Phi for All

This gets me in trouble every time. Discussion is made more difficult when you have to keep explaining either that you don't mean this personally or that a sound-byte answer to a complex question is unacceptable.

Can we also draw the conclusion that the religious tenets these prisoners based their morality on failed miserably? It's always bothered me that much of religious morality is based on the threat of eternal punishment, whereas an atheist's morality is much more likely to be based on doing the right thing for the right reasons. I've always believed I shouldn't rob/cheat/kill my neighbor because it's not how intelligent, compassionate, cooperative humans treat each other if they want to prosper. I don't do it because a god will punish me forever if I don't.

"Trying to be the only religion in town? No one will smell a rat if you use new Religious Right Guard!"

To me, all four are saying, "OK, you've been praying to lots of bad false gods, now we need you to focus on just one. He's going to supersede everything before Him, so just forget about all of that. He's the latest and greatest, he'll run circles around all those other gods, so you should totally switch to the new and improved God like all your smart neighbors are doing. You won't be sorry you switched, but you WILL be sorry if you don't." It's a branded campaign, with logos and ad copy and well-trained salespeople. Act now and receive eternal bliss!

This is long, but fast-paced, with a lawyer's argument and a police rebuttal. It shows how information can be used against you in a court of law. Thank the Founders for the 5th Amendment. Don't Talk To Police! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

It's tough to be as perfect as you, I guess. But I'll still bet even you are guilty of breaking one of the unknown number of laws on the books, whether it was connecting to an unsecured wi-fi network or singing "Happy Birthday" at a restaurant or having a permanent marker on your person while walking in public. As for being involved in a case, you might have been at the scene of a crime just before it happened. By admitting to the police you were there but didn't witness the crime, even though you're innocent, you may be their only suspect. The police are allowed to lie to you and tell you your testimony will help catch the real criminal, only to turn around in court and pin the circumstantial evidence on you instead. No, law, the exact opposite of simple.

There are all kinds of reasons why someone who has done nothing wrong should fear the federal authorities. Even on a local level, most people don't understand how the legal system works. Do you know why a cop always asks you if you know how fast you were going when he pulls you over for speeding? Because most of your answers will help him build a case against you. If you tell him the truth and you were speeding, you just confessed. If you lie and tell him a lower speed, lying gives him probable cause to search your car if he wants to, and it can be brought up later to show a judge how untrustworthy you are. If you're being questioned about an open police case, your testimony is admissible in court only for the prosecution. If the case turns on you, and you try to bring the police onto the stand to confirm what you told them, it will get thrown out as hearsay. What you tell the police can never be used to help you, it can only be used against you. It really sucks but trying to help because you have nothing to hide often ends badly.

It could be that it's just not a very effective argument. The believers you might discuss this with didn't make up the god they worship, they're following what they believe to be a very well-known, historically abundant religion which tells them that they must have unswerving faith in the God they all worship. Pointing out that it was all most likely made-up is hardly a sound tactic, unless you're only talking to other atheists, and then you're kind of preaching to the choir, as it were.

That should work. If it doesn't glow, it's not a body fluid. If it does glow, it MAY be body fluids, but could also be something else that reacts to the UV light.

The UV from a black light will cause body fluids like urine, semen and blood to fluoresce. There are many other things that also show up under a black light, like antifreeze and some detergents, but you could find a list and eliminate the ones that wouldn't apply.

! Moderator Note Review of science should focus on ideas, and NOT on the person. Do not take critique of your ideas personally, and do not focus on the people who are giving you critique. This goes for everyone.

! Moderator Note You've been warned before about advertising. This is a discussion forum, please feel free to post those parts of your findings you wish to discuss. Do NOT post any more links promoting your book.

In general, there are already many answers. It's when you start to ask specific questions that you run up against a lack of answers. But I think the "answers" you're looking for are for questions like, "What does it all mean?" and "Are we here for a reason?" and "When I die, is there more?" Maybe not.

! Moderator Note Don't go there. Attack the argument, not the person. And let's remember that all assertions, even in Speculations, need to have some supportive evidence. If you don't have any, then you need to make your language reflect the fact that you're stating an opinion.

My first thought too. I've never heard of anyone specializing in theoretical physics confuse a thought experiment with a theory. "This is purely theory" sounds like someone not familiar with scientific theory.

Sage? Me?! Is that what you mint? I love it when you savory nice things about me, anise greatly appreciated, Basil.

Skitt's Law. And it's "progeny". Skitt's Law gets you every thyme.

Congratulations, Papa!

A big part of effective communication is not assuming you're better than everyone else. Talking to someone is much better than talking down to someone. Assume everyone is an idiot and you've just proved that at least you are.

Because of the amazing power of unicorns, there is no way to disprove them. Because of the amazing power of Zeus, there is no way to disprove Him. Because of the amazing power of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, there is no way to disprove Him. Either there's a lot of amazing power flying around, or perhaps there's another explanation. Maybe it has something to do with beings who can't be directly observed.

When it comes time to carve a piece off of Tubby, I'm just going to pretend he's getting sheared or something. He'll forgive me because that's the way I raised him.

Not unless it's a meat vs vegetable sort of clash. AFAIK, the proteins they use to grow Mmmeat are completely organic, unless I missed something. And once they have the original cells to work with, they can grow more from previously grown cells. Talk about your sustainability. I can easily see brew pubs adding to their menu by including some vats for designer Mmmeats. It may be a while, but with tissue engineering growing new organs for medicine, lab grown Mmmeat will probably not have such a steep learning curve.

FTW. The ad copy practically writes itself. I'm thinking we have Tony the Tiger renounce cereal and start being the spokestiger for Mmmeat!

I never give a negative point to someone for being wrong. I do give them to people who are being unnecessarily uncivil, and who respond to a request for clarity with derision and obfuscation. It's what I did with your post above. It's so very easy to be civil in response to an honest question. It's almost... simple.

It depends where I am. I like my regular books at home, but you can't beat an e-book for traveling. And for me, the story is why I read a fiction book or watch a movie. Once I get into a story, holding anything is a distraction, much less smelling something that's not part of the story. For me, reading isn't about the media, it's about what the author wanted me to know. I get the leather-bound book appeal, and I enjoy it a lot, but it's not the most important part to me. It's not the best part of the experience, and in some instances it can be detrimental. One of my favorite things to do is find a warm rock next to a rushing river and sit down to read for an hour or two. Not a good place for either an e-book or a leather-bound. I don't feel comfortable, can't get into the story if I'm worried an expensive book will get wet. So in that instance, a paperback is my preference. Yeah, I can imagine a whole lot of ways a lab-grown piece of meat might be pretty gross. But the fact that they can do it at all means they can do it better if they keep trying. I want to grow my own strip steaks that grill to perfection and taste like filet mignon, but I suppose in the beginning we'll have to settle for something more basic. Maybe lab-grown brisket with a good dry rub, slow-cooked for half a day and falling off the... ooops, no bones! Again, I get the appeal. As a hobby, I understand the attraction. As a practical, working solution to my transportation needs, I can't afford all the down time in the shop. Even when those cars were fairly new, they spent a lot more time at the mechanic's than modern cars do. I will gladly trade the power and the body-shaking for reliability and efficiency. I have other ways to get my "gut feelings" on. And I think, if lab-grown meat gathers a market, there will be people who will remember "real" meat with nostalgia, forgetting all those times you got a bad cut with too much gristle. Depending on how lab-grown meat tastes, I might be one of them, but I hold high hopes that this will mean better protein sources for millions, better treatment of animals and livestock, and some overdue respect for us omnivores.