Phi for All

I equated the "fantastical" stories with a good story that requires varying degrees of suspension of disbelief. I thought that's what they were using as a baseline to determine whether the child had good reasoning skills, whether he could discern between what is possible and what is impossible. And perhaps what is merely improbable, though I'm not sure 5-6 year olds are that sophisticated. Ultimately, I suppose the concern is that a religious upbringing might lead one to accept implausible explanations on a regular basis. I can see that, but what about kids who were raised watching action thriller movies that defy natural physical principles? Are they more likely to believe they could survive jumping from one train to another, or that their kitchen table will stop bullets if they hide behind it?

There's a decent SciAm article on it, but they want you to pay for more than this preview. Basically, we still have access to embryonic cell regeneration, but we lose that access shortly before birth. If we can figure out how to keep it from switching off, we could regenerate lost limbs. Currently, we've evolved to develop scar tissue, which allows us to heal more quickly if not more fully. Since we're no longer as concerned with becoming damaged while hunting, and thus becoming the hunted, regeneration might be preferable. But it can take years with small animals like lizards, and it takes longer the bigger they are. Stem cells cover the wounded area and eventually a small version of the limb grows, becoming functional yet undersized. Salamanders have three other legs to help them move while conditioning the new one as it grows to full size. We have prostheses that could help our own transition. It must not work to regenerate just any old damaged cells, otherwise would a salamander's body ever wear out? Since we don't see 500 year old salamanders, it must be specific to things the salamander needs to grow back. Regenerating limbs would be fantastic, but regenerating teeth would be a benefit to more humans. Plenty of other animals regrow teeth, so the precedent is there. Here's an abstract on another study of a specific protein that has regrown digits in mice: http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(13)01278-6

Many great explorers got their start trying to find some time away from nagging wives. There may be a shared bond there to exploit. Alien: "Take me to your leader". Ophiolite: "She's having tea with her sisters, you'll have to wait". (Both nod sagely and then start laughing)

Explanations are supposed to provide clarity and reason, I'll grant you, but even in science explanations have a qualitative aspect. One explanation can be better than another and still be considered an explanation, just not the most accepted. I think religious explanations tend to be more of a justification for belief as opposed to a statement of clarification. Religious reasons typically have very little reason in them.

How the world was created, how life began, how to live forever. Take your pick. Explanations should be good ones, but often aren't.

I'm sure it does. That doesn't stop it from being an argument based on a Begging the Question fallacy. Religion may not be the answer but God definitely exists?! That's pretty much a license to say anything you want about whatever you want and just shrug and say, "Oh well, it's God, what are you gonna do?".

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said, "God is too big for one religion". I know the sentiment wasn't meant to be taken this way, but I was reminded of this discussion, and how religion fails in its explanations. Some of those failures led to the formation of other religions, ones the founders felt explained things better, while the failures led others to wonder if there was something much more natural and observable going on here if we just stopped guessing and started organizing what we really know. I think it's pretty insidious that this sentiment, that God is too big for one religion, basically says believe anyway you want as long as you believe in God. Specific practices and ideologies are insignificant apparently, and I think I detect a bit of the mysteriously-moving-God concept as well. So the specific bits are just guesses, but overall we can assume God exists?! I don't think so.

! Moderator Note When you don't give anyone enough evidence to form a judgement, and also continue to insist what you're saying will work, you're just preaching your opinion with no intent to listen to anyone's input. You were asked to support your stance with more than just hand-waviness and soapboxing so we don't end up with a discussion that goes nowhere meaningful. That hasn't happened so we're going to move on now. Thread closed.

This seems like some pretty willful obfuscation here. You don't get his point so you vault to "Straight people give their kids to gays"?! Perhaps this right here is most of the problem with objections to gay parenting, so many people who refuse to look at it without torturing definitions and misreading intent. The study clearly shows that gay parenting doesn't pose the risks many people fear it does, and you want that to mean a gay couple is coming by later to take your kids. Where does this kind of absurdity help anyone understand anything about this issue?

I agree with the mission. We know our planet has a finite lifespan. We know only one planet where abundant life is found. Life uses energy more efficiently than non-life, it's a better system. The only way to insure that life has a chance to spread is to take it offplanet, allow it to grow. Whether we find other life, even other intelligent life, needs to be a factor but shouldn't stop us from expanding. I don't agree with the prison analogy. Prison implies a warden, or some outside agency or force that is purposely and actively restricting our access to certain privileges. Ours is more a problem of ignorance. We just haven't figured out enough of the variables involved in the astonishingly complicated and staggeringly expensive process of traveling in space, not enough to overcome the risks. An island is only a prison if someone is stopping you from building a boat. We'll get experience and knowledge from poking around our own system, using resources we find in space to improve our infrastructure in space. If this doesn't attract some attention from another starfaring species, we can at least assume a) there's nothing near enough or intelligent enough to observe us, b) we don't understand enough about non-human intelligence as a concept to make any meaningful predictions, or c) we're not doing anything interesting enough to warrant a response.

! Moderator Note Martian chemistry discussion has been split off to its own thread.

