iNow

Not political, per se, but some of the conversations in Politics remind me of it: This one, however, pure politics:

And, what about this one?

In the search results (like View New Content), can the characters allowed for thread titles be increased? You did this in the old version, and it was very helpful, but we're again experiencing truncated titles in the search results since the upgrade. Thx.

Blackholes and Timewarps by Kip Thorne. The Magic Furnace by Marcus Chown. The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan.

Woman Marine Pilot The teacher gave her fifth grade class an assignment: Get their parents to tell them a story with a moral at the end of it. The next day, the kids came back and, one by one, and began to tell their stories. There were all the regular types of stuff: spilled milk and pennies saved. But then the teacher realized, much to her dismay, that only Janie was left. 'Janie, do you have a story to share?' 'Yes ma'am. My daddy told me a story about my Mommy. She was a Marine pilot in Desert Storm, and her plane got hit. She had to bail out over enemy territory, and all she had was a flask of whiskey, a pistol, and a survival knife. She drank the whiskey on the way down so the bottle wouldn't break, and then her parachute landed her right in the middle of 20 Iraqi troops. She shot 15 of them with the pistol, until she ran out of bullets, killed four more with the knife, till the blade broke, and then she killed the last Iraqi with her bare hands.' 'Good Heavens,' said the horrified teacher. 'What did your Daddy tell you was the moral to this horrible story?' "Stay away from Mommy when she's been drinking."

It could go either way, guys. "And" is clearly not a number, nor is it part of the number, it's just something we often add when speaking the number out loud. One hundred one One hundred two One hundred three... One oh four One oh five One oh six... One hundred and seven One hundred and eight One hundred and nine... The and is conventional, not part of the number, but I do give a lot of credit to shyvera for the very astute observation, all the same.

President Barack Obama is expected to nominate Jesus Christ, an immigrant originally born to a virgin mother in Bethlehem, to fill the new vacancy on the Supreme Court. Although Mr. Christ is over 2,000 years old, He is immortal, so Democrats and Republicans expect that He will serve on the high court forever or until He decides to start the End Times. Republicans are expected to fight the nomination on the grounds that Mr. Christ would radically move the Court to the left. The GOP is also concerned that, despite decades of controversy and speculation, Mr. Christ has never revealed his position on abortion. Mr. Christ, according to many authorities, is expected to oppose the death penalty in all forms. Michael Steele, the head of the GOP national committee, issued a statement: "Christ is a complete mystery to us. He won't reveal His physical appearance and many of His positions are unknown or the subject of speculation. He is a stealth candidate. Why won't He reveal himself? Who does He think He is?" Republicans are reportedly outraged that Mr. Obama even considered Mr. Christ, who has been widely quoted for his sentiments supporting the poor over the wealthy. In a Facebook post, former half-term Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin called for an investigation into the Bethlehem chapter of ACORN because of what she termed the "highly suspicious" coincidence that both President Obama and Mr. Christ had each spent three years as community organizers. In her post, Palin also wrote that "More and more of good God-fearing smalltime Americans from hardworking smalltime towns from great parts of this real America, West, South, East, North, are seeing more and more every day that Christ is a community organizer. We don't need another community organizer in the White House!" Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) asked, "We're not even sure where He was born. Why is He afraid to show us his birth certificate?" Bachmann also announced that she would vote "no" when the Christ nomination came before the House of Representatives. Later, her congressional staff released a statement saying that the Congresswoman had forgotten that the House does not vote on judicial nominations. According to Rush Limbaugh, "Christ doesn't know anything about free enterprise. This is part of the Obama conspiracy to drag us to socialism. If this guy is approved, I'm moving to Costa Rica." Sobbing, Glenn Beck attacked Christ's support for the separation of church and state, telling his audience "You know who else wanted a separation of church and state? Hitler." Several Catholic priests were contacted for comment but refused to discuss the issue, and, even though they weren't asked, all empathetically denied that they had personally molested any children. Democrats are optimistic about their chances of shoving Mr. Christ down the throats of Americans using normal constitutional and parliamentary procedures. Many Democrats are hopeful that Mr. Christ's past associations with prostitutes will earn him at least one Republican vote, that of Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). If confirmed, Christ will be the first Supreme Court Justice who has at least one American city named after him: Corpus Christi, Texas

As well as sodium and cadmium telluride.

