Strange

Interestingly, igNORance does sound like it should work (by analogy with insistence) even though the usual pronunciation (IGn'rance) doesn't! So maybe it is the stress (and long o vowel) in ignoral that makes it sound right.

That is better - shunning, to me, seems like something you do to a person, not to an idea (or the idea of a person). But as both shunning and disregarding use the gerund as a noun, this suggests that the best term is probably ignoring.

Shunning, maybe (it needs to be a noun): "we do not allow soap-boxing (which is the continued indifference to / ignoral (*) of any counter-arguments or comments)" "we do not allow soap-boxing (which is the continued indifference to / ignoring of any counter-arguments or comments)" "we do not allow soap-boxing (which is the continued indifference to / shunning of any counter-arguments or comments)"

Not quite. He was trying to come up with a word (a noun) that means "the deliberate ignoring of". For no real reason other than it would have fitted in the sentence. "Ignoring" would probably do; it is the usual way to create a noun from a verb. To me, "ignoral" sounded plausible; it was obvious what he meant by it and I could imagine using it. I wasn't sure initially why that was. I assume because of analogy with other forms (which is one of the main ways we coin new words). But the obvious examples (e.g. season -> seasonal) all seem to go from noun to adjective. So it may not be a standard derivation. Imatfaal asked "is this a word". I say yes, but I guess some people might say that it isn't a word if it isn't in the dictionary. Apparently, ignore originally meant "to not know, be ignorant of". The sense of deliberately choosing not to know is later (although it doesn't say how much later). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ignore

You make it sounds as if that doesn't matter; as if stuff you make up is just as valid as mathematically derived and well-tested theories.

That is a nice way of putting it; it is not quite a conservation law (because there is no "stuff" that is being conserved), but there is an invariant (the spacetime interval between two events).

Well, it is a word: it follows the English rules of morphology, orthography and phonemics, the meaning is clear and it is useful. But, oddly, it doesn't seem to be in the dictionary. I assume the -al ending works by analogy with something else, but I'm not sure what. (Maybe this needs its own thread...)

You have provided no reason why I should think that is true. It appears to be your personal opinion, unsupported by any evidence or logic. As such, it can be safely ignored. As breathing is not a choice, I don't see where faith comes into it. But even if it were a choice, I don't see where faith comes into it. You are just making stuff up.

I see no connection between the fact we breath air and your belief in God. I can breath equally well in a world without God. You are the one making claims, so it is up to you to support them. I am only pointing out that your claims are baseless; just your personal opinion presented as fact. And at least some of them are wrong. For example, you are certainly wrong that we are "all linked with God". You have moved the thread on from "loop logic" to "no logic", well done!

It is pretty obvious that everything on that website is complete and utter nonsense.

That is a pretty meaningless analogy; I don't even know what it is supposed to be an analogy to. However, the bending of light, whether by gravity or refraction, is clearly not an illusion so I have no idea what point you are trying to make. That doesn't make any sense. Gravity is not any sort of particle. And certainly not a dark matter particle. Because gravity is the curvature of spacetime.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

That website also has articles on "dolphin-humans", on people who claim to have given up food and live purely on light, and that crystals can be used as medicine. It doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that should be referenced on a science forum.

There is no evidence provided to support the claim "all of us are linked with God". (Leaving aside the question as to whether your God, or any other God, exists.) As there is at least one person in this discussion who is not "linked to God" it is obvious the claim is untrue. An assertion is a statement made which is not supported by logic or evidence. You might want to justify any statement involving God by providing a reason why I (or anyone else) should take his existence for granted. You might want to explain what you mean by "linked with" in this context. You might want to provide evidence that this is true for "all" people. It doesn't irritate me. Why do you think it does? Do you think that anyone who disagrees with you must be irritated? I just think it is funny that you tell someone else not to get worked up when you have used so many exclamation marks (which are usually used to indicate some level of emotional involvement).

Do you have any data to support that? Are these ethnicities? Indo-Aryan and Semitic are linguistic descriptions which encompasses many ethnicities (and religions). I'm not sure what Anglo-Saxon means in the modern world. I'm also not sure what you mean by Eurasian: it is usually used to describe people of mixed European-Asian heritage (which rather argues against your point!) so doesn't seem to identify a single ethnic group. As for Mongoloid, Wikipedia defines this as the "physical type of some or all of the populations of East Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Eastern Russia, the Arctic, the Americas, parts of the Pacific Islands, and parts of South Asia." That doesn't sound like a single ethnic group, either. More generally, you are assuming some sort of relationship between genetics and ethnicity. Any evidence for that is tenuous at best.

It does not have any supporting evidence (or at least you haven't presented any). It is not a theory. It may be a starting point, but you have a long way to go to turn it into a testable hypothesis. And even further to turn that into a theory. Intuition and common sense are a really, really bad basis for a scientific theory. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to try and prevent people being deluded by what "seems" to be obviously correct (but often isn't). Yes, we know. You have told us often enough. I think it is terrible that you suffer from these conditions. But that does not mean we should accept your "theory" as some sort of sympathy vote. Your theory needs to be a rigorous as any other. Firstly, no one here has said that, so I don't know why you bring it up. Secondly, it is irrelevant. If some people say stupid and insensitive things about depression does not mean that we should compensate by accepting any old rubbish as being "science". I suppose it makes you feel better to keep posting this nonsense. But that doesn't make it scientific, it is just a form of therapy.

That would only affect genetic diversity if you could show there was some connection between genes and religion. As Christianity, for example, is practised on every continent around the world, that does not seem likely.

Do you have any evidence to support this? Or is it just something else you have made up.

Why? You said you had a theory. A theory requires mathematics.

I don't see any mathematics there. I don't see any quantitatively testable predictions. In other words I don't even see a hypothesis, never mind a theory.

Maybe that is the problem. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. For example: Again: NO. NO. NO. Yes. You do seem to be struggling with it.

That is pretty much incomprehensible. You have come up with an arbitrary new definition of the word "scientific" and then you are making ad hoc changes when you are told it is nonsense. You don't have a theory. A theory requires a mathematical model that can be used to make testable predictions. What you have are stupid redefinitions of the words "good" and "scientific".

In this case, both are relevant.

Not necessarily a single frequency though. There are complex oscillations that involve multiple frequencies; like a piano string, for example, or a double pendulum. Or your graph.

Then you need to clarify what you mean. You said the word "sight" is scientific because everyone can see. But not everyone can see, therefore by your own argument, the word "sight" is not scientific. If this doesn't make sense, it is because you are posting nonsense (as usual). Firstly, he did explain it in a scientific way, so the argument is irrelevant. Secondly, no one accepts the theory of relativity just because Einstein said it. They accept it because (a) it is a mathematical model that makes testable predictions, (b) all the evidence confirms it and © no evidence contradicts it. To have your definition of "good" accepted as something other than your personal opinion, you need to do what Einstein did: create a mathematical model, produce testable predictions and then test them. As you are not able to do any of those, your definition is not science. Nope. You are just posting nonsense. Maybe. Also, you don't have a "theory", you have an opinion. The sort of opinion a particularly emotional 14 year old might come up with. You may be deluding yourself, but I doubt you are fooling anyone else.