Reaper

Both actually. First, I keep hearing about he (well, any candidate actually) will supposedly improve our education here but he doesn't really go into any details, other than that he is going to put more money toward it. Now we as a nation already pay much more for education than any other industrialized or developing country and yet the standards of education are still getting worse. So I'm a bit skeptical about it. And second, why cut funds from NASA. I'm pretty certain that there will be a lot to gain from it's current program, including learning more about the universe and various economic benefits that may arise. Why not cut funds from, say, the defense budget. I hear that a large part of it goes to funding obsolete cold war weapons and missile systems, among other wasteful programs. You can see right here: http://www.sensibleiowans.org/Birddog/birddogging_questions.php Or, why not cut funds from pursuing all sorts of quack medicine (ahem, I mean "alternative medicine") and put that to education, or real health care and real medical research at least? --> http://genefinding.blogspot.com/2007/10/oh-great-more-alternative-medicine.html It seems to me that the only reason they cut funds from NASA is because they know that the general public is pretty indifferent and/or is unaware about it and the various contributions they have made in improving human life and understanding. Likewise, if you suggest cutting funds from the Pentagon, well, now that would be unthinkable... Well, I haven't really reviewed the plans of others yet, so I can't really say. But right now I am very pessimistic about any of these plans, and in all honesty I'm really not that interested in hearing about them. The only thing I care about is the actions.

Actually I do have mixed feelings about that. We have, after all, been throwing more and more money at the education problem for a couple of decades now, and its only been getting worse and worse. I don't think his proposal is a good idea at all.

"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax." -- Albert Einstein

ooooh, let me try: atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho atomikpsycho....... Hows that ?

Well, if the bible does indeed produce predictions that are falsifiable, then, well, the bible has been overwhelmingly discredited and proven to be wrong on most accounts. That's why the bible has been considered mostly an allegorical or a metaphorical book nowadays.

Well, iNow does have a strong case actually. Religion has produced some of the most pointless topics and ideological motives/actions/beliefs in existence (dancing angels on a needle point anyone ).

Yeah, pretty much. But still, I feel that atomikpsycho does need to be categorized as he isn't the only idiot to spout nonsense all over this site.

The notion that it is 6000 years old is based on St.Augustine's original calculation, which assumed that the world began at 4004 B.C. Basically he just took all of the people in the bible, estimated how long they lived, and estimated the time period that these events supposedly took place in. But otherwise, you are correct, there IS nothing in the bible that says anything about its age. In fact, the Bible also assumed the Earth was flat (or at least that there was only one continent... unlikely though)!

I like anything that is rock music.

does atomikpsycho count among this list of ultimate crap-pots or is he just an idiot?

That's probably because he was looking only for validation. Fred56 can hold any opinion he wants, but if he wants to convince us that there is some mysterious purpose to life that science hasn't yet uncovered, or any of the things that he has been preaching lately, then he is going to have to do a lot better than this.

Necormancer has a supernatural ability to bring long-dead forum discussion threads back to life. After having been flogged to death the thread may have been deceased for many years, and bringing it back may have scant relevance to the current topic, yet Necromancer will unexpectedly exhume the thread’s rotting corpse, and strike horror in the forum as its grotesque form lurches into the discussion. The monster, instantly recognized by all who knew it in life, seems at first to breathe and have a pulse, but, alas, it is beyond Necromancer’s skill to fully restore the thread’s original vitality. The hideous apparition may frighten away some of the weaker Warriors or Warriors badly wounded in former battles, but the thread is only a shadow of its former self and very quickly expires. Unlike Archivist, Necromancer compulsively saves every forum message in carefully preserved archives for future use in battle, while Necromancer collects departed threads merely for the thrill of resurrecting them. Some say he performs this unnatural act out of malice, others say he can’t help himself, but no one really knows.

I think "sociopath" is the correct term here.

Just because I don't remember a whole lot from my infancy doesn't mean that my mind was empty. And my earliest memory dates back to around 2 years old, maybe a little younger than that. All it really means is that I don't recall what was going on in my head at infancy. Anyways, both iNow and Paralith have shown that the idea of Tabula Rasa is false. When you are born, there are some mental and physical abilities that are a priori, and your body and brain is taking in information even before you actually exit the womb.

