insane

Isn't that what theists are constantly doing? Whereas the majority of intelligent atheists say "we don't know, but it is most likely/safer to assume there is no god". Sorry, I phrased that wrong. It is unfair to make a universal negative claim about something you do not have universal knowledge about. To know that there isn't B in A, you need to know all of A. But to know that there is C in A, all you need to know is the part of A where C is located, not all of A. For example, if I wanted to prove to you that there were seeds in an apple, all I would have to do is show you one seed - nothing else. But if I wanted to prove to you that there were no seeds in the apple, I would have to go through every single part of the apple, making cuts and incisions everywhere, because a negative implies universal knowledge, while a positive only needs particular knowledge of the positive premise.

On the Cosby show yesterday Dr. Huxtable told the women that they shouldn't be eating for two :( Maybe there is, but it wouldn't be visible to your science. Science deals with the natural, so it would make sense that they wouldn't deal with souls. You're assuming the soul is coming biologically, physically, again. You're assuming the soul is biological, and phyiscal. Maybe because they're correct. You never did answer my quesiton. Is it fair to make a universal claim about something you do not have universal knowledge about?

Some of my arguments just came from a book about it :P I was citing my source. but if you're curious, Reductionism can be used to reduce morality to a set of feelings instead of (what I believe is) its objective form. What about the knowing all of something first argument? If man is nothing but matter, does it make sense that we would have to know man in its entirety to say that? Or if we were to say that God does not exist, we would have to know reality in its entirety?

http://www.whatismae.com/

Jack Johnson and John Mayer or Dashboard Confessional if you're into irrationally depressing songs.

You don't know how ignorant you sound right now. Goodbye.

I'd alter your formula a bit :P pseudo-friendship = screwed actual-friendship != screwed. The question is, what kind of friendship is it? :P

Oh but they do matter greatly. I jsut learned today that to get into university, i need to have 6 university courses in grade 12, and the only way i can get those is by getting university courses done in grade 11. Problem is, i only have 5 uni courses in grd 11, so in grd 12 ill have to take a grade 11 uni course and then the grd 12 uni course right after. Also for around here, the university's look at your grade 11 and 12 marks, nothing else really matters. I plan on going to McMaster university to get some kinda degree in science before becoming a teacher. And yes, ive dreamt of becoming a teacher since grade 8. I feel it is a really importat job, and i plan to fulfill it. Yea, your right. Too get into certain departments in a majority of Canadian University, you need specific classes in both Grade 11 and 12. Also, you need certain marks in certain classes depending on the University/College. It also all has to do with Credits ect. It's a lot of fun. To my knowledge it's just grade 12 courses you need specific credits in. You may need prerequisites taken in grade eleven, but the universities don't look at that.

Just ask her. If you're actually friends, your friendship will last the temporary akwardness that will be created if the feelings aren't mutual.

They look good, though they really are irrelevent. I'm from Ontario like you, and grade eleven courses serve no purpose except to get you into some grade twelve courses that might matter. What really matters if you want to be a science teacher is to get killer marks in grade twelve so that you can get into a concurrent ed. program in university afterwards to avoid the teacher's college backlog.

That kind of thing is hard to quantify. But do we both agree that contributing to the western world's obesity problem isn't morally pure? and so doesn't give him the right to preach right and wrong. I agree that the pizza thing isn't morally pure, but I don't know about the whole not being allowed to preach what is right and wrong - because all of us do things that are morally impure sometimes, but it doesn't mean that we can't tell someone to stop murdering, for example. But I agree with you mostly. it's just a little beef, I really hate pornography maybe it's not socially destructive, but it shows a social problem - IMO people who use pornography are unsatisfied with the reality in which they live so they need to escape to a fantasy world. Like a drug. It also treats women like objects - merely means to the end that is sexual "satisfaction".

