Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by moreinput

  1. Let me get this right. You feel able to state that metaphysics is an attempt by religion to incorporate physics into their nonsense, but do not know what metaphysical problems are. Amazing. Just plain amazing. No doubt another supporter of Dawkins.






    Oh dear. Do I have to explain everything from scratch? It's easy enough to look these things up online. Another person with strong opinions about metaphyscis who doesn't know what it is. Is everybody here a supporter of Dawkins' approach to scholarship and dogma? Or are there some honest thinkers around? Who have you read on metaphysics? Anybody?



    Well,I prefer to agree with Hegel. Have you heard of him? I would usually take this for granted but not here. Perhaps you would like to explan why he was wrong to call metaphyscisa science of logic. Or do you mean it is not a science when it is done the way you do it? This is very possible. given this post of yours. I have no idea what relevance to anything most of it has, and it appears to be written in the style of the Dawkin's school of muddled ranting.

    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 talking about, as if this somehow eluded him. He doesn't misunderstand religion, he is just keenly aware of the dangers that an eyes closed approach has, and where it could potentially lead us. Just because 50% of something is morally sound or just, doesn't mean that you should just accept the other 50% that is bat shit crazy. or let me explain it like this. Just because you and I can look at the text and decipher good from bad, doesn't mean everyone else in the world can.

  2. 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 same. Arrow head type, draw weight ETC.

  3. Metaphysics is a science remote viewing works, it is a learnable scientific technique to aquire information from outside our five senses the military relies on it to gather intelligence.This technique is proven to work but the science of it is not understood. Alien life on other planets would have about zero chance of evolving with the same DNA system we have.Even Dawkins is entertaining intelligent design for life on our planet. Support amoung experts of evolutionary origins of life on our planet is in decline.





    "DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at

    some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved,

    probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of

    technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this

    planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility.

    And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you

    look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a

    signature of some sort of designer.




    Why on earth would someone who vehemently argues against the existence of

    God by quoting Occam's Razor talk about space aliens designing and seeding

    life on planet earth?! Well, Darwin's Theory, although still hugely popular

    with the scientific masses and the educated public, is coming under

    increasing attack. A few very eminent and very serious scientists, including

    Nobel Prize Winners, are

    arguing that Darwin's Theory just doesn't work (eg Roger Penrose, probably

    the world's top scientific mind today). These scientists are not

    necessarily saying that this proves the existence of God, they are just

    saying scientists have absolutely no idea what caused life on Earth to

    originate and evolve. Whilst Richard Dawkins is still selling a record number

    of pro-Darwinian books to the public, in the upper echelons of the scientific

    community support for evolution is undoubtedly in decline. There are several major problems with Darwin's Evolution

    but for the sake of brevity I will detail here only the most popular one.

    Some notes on other problems can be found at this



    Here's the rest of the article




    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 problem is a moron. Anyone who argues against the scientific method again, is a moron. The saddest part is the history of thinking, and its evolution is not not some obscure Where's Waldo search. It is a very clearly defined and laid out topic. But, for someone who says "rational and logic are king", you should already be VERY aware of this fact. You can't just pick and choose based on what you want to be true.


    "These scientists are not

    necessarily saying that this proves the existence of God, they are just

    saying scientists have absolutely no idea what caused life on Earth to

    originate and evolve. Whilst Richard Dawkins is still selling a record number

    of pro-Darwinian books to the public, in the upper echelons of the scientific

    community support for evolution is undoubtedly in decline."


    ..huh? Evolution is in decline? Oh I see what you did there. You think someone else who just thinks, is a source of credible information. Well next time you go to Narnia be sure to tell Aslan that I said s'up.

  4. 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 EXPERIMENTS WORK? Metaphysics is not a science, I am sorry, I know it hurts.


    And Samjase......................................................huh?

  5. Sorry about that. I think Sam is great guy. We're just having some fun. I hope my posts reflect that, Sam your having fun right?

