warri0r45

Iced coffee.

Here's an example: You can accept a liar, and accept the fact that that is how he/she is, and that's how he/she lives their life. That doesn't mean you accept the act of lying and doesn't mean you believe its a just and moral thing to do. Lying hurts other people and distorts reality to those they lie to. Homosexuality is a biological feature of that person and it doesn't harm me or you or anybody else in the society mentally, physically, financially or any other way. The act of homosexuality hurting anyone doesn't matter, when the argument is about the fact that certain people still find the act of homosexuality wrong, if it hurts others or doesn't hurt others. Its irrelevant. We condemn the act, but we don't condemn the people themselves, we still accept them as how they are. As fellow humans its not up to us to condemn them personally (that's God's job) but it doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on why we disagree with the act of homosexuality. As stated its irrelevant whether or not you can justify to me the act of homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, when either way its still seen in my eyes and others as a immoral act. Eels, you are entitled to that view but the non-Christians of the tip it community have a hard time understanding why something is wrong just because the bible says so. Even more so when the act dosen't actually hurt anyone. That's why the argument that homosexuality harms no-one comes up.

Exactly. Although I think thier arguments were that the method of analysing things dosen't change. It's still much the same as it has always been (dispite refinements along the way) but these days we just have more tools and know-how. Which, coincidentaly, all came about through the tried and tested method. It's brought us a huge number of paradigm shifts, like the quantum physics example you gave. I'm interested to hear Highlanders view on what would be a better method of analysis of reality. The point I'd like to put out there is that there has been no other way of looking at things which has brought us so many tangible and relevant results.

bla bla blub Kelem, thanks for the insight. I think you need to recognise the difference between science itself and some who feel they know more than you because they accept science. Science itself isn't laughing at you or thinking you're a moron because you think in an alternate way and you can rest assured I don't think that way either. Science is just one of many ways of looking at the world and uncovering knowlege. It's inescapable, though, that it's the one which produces the most useful results. I does seem a little like religion in the following way though: People are bashing believes, outlooks and such in the name of science, like people were killing disbelievers in the name of christ. I watched some very interesting documentaries recently. Seems there are many actual scientists out there, who pursue ideas that the mainstream would laugh about. I probably should write a book, like everybody seems to do nowadays. There are more obscure ideas that actually sell. I'm just too damn sensitive about what others think about me and also think there are already enough books out there. That doesn't preven other people from writing new ones though. Somehow this whole debatting here on tip.it.. idk.. it's mostly just arguing for the sake of argument. Basically nothing wrong with that, but recently i found it to be quite disstatisfying. Oh well.. i posted this link to the astrology site in some post above. I guess it's at least somewhat fun a read. The key words here being 'a little like.' It's prone to abuse just like anything else. Other than that, it's so different from a religion that it being placed with such a tag is not only wrong, but unfair (by the way your comparison of someone bashing a belief to killing people is a long bow to draw). You've got to look at this without this grudge on your back. I wouldn't say all Christians are fundamentalists because of the actions of the few just like it's not right for you to suggest that science is intolerant and unaccepting of descent just because of how the few misuse it. And I'm telling you straight up those who call you a moron or stupid because you have different views are not speaking on behalf of science; they are speaking from thier narrow view which assumes science explains everything and thus anything not explained by science dosen't exist or is bunk. Science dosen't explain everything, and it knows that.

