Phi for All

Also true.

True. They are both different in that they have different meanings to people. They are both different in that they are worshiped differently. They are both different in that they are said to have different bowel movements. All three, also true.

I hate to harp on the media (not true at all), but I think this kind of uninformed judgement-gathering has come to replace the evening news in the US. We don't really have journalists we can trust anymore so much as pundits we happen to side with. As long as they keep confirming our biases, we'll keep making them more popular. Wizard's First Rule: "People are stupid. They can be made to believe any lie because either they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it's true." -- Terry Goodkind

Thanks, and your answers for the test? TT, TF, FT or FF?

I disagree. I think it's more comforting to think you'll never die if you conform to the wishes of your deity. But many of us don't think ignorance is bliss. It's uncomfortable to think we're on our own, but that's offset by the knowledge that you're doing your level best not to fool yourself. With regard to the iNow/Iggy issue of equivalence, please take a deep breath and take this test: "There is no difference between God and dragons (of any digestional persuasion)." True or False? "There is no difference between the scientific quality of evidence used to support the existence of God and to support the existence of dragons (of any digestional persuasion)." True or False? Because this discussion really has been flipping back and forth arguing both these definitions simultaneously, and it's unproductive to continue this way.

Changing the OP would be confusing. Is it OK to change the title the way I have, for this particular instance? We've done this in the past.

And a big problem with this "evidence" is that it's more easily explained by our need, our evolutionary need, to imagine things that might exist but we can't see. In the distant past, those who could imagine a lion in the shadows may have been wrong a lot, but they were right enough to keep themselves (and those of the tribe who listened to the warnings) alive to pass along those imaginative traits. We see evidence of this kind of development everywhere. Isn't this a much more natural explanation for this same evidence? Why make the leap to omnipotent but worship-hungry gods who conveniently don't want to be observed? I agree, but I also think it's one of those unattainable goals that people still strive for, like the Japanese gardens where you're always tweaking, looking for the absolute best combination of sensory beauty. Islam also tells stories about how one should strive for perfection knowing that only Allah really is. I read once where rug weavers in the Middle East will actually place a small flaw in an otherwise perfectly crafted rug to show their humility and acknowledge Allah's perfection. It's the same with the devout Christians I know. "What would Jesus do?" assumes that this would be the perfect solution in every instance, while at the same time acknowledging that our own judgement is flawed to begin with. I think you're right but I don't think many of them would agree. Doubt may be part of everyday life for theists, but since it's something that they want to eradicate as much as possible (even knowing they can't attain that kind of "perfect" faith), aren't they still obliged to declare their belief in as strong a way as possible? Aren't they encouraged NOT to doubt by believing ever more strongly? "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." -- Mark 11:24 If you ask a devout Christian (OK, non-Catholic, and a tip of the hat to the current Pontiff) if you can get into heaven by just sort of believing in Jesus, aren't they going to tell you this isn't a semantics issue, that you truly have to believe it with all your heart?

And it's amazing how often it lets you spot things like this:

That's twice now you've ducked my question. I'm not talking about a POV. I'm not talking about whether there is an afterlife for your consciousness. You claimed the observation that death is the end of life is made by atheists on faith, like any religion. It's been shown that instead it's based solely on the evidence that nothing but death at the end of life is observed. It's the afterlife that's taken on faith. So, again, don't you think your title claim needs to be changed? Isn't it wrong?

Death IS a phenomenon. Technically, ANYTHING that happens to us are phenomena. Science attempts to understand these phenomena using real life, natural explanations, arrived at by observation and experimentation. These explanations are not accepted on faith, they are judged to be the most trustworthy by how much evidence supports them. I was asking you if you still think atheists are "showing signs of religion" by claiming that death ends life? Remember, you're the one who is making the assertion that an afterlife exists, and is still considered "life". Atheists are only observing what is actually, naturally happening when dead bodies are tested. In essence, they are saying that life AS WE KNOW IT ceases upon death. Anything more is not in evidence. So there should be a resolution for you. Maybe not about the other stuff you're bringing up, but the question of whether or not atheists are showing signs of religion by believing you're dead when you die should have a different answer for you now, shouldn't it?