Yeah, because varying interpretations of such clear and precise language is not at all possible. Psst... My meaning is this: That could mean anything you want it to, so is really without utility.

Right then, but that wasn't the context of the thread. We were asked why we are not theist, and I responded in order to concur with John C's point. In the course of so doing, I mentioned that I struggle to understand why people still believe in this nonsense, and I was promptly reminded of the rules, and admonished for being so callous as to use the term "nonsense." I do love how I've now been called childish and how it's been implied that I'm acting like a kindergartner, and how this has been done by the very people talking about how important it is not to be mean and not to be rude to posters. It's sort of a pot meet kettle moment, but whatever. Regardless, since you asked Dak, I'll elucidate (despite the fact that this was not the topic to which I was originally responding, I'll gladly offer more since it's been directly requested of me to do so). Religious belief is worthy of rejection because it is all based on faith, and often that belief is held in direct opposition to evidence due to the fact that faith is prioritized over evidence. Ultimately, in these discussions with theists, the argument of existence comes down to faith, and faith alone. Theists invoke special pleading by asking that their faith be granted merit, and they request that we apply different standards to their claims (whether implicitly or explicitly) than we would apply to all other claims in all other arenas. I use the shorthand of calling it nonsense instead of repeatedly asking why we are supposed to accept peoples faith as a valid form of evidence when it applies to their personal belief set... when we would not do the same thing for someone who believed in unicorns because of their faith, or when we would not accept someones faith in Thor as valid evidence of existence, or when we would not accept someones faith in the tooth fairy as valid evidence of existence. If faith is so critical, and so important, why then do they reject faith when it is presented as argument from others with differing beliefs? Why is it good enough to support their personal beliefs, but not good enough to support the validity of beliefs held by others which differ from them? Theists have literally nothing other than their personal faith in support of their claims, and they are essentially invoking special pleading and using double standards of evidence since they would not accept faith alone as evidence of Zeus being a god or evidence that there is an invisible dragon in my garage. What I'm here trying to point out is that we should unashamedly refuse to accept this double standard, and to remind readers of the importance of being consistent with our standards of evidence. We must continually ask... why faith is somehow good enough for beliefs with which these theists agree, but seemingly faith is not good enough for beliefs with which they disagree (let's say belief in Allah or belief in Zeus or belief in easter bunnies). Either ALL claims of faith are equally valid, or none are. Theists everywhere have only thus far managed to offer personal faith as their argumentative foundation; faith alone as the reason for their beliefs. Since they have nothing more than faith alone their assertions and beliefs can be safely dismissed as vacuous and without utility. Again, all we need to do is ask ourselves why someone's "faith" in unicorns or leprechauns or tooth fairies is not good enough to avoid derision and dismissal by all of us... by society at large... but somehow their faith in Yahweh or Jesus are somehow supposed to be exempt from the aforementioned derision and dismissal? Either theists have something more than just their personal faith in support of their claims, or they have nothing whatsoever. Thus far in the centuries during which these discussions have taken place all we've been presented in support of the god existence question is faith, and that's just not good enough. You'll have to forgive me for being a bit lazy sometimes and summarizing all of the above by simply calling it nonsense.

Ok, so long as we say astrology itself is bullshit, we're good. On that note, religious belief in deities is bullshit. I'm not talking to any religious believers, though, so I'm fine since I'm not flaming.

I still fail to understand why so many people buy into this nonsense, but hey... whatever.

Let's not lose the context of this discussion, people. Here's what I said that prompted the ridiculousness contained in this thread which has been split off: This is pretty much my take. I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in the tooth fairy. Seriously... how do people still buy into this nonsense? Whoa... I should be ashamed of myself, shouldn't I? How dare I go to such a dark and offensive place.