    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.

  6. Ah. Another person who doesn't want to do metaphysics.


    Of course we can use metaphysics to 'assault' religion'. We do it all the time. It's simply a matter of using ones common sense. If I tell you that God is a turtle balanced on the back of a whole pile of turtles you will use logic to calculate that I'm taking nonsense. That is metaphysics.


    But you have to do a bit of it to understand it.


    The problem with Dawkins is simply that he has not done his reasearch. He then assumes that religion is what he thinks it is, and goes on to prove that his idea is nonsense. Well so what? Not once in all his meanderings has he ever made a single criticism of my religion, and it is not clear he even knows it exists. .


    A book about religion that does not have the word 'Mysticism' in its index is clearly daft. I reckon I know more about biology than he does about religion.


    You could know more about religion than he does given a week or two of guided research, assuming you have a brain and can read.


    I fully support his attempt to get people to use their reason more carefully. But I wish he would practice what he preaches.


    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 conventional thinker by any means. But that doesn't suggest I don't agree that there has to be order and control in what is and isn't declared factual. Again, I will point out that it seems perfectly rational to assume a larger object will fall faster than a smaller one, in my head. It truly does SEEM to be an intrinsic fact, but it isn't! Only by testing my assumption can I see how wrong I in fact was.


    Dawkins deals with religion as a whole, and discusses the irrational thinking attached to it. It is not shocking his discussions lean towards the 5 majors, since his words will relate to a much broader audience. Doesn't that just seem like a common sense approach? But I am curious, how has he not done his homework? Do even know who he is beyond the mainstream stigma? Nothing you have said has addressed anything directly, and your broad assessments lead me to believe you're just making wild ignorant assumptions. Maybe you need to do your homework....

  7. Is the belief of a god important? does it really matter if a person believes in a higher power or not? How does that belief impact our world? Why should people debate whether or not god exists, can't it be a simple case of 'live and let live'?


    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 thinking, which leads to irrational results. Are you seeing a pattern here?

  8. Is it weird? Or is it obvious. Energy and mass are different forms of the same thing. Are we not all concentrated forms of shimmering energy? We are all constituents of a universal one.

    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.


    Could we all agree that humankind should put aside their differences and join the race for knowledge? As that knowledge grows so will our perception. The hunt for knowledge is the quest for meaning. The quest for everything, not nothing. It is our only chance to survive. How many countless alien civilizations may have already destroyed themselves? Will we do the same, or shall we grow as our knowledge does? In a universe of equilibrium, an intrinsic balancing of positive and negative forces, it is the power of the living to choose to create or destroy. Like a feather falling on one end or the other which may teeter the grand scale of the universe into oblivion or perpetual growth. Humility is admitting we dont know everything, and it is the path to knowledge.


    For us to all come together, in anything permanent. Is to go against the very laws you said god created. What is this contradiction all about?

  9. 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 in his arsenal.


    Science thus far, has been able to provide answers about things such as evolution, the beginning, and not to mention, what makes people hinge to a god figure so desperately. Science shows us how Noahs Ark couldn't possibly be, and the real age of the planet we live on. It already has annihilated every aspect of religion to someone taking a rational approach, which is what Dawkins is imploring people to do. The real problem is the human condition, which is why Dawkins is on a podium trying to out preach the preachers, in a world that doesn't want to hear that death doesn't offer a treasure trove of wonders. Coming from someone who had to grapple with this very reality, I can personally assure you that Dawkins efforts are not ill placed.


    Dawkins sees the danger in these religious mindsets and how others could be, and are exploited by them. He is watching the death toll rise on account of religion and wondering when the hell people will remove the blinders. To understand Dawkins you need to realize that he is dead serious about his perspectives, which I might add are based on factual information. He is not show boating or attempting to come of as a douche, which admittedly he does. He is just baffled by the fact that people, rather than investigate an issue, just allow someone to spoon feed them information. He wants us all to think for ourselves, but base our knowledge on facts rather than turn to religious dogma for ready made answers that have no foundation. in the end though, it really is like EdEarl said "He is rather famous or notorious, depending on your point of view."

