Is scientific skepticism a Christian thing?

[questfortruth]

Very good, that I am a member of this forum. I can find some comfort and ease by sharing my problems here.

Sending rejection letters to me like
"We have no time to read your paper because you are not
the only submitter [and you are not a Professor]; and it
seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation
to understand your approach to the conjecture'' is not
acceptable at all as a flaw! Please look at the type
of mistake demonstration, I would accept: if I would write
in a paper: "2=5+7'', then the editor would find that
place and reply: "2=5+7=12 does not hold''.
The Process of reading scientific literature is a serious activity of the
brain. Therefore, it is inevitable to feel unease. Learning new approaches
requires considerable effort and meditation.

The quote, which most likely belongs to Armand de Richelieu:
"Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest
person, and I will find in them something to hang him for.''
Which in my case sounds like if the reviewer says: "Give me a
scientific manuscript written by the hand of the most talented
scientist, and I will find in it some reason to reject it.''
This injustice is wishful thinking. To avoid this, one must set
as aim: good papers must be accepted, wrong papers must be rejected.
And never vice versa!

"Spiritual Attacks To Increase As We Get Closer To The Rapture" YouTube.

 

[ChristineM]

So you've received another rejection letter.

 

[questfortruth]

So you've received another rejection letter.

Very good, that I am a member of this forum. I can find some comfort and ease by sharing my problems here.

 

[Moonjuice]

If I'm reading your summation correctly, it sounds like they are saying that it makes so little sense, the effort it would take to try to understand your conjecture is not worth the time to even read it. Sounds like you need to go back to the drawing board here.

 

[questfortruth]

If I'm reading your summation correctly, it sounds like they are saying that it makes so little sense, the effort it would take to try to understand your conjecture is not worth the time to even read it. Sounds like you need to go back to the drawing board here.

I simply think that they are of the devil because they do not love me.

 

[Moonjuice]

I simply think that they are of the devil because they do not love me.

We’ll, that makes perfect sense. Certainly not the content of the work.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Very good, that I am a member of this forum. I can find some comfort and ease by sharing my problems here.

Sending rejection letters to me like
"We have no time to read your paper because you are not
the only submitter [and you are not a Professor]; and it
seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation
to understand your approach to the conjecture'' is not
acceptable at all as a flaw! Please look at the type
of mistake demonstration, I would accept: if I would write
in a paper: "2=5+7'', then the editor would find that
place and reply: "2=5+7=12 does not hold''.
The Process of reading scientific literature is a serious activity of the
brain. Therefore, it is inevitable to feel unease. Learning new approaches
requires considerable effort and meditation.

The quote, which most likely belongs to Armand de Richelieu:
"Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest
person, and I will find in them something to hang him for.''
Which in my case sounds like if the reviewer says: "Give me a
scientific manuscript written by the hand of the most talented
scientist, and I will find in it some reason to reject it.''
This injustice is wishful thinking. To avoid this, one must set
as aim: good papers must be accepted, wrong papers must be rejected.
And never vice versa!

"Spiritual Attacks To Increase As We Get Closer To The Rapture" YouTube.

what’s a rapture?

it cannot be a Christian thing, because there ain’t such a thing mentioned in the Bible

 

[Alex22]

When is your rapture coming again? In fact I'm thinking about making a thread on the number of times Christian "prophets" have predicted the End

 

[night912]

Very good, that I am a member of this forum. I can find some comfort and ease by sharing my problems here.

Sending rejection letters to me like
"We have no time to read your paper because you are not
the only submitter [and you are not a Professor]; and it
seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation
to understand your approach to the conjecture'' is not
acceptable at all as a flaw! Please look at the type
of mistake demonstration, I would accept: if I would write
in a paper: "2=5+7'', then the editor would find that
place and reply: "2=5+7=12 does not hold''.
The Process of reading scientific literature is a serious activity of the
brain. Therefore, it is inevitable to feel unease. Learning new approaches
requires considerable effort and meditation.

The quote, which most likely belongs to Armand de Richelieu:
"Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest
person, and I will find in them something to hang him for.''
Which in my case sounds like if the reviewer says: "Give me a
scientific manuscript written by the hand of the most talented
scientist, and I will find in it some reason to reject it.''
This injustice is wishful thinking. To avoid this, one must set
as aim: good papers must be accepted, wrong papers must be rejected.
And never vice versa!

"Spiritual Attacks To Increase As We Get Closer To The Rapture" YouTube.

So instead of playing your own song over the rejection, you should just listen to the song that sent to you.