You are sorely mistaken, and let me explain why. These discussions inevitably boil down to the issue of existence. When all of these lofty and heady discussions get distilled, that is the central issue to which we ALWAYS return... claims of the existence of whatever god these people believe in. The claim of existence is NOT an opinion, it is an assertion. It is a statement presented as fact without any acknowledgment of uncertainty, and those claims are subject to the same scrutiny, criticism, and evisceration as are ALL OTHER CLAIMS and assertions made on this board and also in our everyday lives. Those claims of existence are being presented not as opinions, but as facts... as truths representative of this reality in which we exist, and are therefore legitimate targets for criticism. Unfortunately, any and all criticism is deemed "offensive" and those presenting them castigated for lacking "tact," but nobody has a right not to be offended, nor do they have a right to put forth assertions without backing them up with evidence and expect to be taken seriously. Again, all of these discussions distill down to that central premise... that central question of existence. In all of these discussions, those putting forth the existence claim in an affirmative manner have NOTHING other than personal faith in support, and therefore their assertion is rightly dismissed as nonsense. If they are offended by their faith being called nonsense, then that's really too bad. Their offense or sensitivity to criticism makes the label no less valid or true. I say this because we would EQUALLY reject as nonsense someone arguing for the existence of Thor or Zeus based on faith alone. I say this because we would EQUALLY reject as nonsense someone arguing for the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, alien abduction, or magical butt fairies based on their personal faith alone. I say this because we would EQUALLY reject as nonsense someone arguing for perpetual motion machines, that relativity is wrong, or that evolution fails to explain the world around us based on their personal faith alone. In short... In all of these other arenas where claims and assertions are being made we would dismiss their claims and assertions in the absence of objective evidence as nonsense, and rightly so. For you to suggest that religion and theist belief be treated differently... to be held to alternative standard than the one to which we hold EVERYTHING ELSE IN OUR WORLD stinks of special pleading, shows that you wish to apply a double standard, and evidences the fact that you are truly not comfortable having open and visceral dialog on these issues here at your site. That's fine, but make up your mind... You can't have it both ways. You either have a P&R forum where people shred nonsense for what it is, or you realize that you're not comfortable with that happening at your site and you close it down altogether like you did previously. Your attempts to reside in this middle area are only going to fail, and they are going to fail hard (mostly because this site is populated with a membership who are reasonable, rational, and who require evidence in support of claims... people with an interest and often a background in science, where objective, verifiable, repeatable evidence is king). That's my take, anyway. It's not about calling people idiots. The subject of the nonsense label is the belief itself, not the person holding it. Despite that, there is no level of tact which will allow you to avoid the bad feelings which accompany discussions of this nature, as all of these discussions will ultimately become offensive to someone somewhere since all they have is their faith and that faith is being challenged.

In much the same way, nobody would take issue if we were arguing with a birther about Obama being born in the US/Hawaii and if we called their arguments that he was not, in fact, born in the US "nonsense," or if somebody claimed that failure to bail out the banking industry last year would not have resulted in complete economic collapse and we called that "nonsense," but suddenly when religious belief is involved that word is off-limits? We tell people in the forums all the time that their ideas are nonsense. Just look at people who think they have perpetual motion machines or that plate tectonics is a failed theory. Now, here in the P&R forum, the argument is being made that we need to invoke special pleading and double standards? Come on, really?

So basically you want us to all lie to each other... to be insincere, inauthentic, and to mask our true thoughts because we can't handle the fact that some truths hurt peoples feelings? Yeah... Good luck with that. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/02/universal-morality/ We should not feel constrained to assert what we think is an objective truth — that such behavior is wrong — for fear that it will be taken as subjective meddling or demagoguery, Harris argued. There is a moral imperative not to hold one’s tongue but rather to speak out. “Who are we not to say [that it’s wrong]?” he asked. “Who are we to pretend that we know so little about human well being that we have to be nonjudgmental about a practice like this?” We can no longer respect and tolerate vast differences of opinion of what constitutes basic humanity any more than we can take seriously different opinions about how disease spreads or what it takes to make buildings and airplanes safe.

This is supposed to be really good. The author was on Charlie Rose last month (they re-aired it the other night, too). He impressed me quite a lot. Let us know what you think. Note: You can watch the interview here: http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/125

Hello Robert, Welcome. What are your interests?

This just made me chuckle.

Via PZ

That's ridiculous. Are you sure they weren't just out of stock?

Welcome to everyone who has joined. Fresh people bring fresh ideas, and I thank each of you for it. Jump right in. The water's great.

It would be incorrect to assume it is just a "group of clouds." We really don't yet know what the feature is. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20070327.html The new images taken in thermal-infrared light show the hexagon extends much deeper down into the atmosphere than previously expected, some 100 kilometers (60 miles) below the cloud tops. A system of clouds lies within the hexagon.