  10. 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?

    Dawkins insists on the unreasonable assumption that science is the extent of reason. He needs to include a bit about himself in the documentary.


    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? What method or approach have you concocted that supercedes the methods that have produced, well, EVERYTHING YOU SEE AROUND YOU!! Not to mention, when someone talks about themselves and who they are. It is to add credibility to their claims.AKA Why can you trust what I am saying about this subject. It's called academic writing.....
  11. It has become so weird that the very core of science "the scientific evil.gif method" is like a unicorn to religious people. What don't they get about a consistent system of deductive reasoning being used to explore and unbiasedly answer questions?....Yup, I just answered my own question, nothing to see here move along. tongue.png


    Great clip btw =)

  12. How does is "contain the basis in natural history for their view?"


    First of all, I might be able offer a more concise answer to this if you can tell me the context this quote is being used in.


    If I had to take a shot in the dark,it would be that evolution results from adversity. It is important to understand that what he was grappling with was a very diverse and expansive topic. One door only leads to 15 more, and so on. Marx was an individual who saw the forest and not just the tree in front of him, but that didn't mean he could define every single tree and it's corresponding branches, only that he was aware of them. Chances are when he read Darwins findings it helped him to label something he had been trying to understand.


    Also, I know that socialists later rejected Darwin and were proponents of Lamarckism, can anyone explain why Lamarckism was more
    consistent with socialism than Darwinism?


    I find myself agreeing with overtone on this matter. But, I also think that formulating a definitive answer to this question would be impossible.

  13. First of all, let me say that I am a Christian. And I am conflicted. I cannot dismiss either my religion or my belief in science. In fact, I want to be a professor in a science. It is my belief that the physical rules that our universe abides by was created by God or a god, however you may see it. And I do not understand why the majority of scientists are atheists. Would not such a mathematically governed universe such as ours need a creator? Don't computers need programmers? Why did such influential men such as Issac Newton believe in a god whil today's scientists do not.


    Any input is welcome. I'm just a thirteen year old trying to understand the universe and why life matters.

    While the Isaac Newton part I can only speculate on. But he was from a time where people didn't really question the existence of god. Maybe how people decided to worship, but not the existence. The reason now a days probably has a lot to with inconsistencies and the sheer lack of evidence that disproves the scriptures. I personally can not discard a god figure from my life either. But instead of getting hung up on a religion written by man to accompany what I perceive as god. I instead realize that anything with the ability to create such perfection and complexity. Probably wouldn't get hung up on the trivial crap of human beings.


    Wow, this thread smells like hypocrisy and ignorance. Its like sitting at a table with stupid people, who really have no clue what they are talking about try argue.

  14. I will inscribe these tablets for you to Layeth downith my laweths!! Even though I am all knowing and can forsee the complexity of the future and know how absolutely ridiculous it will seem to believe in this for anyone with a smidgen of common sense! But who gives a donkeys turd, I AM GOD!! Even though I love you SOOOOO much I am willing to be as obscure as possible and claim asking for proof is a terrible sin, I AM GOD!!!!!!!! . Then I placeth large reptilian bones in the ground that date back beyond any time claimed to have existed. GOOOOOOOODDDDD I AM!!!!!!! I know my stupid little children, it doesn't make any friggin sense why an all knowing being would go through the hassle to create such complexity when I knew exactly how this shiz would play out!!! But I AM GOOOOOO!!!! and you are stupid so STFU and BoW to me!! Burning bush, GoD. Talking snake, GOD!!, Satin, GOD, immigrants! GOD!! god god god god I am!! tee hee hee IGOD 5!


