chasteh

Not unlike capitalism. Hooray!

>Wasnt the point True. Much like how each of your posts on this page has had nothing to do with global warming skepticism. edit: "this page" refers to page 20 of this thread >you missed it False. Are you done yet?

I don't really care as I don't support either Clinton.

>So you have no point. Cool False >you admited it False >And keep your grubby hands off me...... Cmon baby, you know you fucking want it >I have my space as Hillary had hers Uhhh, ok.

You mean the part where he goes, "Never thought I'd be on a boaat! Its a big blue watery road. Poseidoon look at meee oooooh!" >And I do have an inflatable whale and a walrus in my DZ locker waiting to be taken for a ride... Close enough. I consider them both dolphins for all intensive purposes. Well done.

(Deep sigh) Nevermind Rushmc. (Pats Rush on back) Nevermind.

That video started circling around the DZ a couple of weeks after it came out. Almost all of us consider the 182 to be a boat. Rigs are life preservers. Airports are now docks. The sky is now the sea. Swim-trunks and "flippie floppies" are likely to include jumpsuits and rigs, although I'm sure that none of us really know what were talking about when we say "grab your swim trunks and your flippie floppies." Turbulence is now "roughing of the seas." The national weather service is now "seafarers meteorology," and wearing a Dolphin on a jump is now considered "Riding on a Dolphin, doin flips and shit" Being a female who understands this, you are "one" of "us." That is hot.

You are guilty of the Libertarian's slippery slope. It is a Rhetorical fallacy.

>I find it hard to believe anyone can understand it's full impact in the time frame being allotted. The debt-o-crats are trying to force this on us. It's pure government power grab. Well... when you consider the deficit of 1.... WOAaaah (CRASH!) Ouuch! Oh man that hurt. That slope is just so damned slippery!

You've just become the hottest woman at skydive new mexico. Congratulations.

(1) "for all practical purposes" (2) "the empirical universe is the actual universe" Great. I am not saying that "For all practical purposes the empirical universe is not the actual universe." I am saying that (2) is very different of a statement from (1) + (2). I am also saying that we never will be in a position, as a result of science, to make a claim such as (2). edit: Also, it would be cute to find a scientist/science professor who would admit that you can't just say (2) is true. Most of them would say that a philosopher who points out the invalidity of such an argument is a nutcase. Too bad they can't prove (2), huh.

>That’s a forced dichotomy Really? It appears to not take the form of "Either you choose A or B, not both, and nothing else." That is a forced dichotomy. I didn't say you had to choose anything. >(Many) religious beliefs depend on faith. Not all huh? Which one depends entirely on the provable, necessarily truth? Show me the money baby. >Testing is often of a personal nature Sure. It's just that many of their churches don't encourage or even permit "testing" of any sort. That sounds more like bondage to authority than religious love. >If something is outside of the testable realm -- the “realm of sense-perception” -- science is not the appropriate method. Amen. Shit. >One might call religion a process to comprehend the untestable within the limits of our biological human capacity. They might. They also might say that religion hardly ever aligns itself with the only method we have, outside of logic, of understanding the world it seeks to explain. Isn't that a bit problematic? Where did religion gain the ability to lie to us about things that we can test? (Was Jesus black? Sorry Rastafarian Trent, we can find this one out for real) >Philosophy -- from Aristotle’s “forms” to Heidegger’s DaSein to post-modern deconstructionism -- has tried to bridge the testable realm with the untestable with varying degrees of success and precision. Science as an empirical philosophy has tried doing the same. Are you making a claim here against philosophy? Also, is philosophy's goal the "bridging of the testable realm with the untestable?"

Reservoirs of energy come from the 1st Law of Thermo. So far, we've identified kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, and a host of others. But, I seriously doubt we've found all of them. >I personally think it's folly to think that our science has fully identified all reservoirs of energy Oh ok. I guess I just don't see where I take advantage of what you consider to be "folly." That must mean you agree with me.

Well thank you for such a brilliant demonstration of the self-evident. "With science we take the axiom that empiricism will tell us something about the empirical world we live in." Yes, the sensible world tells us about the sensible world. Incredible. It doesn't, however, prove to us that the empirical world is in fact reality or that it is even representative of reality. Scientists have to assume that the empirical world is actual in order to constructively study it. Doing so to study somethinig that is admittedly either real or not real isn't naive. Making the claim that science does provide us information about the "actual" world is naive. What is naive of scientists is linking their discoveries within the sensible world as actuality. That m uch is not provable. It is naive to say that it is actuality when you cannot prove it. >Even if there is a hidden unempirical reality behind our empirical reality, that is somewhat irrelevant since science only tells us about the working of the observable, empirical universe It is irrelevent for someone who does not concern themselves with epistemology. (You know, that field that is actually concerned with finding the truth behind the field of knowledge. Is it possible for us to actually "know" something? What is knowledge? Can we "know" that God exists? Science doesn't concern itself with those questions; those questions are pivotal to proving God exists and that we can know such a thing; therefore, science cannot answer whether or not God exists and that we can know such a thing. Unfortunately, since today's science is intended as a crusade for truth, it becomes naive by ignoring its most critical assumption, that the empirical world is reality. >no more and no less than it is expected and designed to do Oops! Looks like science won't be able to answer for God's existence or non-existence after all.

Here in the southwest it is dry outside most of the time, so fixing that situation is simpler for me than, say, someone in Florida. 1) Towel on 2) Put towel under junk, this works in the same way as holding the nose on a PRO-pack. Pressure is key. 3) Brush teeth or whatever, taking care to shift the towel to a dry spot everytime you switch tasks. (So, between brushing teeth and shaving, you reposition the towel) And thats it! Fantastic. The more often "you ride on a dolphin, doin flips and shit," the more often your gonna have to "grab your towels 'cause its about to go down."