I'm not going to argue at this point. I'll just tell you where i am coming from. So don't count what i'm going to type as argument. (Well i guess it would classify as authority argument. I won't delete it now anyway. *sighs*) I've spent lots of time gathering data and thinking about stuff. I'm constantly putting pieces together, drew some conclusions, raised questions and so forth. On top of that i had some unusal experiences during my life. All that has led to some set of believes. Unfortunately they differ from what is commonly accepted knowledge. Now i read and hear (for example in this thread) more then often that what i think is true, is not only false, but it's crap and people thinking tha way are morons. So i considered that. Maybe i'm not too smart. I considerably lack self confidence and there are so many people out there, who are very confident about their claims, whatever they may be. So i always were led to believe that since they are so confident they have to be right. How could they be so confident? Although everybody who knows me in person assures me that i'm very bright, most very convinced i'm more keen then they are, i'm not easily convinced by such remarks. Pondering on that though, comparing myself to other people, i found that i can concentrate very long, get things rather quick and such, i even made aome IQ tests (partly because i find them fun) and score way above average all the time. So i guess other people can't be more right because they think on a way higher level. Then how comes that people can be so convinced? It seems that has nothing to do with how corect they are. People can be convinced about the stupidest things, like those that want to ban Harry Potter from schools, because it is advertising witchcraft -.- I concluded that maybe i just should stick to my theories even though i don't get direct affirmation from outside. Then again i seriously considered to throw all my theories over board and believe what is commonly accepted, so that i'm not in conflict anymore. My theories don't make me happy or anything after all. Maybe they are just there so i can feel important, because i'm right and such - to stroke my ego. Maybe i'm wrong after all and my theories are based only on wishful thinking. However it's not the arguments that make me want to refute. It's the feeling that i'm seen as a misfit and as stupid - that i'm laughed on. I don't know if it is as important to me to be right (and i don't even know about that for sure. I don't want to be ostracized. Maybe 2+2=5, if you know the quote.) If you wonder what those theories i spoke of are, here is what i can think of atm. Whatever you believe to be true, is true. There is not really a difference between dreaming and being awake. The physical world is a shadow of some kind of world that's more real. Whatever you encounter is a reflection of (a part of) yourself. The concept of "love" is significant in a way. I can elaborate on those if you want. Why i bashed on science? Because i'm insecure and hurt. Kelem, thanks for the insight. I think you need to recognise the difference between science itself and some who feel they know more than you because they accept science. Science itself isn't laughing at you or thinking you're a moron because you think in an alternate way and you can rest assured I don't think that way either. Science is just one of many ways of looking at the world and uncovering knowlege. It's inescapable, though, that it's the one which produces the most useful results.

(1) Science always tries to explain things conservatively. When faced with an unknown and new concept, instead of looking to expand their knowledge of reality, scientists try to explain the phenomenom using the elements of reality they already know. In other words, they refuse to evolve, they are set in their ways. (2) Bermuda triangle by example, any scientific explanation was pure theory, and was never practically proven. Actually, I'm certain the bermuda triangle phenomenom can be explained very logically. If they were ready to learn new things and research the bermuda triangle, the scientists could learn new information about how the ocean floor works, or the presence of certain minerals having certain consequences. They could learn new things. But instead, they say it's old news, and refuse to investigate or learn about it. (3) And since most scientists are so dogmatic, and refuse to learn about new or so-called mystical concepts, their view of reality is flawed, and always will. (4) Scientists, by saving, by example, that ghosts don't exist, they arrogantly claime that they know everything about reality, and the universe, which they don't. (5) If they investigated it, they would probably realise that a lot of "mystical" things can logically be explained, but not by old concepts of reality, but by new concepts. But they refuse to learn new concepts, thus the problem. (6) Science is exactly like religion, they accept what fits their set view, and push back and ridiculize everything else that doesn't fit their view. If you say you believe in science, all it means is that you believe in something alike to religion. Your , ok so what? Your not the defender of truth, in any way. (1) Science is limited as a naturalistic methodology, yes. It knows these limits because straying gets us nowhere. Practicality wise, what you're asking would root advancement something cronic. I'm intrigued how you would justify explaining an element of reality using something we don't know? Thor or Zeus, anyone? It's ok, Highlanders, you can stop worrying, I'll shoot through that Thor paper of lighting conduction to the journal 'Science' tomorrow. Let's see how much practical use we can get out of my baseless assumption. (2) Sounds like you're up to date on the Bermuda triangle. Care to explain what it is you are talking about here? (3) Oh god, science is dogmatic but mystical concepts are not? You've got the definition of dogmatic backwards, Highlanders. (4) I'll make you a deal. Show me one scientist who states science has categorically found that ghosts do not exist so I can slap him/her up the side of the head, ok? Science does not proclaim that which it can not know. It states nothing of the existance of supernatural notions. Thus, your claim that scientists claim they know everything about the universe is bunk. They don't, and they know it. (5) I need an example, please. What mystical occurance can be explained via a new concept of reality. If you could, also try and make some sort of pragmatic link to the human race, which is ultimately what science's purpose is. (6) Exactly like religion? That's rather wishful thinking. Science uses a method to uncover unknowns while religion claims it already has all the answers. Science freely welcomes correction of wrong ideas while religion has all the answers and thus can not be corrected. Perhaps you should enlighten us all of your new concept of reality and how it practically relates to us.