Does this mean we answered your first question adequately? I didn't hear a resolution on that from you. Are you still convinced your title is correct?

! Moderator Note It doesn't matter what section you're in, hijacking someone else's thread with a speculative idea is still hijacking. It's difficult enough dealing with one speculative idea at a time. Do NOT further derail the thread by responding to this modnote. If you feel it's in error, push the Report Post button and another staff member will discuss this privately with you.

I think the cat is halfway through eating. You want me to check?

But it doesn't contradict it at all. I'm assuming that you're saying energy can't be destroyed. Death isn't destroying any energy, no violations, no contradictions. And it really only applies to closed systems, which Earth is not, but that's beside the point here. Don't equate faith with trust. They're both forms of belief but trust has TONS of observational evidence backing it up, where faith is pretty much the opposite, believing in spite of a lack of evidence. That shouldn't take anything away from YOUR faith, though. I think even you will admit that the bodies left behind by Earth's creatures are dead. Whatever you want to believe happens to the "consciousness" we tend to place importance on is up to you, I guess. It really can't be supported by either side. But the atheistic claim that death is the end of life is NOT a faith-based belief. It's a trustworthy explanation based on what we can observe scientifically, just without the unsupported afterlife addendum.

OMG, you take free energy seriously?! Typical Scorpio....

That's not the way I see it, and it's so typical of you to trot out a bunch of fancy words to counter my coherent, reasonable and highly personally intuitive arguments.

I fully recommend not just reading this article, but reading it aloud to someone who is seated and has nothing in their mouth they could choke on. This is the basis for modern (post 24/7 news) journalism, imo. This template is guaranteed to keep readers reading and viewers viewing, because you're either adamantly agreeing or violently disagreeing with the POV. Very similar to the "How does this agonizingly horrific tragedy make you feel ?" interview question. Why can't we change the channel until the victim tells us he feels terrible? Great find, iNow. This should be a great discussion. As long as everyone agrees with me, of course.

But this analogy adds an element that even the general public would see through, though I'm sure that enough repetitions would convince a few simply because they want to believe it's true ("Arete keeps his big old garage locked, have you noticed?"). And that's why campaigns like "The science is not settled" and "Teach the controversy" work so well. Many people want to believe it's true. If you were to repeat, "Iraq has WMDs" over and over, it won't make it so but you can trick an uninformed public long enough to support you and your agenda. I think I can provide some citations if you need them.

! Moderator Note Please, this is a section for discussing mainstream science. Your idea is speculative, and students come to these sections for mainstream explanations. Do NOT hijack other people's threads with your own speculation. We have a whole speculation section where concepts like this can be analyzed and discussed. Thank you.

And yours seems to be a political/industrial agenda looking for brand appeal: A+ for the sound byte. I know good branding when I see it. Worthy of Siegel+Gale, truly. Btw, bumper stickers would be the ultimately ironic choice to spread this message.

If you were, you'd know what we mean.

You may be assuming these are guilty secrets. If the person was able to keep such secrets in life, it could be because they believed it was the right thing to do. Duty is a very strong concept.

If you make 1000 posts and 951 of them are in the areas that don't count towards a science title, you only have 49 posts, making you a Quark. That's my explanation but if you say it's a regular thing then I'm probably wrong. People with 1000 posts should have more of them in the science sections.

PureGenius has been suspended for a week for soapboxing (ignoring discussion rules and just repeating a stance without support). We appreciate his civility in the face of numerous detractors, and would encourage him, on his return, to begin actually listening to all the expert resources that have shown willingness to help him.

LOL, good post! Edit to add: Must be the same for this section as the Lounge. This post didn't increase my post count.