Jump to content

moreinput

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About moreinput

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Chemistry/All
  1. Philosophy is the foundation for logic, do you reside in the foundation of a home? Or did you go ahead and make the leap and splurge on one with walls, a roof, and electricity? "If he'd written his book on God in the 19th century then fair enough. But we now have the internet, and there is no longer any excuse for so misunderstanding religion. The very fact that he thinks it is all about swapping reason for dogma shows he knows little about it, or knows only a small part of the story." And this is what my post was responding to. You make the assumption he doesn't know what he is
  2. We don't even know where to dig for petro, so how could we know how much there is? I agree it is an unsustainable source of energy, but any claim to know how much there is,at best is an educated guess.
  3. Fragmenting bone, bullet type and caliber, and kinetic energy. When the bullet hits a target it strikes at full force depending on the distance and caliber, hence a cleaner entry point. When it exits, it has lost energy which can cause it to force the bone outward, rather then pierce it cleanly. It is also important to bear in mind that results will vary depending on the type of bullet, does it fragment ETC. Having grown up hunting, you learn to match your bullet and gun to make sure you have a clean in and out. Although I did more bow hunting then rifle the dynamics were still the sam
  4. Can we get a rate down button so that information that is clearly unsubstantiated can be labeled for what it is?
  5. Wow, just wow! I don't know what to say, aside from the fact that I am stunned. First of all, GO AWAY! nothing you are talking about has anything to do with the friggin topic. Every thread I have read where you chime in, it is some ridiculous crap that holds about as much water as an invisible jug. You really need to learn how to fact check your facts. Or would that destroy the fantasy you create to make up for your inability to cope with reality? Moontanman was much more patient in addressing the metaphysics BS than I am even able to be.. Anyone who says thinking is all they need to solve a
  6. PeterJ There is a HUGE difference between morals and religious dogma. Just because I can find 10 values I find agreeable in any religious text, doesn't mean we just swallow the other 10 that are bat shit crazy. The psychos who suicide bomb and infest the world with hate sure as hell don't. Aristotle is the same person that left the world thinking heavier objects fall faster then smaller, and the sun revolved around the earth. Dawkins is using genetics, and evolution to support his claims. What can you not get about this? IF TANGIBLE PROOF DOESN'T WORK WHY WOULD LOGICAL THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
  7. Oh no, totally okay with me. Debate, especially when heated, draws out the best and weeds out the rest. I am just trying to steer clear of this one, if I get started talking about social issues I get sucked in. I spent the first few semesters of college battling my history teacher, who would dickishly play devils advocate to get a rise out of me. Oh, how I hate and love that woman.
  8. So at what point does an invisible hypocrite that is infallible become irrational to people? The difference between the scientific method and a strictly philosophical solution, is that one of them is proven beyond a shadow of doubt, so far as we can measure it at that time. I could make a convincing and valid argument for just about anything. That doesn't mean it is true, or that it will hold up when applied. It just means that I am able to empathize with perspectives other than my own and know how to present my thoughts in a believable and cohesive manner. I can assure you that I am not a co
  9. Big plane hijacked. VROOOOOM!!!! BOOOM!!! Crash!!!! anger, fear... /cry WAR No, because irrational thinking leads to irrational results, leads irrational thinking, which leads to irrational results, irrational thinking leads to irrational results, leads irrational thinking, which leads to irrational results.irrational thinking leads to irrational results, leads irrational thinking, which leads to irrational results.irrational thinking leads to irrational results, leads irrational thinking, which leads to irrational results.irrational thinking leads to irrational results, leads irrational t
  10. So, what you are saying is my fiancee has a little god in her? "But if this is the case, why assign God the role of creator? Isn't that like making up an imaginary friend and then giving him credit for making the wind blow?" They do it because they feel it creates some infallible law the supercedes mans agenda. The saddest part about this is for one, they alter their beliefs based on the world. and two, it is basically assuming that we only have morals because of god. Which, undermines mans achievements and capabilities. For us to all come together, in anything permanent.
  11. and a massive case of the runs...poor john
  12. Yup, but for the record my mama always told me I couldn't pick a prized horse from a lame one lol
  13. First of all, metaphysics? Really?..Please don't get me started on that. I love philosophy myself. But, assuming it could answer the question "does god exists?" is just nutty in itself. Why? Because it doesn't require experimentation to support its claims. We are talking about the same logical approach that had the world thinking heavier objects fall faster than smaller ones for 1,900 years. If the religious masses are so easily able to set aside empirical evidence, there is no way in hell we could use metaphysics to assault religion. So no, I am sure Dawkins doesn't want to use it as a tool
  14. If you don't want to discuss Dawkins, why post in a thread about him? I implore you to elaborate on how he isn't a thinker because he refuses to believe in something that is "faith based". Have you ever read his "book on god", or are just making open ended assumptions? No, actually Dawkins insist that the scientific method is how one should explore the world. Again, he feels that anything that requires you to seek blindly, is lunacy. If you want to see unreasonable assumptions, watch his discussion with Wendy Wright. Furthermore, PLEASE!! explain to me how you seek out reason? Wha
  15. Well this topic sure has turned into a totally new beast.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.