This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Urjak
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ... 144
941
« on: November 11, 2010, 12:05:22 PM »
And how do "basic Christians" express that belief?
942
« on: November 11, 2010, 12:02:54 PM »
Basic Christianity. Just be good
Secular Humanism states the same thing, yet it is not Christianity. So then what makes a "Basic Christian" different from a Secular Humanist?
943
« on: November 11, 2010, 11:54:09 AM »
Why not follow a religion without all that effort?
Like?
944
« on: November 11, 2010, 11:17:58 AM »
Still a statistical advantage. 0.0000000000000001% is infinite times more likely than 0%
From a purely statistical standpoint you are correct. However time wasted in religious activities (festivals, church, etc) that could have been used for better purposes (curing world hunger, research, etc), then you are better off not partaking in any religion at all.
945
« on: November 11, 2010, 11:12:44 AM »
That's the problem, but believing in one gives you a better chance than believing in one.
You know how many gods there are? The statistical advantage gained would be incredibly insignificant. To call it logical is questionable.
946
« on: November 11, 2010, 11:08:41 AM »
I'll wait until Signups open for this thing. I just hope they don't open when I'm going to bed. Godforsaken time zones. =P
It won't fill up THAT fast. :P
947
« on: November 11, 2010, 11:04:04 AM »
There's the whole arguement that
1. If God exists then you will go to heaven if you believe, if you don't you won't
2. If God doesn't exist then nothing happens
Therefore, believing gives you nothing to lose whilst not believing could prevent eternal life.
It's Pascal's Wager.
What if a different god that you don't worship exists?
948
« on: November 11, 2010, 10:54:30 AM »
Religion is logical.
In what way?
949
« on: November 11, 2010, 12:59:55 AM »
The track record of science have always come with lots of pseudo sciences and bad practices, especially in emerging sciences like psychology, social science, and economics.
Can't say I disagree, especially when certain sciences were first emerging. However, modern day science has very little pseudo-science principles.Even in well established science like physics and biology, there are too many nonsense and misinterpretations by non scientist. Keyword there is non-scientists. We should just listen to what the scientists say, not use our own "perceptions" of it when we know very little. Worst is when people vastly misinterpreted certain scientific findings and think they got science behind their back, like the Social Darwinist.
Fully agree there. I don't believe in anything I haven't looked at myself.
You have lost much of physics, you have lost microbiology, you have lost most of biology (you haven't seen all the living things science claims exist), you have lost astronomy. If you narrow what you believe to only what you have personally seen, then most of science does not exist for you.Knowing more is not a requirement to see the underline assumptions made in each conclusion, and to distinguish well practiced science from bullsh**. I suppose you are partially correct, but a person not well versed in the science can not always recognize the underlying assumption, and they do not always know whether it is false or not.
950
« on: November 11, 2010, 12:04:43 AM »
blind faith in the science they picked up from a magazine. Sciences isn't one thing and each finding needed to be consider separately
Yes, we trust the conclusions made by people who know more than we do. That is absolutely unavoidable. Of course every scientific finding is looked at separately, but it is also looked at in the context of other theories to see what fits. Each finding is connected to other findings. So far science has gotten most things right (or at least quickly fixes things that are wrong), so I don't see the problem with trusting scientists.
951
« on: November 10, 2010, 09:03:32 PM »
Hmmm... I might experiment around with your flail shell spinner layout (looks pretty efficient).
952
« on: November 10, 2010, 06:08:26 PM »
I don't get this whole emerging faith with all that scientific mumbo jumbo.
Let's face it, most of us don't know enough science to judge the validity and reliability of a given scientific research. But we believe nevertheless.
Perhaps, but as far as the gods are concerned there is absolutely no evidence beyond their respective religious texts and or stories.
953
« on: November 10, 2010, 09:01:07 AM »
Yes Jonzu, that's it, enter the brittle VS. *waits to see it be blown apart by Bane*
All of that aside, I like Plasma, but could see how it's performance might be lacking. I could see it being easily outweaponed.
954
« on: November 10, 2010, 08:55:59 AM »
Already fooled with those. The issue with my bot is he has a surface that is perfectly shaped to snag on walls. What he really needs to do is reverse his spin direction after he stops being able to spin.
955
« on: November 10, 2010, 08:53:53 AM »
Well, I can say that I am atheist, simply because there is no scientific evidence that god exists, thus he does not exist until proven otherwise.
956
« on: November 10, 2010, 08:35:05 AM »
whats with all the odd formatting ?
FBS.py or FBSplus should get off the walls no problems if you tweak out the right transitional movement.
I am using FBS.py. What exactly do you mean by tweak transitional movement.
957
« on: November 10, 2010, 08:31:24 AM »
Increase the radius in the bindings
That doesn't seem to help. If my FBS gets pushed intro a wall, he will just keep spinning the same way he is programmed to spin, even if he is spinning into the wall and not going anywhere. Is there anyway to change this?
958
« on: November 09, 2010, 10:32:09 PM »
Anyone else ever had there FBS's get stuck along the sides on the arena (as in they keep trying to spin in the same direction even though they are pressed into the wall)? Is there anyway to prevent this?
959
« on: November 08, 2010, 07:04:05 PM »
Jesus christ, do you even read your own posts urjak?
It is my browsers doing. Everything looks fine until it is posted, and then some issue in formatting surfaces. I have tried to fix it, but more issues just appear.
960
« on: November 08, 2010, 09:06:56 AM »
Then we have drugs..... And yeah anyone who smoke a joint knows that feel good drugs work. It doesn't mean being intoxicated is the state of a normal mind.
EDIT: Damn computer messes up my text.
Comparing recreational drugs to psychiatric drugs isn't all that fair.
Look at it this way, there are some people who can't stop crying and think about how worthless they are in their bed, I can see why those people needed Prozac. Even then functionality should not be equated with normality, as normality implies some kind of objective state of values/beliefs that everyone must strive for.
The moment we stop trying to "normalize" people and recognize that psychiatric drugs are used for "functional" purposes, the line between recreational and psychiatric drugs becomes meaningless. Drugs should be judged based on their effects.
With the bad press aside, marijuana works wonders as an anti depressant/anti anxiety/pain relief.
Some psychiatric drugs are crap, I definitely agree with you there. However, drugs that are used to treat ADD or Tourettes have effects on the body that are different than recreational drugs. These drugs improves people's standards of living by making their disorders more manageable. There is a distinction that can be drawn between psychiatric drugs and recreational drugs.
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ... 144
|
Show Posts