Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by avogadro
"It's always cool to hate what everyone else likes right? Youre such a cool kid!"
yeah, people arent allowed to have differing opinions of a film, if i disagree with a majority, i must be doing it for the sake of disagreeing, right? you're such a tool.
the story, the script, and the acting are all very weak in Avatar...
Avatar was pretty bad... i didnt watch Sherlock Holmes, which looked even worse...
> Ehawk wrote:
> did you read damons post? i dont think calus needs to restate things that are only a few posts' up 
i read damon's post. i didnt see any valid points in it; but if you think there was a valid one, please post it separate so that i can judge its merit...
im not die hard against legalising of pot, but i have yet to find a valid reason why it should be legalized. we dont need another abusive substance legalized.. alcohol or tobacco may be worse and are still legal, but them being worse and being legal isnt a reason in itself to legalize weed..
> SOL wrote:
>
Personally i am not against legalizing. It beats alcohol on some points, alcohol beats weed on others. In my opninion they're pretty balanced, so if you allow one, why no the other(if they are more or less the same when it comes to "damage" in the wide meaning of the word)?
because alcohol while legal is harmful. its one thing keeping a drug legal and its another legalizing another harmful drug...
> Calus wrote:
> Damon has many valid points as always.
really? name one
> [TI] Primo wrote:
> mainly because homosexuals are not a race, avo. now sshhhht.
because homosexuals are not a race its ok to promote hate and aggression against them?
you wanted more forum activity; be careful what you wish for
creationism i think is typically what the people believe that think that the world is like only 10k years old or something; intelligent design however doesnt contradict any mainstream theories of how the earth or the universe was created; the only difference is while science will say the earth was created after the big bang by chance, intelligent design will say that the earth was formed by the big bang because it was designed to be created by the big bang by intelligent design... the classic statement for intelligent design is you walk in the park and find a a perfectly working watch on a tree stump. you can think that of all the millions of gears throughout the world, chances are that a few of these gears would fall perfectly into place by themselves to form a watch... or you can think someone designed and made the watch and then left it on the stump in the park...
> Levitas wrote:
> > SOL wrote:
> Yeah that's a very reliable source levitas. The guy who wrote that text is clearly not an idiot and knows perfectly how science works, he really did his homework before constructing his theory. (=sarcasm all the way)
That isn't even considered to be scientific at all.
It isn't meant to be serious, let alone scientific (They guy who wrote it actually holds a degree in physics by the way). Its meant to demonstrate that just because something can't be disproven, doesn't mean it should be accepted, and hiding behind the "You can't prove its not ..." statement is paper thin at best. His main point was that Intelligent Design not be taught in a scientific classroom. Science uses facts, Intelligent Design does not.
As far as wondering if I exist or not, cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am - Descartes). If I exist, its stands to reason that my surroundings exist. That's a good enough standard for me. If you are wondering yourself if you exist, then you exist.
evolution isnt based on facts, its based off of assumptions too...
> thirdrock wrote:
> feel free to report any homosexual slurs you see and i'll edit them. 
from personal experience, thats not true...
first of all, thirdrock, you could of went along with everyone else and created another guess of what deci hates... that everyone is doing...
2nd why is slurs against africans not tolerated while slurs against homosexuals, who are victims of the most hate crimes, is not only not actively removed, isnt even removed after a report?
and hah! i said what deci didnt have the balls to say!!!
[whoops]....
oh crap.... we were supposed to be posting everything he doesnt hate, i fail...
SOL, you say it doesnt matter whether A*B is hypothetical or whatever because we know that C occurs because it, but how do we know C exists then?
hypothetical to make it easy to follow. theres a man he's in a large room, you cannot enter the room. you yourself cant make any observations about the inside of the room except through communication with the man who can travel into the room. he can walk in and out of the room by will. you can make up whatever scenario's you want for him to test out in the room but you will never be able to prove that he is carrying them out and you will never be able to tell if he's telling you the truth about the outcomes of the experiments... reality is the room, the man that goes into the room is your senses, and your mind is you, relying on data transferring between you and the man/senses...
"isn't that the same logic i can use to say "god doesn't exist"?"
no, its the same logic that you can use to say god hasnt been proven to exist. the logic doesnt prove anything other then the non-existence of proof of objects outside our mind...
"We now have you(and many others) that tries to use our perception of reality to discredit science as a useful tool to assist human curiousity. "
that is not my purpose at all, nothing i've said here discredits science and its usefulness to humanity. name one thing i've said.... i dare you...
"most of all, by discrediting human perception of reality, you are just talking out of your ass to back up your agenda... in fact, using a religious argument, man was made in gods' image right??? so does this mean god has a faulty perception of reality too?"
i never claimed that man has a faulty perception of reality.
this is getting quite old... no one can understand the very basic concept anyone that hits puberty should be able to understand...
my position is that the difference between religion and science is not that science requires everything to be proven, while religion doesnt; both rely heavily on things that cant be proven. im not saying gravity doesnt exist, im saying the beleif in gravity is unproven and is a concept thats been passed down through our generations, just like religion...
"wheter the object is pushed , or it falls down ... we know it will always move from point A to point B"
no, we dont. we dont even know the object exists..