I see where you're coming from with this, but when we're talking about alien life the way the OP does it's usually intelligent life, at least intelligent enough to leave some evidence of their existence we can detect from Earth. Intelligent enough to leave their home planet is usually part of the definition of alien/ET. I can't think of a combination of inheritable traits a species could have that would allow them to evolve the ability to survive travel off-planet without including intelligence. Microorganisms could travel without intention, but how else would a species leave this world for another without a fairly high intelligence?

And this is a very good distinction to make. Personally, I don't consider creationism to be a religious stance at all. Literal fundamentalism and Bible inerrancy cross the line into scientific inquiry and are easily refuted. Most religious claims fall outside of observable phenomena and aren't falsifiable, but creationism makes claims we know are false.

This is my reaction as well. I don't need a book to tell me how not to believe in something, I don't need it to justify my stance, and I don't need it to feel kinship with other "non-believers". Belief in god(s) isn't an issue with a fence and people on both sides. It's an issue where some people have developed a belief system and others see no reason for it. Atheism isn't the opposite of belief in god(s), it's the absence of belief in god(s). It's not a religion, any more than not-collecting dolls is a hobby. I don't have to put a lot of effort into not-collecting dolls, and I don't have to put a lot into not-believing in god(s) either. If nobody mentioned religion to me, I'd hardly have to work at all.

Based on observational evidence, the latter is the case for you in virtually every instance.

I get the sense that the software isn't nearly sophisticated enough to allow tweaks like this, or at least with the rep system. I could be wrong, it's an Admin thing. Also, I think the membership in general tends to correct rep points that aren't deserved. If you see a red flag you don't feel is deserved, cancel it out with a + vote. Everyone, everyone, gets the same 1 vote per post. And if someone uses the rep system to express their opinion on a discussion forum, maybe that's all they have that's worth saying. It shouldn't be a substitute for reasoned conversation, but in some cases it's all they have.

! Moderator Note Observation: The "Attack the idea, not the person" rule only works when the person is able to separate themselves from their idea. Thread closed.

Oh, I get that part. I just don't understand why you don't hold men to the same standards. This supports my point that religion led to science. Patriarchal superstition and ignorance that allows men to abrogate their responsibility in reproduction, gives way to studies of anatomy and physiology that show very clearly the mechanisms and responsibilities of creating new life. It will take some time to convince the hidebound, mostly because they're apparently too busy poking anything that breathes to ever pick up a book and learn something.

They never forget the posting rules. Back on topic.

I think faith starts with accepting explanations that are beyond your comprehension. If your faith remains intact as your comprehension grows to encompass those things you didn't understand before, you may gain some comfort that you've chosen a deity that can protect/nurture/ensure your longevity beyond what an unbeliever can expect. After you get used to the idea of believing strongly in something you can't directly observe, I would imagine one falls victim to the Sunk Cost Fallacy, where the more you invest in this belief, the less likely you are to give it up no matter what else happens. Faith and confirmation bias are sort of symbiotic. If you're looking for an answer why Cousin Sally is on death's doorstep, your faith works equally well whether Sally is miraculously cured or God decides to take her to be with him.

! Moderator Note kristalris, it's time to go back over the last couple of pages and answer questions. It won't help to stay in "overview" mode. You need to clarify and do your best to aid in comprehension, not blame others because they don't understand what you're saying. And everybody, let's sheathe the snide and not let our frustration at having our questions ignored affect our attitudes, and thus our behavior.

A little naughty, too! A one-sided relationship?

If either of you has a smartphone, I recommend a free app called Flutter: Butterfly Sanctuary. I know it's available for iPhone, and I have the Android version. Learn as you play and grow your own sanctuary. Great game for a budding lepidopterophile. As CharonY mentioned, this will get her interested in going outside to make her own observations. My daughter even volunteered at the local butterfly sanctuary this summer.

It might seem like that, but here's what really happened: The observable contradictions with reality made the literal interpretation of the Bible unsound, so questions arose, alternative methodologies were tested, and explanations that more readily matched the real world became accepted over "God did it". Over time, the evidence against the stories in the Bible being accurate piles up to form a preponderance. It's not commitment to an idea, it's looking at that mountain of evidence, things I can observe and test, and comparing that to what people tell me I should have the utmost faith in, even though I can't really know anything about that. Solid foundations on the one hand, or pretending to know what I don't on the other hand isn't a choice I feel I have to "commit" to. Show me a bigger mountain of evidence and I'll consider a better explanation. OK, different laws for different times. Great point. Perhaps (m)any don't apply anymore? I like wearing blended cloth and not owning slaves. And even if God says it's OK, I'm not raping the wives of those I kill in battle. Not happening. Those are vivid suppositions there, and some nice big fat red herrings too. IRS audit, very stressful. Identity theft, wow, good one. What about the stress of facing the responsibility of raising a child alone when you don't feel ready?

If you think your hobby is collecting something, but you enjoy looking for the next piece in your collection more than the collection itself, your real hobby may be shopping. Make sure it's not.