    If we had no ethics, people would be stealing form each other and killing each other so often that there wouldn't be a stable enough society for the specialization of workers that make advances. Ethics doesn't "prevent" us from doing anything except destroying modern society as we know it, and with many of the advances, there's millions of possibilities for tests. Like when tesla was working on electricity, his opponent electrocuted animals to demonstrate its harmfulness, which he didn't need to do, if you melted aluminum instantly with electricity then obviously that amount of amps would kill any living animal. As for medical advances, there's chemistry which if heavily researched we could get to the point where we understood how a specific chemical specifically effects the chemicals in body or organic chemicals and there's also computers which we could make powerful enough to model drugs in a system, but it's also not necessarily a good thing either because as more people live longer, the rate at which resources are consumed becomes greater and if not stopped it will reach a point beyond which resources are capable of being produced.


    People steal and murder regardless. Some even do it ethically, which doesn't even make sense. Just wondering though, would you be more afraid of me savagely killing you for trying to steal from me? Or going through a legal system that has particular rules and regulations on how to treat prisoners and handle the trials?


    I think this is a gross underestimation of the challenges facing us. It's not only that people aren't given an opportunity to excell but that people are not even able to be effective on their jobs. Most real work is being done by people the government calls illegal aliens so they work for very little and most other people aren't more than a few percent effective on their jobs. It's not just resources, human potential, and time being wasted it's much of humanity itself. Some will lay the blame at the failure of the schools resulting in too many individuals who will destroy tools and infrastructure if allowed think for themselves. But the real fault is the impossibility of laying blame for individual weakness and bad results. Of course this is a necessity when the ones at the top are culpable in many instances for causing economic and infrastructural catastrophies. Rather than being held accountable criminally or through reprimand and demotion they continue to get bonuses.


    We have what must be the most highly inefficient system ever devised. It depends on vast amounts of energy and rather than taking steps to stop the experiment on our planet we find ways to make the system increasingly inefficient and wasteful.




    This sounds like some Micheal Moore crap here. I agree with you on the fact that no one wants to take the blame, probably in part because someones trying to blame them for EVERYTHING that occurs. But no one wants to take accountability for themselves, either. Just wondering, who is preventing us from learning? The information is freely available for anyone who wants to seek it out. It's no ones fault but your own if you do not invest the time required to learn it. In order to prevail in this day in age you can't ask why is someone else not doing this for me. You need to do it, plain and simple. Because in their opinion, and partially my own as well. Anyone who fails the self initiative test, doesn't deserve to run with the big dogs. I do understand that particular complications arise. But i'm a pretty down to earth person and the majority of failures I personally see others experiencing, has more to do with their inability to make sacrifices, or is the result of several poor choices they made from the get go.


    Even this type of post, where I try to be frank with people. Usually winds up with comments that just lend to proving the point.

    I am not trying to imply everything is fair in our lives or that people have done things that they shouldn't pay for. But what I am saying is that those people being brought to justice wouldn't make anyone work harder, or have a better education. Have you tried going and REALLY living off the land? Talk about getting the shaft. Who then would you blame for your hunger? God? Even our poorest person lives like a king when compared to LDCs and our absurd feelings of entitlement prevent us from EVER being thankful. We got 99 problems and the 1% ain't one.




    From my personal experience. People let their ego(mental inadequacies/jealousy) get in the way and by doing so, limit themselves and other people. Plus come up with excuses for their mental inadequacies.


    Everyone wants to be a Genius.


    I couldn't agree with you more.

  17. A lot of times things may seem impossible. In fact, they may even be at present, unable to move ahead. But then one person looks at something that we have all seen. Except the perspective that they see it with, is incomprehensible to anyone else up to that point. At this moment the veil is lifted, and with the new revelation branches sprout out until yet again, someone is asking this very question. How could we possibly move ahead? It is not ignorance that brings you to this sentiment. Having the ability to imagine at the level these innovative peoples do, would be like me asking you to imagine a new primary color. But also try to bear in mind, that several great and innovative discoveries not only happened by chance through constant experimentation. But others where 100% genuine mistakes and nothing more. And I do not mean innovative like the Iphone 3 to the 4 model. I mean like Lavoisier,Newton,Einstien,Bohr,Mandlaive,Hubble,Galileo,Rutherford,Vesalius,Euclid,Darwin,Mendeleev,Turing, and so on innovative.