I wouldn't expect too many mature replies (as seen already) - why not think up your own name? That way you can be proud of it and it will be original. If someone else comes up with your name, every time you hear it/say it you'll be thinking in the back of your mind that it wasn't actually you that came up with it...

So you're saying that pizza causes more obesity than condoms and porn? That's a given. However, pornography is quite the socially destructive thing - I would put it at a much more generally destructive level than pizza.

The problem with reductionism is that it generally ignores two of the "four causes". There's the material cause (the matter used), the formal cause (what it is made to be), the efficient cause (the agent that produces the effect), and the final cause (what it is made for). Reductionism eliminates the formal cause and the final cause even though they are perfectly legitimate. When applied to science this is perfectly fine, since science doesn't need to deal with the aspect of "why" or "for what" something was made - that's not science's positon, because final and formal causality are not physical things. However when you apply reductionism to everyday life, that's when it starts getting fishy. Take music, for example. If a song derives a certain emotion in me - there is a material cause (the horomones or chemicals), the efficient cause (the music). Reductionism stops here. However, a non-reductionist would say that maybe I happen to LIKE this music, and maybe it stirs a certain emotion in me because I am relating to it, a certain circumstance in my life sympathizes with the creator of the music, etc, and reductionism tries to invalidate that. Same goes with natural selection, and why I believe it's proof for a cosmic mind, and not reductionism. If you see a rubber balloon becoming a blimp, and then an airplane, you would assume that there was some sort of higher cause behind it rather than the efficient and material causes. So when some pool of slime producing apes and fish, you can look at the efficient and material causes (as science would), but there would have to be a final and formal cause as well, which science ignores, as it should - but it doesn't make it untrue. Natural selection explains the efficient and material causes without a God, but it doesn't explain the formal and final causes without a God. It doesn't explain why. Reductionism would explain Hamlet by the syllables, whereas non-reductionism (expansionism) would explain the syllables by Hamlet - what makes more sense? Another problem with reductionism is that it assumes that one knows all of reality. If you were to say "humans are nothing but matter", then you would need to know all of every human, every single aspect. Seeing as the study of human beings is just beginning, I think it is safe to assume that we do not know all of the human being, and can therefore not make universal claims about it. Another practical problem with reductionism is that humans simply do not like being reduced. It's okay for a surgeon to treat your grandmother's brain like a computer during brain surgery, but are you going to treat your grandmother like a computer when you live with her while she's getting better? No, I think she's rather be treated like a whole person, an end. Some arguments inspired by "A Refutation of Moral Relativism" by Peter Kreeft.

Err, we don't do that here.

Except not. It's around here somewhere though.

Has anyone heard this album? Usually it takes me a few listens to genuinely like an album but this one had me from the start. There's a few tracks to listen to here.

Piano is a good starter instrument - it teaches you the base skills (rhythm, notation reading, general pitch recognization) the easiest and the skills you get from it are easily transferrable to other instruments.

Yarrrrr.

This is in the wrong forum, and even if it was in the right forum, it's a generally pointless topic.

Yes, the philosophical position that reduces all things to electron configurations is known as reductionism. I disagree with it, as it ends up treating people like electron configurations and not as people. So if you're in love, the reductionist would just say "all that is are some chemicals/horomones sitting around your body, you're not actually "in love"...". When feelings are reduced to chemicals, that's when problems start coming in to play.

I loved it - it broke the monotony of the classroom routine. I hated it if it was before last period though, then you were all sweaty for your last classes :P

That's probably not an option for most highschool students unless their high school allows them to leave for lunch =\ You're not allowed to leave? Uh oh. At university I end up going to McDonald's to eat, because it's $4 for any meal if you have a student card - it's either that, or Tim Horton's, which is $8 for a filling meal, or the Cafeteria, which is $10 for a filling meal. This is only once a week though.

Yes, I hate that feeling. Also your teeth feel revolting after a swallow of Coke. I prefer Pepsi.

Referral links are not allowed.