"our brain&eyes might interpret it as falling, while in realilty it may be pushed. The fact(read: reality) that it'll move is a general law outside our mind"
your brain interprets an electrical signal as it falling while in reality, the object might not exist or the object might be stationary..
> [TI] Primo wrote:
> If that is the case, avo, then what is the point of you posting here, as there is no way you can be sure we actually exist. You can not confirm anything you do, any thing you sense is actually there, so the only thing left for you to so is sit in a corner somewhere and wait to die.
because i live my life without feeling the need for things to be proven for me to beleive in them. while you atheists insist things must be proven and then live in an imaginary world where everything is proven when in reality it isnt proven...
", but it can prove that general laws apply and exist outside the human mind."
how can you prove general laws apply and exist outside the human mind? we know nothing outside of the our own mind, everything we believe is based on how your mind interprets stimulus, and because we know nothing of reality outside our mind, we cannot know anything outside of our mind with any degree of certainty... imagine having 1 person describe a building to you. you dont know anything about the person, he's a stranger to you. you have no degree of certainty that anything he tells you about the building is true, it could be completely false, there could be some remnants of truth, it could all be true; thats us and the senses our brain interprets, they're strangers that we completely rely on and often contradict themselves, but is our only source of information about "reality".
also, i think the current scientific theory is objects dont fall because of gravity, they are pushed... could be wrong on that..
> SOL wrote:
> l
Let's take "Gravity" as an example. Like God, it's something that is "untouchable". It also started as an idea inside the mind before it was generally accepted as "real". Science proves gravity exist(i think everyone agrees on this). It hasn't proven the existence of God. If you apply the definition of what is real from the dictionary, science can prove what is real and what isn't.
science is unable to prove anything is real in the philosophical sense you're using because science is a construct of the human mind and they are unable to prove anything is independent of the human mind... you can make experiments to try to prove any idea in science and the only thing is proving is your brain is receiving stimulus that it interprets as creating the desired result, it proves nothing about anything independent of human thought...
what qualifies as a representable group of human beings? there are large groups of people with fundamental beliefs in reality? also, how can we know anything is equal for more humans when we dont know if our senses are flawed or not. we dont know for sure whether anything exists outside of our minds and a stimulus let alone whether there is a mass of people believing in it. does that mean all i have to do is imagine that a large group of people believe what i believe and that makes what i believe real because a large group of people i have no idea whether truly exists believe it?
"You are trying to mimic Sastre with your arguments, but 'Je pense, donc je suis' has been ridiculed by other philosophers for ages."
nah, i've actually never heard of the guy or "Je pense, donc je suis"
"and for us humans, the information we get through our senses is regarded as real, unless it has been proven not to be, once again, through our senses. The only thing that's real, is what's real to us."
if reality is defined as how our brains interpret the messages sent by our senses, then there is no such thing as hallucinations and there is no single reality but infinite realities and the existence or non-existence of God in your reality is dependent on your interpretation of events in your life.. also, you said everything we get trhough our senses is regarded as real, unless it has been proven not to be; but how can you prove what you sense is false when you have to rely on your senses... at best you can prove a contradiction between two events without knowing which is true or false...
> [TI] Primo wrote:
> And avo, the thing about science is that it has been proven to be true. And if you want, you can do a couple of experiments, and find out for yourself. God has never been proven to be anywhere but in the human mind.
Primo are you ever sick of acting like a retard? first its not proven, because you cant prove the integrity of people's senses. 2nd, everyone knows about the scientific method and the lack of it in religion, do you honestly think you're bringing up a valid point? what are you? 5?
"millions" is measured by the human senses, the invalid instruments... you can ask 1 million people what they see and they might all agree with you, but they might all not exist anywhere other then your mind, they might be your mind misinterpreting signals sent to it by the senses... millions of people are simply a construct of your senses and mind... if millions of people's view counts as reality, then a single person's view must count as reality...
> Ehawk wrote:
> so maybe to prevent the USA from being doomed, should we try to find a common ground between the republican and demicratic point of views?
BTW, avo, im sure you already know this, but i must state some informations for others to read:
1. Democracy has nothing to do with a demacrat, the two are totally difference meanings
2. a government that is identified as a republic is NOT republican either, still two different meanings.
some people unfortunaely choose to be in a specific party because of the name of the party.
the opposite is true.... to prevent the USA from being doomed, we should try to find uncommon ground between the republican and democrats...
"
true, but science is allowed to change, religion has traditions that would jeopardise the its religion if changed..."
religions change fairly dramatically too... religions are formed by men and most recognize this and acknowledge that men make mistakes and that their institution isnt perfect...
"
no, i didn't mean it like that. i asked justinian because what he meant was that the concept of reality is not certain because human sense are not valid instruments for truth... we recieve messages from our senses and then our brain interprets the messages, this can be considered not a viable source of reality.
i was wondering in the multiple peoples' perspective can be considered enough to be reality..."
yeah, and when someone confirms your concept of reality, do you not receive this confirmation through the same human senses that are not valid instruments for truth?
Imperial Forum → Posts by avogadro
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.