    I wanted to keep typing names of scientist, so many who deserve so much respect.

  18. I realise that this isn't quintessentially on-topic but I thought you might find it amusing.

    I was watching that video when there was a knock at the door. I answered it, and there were a couple of God-bothers with some leaflets about creation. I'm afraid I just started laughing at them.

    They went away.


    It's a sign...........ROFL!


    I think that the video is clever and well executed. But I like what Albert Einstein said on this issue:


    So far as we know it anyway. This is the very reason I am not able to so quickly toss off the last bonds of agnosticism that hold me down. Which means the blow and hookers will need to remain on hold in order to maintain some semblance of morality, just in case.....(This wouldn't really result in me being an atheist for the record. It's a joke)


    But to not be misunderstood or come of as being hypocritical. I reject the notion that the worlds current religions are that of god as they would refer to him/her/it. However, I do sometimes ponder that if science is currently correct. We were all part of the singularity before time. (or the unified state of infinite energy prior to the big bang). Which would imply that god or perfect state if you will, is us. So in a strange twist of fate, they are kind of written by god....

  19. I have attempted talking to the counselor appointed to me at school several times. But trying to explain to her that I started college a year ago with maybe a solid 5th grade education and have come this far so fast and want more then associates, doesn't seem to compute with her. I do understand why she feels my goals are unrealistic and I have no desire to pour my heart out to her and try to explain why I am 28 with these types of aspirations. But I will give a brief summary that withholds the gory details so maybe you can understand my position.


    For starters, all fields of science have always been my true passion and interest. I have always been able to figure out how things work given the time to explore it, be it mechanic or organic. Existence alone for as long as I can remember has always fascinated me. When I was 16 I struggled tremendously with high school for various reasons. Of course in hindsight I can clearly say I had no business being in high school with the little to no educational foundation I had. Eventually I was convinced that I would never be able to do the math required, or even create a stable enough lifestyle for myself to study the sciences beyond a hobby. It truly felt as though the very purpose of my existence was out of reach. Needles to say I dropped out of school and wound up getting into some trouble.


    After getting my GED I attempted to go to community college a few times over the years. But was just incapable of consistency. I was also to proud/ashamed of my educational level to ask for help when I needed it. Anyway, I eventually learned after years and years of immense struggle. That I have sever ADHD and finally broke down and started taking medication to help get some balance. Since then I have spent the past few years trying to make up for lost time. Year one was spent trying to educate myself enough to just make it in college while setting up a life that would enable me to be successful. I am now attending community college working on an associates in science and have a 4.0 so far. The work /learning aspect of it has always been easy for me. But the first few semesters I admittedly struggled terribly with communicating/expressing the knowledge I had learned. Apparently it is not uncommon to have these difficulties with ADHD.


    I am 28 now and aside from class work I do my own studying using open course material. Mainly math sprinkled with other topics I would say I feel less confident with. Or just topics I have an interest expanding in to the best of my current ability. I am still weaker in math then I would care to admit. But I work on it continuously and have learned almost more in the past year on my own then most do in a lifetime(But I still have some work to do in this area). I have literally dedicated my life to this goal. I have lost all my friends or lost interest in them. All I care about is being with people who share the same passion and enthusiasm as I do about dissecting and learning about everything.


    What I am looking for is advice/guidance to getting into the top tier schools, if possible with a scholarship. Also a short list of topics I should study/know before applying to them. Or even information/topics that would make my time in these schools a little easier. I know the odds are currently against me. But the why I look at is weren't they against me well I raced to the egg and every day since.

  • 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.