Severian

One of the ways the Higgs can decay is to two Z bosons, which is why this is significant.

Dark matter is most probably a stable particle with only weak force couplings (that is, neutral and colorless) that has a mass about 100 times that of the proton.

Dark energy can be explained by just a Cosmological constant.

But Severian...I have to ask you...why did you not PM a mod earlier on? Or did you? I think that there should be user accountability that is cooperative with mod responsibility.

I reported (using the report post button) about 20 posts or so in the thread (over the time period of the postings). All the reports were cancelled without comment.

I voted liberal, but as I get older I find myself adopting the odd policy that could be described as conservative. (Though mainly in a libertarian sense.)

It is interesting that this post in another thread suggests almost the exact same thing I did, but there is no reaction at all. It is very clear to me that I was flamed only because I said I was a Christian.

I was also surprised by this thread, where they are discussing whether or not a user's avatar breaks their rules. It is a animation of a lizard with a large penis, raping the head of a skeleton hanging on a cross with the caption "F*** the skull of Jesus". The current opinion seems to be that it isn't a depiction of a sexual nature because Jesus "isn't real".

I think the sooner we disassociate SFN from this bunch of losers the better.

it would absolve man of guilt if they believe a few muttered words would make it all beater

I am still not sure what you are getting at. I agree that "a few muttered words" doesn't absolve one of guilt. Christianity would be a bit hollow if it did.

Yes, that is how I think of it. Local supersymmetry. In fact, it is so elegant, I find it hard to believe that it is not correct (at least on some level).

If it didn't evaporate (if say, the Hawking radiation didn't happen for some reason), it would be very damaging. Things that fell into it wouldn't come out, so it would slowly grow, and the bigger it got the more gravitational attraction it would have. Eventually it would eat the Earth.

The argument that it would only have the same gravitational attraction as a bag of sugar (which is correct) and therefore not do much damage (incorrect) is only relevant if the black hole is near the Earth for a short time (e.g. created with a large momentum).

Of course, as ajb says, it would just evaporate, so no worries.

You will quickly see that those people at the other site he linked in the OP were rather accurate in their assessment, as supported by his numerous posts here.

Maybe you should spend more time there. They seem like your sort of people.

Also, the search you suggest doesn't bring up a single homophobic or antigay post. Maybe you are just imagining things?

Thanks guys. I feel a bit better that it isn't just me being out of touch with reality or something. I don't think I have the energy to try starting another thread though.

I think he sort of attitude they have is really detrimental to the atheist cause (and the gay one for that matter). It seems strange that they don't see it, but I suppose they all feed of each other.

Thanks for your comments Cap'n. It isn't just this thread either - it is the same level of "debate" on the entire site.

To be honest, I think having them as a "partner" site does a disservice to SFN.

I wasn't sure where to put this, since I am not meaning to discuss gay marriage here, but wanted your opinion on a thread at rationalskepticism.org. As you know, this is SFN's "partner" site, so I think it is a fair enough topic.

Could you please take a look at this thread and let me know what you think. In particular, please take a look at my own posts and the reaction I go to them (I lost it a bit at the end, so edited my last post out).

I genuinely am confused as to what the problem is. I gave the argument (which people here are familiar with) that I am opposed to state organised "marriage", irrespective of the gender of the participants. But these guys just don't seem to get it and are getting really nasty. Do you think I just didn't explain my opinion well enough, or is there some other issue with RatSkep I am not aware of, or are these guys just being complete douchebags?

Incidentally, the moderation of that site is terrible. I have reported many of the troll posts in that thread, and there has not even been a comment from a mod.

Anyway, I would appreciate your comments.

I understand that the church is against sex outside of marriage, but why is birth control inside marriage wrong as well? I can't imagine being limited to abstinence in my marriage to avoid pregnancy, talk about a bummer, sex only a few days a month at most and still the danger of pregnancy? That would not just suck personally but it would harm the bonding and emotional comfort sex brings between couples...

Maybe you place unnatural importance on sex. If you can't form an emotional bond with your wife without sex, don't you think there is something wrong?

I'll be quite crude.

Indeed you were. I don't think it is your place to judge the motives of those who don't want to live any more.

Why can't Paul's experience on the road to Damascus be both epilepsy and a divine vision?

Why does the catholic church consider birth control to be a sin even with married couples? This policy not only results in unwanted children that cannot be cared for and are a burden on society it also results in Aids being spread due to the anti condom fetish of the church.

It is not the act of not wearing a condom that results in unwanted pregnancies and the spreading of aids. It is having sex that causes these. I think that is the church's point. If people led more moral lives, there wouldn't be any issue, so the church doesn't want to encourage actions which take away the incentive to live morally.

I disagree with this view only because I want people to be motivated to act morally by their love of God, not out ot of fear for their lives. However, I have never ever used birth control, and I am sure I never will.

Since I am not a biblical literalist, and don't believe the bible is infallible, I am free to disapprove of the Song of Soloman as much as I like.

The problem with this approach is the same as having uncle Joe pay off his niece's maxed out credit cards. Once the pressure of the debt is removed, she may think this is a good time to go back to the store and complete her fall wardrobe. When her credit cards are maxed out, she is force to ponder her impulsive spending and think more practically. It is not so much protecting uncle Joe, as it is teaching his niece that money does not grow on trees. If uncle Joe knew his niece has learned her lesson, and will now be practical and spend within her means, then he may decide to help her out. But as long as she hasn't learned anything, it is a waste of money.

That analogy doesn't really work though, since it isn't really the niece's debt. A better analogy would be if the aunt had borrowed the niece's credit card, maxed it out and refused to pay it off herself. The aunt even refuses to give the credit card back. Then the niece goes to the uncle and asks him to pay it off. Once it is paid off the aunt goes back out and buys more stuff, spending impulsively because she knows there are no consequences.

Incidentally, I wasn't advocating this "solution". I just wondered what you all thought, especially with regard to the democratic will of the majority.

There has recently been a proposal to pay off the UK National Debt by having a one off tax on the richest 10% of the UK population, who allegedly have £5 Trillion in personal wealth between them. A one off tax of 20% of their wealth would pay off the entire national debt and remove the need for the cuts we are facing.

They tested it with a youGov poll and apparently it has a 74% approval rating.

You can find more details in this guardian article or at http://www.glasgowmediagroup.org/

I am curious as to your opinions on this. In particular, if this is supported by the majority of the population, does it become automatically the correct course of action, as dictated by democratic principle?

I would agree with that. For a native German speaker, ETH is a better school to go to than MIT.

It depends on your definition.

The Higgs boson of the Standard Model is falsifiable, since if it exists it will be seen by the LHC. If itisn't seen by the LHC it is falsified.

However, some models of the Higgs boson make the Higgs invisible to the LHC. So this is not falsifiable by the LHC, but it is still falsifiable in other ways (at other yet-to-be-built colliders).

Similarly, low energy supersymmetry (e.g. the MSSM with a SUSY scale of 1 TeV) would be seen at the LHC, so is falsifiable. But high energy supersymmetry (which only manifests at energies applicable to String Theory) is not right now (though may be falsifiable hundreds of years in the future).

Hi.Thanks for your answer."Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule in Zurich" What do you think about this university?

ETH is one of the best. Really recommend it.

I believe in personal responsibility. If someone wants to kill themselves, they should go ahead and do it.

Can we say this would be superior morally to the current situation?

No - I don't think we can.

So by your arguemnts, God has voluntarily given us suffering that is unnecesary.

How do you know that it is unnecessary? Maybe you lack God's cosmic perspective to judge this?