Strange

Don't worry, you aren't. So stick around. But stick to science.

At least in English you often know if if it is a question from near the beginning of the sentence (e.g. it might begin with a w-word). In some languages you don't know until the end of the sentence. (Ditto negatives)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamia_(poem) But it is purely a matter of belief. You aren't going to change what some believes, or the sort of music they like, by pointing to the possible evolutionary origins. But you can't take that away from people who believe it. There is a lot more to religion than those people. Perhaps this is a US thing. Those people exist in such tiny numbers outside of the US (I have never, to my knowledge, met one) that it just isn't a major issue.

And that is an absolutely justifiable reason to believe. In fact, I would say it is the only reason to belive. After all, if you had proof, then it wouldn't be belief, it would just be knowing!

Many people (Keats, for example) would disagree with you.

No, because the neurons will no longer function. If you swap the gas for water in a car engine, then the engine will no longer work. That doesn't mean that the spark plugs, valves, pistons, etc are not what makes the engine work. Not yet. There doesn't seem to be any reason, in principle, that it couldn't be. A logic gate only generates (well, controls) current and voltage. And yet put enough them together and it can play music, draw pictures, write poetry, simulate the operation of a brain, ...

I don't see how that is relevant. It seems just as irrational to say they shouldn't have those beliefs as to say someone shouldn't like a particular type of music. Of course, if someone says "this music tells me that general relativity is wrong" then I would have something to say about it.

I have still seen no evidence that Freud used anything approaching science. We get a lot of people presenting their ... ahem ... "personal theories" of physics on these forums. They make various claims about what science will discover in future (based on no science at all). If some of those guesses turn out to be correct, it doesn't show that their theory had any scientific basis, just that they were lucky. All that neuroscience's confirmation of some of Freud's ideas shows is that you can learn something about human nature by (informally) looking at the way people behave. Not exactly surprising. And not evidence of him "doing sceince". I'm quite sure that many other common ideas about the mind have been confirmed by science. And I am certain that, like most of Freud's ideas, many popular ideas will have been shown to be misconceptions. And I guess he would be disappointed to find that such studies, as well as those taking a scientific approach to psychology, show most of his ideas to be wrong. You think I should approve of his methods because of his conclusions? I disagree completely. I will criticise religious people who use poor logic to attack science. But I will also criticise scientific people who use poor logic to attack religion. For example, even if religion has an origin in evolution/survival that is no reason to criticise it. That is like saying people shouldn't like music or fall in love because they have an evolutionary basis.

No. In the past some philosophers (wrongly) thought of the mind as acting like clockwork (because that was the technology of the time). Then some started to draw analogies with computers. And now some try and talk in terms of quantum physics. It has nothing to do with science.

You could keep trying. As you say, it is a good way of learning.

I have never seen any evidence that he took a scientific approach. (What he claimed is irrelevant.) I don't see why. I have read of some excellent studies. Obviously, there is still some lower quality as work, but I see no reason why modern psychology shouldn't be considered a solid science. Lucky guesses. <shrug>

If we step back from the slightly non-standard talk of energy flows and sub-quantum waves, is it correct to say that you explain rotation curves by adding an extra constant inward force? It might be more productive if we focus on the model, rather than the proposed mechanism (which isn't really testable). So we could just treat this as another modified gravity theory. If so, have you checked that the same inward force can explain the speeds of galaxies in clusters? I think this is quite important because it is my understanding that other modified gravity models have to be tuned differently for galaxies and galaxy clusters. If your model was able to fit both, then that could be a strong point in its favour.

?Shouldn't declarative sentences begin with a period in that case? .Like this. (Not a serious suggestion.)

Other than its role in the chemistry of nerve cells, there is no reason to think it is. I don't think it makes much difference whether you describe the function of neutrons in terms of electrical signals or ion exchange or just chemical reactions. What is important is the function of the neutrons: what outs they generate in response to inputs and, more importantly, how they are connected to one another. There is no reason to think it does. It is hard to imagine a mechanism for that.

Tesla was wrong about many things. This appears to be one of them. The rest of your post doesn't make much sense. And I doubt you have any evidence to support it.

Then the orbits should differ from those predicted by Newtonian gravity. Only you can say by how much. (Except you can't. Because you don't have a model, just handwaving.) But I find it hard to imagine that a force that is able to modify the orbits of stars 50,000 light years away will not have an obvious effect on a nearby star. BTW. Thanks for providing yet another data point in my survey on the relationship between crackpottery and the ability to master the complexities of a button marked "Quote".

I'm not sure I agree. But perhaps you could explain why you think that. Although modern psychology is (usually) a science, the work of Freud and Jung was definitely not scientific.

Quantum field theory says nothing about our minds. Have you been reading some idiot like Deepak Chopra or Michio Kaku? Are you interested in science?

Definitely not the heart. Unless the soul is responsible for moving blood around the body.

This is logic. All you have are assertions. (Note, the technical sense of assertion is a statement with no supporting evidence or logic.)

You are not providing evidence. You are just saying what you believe.

See. Anyone can believe things with no evidence! (I will run and hide now )

No one said he was lying. You need to learn some critical-thinking skills. There are more possibilities than "he was right" or "he was lying".

One of my favourite radio programs / podcasts is the BBC's More or Less. They fact-check numbers in the news (among other things). They had a very fair and balanced set of reports on the referendum. No one listening to them could really vote for Leave based on the facts. Even the economists and other experts they interviewed from the Leave side generally agreed (with a few exceptions) that it would make little difference to trade or immigration. Or even the number of regulations "imposed" by Europe. They wanted to leave for vague, cuddly reasons such as "retaining sovereignty". Ah, bless.

I don't know what a soul is, so I don't really have an opinion.