Looks to me like he hit the brakes because he didn't want to go up the side of the embankment as he veered away from the centerline.

>Unless, of course, you are like the radical Christian right, and are trying to make the argument that faith and science can't coexist because science undermines God. No, of course I am not making that statement. I am saying they can be used in conjunction, with major changes to religion of course. Reason often undermines religion, and reason always has room to undermine science and its empirical foundation. BL: Religion = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions Science = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions (The assumption that this realm of sense-perception is the true world; Although the probability that it is the realm of Actuality is quite high, it is not something we can attach certainty to) If you accept the bottom-line and do not attach yourself to Christianity nor necessarily to science, then we agree.

>that's why it's called FAITH. My problem with this entire line of "debate" is that it's like trying to describe a computer in terms of a fish. Try it. Describe how to build a computer but you can only use fish terms and parts. It makes no sense. None at all Unfortunately, you use the language of Philosophy to describe your religio-realm within the confines of a sense-perceived world. Philosophy has the capability of pulling apart the claims of religion and comparing it to logic and empirical means - like science. The problem is, the outputs of those components of philosophy almost never agree with religious tenants. Shit. >Science tells us how, faith tells us why. So science tells us the methods that things occur through, and faith tells us the causes. Is the only way for us to examine why things occur the result of "God's will?" Maybe. I can't tell you otherwise truthfully. Neither can you tell me truthfully. You run the risk of being a liar everytime you say "God exists." >it's faith because it's based on belief, not proof That answers the one above pretty well. Agreed. Unfortunately, for those who seek reason, religion means nothing more than a very empty set of maybes with which to explain things. So much for a meaningful way of leading a life, huh? It isn't much of a benefit for those who are willing to look for explanations outside of assumptions. (Well, of course, unless your a scientist - at that point you assume the validity of the empirical world- the scientist is just as naive as the religious person, for the same reasons.) >What i don't understand is this insistence on telling those who do choose to believe in a "why" that they are wrong or stupid because science says so I don't understand why Televangelists tell themselves that science thinks this of them. Can't god exist as the creator of a scientific world and as a creator of beings who explore their realms without pissing God off? Yes. >Just because faith falls outside the realm of rationality does NOT mean that it's existence is not valid. Believing in assumptions does not mean that faith falls outside the realm of rationality. That is a common rationalization. Instead of religion being an "irrational" notion it is "beyond rationality." Isn't that cheating?

godhatesfags.com Brilliant!

>Good luck with that. I've said that it isn't possible, particularly since we are limited to gaining such information by empirical means. You must mean to wish luck on someone else's search. The problem is that people (religions) assume that they "know" that God exists and act on behalf of that assumption. I am saying that it is absurd to take such an assumption and act on it-particularly in ways that are violent. >Even if it were proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that god does not exist, you really think they'd just accept that from "infidels" and stop fighting? Did I say I think they would stop? People go to war for reasons other than religion, like for example: power, resources, political ties, revenge, and so on. If it were proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, does that mean that it matters if "infidels" had proven it? Anyways, I think you have lumped a few more things into my statements than you realize. Bottom line: If the religious want to make claims and act on those claims, then it is necessary for them to be able to prove what they based those claims on. Unfortunately for them, their claims about the existence or the goodness of God are out of reach. Shucks. But wait, they are still using those assumptions as justification! Now how the hell did they do that? >Western European scientific logic has no real bearing on religion. Scientific logic? What? Science and Logic have bearing on religion. Science allows us to test and observe empirically verifiable phenomenon, including the truth-assignment of propositions we have. The problem religion poses to science is that science does not have a way of proving or disproving a whole assortment of propositions, including: "God exists." The only reason you have left to say that "it has no bearing on religion" is because the religious don't allow science to have a bearing on religion. This is not because science doesn't actually have an input here, it is be cause they are dogmatic in their approach to their religion. "Especially if they keep their people uneducated." Keeping people uneducated greatly aids the dogmatist's argument by suppressing counter-evidence. Sort of like when people confuse logic with science. "But chasteh, religion is beyond science and logic!" "Maybe science but not logic. You can make many statements within your religious writings, but logic still dictates whether or not they can all be true at the same time. Sorry Jesus." >Especially if they keep their people uneducated.

In which case the importance of being able to actually say (in fact) that God does or does not exist is exponentially greater.

>There is no need to show that God does not exist until someone shows it does. Unless someone just assumes it does and then becomes responsible for 2000 years of war, crusades, and disagreement. Then we need to show it.

That is fine. I only need the statements to illustrate mutual exclusivity, not that one is actually true and the other false. Do you need more examples of statements among religions that are both stated by the religions themselves and mutually exclusive, or do you yourself think t here are enough of those examples?

>You are applying scientific analysis to religion. How so? I have said nothing involving the scientific method, its data, or the information that is entailed by it. My post is an example of logical inconsistency. I said nothing of the sort about feelings at all. You have confused my statement of logic with a religious one, Bill. Quack.

Ok. Those are horrible examples of mutual exclusivity. Lets try a better one: 1) Jesus is the only son of God. 2) Muhammed is the only son of God. 3) There is only one God, and that God-unit has only one son-unit. All three premises cannot be true at the same time. That should illustrate what Quade should have/would have/could have said-but he used the word "Science" and not "Logic" which is what he meant to say is what excludes all the religions from being compatible at once. edited to put "mutual exclusivity" above, to sound smarter edit: Mutual exclusivity is often confused with a simple disjunction, "Either...or..." Mutual exclusivity, however, says something like: "Either...or... and NOT BOTH."