Phi for All

! Moderator Note Warning point issued for thread hijacking. Sorry you can't abide by the rules thousands of others are capable of following.

I've shown (or attempted, in your case) why a distinction is necessary, but you've NEVER shown why conflating evidence and proof is meaningful. In fact, every example you give shows me that your interpretation of these definitions is exactly wrong, and unhelpful, and you only keep bringing it up because it gives you great leeway in the rigor with which you treat a topic.

I'm not sure why you chose a science discussion site to join for conversation. If you came to learn, like most of us, I don't think you'd have the same kind of troubles here. If you asked questions, instead of trying to tell people here where science is lacking (when it's clear you don't understand what you're criticizing), I think the members here would be happy to include you in their own learning processes. But you don't do any of that. You argue about things you don't know, and you get annoyed when your ideas are refuted. You constantly bring up religion and your god, even in mainstream science threads, and that always gets a negative reaction (because it's against the rules). I don't think you came here necessarily with a big chip on your shoulder, but you certainly have put one there since. I think many folks here are getting tired of short-sighted, oft-repeated (and refuted) religious arguments forced into science discussions. No offense, I'm sure you're a nice person, but you have only a popular science knowledge while trying to topple mainstream explanations. I recognize you, since I was in the same boat 14 years ago when I joined this site. I chose to learn instead of trying to teach.

Calling someone a troll is a moderator call. We're sort of like the police, don't you think? Feel free to report anyone you think is trolling you, and if we agree they'll be banned as a troll. See how that works? How is it a personal attack when someone points out something they think you're ignoring? That's not rational, and I think you know it. For the rest, you have a different definition of personal attack, one that seems to include those who simply question you. Our differing definitions may be irreconcilable. You decide and let us know if this is the case.

! Moderator Note This is NOT a personal attack, as he is pointing out an error in your reasoning. I would, however, point out to beecee that the term "god botherers" is a slur against a group, and should be avoided here. ! Moderator Note Again, not personal. He's attacking a paper not held in great esteem, and pointing out behavior that keeps you from investigating further. ! Moderator Note All of this is observation. When we talk about personal attacks, it isn't about the ideas you're espousing. A personal attack would be to use language that disparaged you as a person, not the ideas you have, or the behavior you display. Calling someone ignorant points out a gap in their knowledge, but calling someone a moron is a personal attack. Does that make sense? I think what you're experiencing (perhaps for the first time) is critical review of some of your deeply held ideas, and it's not going the way you thought. Sorry about that, but science works hard to remove as many emotional attachments and cognitive biases as possible.

! Moderator Note Hijack about the truth of theories (for which Reg already had a thread) and responding posts have been split to the Trash. The topic here is the validity of undetermination in science.

! Moderator Note Hey, we attack ideas here, not people. Civility is the #1 rule. Knock this off right now!

Have you watched any of the upmarketing and restoration shows? I particularly like Find It, Fix It, Flog It. They go around to junk yards and storage sheds/barns to find old items that can either be upmarketed (repurposed to make something completely new, like turning an old plow into a chaise lounge) or restored (clean up something old that has new value as a relic or memorabilia, such as an old automotive oil can or antique signage). This way you use your skills on projects where you set your own pace. You create a new lifestyle that matches your abilities. I also think these shows miss the mark by not looking for customers beforehand. If you know any retail business owners, many are looking for restored pieces or anything interesting that will catch the eyes of their clients (not necessarily for resale - I think you'd get more money from something they would display). One creative piece was a bunch of old suitcases secured on top of each other. They cut the fronts (tops? the side with the handle) off the bottom four and glued drawers onto them, leaving the top suitcase to lift open as normal. Easy sale to a retail shop for display, especially a luggage or leather store.

Never mind, I saw how you treated Arete's evidence that you were wrong. You seem to be pretty happy in your ignorance, and that makes it hard to discuss anything meaningful with you. It's a shame. Exactly. Gimped. Hobbled. You can't get around the knowledge very well because you don't have vital pieces of information that are keeping you from understanding. And since you could easily study what you're ridiculing, it's willful ignorance, a self-imposed set of blinders, or a ball and chain you locked on your own leg.

Except if you go back in the thread, you can see where people have corrected some of your misunderstandings during our open-minded discussion and presentation of (mis)information. Nothing about being open-minded suggests I need to listen to you when you're wrong and it can be shown you're wrong. Open-minded people weigh the preponderance of evidence regarding an explanation of phenomena, as Arete has stated. If you don't understand what you're talking about, how gimped are you in a Google search to determine the validity of a statement?

Another example where lack of knowledge fools the ignorant into believing "each side of a discussion" are arguing equally. You don't know what you're talking about (sorry! but true), so you don't have the tools and knowledge necessary to critically judge the validity of both sides of an argument. Ergo, they look the same to you. And of course, lack of knowledge often leads one to make things up. It's almost impossible to dissuade a person who fills the gaps in their knowledge with junk they've carefully tailored to make sense (to a single person). I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but I trust morality derived from reason much more than religion. People's faith can waver, but I think a person is much more likely to be consistent if they've decided what's right and wrong intellectually rather than emotionally. I think the wisdom of compassionate cooperation and communication is a stronger argument for moral behavior than "You'll go to hell!" If you aren't supposed to do something because your god(s) won't like it, historically we've seen many people either lose faith or decide that they're an instrument of their god's wrath. Emotional stances are often overridden by a more emotional one (indeed, that's often the only thing that will work). Parents might decide it's OK to kill to protect their child, even if they're killing the police to avoid capture.

Many people without the knowledge can't do the critical thinking necessary to check an explanation for soundness on their own. Instead they make up supernatural elements to fill the gaps in their knowledge, leaving them with nothing but faith to gauge the strength and trustworthiness of what they think they know. It's extremely difficult to move someone from a stance they took emotionally.

For the purposes of our rules, preaching (or soapboxing) is defined as pushing an idea without evidence or support for it, yet insisting its correct while ignoring reasoned, supported arguments against it. It's against our rules because it's a waste of time trying to discuss anything with a preacher, or anyone unwilling to change their mind after hearing the best supported argument.

This is why I feel, as a species whose intelligence has evolved to a high degree, it's so very important to learn as much as you can about the natural world. When you don't know things, others who do appear unintelligible and silly. You can't know what you don't know, and your ability to judge the trustworthiness of data you receive and put together reasoned explanations for various phenomena is impaired. That's when you either make things up, or start believing others who just made things up. This is why I'm a weak atheist, and treat god(s) the same way I treat stamp collecting.

I'm drawn to a more Humanist stance (which is weak atheism) precisely because it appeals intellectually. Setting aside the supernatural (until it can be naturally and scientifically observed) is the only intellectual format worth pursuing, imo. The other big problem with this statement is that it assumes all atheism is the same. Personally, I think strong atheism isn't supported by rigid methodology, but not all atheists believe there is (are) no god(s). edit: cross-posted with iNow, who said it better - most atheism is a lack of belief.