I'm well aware that people do have genuine political opinions, but what I'm asking is if the 2 parties in question really represent them, or if the two parties are just that, two parties with no discernable difference. And when I speak of reality, I mean acknowledging the actual state of the physical universe.

Really? How do we know that?

Why don't you be more specific about the point you are trying to make instead of throwing ad hominems around. Give us examples, case studies, etc.

This question may seem out of context, but I'm going to ask it anyway. For one, the reason I usually don't comment in the politics forum is because I really don't have that much knowledge of what is going on in that field. But, the question is: Is there any GENUINE difference between the democrats and the republicans? From what I can tell both here and everywhere else, it seems to me that they are really nothing more than prejorative labels that people use to slap on others to catagorize those they disagree with. Any debates that I see are pretty much degrade into personal attacks. And from what I've seen, both political parties seem much far removed from reality.

Yeah, I thought the claims were a bit suspicious. The reason I put it up a while ago was because this information comes from sources that are considered to be reputable, and I wanted to see others here had to say about it. They also showed MRI scans of a person meditating too. Anyways, I looked a lot more into this, and various studies show that meditation is at best unproven. Any supposed benefit is mainly anecdotal. And, back in 1991 New Scientist put out an article stating that if one is depressed, meditation might actually make it worse! You can view it right here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13117765.300-is-meditation-good-for-you-it-may-not-make-you-happierand-if-youre-depressed-it-could-even-make-you-worse-but-some-forms-ofmeditation-may-offer-insights-into-the-nature-of-human-identity-.html *You may have to refresh the page so that you can view it. Here is a small quote from it:

Indeed. It also seems to ignore the fact that all available evidence indicates that there has been no geological activity on the moon for ages (most transient lunar phenomena are usually irreproducible and any that have been observed are attributed to either solar wind from the sun or just plain illusions produced from the atmosphere or the brain). And that Carl Sagan was an astronomer, and so on, etc. ==================================== The whole article is total trash otherwise, seems more like they are preaching.

after viewing all the edits, I would have to say that this guy has virtually no dignity left on this site. Thumbs up for Phi for All for taking the time to make a few "minor" corrections. atomikpsycho, you just got totally pwn3d!

Well, usually yes, that is the case. When we usually speak of belief, we usually mean belief in something without evidence, or inadequate evidence. Most beliefs aren't verifiable. Science is not really a set of beliefs because, well, they are all verifiable; you can verify your claims or theories by looking at the physical universe itself. Not only that, but multiple experiments are carried to see if the results can be reproduced. He's not arguing that at all. The only belief there is in science is that the next experiment will not disprove all the theories that have worked so well for us thus far. Beyond that, belief is not needed, necessary, or in some cases not even desired (since it doesn't really tell us anything about what we are investigating), in the field of science.

I read an article on the New Scientist magazine, and in this article an astronomer/cosmologist by the name of Laura Mersini-Houghton claims to have found evidence for the existence of another universe. I'm not sure how well known this is among you guys, but a little while ago astronomers discovered a huge void, about 1 billion light years across in the constellation of Eridanus. So far, it remains the biggest known void in the universe, with very few stars and galaxies in that region. The reason I brought up the void is because this astronomer believes it to be actual evidence of another universe. Indeed, this seemingly large void even shows up on WMAP and on the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. There is some speculation that the reason for these rather large voids is because those are/were regions where this universe actually interacts with other universes, sort of like a huge tunnel or collision so to speak. All of this right now seems to be very speculative at the very least, but I found it very interesting. I read the actual but there is a print about it online, though you need a subscription: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19626311.400;jsessionid=NNBJEKMCNMKL and here is a summary which you can view freely: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/15488/1066/1/1/ They believe that this evidence may be able to vindicate string theory, which does actually predict multiple universes from what I understand about it. What is your take on this?

So do I.

This person probably uses a different email every single time he/she signs up. But this guy does have a personal website (or at the very least is affiliated with it) if your interested in spamming that one up..... And I also have some friends here at the uni who are, how you put it, very skilled with computers..... >