ydoaPs

Legalization=>regulation=>taxation=>helps economy legalization=>mass production & regulation=> safer product more readily available than laced product legalization=>no possession/selling arrests=> less crowded prisons more?

yes

That's somewhat tangential, but I think it's pushing on discussion of the religion rather than discussion of the book.

I'm sorry, that's a fairly vague title. Do you know the author?

12:07] <ajb> why should it be alcoholic? [12:07] <avenj> everything should be qft

What are these dangers?

I was just using a mouse as an example. It would probably be more successful using a chimp.

If it is true, then yes. Surely there would be mention of someone's dead loved one walking the Earth. Or perhaps there'd be some empty graves of people who died before then. Perhaps there would be a Roman record of the trial and/or capital punishment. While you cannot directly measure it being false by absence of these things, the presence of these things would be scientifically measurable. However, there are times where an absence of evidence can be supporting evidence. For instance: Matthew mentions Herod massacring all the infants of the area. Provided it is true, there could be several things to provide evidence such as historical accounts or an unusual spike in infant graves in the area at the time. Unfortunately, since it is the veracity of the claim in Matthew, we cannot use Matthew as an example of historical record. As it stands, there's no record of it other than Matthew. Does this alone provide evidence of the story being false? No. However, we do have the history provided by Josephus. Josephus goes on and on detailing the many crimes of Herod yet this massacre is oddly missing. Based on Josephus's character, he more than likely wouldn't have left something like that out. We also have the character of the author of Matthew. To author of Matthew, Jesus HAD to be the Messiah, so much so, that he did all he could to force prophecy fulfillment upon Jesus(often to ridiculous lengths). The character of these two men in addition to the complete lack of any substantiating evidence means that it probably didn't happen. Does it prove that it didn't happen? No, it greatly reduces the likelihood. As we can see, religions DO make observable claims that can be tested. If a religion's claims had nothing to do with the physical universe, they'd have a hard time convincing anyone. There are plenty of claims that could easily be confirmed via evidence that may be present.

In a way.

Well, one of them died. :'( But he came back to life bringing with him a lot of his friends! By golly, that sounds like an observable claim.

There are a lot of religions with observable deities. Like that one with the god demolishes cities. Or the one with the god that got nailed to a cross.

Heat that comes from........compression! If the fusion from the star didn't start with pressure due to gravity, how did it start?

That's not necessarily true. When you nail it down to a specific religion that makes specific claims, then you can test the truth of those claims. While the falsification of claims within a religion does not necessarily falsify the religion itself, it can lend a greater understanding of the mindset of the authors and thus a greater understanding of the religion as a whole. An example I often use is the Birth Narrative in Christianity. It makes specific claims who veracity can be checked. Herod reigned until his death in 4BC. Upon Herod's death, his kingdom was split among his sons. In 6AD, Herod Archelaus(one of King Herod's sons) was deposed and his land thus fell into Roman control. One of Archelaus's replacement was a man by the name Coponius. At the same time as the appointment of Coponius, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6AD. Upon the appointment of Quirinius, since this was the first time the land was under Roman control, it was decreed by Caesar Agustus that there should be a census. This census was the first Roman census of the area. "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."-Matthew 2:1-2 "And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."- Matthew 2:13-15 "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. ([And] this taxing was first made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." Luke 2:1-5. Now, there is a problem. Jesus was said by one gospel to be born prior to the death of Herod the Great(4BC, but another says he was born after the census(which is a direct result of Herod's death) in 6AD. Prior to 6AD, Rome didn't even have the authority to take a census of that area. We are left with a 10 year discrepancy. This cannot be a simple case of mistranscription during copying, because one gospel's chronological anchor is a direct result of the other's. Does that mean Christianity is wrong? Not at all. Does it argue about the truth of certain specific claims? Yes.

Or a star in general.

IIRC, mammalian cloning works by swapping the nucleus of an ovum with that of a somatic cell. What if one were to take a fetal stem cell of, say, a mouse and replace its nucleus with the nucleus of a human somatic cell? Would that even work? Would that cell become a human stem cell? Has this been done? If it does work, then it could be a less politically volatile method of stem cell research.

Yes. The graph above is potential vs distance. The peak is what is called the coulomb barrier. You just have to get them closer than that.

A lot. You have to be able to fight the electrostatic repulsion long enough to get past the coulomb barrier. As you can see, when you get closer, the electrostatic repulsion dramatically increases(see coulomb's law) until you reach the barrier and the nuclear force kicks in rapidly making the two particles a bound system. I don't only know how to tear atoms apart, but I know how to mash them together too!

Why does the sun shine? 3JdWlSF195Y Why does the sun REALLY shine? sLkGSV9WDMA

It's just a theory in the same sense that gravity is just a theory or evolution is just a theory. Absolute proof is only in the realm of logic and mathematics. In science, theory has a specific meaning. It isn't a wild guess. What science does is collect data to provide more supporting evidence for the theory. That's really not quite true, actually; science tries to collect data to prove the current theory wrong! Through this process we limit the uncertainty. Yes, there is overwhelming evidence to support fusion in stars. Yes it is the only current explanation that co-insides with the evidence we have.

For a religion subforum to work, imo, it would require a lot more work from the moderating staff(and possibly and expansion of that staff) who volunteer their time to keep this site nice for free. Time spent moderating is time that could be used for discussing. It should also have a special usergroup. That, however, would be a little tricky. You can't tell maturity by postcount. Perhaps the politics criteria could allow a probationary entry into a religion usergroup or something. But that would require moderators to have to decide who is mature enough to post and who is not. See above about moderation.

VIXxzCBS36Q Wow.....just....wow

You should try the stickied thread in this forum. However, I'm not sure it will do any good. A look through the archives reveals just how horribly it worked last time. The problem with this site's religion forum was not just the "politically correct, accepted majority here at SFN, which clearly believes that religion is a bad influence on society, and that it must be attacked"(as Pangloss would say) but also people who get too emotional any time anything even close to what could be perceived as challenging religion comes up(almost bordering a martyr complex). Both sides are the problem; not just the religion bashers. It is almost as if each side is a parasitic meme using the other as one of their hosts; the more the religion bashers bash religion, the more the martyrs cry persecution and the more the martyrs cry persecution, the more the bashers think the martyrs are messed up in the head. Both extremes are present here and neither, imo, are mature enough to post about religion. That is why religion on SFN has yet to succeed. If we are to bring it back, the list of users unable to access the religion forum due to a lack of maturity would most likely take out the majority of the users interested in the forum, so it may be best for those wanting to post about religion to find a separate religion forum.

I do have an issue with nudity under some circumstances. Like fat people or ugly people.

Looks like there's some grass and some streets....I'm gonna guess it's the grounds near the mall.