Phi for All

Hate to burst your bubbles, but discussion forums are like the OG of social media. Forums & chat rooms were staples of the early web. The added algorithms seem to be what causes the problems that have been brought up so far.

Now that I know you aren't going to bother educating yourself by reading trusted links I post, I'm wondering how you think discussion will help? It sounds like you're going to preach and ignore what others say, and that's basically blogging. Discussion means you actually engage with others to remove ignorance. It works beautifully, but not the way you're doing it. If you aren't listening, you're soapboxing, and why would I want to discuss science with you? No disrespect, but nobody has time for that.

So you didn't read the information I gave you from the NASA site? If you continue to remain "neutral" afterwards, I would imagine there's nothing that would change your mind, and that suggests you don't want it to be true. Some folks think what you're doing is being a good skeptic, but a good skeptic not only questions what they're told, they also dig deep and find the best current explanation. Skeptics are NOT fence-sitters, so if you've remained "neutral" all this time, it's most likely because you're resisting what you're trying to learn.

You'd think: https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal

This is badly out of line with current science, where consensus on the subject is based on the data. I politely suggest you educate yourself instead of making these blanket assessments, which are often perpetuated by those who stand to gain from ignoring the present climate crisis. IOW, you sound like you're being paid to spread bad info.

Please check your paranoia at the door, and step away from the thread if you need to.

I'm remembering the last time gas prices were this high, under Bush II in 2008. It had a great deal to do with the decisions to fully move into electric car production. People didn't care as much about clean air as they did affordable driving, but whatever got the ball rolling, I guess.

Defining "a good life" seems like the purpose of life. You think, and you know things. And you're a big grandkid pillow.

deepend has been banned for trolling, and we hope they get some professional help.

! Moderator Note The subject is too important for shallow and dismissive treatment, so I'm closing this thread. Please follow the other threads we have on the war in Ukraine.

Mine is Tiera Guinn: https://www.engineergirl.org/40724/Tiera-Fletcher-Guinn (after hypervalent_iodine, of course!) Sounds like "All lives matter". The title is "Women in Science".

This is called circular logic (which is no logic at all). You don't like Aristotle so Aristotle is wrong. And then you top it off by giving what you think is the opinion of aliens from other planets, as if that had anything to do with rational conversation. Here's that preaching thing again. I never used the word "entertain", yet you devote a whole paragraph to it after quoting me. Is this just a random thought, or was it in response to something someone else said? It's a total crutch that you use to oppress yourself and others. It's made you think that 3 out of 4 people are wrong about everything. I think you need more help than we can give you here, friend.

Bold move. I'd be terrified of using such metrics to judge people. It's far too easy to label opinions you don't like as coming from a "cult". And frankly, it's too unsophisticated to help me explain various phenomena, and would probably lead me to make all kinds of specious claims that sounded reasonable only to me. Slapping the "cult" label on whatever I don't agree with doesn't help me grow or learn about the world around me. It would be a mental crutch, a fallacy of reasoning that would give me an unstable, fractured foundation upon which to build knowledge.

Jalopy has been suspended for a week for continuing to post about their god in the Physics section, soapboxing about the things they've misinterpreted about science, and trolling members with endless questions they obviously don't care to learn the correct answers to. Change is expected if they come back.

You know how I can tell you're preaching? Because you quoted my post but didn't address a single point I made in it. You didn't address the distinctions I made, you ignored my Aristotle quote (directly in response to your previous post), and then you hand-waived away the rest of what I said with a declaration about what's pointless and what's truth. If you want to learn, I'd say this is why folks don't like to discuss anything with you. You don't engage, you just spout the stuff you think you're sure of. It's not interesting, it's not educational, and it's certainly not discussion.

This is your lucky day then. I personally have a lack of belief in deities. I don't claim they don't exist, I just don't see any evidence to support them. I might think differently if there was any evidence, but for now it's just a lack of belief. Not sure how you can call that a cult. Is there a cult of people who don't believe in dragons, or a religion of people who don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If atheism is a religious cult, doesn't that mean BALD is a hair color? "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." – Aristotle – One can study a thing without embracing it, and it's never a bad idea to understand why people think the things they do. Objectively, you should be willing to ask yourself, "Is it me? Am I the drama?"

Why can't religion be discussed and studied rationally as a phenomenon then? You've been posting like the others in this discussion are defending specific religious practices, when in fact most (if not all) are atheists of various flavors. Of course religions have a basis in reality. You need the natural phenomena people encounter regularly to fill the gaps in their knowledge with the supernatural.

I'm going to step away from this thread as a poster, since it seems all the mods have been involved. ! Moderator Note mistermack, it doesn't present a conflict of interest for me to say that your objection to providing support for assertions you make isn't acceptable here or anyplace else on the site. "Tedious" may be your definition of "rigorous" and "reasoned" and "well-supported", but nobody else here is that sloppy. If you want to keep posting here, you need to follow the rules. Some people like to take a conversation to places it's never been. They don't care if it's dirty and uncomfortable and their conversational clothes get filthy. Conversations like that are interesting, and most folks learn a great deal from such discussions. Your discussion style, however, doesn't take us into the filth; it starts out with dirty hands, and insists on making everybody else deal with it. Our clothes don't get dirty because we were mucking about in unfamiliar places, but rather because we have to keep refuting the information you refuse to support, and get frustrated when you can't even be bothered to acknowledge it. There may not be any overall resolutions to any of our discussions, but most would like to see something close. That's only going to happen if everyone involved is arguing in good faith.

I partly blame popular science articles that turn "We don't know the exact mechanism" into "It's a mystery that leaves scientists completely baffled". The sensationalism invites people to throw out anything that might stick, because hey, we're talking about completely baffled scientists, right? If they don't know the exact mechanism, they don't know anything, right? We're all at the guessing stage, so my "theory" is just as valid as anyone else's, right?

This seems to suggest all Jews in Israel are happy people. Is this what you meant?

Insisting on the use of vague terms is probably why you don't understand it, but that doesn't mean NOBODY really understands it. The study has been broken down to remove any vagueness. All you need to do is pick your area (cognition? behaviors? emotional patterns?) and pick an approach to drill down for better information. No need to make up words like "coaliscion", or come up with your own ideas . All you have to do is study what's been discovered already, and ask questions about the parts you don't understand. This type of science is more fact-based, and less opinion-related.

So that's a big NO on providing any kind of support for your reasoning? I ask because it seems important to you that I be specific, even though you hold yourself to a lower standard.

At least in the US there seems to be: https://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/Stulp et al 2013_TLQ_Presidential height.pdf

So define "higher powers" using natural terms, and remember that "definitely" means "without doubt". How could you possibly know not only that "higher powers" exist without doubt, but also that "they", WITHOUT DOUBT, don't want us praying to them? The little evidence we do have about deities suggests they're all about praying and worship. You're making an extraordinary claim, so please support it with some extraordinary evidence.

This isn't correct. If there's a correlation, it's that people tend to prefer leaders with taller stature, not that taller people make natural leaders. The fact that we see them as more capable doesn't make them more capable.