Your refusal to accept your failures will only result in you repeating your failures again and again.

The quote, which most likely belongs to Armand de Richelieu:
"Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest
person, and I will find in them something to hang him for.''
Which in my case sounds like if the reviewer says: "Give me a
scientific manuscript written by the hand of the most talented
scientist, and I will find in it some reason to reject it.''
This injustice is wishful thinking. To avoid this, one must set
as aim: good papers must be accepted, wrong papers must be rejected.
And never vice versa!

Nope. It's actually just you running head on straight into a wall known as "reality." You once thought that you were special, but now you're being shown to be just an average Joe, and you can't handle the truth. This is common amongst those who are quick to believe in false ideas without evidence to support those ideas.

Word of advice:
Just because someone won a gold medal for swimming, doesn't mean that they can easily jump in and compete with bronze medalist for power lifting.

 

[gnostic]

Very good, that I am a member of this forum. I can find some comfort and ease by sharing my problems here.

Sending rejection letters to me like
"We have no time to read your paper because you are not
the only submitter [and you are not a Professor]; and it
seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation
to understand your approach to the conjecture'' is not
acceptable at all as a flaw! Please look at the type
of mistake demonstration, I would accept: if I would write
in a paper: "2=5+7'', then the editor would find that
place and reply: "2=5+7=12 does not hold''.
The Process of reading scientific literature is a serious activity of the
brain. Therefore, it is inevitable to feel unease. Learning new approaches
requires considerable effort and meditation.

The quote, which most likely belongs to Armand de Richelieu:
"Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest
person, and I will find in them something to hang him for.''
Which in my case sounds like if the reviewer says: "Give me a
scientific manuscript written by the hand of the most talented
scientist, and I will find in it some reason to reject it.''
This injustice is wishful thinking. To avoid this, one must set
as aim: good papers must be accepted, wrong papers must be rejected.
And never vice versa!

"Spiritual Attacks To Increase As We Get Closer To The Rapture" YouTube.

When I first heard of the word, “rapture” I thought they were talking about the crazed state of women fans at Elvis Presley’s concerts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Very good, that I am a member of this forum. I can find some comfort and ease by sharing my problems here.

Sending rejection letters to me like
"We have no time to read your paper because you are not
the only submitter [and you are not a Professor]; and it
seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation
to understand your approach to the conjecture'' is not
acceptable at all as a flaw! Please look at the type
of mistake demonstration, I would accept: if I would write
in a paper: "2=5+7'', then the editor would find that
place and reply: "2=5+7=12 does not hold''.

They'ld have to first read and analyse the paper for that.
And I understand them. Reading only a few sentences of your posts / papers, it quickly becomes apparant that it's not worth the effort.

The fact is that you only have yourself to blame for that.
I wouldn't read your papers either, if they come in the form that I have seen from you till today.

Perhaps you should learn a lesson or two from these experiences and try harder next time.

The Process of reading scientific literature is a serious activity of the
brain. Therefore, it is inevitable to feel unease. Learning new approaches
requires considerable effort and meditation.

Hopefully you do understand that there is a pre-selection process. Such organizations are flooded with papers and simply can't read them all. So there is a pre-selection that goes on, a triage if you will.

And your papers don't meet the criteria to pass that first selection. Neither have you build a reputation for yourself to get a "free pass" or the "benefit of the doubt".

The quote, which most likely belongs to Armand de Richelieu:
"Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest
person, and I will find in them something to hang him for.''
Which in my case sounds like if the reviewer says: "Give me a
scientific manuscript written by the hand of the most talented
scientist, and I will find in it some reason to reject it.''
This injustice is wishful thinking. To avoid this, one must set
as aim: good papers must be accepted, wrong papers must be rejected.
And never vice versa!

Your paranoid delusion / victim complex, is noted.

Instead of crying fault and assume by default that the problem is on their side, I suggest you look inwards first and see if perhaps you / your papers are the actual problem.

I mean, it's not like those reviewers are the only ones who are telling you this. People on this forum react in much the same way to your gold-medal-drivel.

Maybe, just maybe, the problem lies with you instead of with literally everyone else....

"Spiritual Attacks To Increase As We Get Closer To The Rapture" YouTube.

See, stuff like that, doesn't help your case at all. In fact, it only makes it worse.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I simply think that they are of the devil because they do not love me.

You should think harder.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In fact I'm thinking about making a thread on the number of times Christian "prophets" have predicted the End

The forum doesn't allow enough characters per post to write that OP, if you plan on listing them all.