Phi for All

My take: Believing something is true, in a scientific sense, is studying something thoroughly, examining the evidence and coming to the conclusion that it is most probably true. Believing something is true in a religious sense is looking beyond the natural evidence and concluding that science can't deal with what can't be observed, and taking it on faith that there is a possibility of something there. I don't say that one is superior to the other, simply that scientific method is a more rigorous approach while faith attaches itself to a smaller probability. I happen to have faith that there exists in our universe certain things we aren't able to observe with our limited senses. Some fish can sense electrical fields. I imagine how different our own lives would be structured if we could know there was life in close proximity but beyond our sight, smell and hearing. I haven't studied this to be able to accept it, I just have faith that there is enough of a probability to make it possible. It is different from my acceptance of certain scientific theories because I have been able to study those and determine they are most probably true.

You've obviously never been the guru everyone relies on for answers. Being worshiped can be more fun than fun.

I also think the opening post was loaded by suggesting there is something psychologically wrong with people who get angry with a label like evolutionist. I tried to steer clear of that but putting this thread in this section may have doomed it from the start. I agree, and iNow has admitted, that his response was overly passionate. I further agree with you that a dismissive or insulting response neither helps set the tone nor keeps it from devolving into combative posturing. However, it was Pete's choice to lump my responses with iNow's. He was questioned about it by several people, including those who seemed to be supporting him. He chose to ignore those responses, and due to his open declaration regarding iNow, it was hard NOT to assume he was putting all those who's answers he didn't agree with on his Ignore List. I totally got your point, and it was a good one. I wish I had had more time to include it in my responses, but my new job only allows me a certain window of time in the early morning for posting, and correcting Pete's misrepresentations took up most of it. I completely agree that the only way to avoid the stigma of a persistent label is to embrace and redefine it so it becomes your own and loses the stigma. I would still like to talk about the difference between how a scientist accepts science and a religious person accepts religion. "Belief" can't mean the same thing to both.

I ended up having to defend some misrepresentations about what I was talking about though, and I never got a good response regarding the difference between "belief" / "acceptance" for science and religion. I still think this distinction lies at the heart of any anger over the label. Doesn't studying something thoroughly enough to understand it before accepting it carry more weight than accepting something because it fits in with your spirituality? And isn't that perhaps why one might object to being lumped together with the other? And note that I'm not trying to marginalize anyone's religious beliefs.

I remember my best friend had that Mac. He had a special backpack he could carry it around in. He also knew EVERYTHING there was to know about that computer since he had every program that would run on it and knew them inside and out. It was pretty amazing at the time. it wasn't long before there was more than one person could keep up with, and he was forced to specialize more and more.

We should split this section into two parts. Section 1 is for Jokes, and Section 8 is for Not Funny, Not Even Unfunny

Domestic Affairs: D+ -Education: D -I feel that No Child Left Behind was a good idea but it was so underfunded that it became a hindrance to positive learning. His stance against stem cell research made science a bad word in half the households in this country. -Economy: D+ -Bush was asleep at the switch with regards to the economy. Even McCain warned him his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible. And as a moderate Republican, he should have been more interested in curbing government spending instead of racking up more deficit. The pal-sy deals in the Iraq war didn't help spread the wealth much either, a move that did much to undermine free market process. -Other: D -He inspired no confidence in our country other than an "us vs them" kind of uneasy domestic alliance, and it never felt really good, did it?. His lack of transparency, his coercion tactics, his general air of underhandedness all helped to make his the least trusted presidency I've ever seen in my lifetime, including Nixon. International Affairs: D -Relations with China: C- -He unnecessarily aggravated the tensions between China and Taiwan with a hawkish stance that left little room for diplomacy. -Relations with Russia: B- -His stance with Russia was the same as his stance with China, but it works with the Russians when you roar like that. -War on Terrorism: D -He didn't get bin Laden, and I don't believe you can win a war on terror when there is religion involved. He did NOTHING to de-involve Islam (just the opposite, in fact) and for that alone we are in more danger now than before 9/11. -War in Iraq: D- -Take away the fact it should never have been started the way it was, he quite obviously wanted it to last as long as possible, with no exit strategy and no strategy that might have assured other countries it was anything other than a mistake. -World Standing: F -I don't think this country has EVER been held in lower esteem during any other president. -Other: C -The Bush Administration will end up helping the Obama Administration in its diplomatic efforts in much the same way it ends up helping to stop hitting your foot with a hammer. Obama is going to have at least a year of "good cop" good karma to work with, so thanks for that, W.