What troubles me most about science is that people are so convinced that their methods are the only legetimate. Scientific de facto immunizes (and i consciously use that term) itself against any doubt using scientific method. Everything that doesn't quite fit is immeadiately debunked: "unscientifical", "pseudo science", "true believer". (1) To me scientific methode qualifys as "quasi-religious/mystical belief or as "superstition". Also science isn't based on facts as you claim. (2) It is based on theories that are supported by sufficient evidence. So that are basically believes there to. (3) You believe some theories to be true, because scientific methode yielded enough supportive evidence. Blasphemy, i know. Science sets the rules (its own rules). Everything that doesn't fit is debunked. I guess this should be another topic though. (1) Please, explain why. I'd love to see your justification for labelling a methodology as superstitious. (2) Which means what, exactly? It means those theories not supported by evidence aren't accepted and thus, science is ultimately based on the evidence. (3) I don't believe a theory to be true. I accept a theory to be supported by the evidence. Also, as I've explained to you before, science is not a belief system. It's a methodology which very much recognises it's own limits. By sticking to the method, it's not saying others are wrong. I don't get the science bashing coming from you. Whats the deal? Are you a bit down because science dosen't recognise Astrology? If you're so convinced of it, convince me.

I prefer to blend my sandwiches and drink them through a straw. I have no time for chewing. Much to busy doing more important things like watching carbs, the stock market and the latest idol results.

As Satenza said, it's been declassified as a mental disorder. It's kind of analagous (if you're into genetics) to comparing a mutational allele to the wild type allele of the same locus. The mutation is not a disorder just because it's not as common as the wild type. It's still very much a natural thing.

A sunset over the ocean...

That's beside the point, though, you can obviously click the reference links to the reference section and link to them. The point is that the big bang theory is not a guess like the laymans use of the word theory suggests. Any amount of research obviously affirms this.

Not a fan of pseudoscience sorry.

I never demanded an explanation for his disbelief, I merely said that I could just as easily ask for an explanation just as he did for the other guys belief, yet it would just come out the same way, even if its with science that you try to explain existance it still comes out the same as if you were trying to explain religion, the most you can do for either is give 1) unproven theorys such as the big bang theory or 2) the Christian theory of God. 3) I'm just saying there is no way to prove or disprove religion so there is no reason to get into an unnecessary fight over it and get these discussions banned again. 1) Theories don't get proven, they explain facts and work as systems of explanation incorporating evidence. The more evidence, the more tests done on hypotheses regarding that evidence, the stronger the theory. Theories will never become facts. Based on what I know, the big bang theory is a fairly decent one, but best to ask someone more knowlegable just to be safe. 2) There's no such thing; that's not a theory. Unless, of course, you use the everyday use of the word theory, that being 'guess or conjecture.' The big bang theory is at least much more than guess or conjecture. 3) You can certainly disprove literally interpreted aspects of some religions. Once they gel into the natural world, they are up for scientific scrutiny like any other idea. But, the purpose of scientific theories is not to disprove a religion, and anyone who thinks something like the big bang theory proves there is no god, they're kidding themselves. (1) I use the word theory as a way of guessing things we lack the evidence to properly back up, if thats not the proper use for it the who the hell cares? I'm only human, I think my explanation, whether me using the word 'theory' was correct or not, still properly shows what I'm getting at, so if you couldn't understand then I'm sorry my improper use of a word confused you, but if you could, which I'm sure you do, back off and get a life, I'm not in the mood to mess with stuck up grammar Nazis. the big bang we lack the evidence to back up, its a possibility, but we lack evidence, as well as a proper explanation as to what caused it. 2) I do use the word theory as a guess, and the (2) Big Bang theory is no more than that, we lack any evidence or proper explanation, thus it is no more proven than the idea of God. 3) Of course you can disprove the parts of religion that involve the universe we live in, but that was not the point I was making, that statement was regarding the conversation at hand, which, obviously, is over the belief in souls and the afterlife. Of course the Big Bang doesn't disprove the idea of God, I never said it did, I merely said it was as proven as the idea of god is. (1) I was just explaining what a theory is in the context of science. It's important to do this because the big bang theory is a scientific theory and not guesswork, as is portrayed by the conventional use of the word theory. It's not being a grammar Nazi, it's pointing out a vital distinction which is essential to avoid 'It's just a theory' type accusations in a debate. It is a theory, and it's never going to become a 'proven theory' or a fact. Such a change dosen't happen. (2) Have you read about it? To be honest much of the physics I read when I get into it just goes over my head. But you saying it's a guess is wrong. It's the most substantiated and accepted theoretical framework out there in regards to how the universe got to it's current state. From what I can pick up, I can tell you the evidence suggests an expanding and cooling universe. Logic alone would tell you that some point in the past, the universe was denser and hotter. This being the very essence of the big bang theory and not even going into any of the complex mathematics or cosmology. Not my cup of tea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Perhaps you should tell me whether you feel it's all just a guess after you read this. To be honest with myself I wouldn't know if some of this is guess work or not because much the physics goes over my head, but from what I do know, it's anything but a guess. It deserves more recognition than that.

