An atheistic argument Via. Abductive inference, quantum superposition and the temporal impossibility of causality, we can infer that it is most likely that God doesn't exist. From a non-Christian point of view, theism itself is illogical. The Holy Trinity is the epitome of a theistic position. As theism is illogical as (a) causality is impossible, (b) causality is not required, (c) abduction reveals metaphysical naturalism is more likely, and (d) quantum superposition leaves an external cause impossible, the Holy Trinity is illogical and "doesn't make sense".
Morality is relative. Morals were created by humans as a way to balance civilization; "evil" is what undermines the human social order that maintains a society based on the stronghold of civilization that allows humans to evolve technologically and ideologically. "Good" is what strengthens this order as weaving the fabric of civilization. In reality, morality is probably relative and unrelated to definite cause and consequence. So, a higher power determining morality is irrational.
What could make a better president than a potato? Trump isn't a bad presidential candidate. He's one of the more moderate Republicans, and while I don't like Republicans, his proposals are *way* more reasonable than the much more right-wing proposals of most other Republicans. But, as U.n. noted, this is an unfair question to ask, because a potato would make the best president conceivable.
Studies are still going on. While studies are still going on, as of now it seems the brain localization of analysis (according to functional MRI scans) show more bilateral structure than males, and males have memory deficit due to the less bilateral structure. While males are better at analysis, as most scientific studies require psychological and physical coordination, it would seem equal. But it's impossible to say for now, until new studies are made.
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God. The idea of a sentient God in ancient times was not backed with any proof whatsoever. Today, advanced particle physics is unearthing discoveries such as B-mode polarization, mechanical fluctuations, the vacuum state, and gravitational waves that suggest the non-existence of God. This is my standpoint and view on this topic.
Everything that God is supposed to have done is explained otherwise. The Big Bang is the leading cosmological model for the creation of the universe, which shows how permanently pre-existent uncaused gravitational spacetime expanded into the cosmic thermodynamic system that is the universe. Evidence for the Big Bang is seen in CMBs such as the B-mode polarization, measured at 150 GHz in the POLARBEAR experiment. The Big Bang could have been caused by uncaused quantum fluctuations, changes in the cosmic energy density that allow the virtual creation of mass by mass-energy equivalence and hence gravity. There is no evidence for the definitive existence of teleology. Hence, God does not *need* to exist.
The Morality Paradox Morality is a subtle thing, forged by humans to weave the fabric of civilization. Morals are necessary for maintaining the human cultural stronghold of civilization. Yet, without these morals being relative, instead being straightforward, then the loopholes of society will force upon us anarchy. Morality is never absolute. You might say killing a person is wrong - what if a person was undergoing immense torture, emotionally and (primarily) physically, and wished death, but was powerless to end his life ... If he begged you for death? Not obliging would be cruel (by the polar definitions of society). Obliging will not be immoral, for you are helping the life, unless there are side-effects to other people. To maintain human psychological bias of "morality" and allowing that sense of righteousness prevailing over the suffering of an innocent life-form is, even in human terms, immoral. If we shattered morality to do something immoral, it would be "wrong" as it breaks the very psychological barriers of human culture; to shatter morality to do something moral by a different perspective, a relative moral, then it merely reforges the essence of human psychology: compassion. All animals feel love and empathy, yet the human chemical reactions and nervous charges are more complex and defined; this complex structure forced us into the barriers of society, to tear through boundaries of "right" and "wrong". This was, of course, a biological way to maintain our species; but our mind has transcended biology into a field of moral philosophy and ethics, built to ensure revitalization of society. And we must enforce those beliefs upon ourselves to ensure we stand as a species, a species that has evolved to strengthen not just ourselves, but other species as well. Yet, we no longer strengthen the Earth, instead obliterating it in its fragile state. We must urge ourselves to embrace the human concept of relative "morality", and join the struggle to maintain the ecological balance of Earth.
Their properties suggest the same. While neutrinos may only interact weakly with matter via. Gravitational forces, if the negativity and positivity of the neutrino interact, then it is determined that neutrinos have mass. The experimentally established phenomenon of neutrino oscillation, which mixes neutrino flavour states with neutrino mass states (analogously to CKM mixing), requires neutrinos to have nonzero masses.
Statistically speaking, yes, and accepting these allegations helps survivors. To be clear: I don't think the justice system should prosecute people for sexual harassment without proof.
I do think, however, that the survivors should be believed. 92-98% (I think) of survivors tell the truth -- obviously those studies don't necessarily apply here, given that those studies were conducted by people who reported it to the police and so on, but the stat probably still applies since it's a general demographic.
Given that, I think it's important to recognize that the reason survivors of sexual harassment often face stigma or are afraid of coming out as being sexually harassed is often the fear that they won't be believed -- so I think the small chance (like 2%) of a person being falsely accused (and typically the allegation is targeted at people when those people are rich/famous, so even the social reactions to that won't particularly affect them) is outweighed by the need to protect future survivors of assault and harassment, and to prevent it in general.