My response was in reference to a previous statement you made: I had said that I found your argument that, because I referred to "people" that I meant "all people", to be ludicrous. Just that one argument. Your response here seemed to include *all* my arguments as ludicrous and poorly reasoned, without ever having detailed why they were so. I was merely hoping you would respond because earlier you claimed you wouldn't. Apology accepted. I'm sure you meant the only comment which could possibly be taken as hostile *besides* the one I referenced above about *all* my arguments being ludicrous and poorly reasoned and wanting to ignore me. No' date=' it's an example of me trying to get at the root of why you had so many problems on that other forum, which you introduced as part of your OP. It was a question, not an attack. And your answer here seems to show a hypersensitivity to disagreement which I suspected was part of the problem you had there, and are obviously experiencing here as well. Is it OK to say that you seem hypersensitive when someone disagrees with you? Do you perceive that as an [i']ad hominem[/i]? You originally asked for some psychological input into your original question, and this thread was placed here in Psychiatry and Psychology purposely, was it not? Without pointing fingers or unintentionally making any ad hominem attacks, I would suggest to all participating members in this thread that hypersensitivity to disagreement might also be a factor in why evolution proponents and creationism advocates get angry with the labels thrust upon them. From my pov, I think the creationism advocates are upholding their sacred faith and the evolution proponents are upholding scientific method. Both sides can be touchy about what they consider the cornerstones of what they hold to be true.

Since I am involved in this thread, I have no Moderator status in it. This accusation of impropriety on my part has been reported and I have requested that an Administrator check the logs to see if anything has been deleted by me. Pmb, if you can bring yourself to respond to this post, I urge you to point out where you think I have deleted anything. My integrity as a staff member has been questioned and I take that very seriously. Frankly, I am baffled by your hostility. Is this typical of your reactions at that other forum you mentioned?

Thus it was you who said "Evolutionist" more or less implies a "belief" in evolution. Since you didn't qualify people it refers to all people, does it not? I find that argument quite ludicrous. If I said I met nice people yesterday, does it imply I met *all* the nice people there are? It is clear that you used it to mean faith. If you assert that this was not the case then your statement is misleading. I very clearly tied the concept of belief with the concept of faith and I don't see why you're obfuscating about it. It is that tie which often causes frustration in those who have studied a thing and understand it to be most probably true rather than simply taking the word of another without evidence and assume it must be true. Sorry if I confused you. Accepting that something is true, belief or faith, is different from studying something, weighing evidence, thoroughly researching the methodology used and then concluding that it is most probably true. Can you see that? You find it surprising that I don't think you have the authority to dictate how the word belief is used by all "evolutionists"? I find *that* surprising. I'll accept that evolutionists like yourself and Ernst Mayr have decided to use the term in this way. I am a proponent of evolution and I choose not to. To me, there is a decided difference, so please don't make any more decisions for me. Let's be clear here. The term we're discussing is "belief". Would you care to have me add a poll to this thread? Perhaps this would show that there may be some disagreement. Generalizations are often fallacious, just like the strawman example you use regarding indefinite integrals. Again, I offer a poll, in either this thread or another, to determine if the members here define their belief in evolution in a different way than creationists define their belief in creationism. This is incorrect. The assertion I made was regarding the psychological basis for the frustrations sometimes felt by scientists when they are labeled "evolutionists". Please don't shift the goalposts.

