Tres Juicy

Your grandads spent hours farting in the jungles of africa writing about species who came sniffing. Your granies worked hours with soldering iron making electronic missiles! And you all are big bozo. If i were to admin this site, i would had personally deleted you!

Moron...

Damn, but you guys can be a tough crowd!

What was your first clue?

All this speculation about random individual colour perception is rather nonsensical.

 

We all have the same types of rods and cones in our our retinas, although the number and distribution of each might vary, and we all share virtually the same neural pathway structures in our brains.

 

This means, in all likelihood, our percpetion of 'red' etc is innate and not a learned behaviour. With the exception of those with colour blindness of course.

I disagree. And I'm certainly not saying that colour perception is a learned behaviour.

What I am saying is that, whatever your perception, the names of colours remain the same.

What part of this do you not understand?

Just to confirm, in the six pages of text so far, has anyone presented any evidence either way?

What do people think of this?

"You should never make sweeping generalisations."

One of my favourite quotes is:

"Only an idiot makes broad generalisations"

I once had aguy know my door, who after a heated debate, tried to punch me in the face.

 

I deftly avoided his rather inept attemp at violence and told him that he had proved my point with his actions and shut the door.

 

Oh how I laughed that day

What happened to my ability to spell and use words in this post?!

...people knock at your door to tell you the good news...

I once had aguy know my door, who after a heated debate, tried to punch me in the face.

I deftly avoided his rather inept attemp at violence and told him that he had proved my point with his actions and shut the door.

Oh how I laughed that day

I use the word faggot from time to time. They are delicious with mashed potato and peas. See here.

 

Would I get a strange response in America if I said I like to eat faggots?

They are delicious.

Similarly, I would get strange responses in America if I said "I'm going to smoke a fag"

Please feel free to explain why the principle of casualty is wrong.

Causality needs time, time and the universe are inseperable

Have you ever heard the phrase of nothing comes nothing?

Yes, what point are you trying to make?

It's more likely they are all wrong and the logical stance is there are no gods...

Agreed. Lets close this thread and remove the religion section of the forum

My only objection is that it is logically absurd.

And god isn't?

Who me? I don't remember what it's called but I've heard of that before.

No, sorry. the OP

Are you refering to the Casimir effect?

Did I say somewhere God created himself?

Do you have a better explanation? We would love to hear it

Is this the age old question of who created the creator or who designed the designer?

Yes

 

So in essence we are left with three options for the existence of the universe

1) Eternal

2) Created Itself

3) Created by another

 

Seems like science has dis proven number 1. 2 is logically incoherent. So it seems like we are left with 3.

How is 3 any more logically coherent than 2?

Your argument is that the universe cannot create itself, this is fine, but if you subscribe to this idea then how could god create himself?

It seems you can't have your cake and eat it either

There are various chemicals with the ability to render you unconscious, also you could consider a precise blow to the head or oxygen deprivation

... Newton, Farady, Coloumb, Gauss, Bohr, Dalton, Planck...

You missed me out

Don't think about anything - concentrate on your breathing instead

haggis, and on its own its fine. it doesn't need to be tinkered with.

 

I tend to go more along the lines of:

 

1/take a dead posh meal.

2/cram as much of it as possible between two slices of bread

3/eat infront of a food snob for maximum enjoyment.

doesn't sound like crack-pottery to me

If what you perceive to be blue is actually red, why would you also call what the other person perceive to be blue (which may very well be brown)...blue?

You already have your own perception of blue (which is red). If the person presented you what they perceive as blue, and if it's not red (your blue), you obviously won't "also call it blue."

 

Of course we will, we will have both been taught that the name of that colour is blue

I see the sky as red, you see it as brown. We were both told it's blue

My momma taught me we are all the same..regardless.

 

She was wrong

This answer makes to me no sense at all.

How does this not make sense?

It's quite straightforward

Pretend that there's evidence.

Ah, the religious argument

Crossing times zones is not the same as time travel - which is impossible - there is only now

Plagiarism/copyright violation is unacceptable. Paraphrasing is acceptable, but direct copying and passing others' work off as your own thoughts is not.

It's rule 2