Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (41 Viewers)

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Totally agree, my friend.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[swag]

like i said i dont know who this person is, so i can only comment on the quote. My beef with is it exists in teh first place as a response to bill oreilly, do you know how lame that is, and to make it even lamer quote itself doesnt have much substance, knowledge gap will keep shrinking oh really?

This fits the model where Donald Rumsfeld refused to answer Louis CK's question of whether he was a lizard or not. To directly respond to the question is to lend creditability to the question (or the questioner, as the case may be).

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Tyrone I really don't get why you bother posting in this thread - you have nothing to contribute.

sartor resartus my friend

This fits the model where Donald Rumsfeld refused to answer Louis CK's question of whether he was a lizard or not. To directly respond to the question is to lend creditability to the question (or the questioner, as the case may be).

i like 'do you still beat your wife?' questions

---------- Post added 02.07.2012 at 16:50 ----------

Totally agree, my friend.

whats the difference between agree and totally agree amico mio

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

This fits the model where Donald Rumsfeld refused to answer Louis CK's question of whether he was a lizard or not. To directly respond to the question is to lend creditability to the question (or the questioner, as the case may be).

Don't think that's the best strategy, Greg. Leave false claims unchallenged, and some people might end up believing it to be true. Just look at the 9/11 doubters.

At some point, false claims should be questioned and challenged.

whats the difference between agree and totally agree amico mio

The real question is, what's the difference between partially agree and totally agree?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

naaah what i asked is the real question

 

[Ford Prefect]

This fits the model where Donald Rumsfeld refused to answer Louis CK's question of whether he was a lizard or not. To directly respond to the question is to lend creditability to the question (or the questioner, as the case may be).

I don't get this fuss being made. It doesn't matter if Degrasse answers him, he's still going to be watched by millions of fuckwit morons - But by defending science, and a common misconception (the polite way of putting it) of science, perhaps O'Reilly will stop saying it, or his audience - the important part of this, will ignore it when does say it.


One of the most important tasks in supporting the future of humanity, until we go extinct/evolve beyond this state, is everyone understanding the scientific method of - hypothesis <-> test -> prove <-> defend, and not attacking it as it is the ONLY way for us to progress and the ONLY reason we have.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

naaah what i asked is the real question

If you're looking for a serious answer, then totally agree is to emphasize that you agree with everything someone said.

 

[swag]

Don't think that's the best strategy, Greg. Leave false claims unchallenged, and some people might end up believing it to be true. Just look at the 9/11 doubters.

At some point, false claims should be questioned and challenged.

Maybe. The Obama administration had to cave in to the birthers after a point, because enough stupidity had to be refuted -- despite their wish to ignore the stupidity. Hard to say that Bill O'Reilly's opinion constitutes critical mass, however.

 

[Ford Prefect]

I also don't understand the mistrust that science gets from the public - primarily the religious.....Its the most transparent system in the world - if you want to find anything out then the information is freely available. Yet homeopathy and other CAM, religion etc. etc. Which have no evidence, hide themselves in secrecy and actively oppose this openness of information - the same which has allowed for humanity to be in a position for them to do it, are followed without question.

Its madness.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Maybe. The Obama administration had to cave in to the birthers after a point, because enough stupidity had to be refuted -- despite their wish to ignore the stupidity. Hard to say that Bill O'Reilly's opinion constitutes critical mass, however.

I doubt that that mass isn't insignificant enough to ignore either. I'm guessing Fox, being a major network, would have a good number of viewers. And some of them might actually believe what he says.

 

[Ford Prefect]

I doubt that that mass isn't insignificant enough to ignore either. I'm guessing Fox, being a major network, would have a good number of viewers. And some of them might actually believe what he says.

Just ignore what I say

 

[Trequartista]

yes cool mofo, look for a mouthpiece get him to say the stupid shit he always says then demonstrate whats already obvious to everyone that they;re stupid, now for the coup de grace bench up all the people said stupid person identifies with in the same bucket, cool indeed.

---------- Post added 01.07.2012 at 19:29 ----------




whatever that fat fuck is saying up there is almost as stupid as bill oreilly's contention and if you cant see it then the quality of the above reply would transcend irony to actually be indicative of what you stand for.

I won't comment on his views on religion but you should watch some of his scientific documentaries and videos, they are just awesome.

 

[swag]

I doubt that that mass isn't insignificant enough to ignore either. I'm guessing Fox, being a major network, would have a good number of viewers. And some of them might actually believe what he says.

But we're in an era of selective listening. It's echo chamber stuff.

Just ignore what I say

What?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

If you're looking for a serious answer, then totally agree is to emphasize that you agree with everything someone said.

so it doesnt really mean anything?

I also don't understand the mistrust that science gets from the public - primarily the religious.....Its the most transparent system in the world - if you want to find anything out then the information is freely available. Yet homeopathy and other CAM, religion etc. etc. Which have no evidence, hide themselves in secrecy and actively oppose this openness of information - the same which has allowed for humanity to be in a position for them to do it, are followed without question.

Its madness.

except for minor detail, mistrust is the very essence of science. If we just trusted we wouldnt wonder and look deeper for answers, your generalizations on the other hand are anything but scientific.

I won't comment on his views on religion but you should watch some of his scientific documentaries and videos, they are just awesome.

i will check it out mon ami

 

[Ford Prefect]

except for minor detail, mistrust is the very essence of science. If we just trusted we wouldnt wonder and look deeper for answers, your generalizations on the other hand are anything but scientific.

Example?

Mistrust isn't the essence of science, testing, proving and defending are the essence of science. Scientific testing is a transparent process, anyone can replicate the results - how can you not trust that process? Jeez.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

so it doesnt really mean anything?

:wth:

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Just ignore what I say

Your post didn't load on Tapatalk.

But we're in an era of selective listening. It's echo chamber stuff.

That's depressing.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Example?

Mistrust isn't the essence of science, testing, proving and defending are the essence of science. Scientific testing is a transparent process, anyone can replicate the results - how can you not trust that process? Jeez.

you act as if we live in a black and white world, you almost sound like your antagonists, everyday there 100s of conflicting scientific studies that come out. Like i said stop with the generalizations.

:wth:

no distinct singular meaning, useless

 

[Ford Prefect]

you act as if we live in a black and white world, you almost sound like your antagonists, everyday there 100s of conflicting scientific studies that come out. Like i said stop with the generalizations.

You don't know much about science do you? Meta Analysis?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

no distinct singular meaning, useless

Useless. Just like this post of yours.