Incorrect. I made no generalization which involved "the all people". I said that a term like "evolutionist" can cause indignation in people who understand evolution to be true rather than having faith that it is true. I went further to suggest that there is no deeper psychological reason, which was my interpretation of your OP and why you placed it in this section. I was unaware we were discussing you. I thought this was about "some people" getting pissed off at the term. You seemed OK with it, but perhaps I'm wrong. I rarely yell at creationists, or people who use the term "evolutionist". Sympathy is my evolved response these days. I was unaware that there was a way it was meant to be used by "evolutionists". Can you cite something besides the dictionary to back this statement up? I think *you* are the one generalizing now. Merriam-Webster is not a scientific publication. I think there is some miscommunication going on here. Believing something is true, in a scientific sense, is different from studying something thoroughly, examining the evidence and coming to the conclusion that it is most probably true. And if some scientists take offense at the implied "belief" aspect of the term "evolutionist", it is probably because it seems to relegate their studies to the same level as blind faith. You asked for some deeper psychological meaning behind this irritation and if you aren't willing to see that it might be insulting to someone who has spent their life in pursuit of knowledge, then I don't think you're really trying.

Making fun is kind of the point. Being funny is even better. Jokes, of course, are the crowning achievement of this "page", since it's not called The Official Jokes Section for nothing. I think I get it now, Norman Albers. It's a variation on Jon Stewart's joke about Bush getting re-elected, and at the inauguration Bush says, "I do solemnly swear..." and then so does 49% of the rest of the country. I didn't think the "sumbuck" part was racist or anything, I just didn't think it was a joke, but now I get it. It's back now. My bad. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ A young man is stumbling down a back road with a key in his hand. A cop sees him and pulls over. "Can I help you, fella?", asks the cop. "Yesssh, shombody stole my car!" the man replies. The cop asks, "Okay, where was your car the last time you saw it?". "It was at the end of this key", Edward replies. At this point the cop looks down to see that the guy's pants are open. The cop says, "Hey buddy, are you aware that you're exposing yourself?" The young man looks down and moans, "OHHH GOD...they got Julie too!!!"

"Evolutionist" more or less implies a "belief" in evolution. Since evolution is one of the most thoroughly researched and documented scientific theories ever put forth, an implication that relegates it to some kind of faith causes simple indignation, no real psychological explanation beyond that needed. Science is interested in the natural, not the supernatural.

Perhaps a cross between a human and a Firefox would give us a creature that is web-friendly, punctuates its sentences and is more easily read.

Remember Pardongate? I remember being outraged that any president, even one as well-read and knowledgeable as Clinton, could make so many last minute pardons and commutations. Iirc, there were some that smelled pretty bad, too, like pardon me and I'll loan (wink wink) you some money to pay off your attorney's fees from your impeachment proceedings. And there were some bombers on that list that I felt deserved more than they got. I hate cowardly bombers.

My favorite is the woman and her accomplice who rob a liquor store. He distracts the cashier, she pulls a gun, gets the cash out of the register and the two flee the scene. Then the cashier notices she left her purse, with her wallet and ID, on the counter. I tried googling a bit but couldn't find the video.

I don't understand wi she would feel that way. That sucks. I feel the same way about cable. My sister in Spokane pays one fourth of what we have to pay in Denver. You think we'd get a better rate due to density. How about the four of you go visiting someone right in between your two apartments (in a prudish, non-whoring kind of way) and offer to help pay for one subscription that the three households can all use?

I want to hug those two. Bad spelling and grammar are not cool. And lazy text speak is not cool. I'm buying their album when it comes out.

You can't use only current conditions to form any conclusions. The two cities are on opposite sides of the Earth. Have you looked up any yearly averages?

I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing it's some combination of your Reputation points and your post count.

Please give us an observation or even an opinion as a starting point for discussion, Kedas, otherwise you're just reporting the news. That's not our purpose here.

So you met with some resistance and now you're going to hide in the basement?! That's not how great ideas work. They are shared, discussed, refined. This is not a brave move.

PlayStationX has been permanently banned for persistent trolling and ignoring explanations while continually asking for them.

Dress up nice (no care bear shirts), put on a subtle cologne and your best smile. Start knocking on neighbor's doors and when they answer, say, "Is your Comcast access down? I can't get the internet for some reason." Hope for a cute girl and when she opens the door, you finagle your way into her wireless network (or whatever you kids are calling it these days).

That's what a war on terrorism does. When you choose to fight a terrorist, you stoop to his level, you play his game, and he gets you to spend thousands of lives and billions of dollars for each one the terrorist spends. They should be as the dirt beneath our feet, diplomatically expunged by dealing with the governments in the countries from which they stage.