Its not natural. Heres what I honestly think. Gay people feel friendship around guys(they think it is romantic love) and they feel love for women,(but they think it is just friendship) I honestly do not think anyone is naturally gay, I think it is just a misconception (to them) of thier feelings, and they "become" gay. http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html Or perhaps it's society who has the misconception of what it is homosexuals feel. Society has an ideal that men like women and vice versa when it's clear that some just grow up being confused. Confused, but by nothing more than those around them espousing views that what they feel is unnatural or somehow a choice, and, one which should always result in heterosexuality.

We are discussing whether or not abortion is moral or not. It was always my perception that killing was the moral form of murder, and vice-versa. If we determine abortion to be immoral, then it is not killing - it is the immoral version of killing, which I define as murder. Sounds good. If we agree to go by this, we can avoid ambiguity. The difficulty is agreeing on abortion as an immoral act. As yet, I'm unconvinced that it is immoral, especially in earlier stages. The later it gets and the more receptive the embryo gets, the less I'll be comfortable with it happeneing. Where do you personally draw the line? Generally anything before the fetus develops pain perception is fine by me. I see zygotes and blastocysts especially to be open slather to abortion (be it through a pill or otherwise), and, more importantly in my opinion, stem cell research. But, to be honest, I'm pretty laissez faire about abortion as a whole. No particular opposition to it, I'm just favourable of not taking it irresponsibly and of keeping it within some sort of legal time frame. I'm open to more research into fetal development to refine those barriers if need be.

We are discussing whether or not abortion is moral or not. It was always my perception that killing was the moral form of murder, and vice-versa. If we determine abortion to be immoral, then it is not killing - it is the immoral version of killing, which I define as murder. Sounds good. If we agree to go by this, we can avoid ambiguity. The difficulty is agreeing on abortion as an immoral act. As yet, I'm unconvinced that it is immoral, especially in earlier stages. The later it gets and the more receptive the embryo gets, the less I'll be comfortable with it happeneing.

(1) Isn't that what we're all arguing over? Whether or not it is, in fact, murder? (2) Cheating on your spouse causes no harm except emotional distress and is within the law. (1) Going by the legal term, it's not murder. You could, of course, manipulate the semantics to your liking too, if you try hard enough. (2) Touche. The point of the post you quoted from was to split abortion as a harmful act from those other more harmful acts mentioned. I didn't think it was fitting comparing some of those acts to abortion if you go by the scenario of an embryo with no developed pain perception.

Are you aware of the concept of bias? Tell me, why is it that those expressing conservative Christian views are always Christian sources? Coincidence? Who would've thunk it. I'd be more than happy to read the very same statistics from a more impartial source. Note that I'm not suggesting these statistics are wrong. I just happen to much prefer an unassuming mindset as opposed to a pre-concieved one.

