science won't trust an answer that jumps over that small but critical gap between T=0 and where our math becomes reliable. Is this something you hope may be true, but aren't willing to change anything about your life to accommodate? It's hard not to harbor some hope that there is universal meaning to everything. It might be harmless or it might stop us from learning something more important, it's hard to know the difference.

And this is essentially why you're getting so much pushback in this thread. The good part is that you're attempting to communicate your position on this issue. The "bad" part of your attempt is that you're misusing terms that have certain meanings in science, and you're trying to mix philosophy (the why) with science (the how, if you will). What you're positing isn't an "answer". Neither science nor religion has true answers (religions differ, and science is predicated on not assuming theories are facts). When you talk in terms of "answers", it can seem like you're claiming some kind of universal Truth, and that always stops a good discussion in its tracks. I don't think that's your intention here. This is the root of the problem. We can't have a "theory" of what happened prior to the Big Bang. A scientific theory would have to be based on a model that could gather supportive evidence with which to make predictions. We can go back only to a certain point before the energies involved exceed our ability to investigate them. It's a point in our investigation where we stand on the last bit of certain ground. That there is a next step, we have no doubt, but we have nothing to help us go earlier than 10−37 seconds into the event. Right now, everything before that would be a guess. A rational guess might be called philosophy, but it won't be science. Intelligent Design, at least the movement, is rather deceptive, in that it attempts to take a deistic approach to education, emphasizing that there is controversy about the existence of gods, so we should teach both sides in public schools. The deceptive part is that the proponents of Intelligent Design are Christians pushing Christianity, not deists rationalizing gods. If you're talking about an intelligently designed universe that doesn't feature the Abrahamic God, then this is a deist position, no way around it. You can't call yourself an atheist if you think a supernatural entity caused all this. Atheism, rejecting the belief in all deities. Any directed intelligence capable of using the energies available at the time of the Big Bang is, by standard definition, some sort of deity. Personal opinion here, but I think you need to ask yourself which is more important, this position you're taking, or being able to call yourself an atheist. They seem to be at odds with each other, and only because you're insisting on a definition that isn't mainstream. Even people who reject the mainstream need to use mainstream definitions if they want increase comprehension in others.

My "inaccuracy with the Big Bang" eludes me, so it's not obvious. Could you explain what you mean by this? What Big Bang inaccuracy are you talking about?

! Moderator Note ... you should post managable and informative snippets from your blog here so people who want to stay where they are can participate in the discussion. You're absolutely right about the wall-o-text approach, much better to take it a section at a time and discuss each bit.

This is a deist position. You talk about "something" which exists, you choose not to call it a god, but it walks and quacks like a deity. To an atheist, nothing "exists which fits the missing piece of the puzzle" except knowledge. There is no "it" for the puzzle to be above. To an atheist, there is no need for god(s) or cosmic wisdom or higher powers. To be clear, the atheist position isn't "I believe there is no god"; rather we don't have any belief in god(s). None. If belief is hair, we're bald. If it's a hobby, we simply don't participate. It's a very important distinction, and the fact that you can talk about consciously driven creation means you aren't an atheist. Sorry if this upsets your self-image, but it seems only fair to help you use the right terminology to explain your position regarding a very complex issue. It will aid in understanding if definitions are clear.

Oooh, I wouldn't even compare Reagan to Eisenhower. Reagan reveled in the military-industrial complex. I doubt Ike would've approved of $3000 coffee pots.

How my daughter dresses, and the stance I take on the issue, is perhaps not the greatest example of political social conservatism, but it's an area where I feel a more traditional value, e.g. clothing that covers valuable territory instead of flaunting it, is appropriate. In my defense, I feel that way about clothing in general, for both genders. I don't favor clothes on anyone that reveals too much; if you want to be sexy, I've learned over the years that, for me, it's sexier imagining what's under the clothes rather than everyone seeing it on display. There may be a psychological factor at work here as well. I don't think dressing like a hooker is a good self-image. But how people dress is hardly something I could, or would want to control. While I might think it's a good thing for everyone to dress modestly, or at least less skimpily and see-though-ily, I don't want legislation about that. But I think it would affect the way I feel about regulation in the entertainment industry. I'm liberal about sex and sex education though. This is an area where social conservatism historically messes everything up. From circumcisions for preventing masturbation to public school abstinence-only programs, conservatives have been scientifically in the Dark Ages with regards to sex. Repression and senseless control are just about the last things our sexual education needs. Actually, I'm asking why you think the government is to blame, when it's the corporations that have bought legislation that favors them, allows them to hide their profits offshore, and control all the media that's supposed to inform you of what's really important, instead of making it look like it's the government's fault.