moreinput

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.

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.

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.

Can we get a rate down button so that information that is clearly unsubstantiated can be labeled for what it is?

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.

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?

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.

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....

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?

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. Is to go against the very laws you said god created. What is this contradiction all about?

and a massive case of the runs...poor john

Yup, but for the record my mama always told me I couldn't pick a prized horse from a lame one lol

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."

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? 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.....

Well this topic sure has turned into a totally new beast.