NEEEEERRRRRRRRRD. :P (deep down inside I'm just jealous, well done :XD: )

Best way to illustrate why it's impossible is to picture something at the temperature of 1K. Want to take this down to 0K. Alright, you manage to cool it by an order of ten; it is now 0.1K. Hawtness. Well, not really, but you get the idea. So you cool it by an order of ten again! 0.01K. Hmz... You've cooled it by an order of 100 since you started, yet it isn't 0K. You can keep this up indefinitely, and you'll never hit 0. Thanks BlueTear and liquidsky. I was ignorant of not only that it was already mentioned on this thread, but also of the fact that it is theoretically impossible. Always great to learn something new. :)

My thoughts exactly. :) It's the way some people are and is not a controlable position to be in. It's not an issue of right or wrong, it's what is.

I'll pulse with you, Maggot. :XD: :lol: Yes, I too find the bridge in Eyeless to be god mode. Same with the song 'My Plague.' Great chorus yet great song all round.

If a human zygote is a person then they should absolutely have the same rights as an adult. If they did not then it would be discrimination. If that human zygote is not a person they should have no rights unto themselves. If they were not a person then they would need to be viewed as something that is owned by the parents so if it is damaged or destroyed by someone that doesn't "own" it the person that did the damage can go to trial. So according my understanding of the way you view things(please correct me if I understood it wrong) there is a grey area between conception and birth where somewhere during that time a baby should gain the right to be called a person and not a lump of cells. You aren't sure when that time is but you know it is somewhere between those two points. If a you choose to aggressively pursue abortion and not err on the side of caution then there is a very good chance people will die using your own definition of what a person is. If a mistake is made due to pursuing an aggressive plan in a fuzzy situation is that not negligence? If a person is killed on purpose would that not be murder? I think I might be missing what you are getting at here because the entire point of my argument is to clarify why a zygote is a person in the first place and since they would be a person then killing them would be wrong because killing innocent people in pretty much any situation is wrong. Are you wanting me to toss my my argument and completely make up a new argument that makes the exact same point? My argument against killing zygotes is my argument against killing people. It's the same thing. A zygote is merely a very young person. I will be glad to do whatever you are asking here if I can get a little clarification first. What exactly do you want me to be arguing for or against at each point? If we concede they are a person from conception then what is there to argue beyond that? Also, divide the category of people into what? I think neither one of us is fully understanding what the other one is getting at right now. So now we are saying we should define who is or isn't a person by if they have the ability to feel pain? There are only two options at any time to label what is inside a pregnant mother. Either it is a person or it is not a person and merely a part of the mother's body. If it is a person then they should have full rights under the law which would mean killing them would be murder. If it is not a person then the mother can do anything with it they want to do. I'll give you this one to see if we can take this further. As for your argument that killing zygotes is wrong because they are people, you are the victor. I challenged you to add specificity to avoid the luxury of emotional appeal so I'll do it for you. What if I put it to you that I feel it is wrong to kill some people but not others? What if I put it to you that that I see no harm in killing people with no ability to feel pain, no consciousness, no knowlege of self, or no emotion? What if I put it to you that before the first sign of any of these things, I see no wrong in terminating this life? Thus, my position includes those people from zygote to first sign of development of those aformentioned features.

Let's use the example of the legal aborting an embryo not yet with developed pain perception. Killing babies - causes harm and against the law Stabbing people - causes harm and against the law Arson - destruction of property (monetary harm) and against the law Running people over - causes harm and against the law Stealing - theft of property (monetary harm) and against the law Harrassment - causes harm and against the law Aborting an embryo not yet with pain perception - causes no harm (well, unless you'd like to include the emotional distress of the pro-life movement) and is within the law. Whatever the intention of your little spiel, it's not an accurate representation of someone who is pro-choice when it comes to abortion.

Space is mostly vaccum and temperature is a property of matter. So, no particles, no temperature. But for the very few particles there are in deep space (something like one per meter cubed or something of that rediculous sparsity) there is always a background radiation of microwaves to keep kinetic energy of those particles above absolute zero. My incling is absolute zero is a mythical figure never observed and never will be anytime soon. It's more a mathematical backtrack from what we do know into what's theoretical. The furthur back we push to the limit, the more we realise about our correct or not so correct extrapolation of the figure. I thought absolute zero was impossible. Perhaps. Perhaps not. One day we may break it. Unless, of course, there is a law prohibiting it. Best to ask someone else here.