Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HI SOMEONE12, FEDERALE

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    Engaging in an argument and doing everything to win doesn't always mean imposing such belief that one holds on others. It doesn't happen among adult debaters. It's more of a 'take it or leave it' thing after all is said and done. Hey, this is just an anonymous immigration forum on cyberspace, among many. It's plain curiosity and fun.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    I am curious what is the opinion of our Great Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamare on this?
    Does he agree with me on this as well?
    I would be extremely flattered if he did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brit4064
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You , just as everyone else, are free to believe whatever you chose to believe but if you assert something and tell others that they must accept it as universal truth then you are also obligated to back it up, it's just a rule of argument. Doing the opposite is the logical fallacy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Totally agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    Hiding behind Einstein quotes won't do nor reinforce anyone's argument. A debate calls for individual opinion without dead tag team partners ring side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Everyone makes their own decision, whether it be quoting Einstein or Bible. And it is up to each individual how to express themselves. Besides, you are shifting focus from subject to individual, as usual, which is time old techniquie of demagogues. Rise above that !

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    To say God doesn't exist is just as positive a position as saying he does. It's taking a position, one which needs a defence if disagreed with. If you say there is no hole in the ground and everyone else says there is. You don't need to do anything to support your thesis? What about when your pushed into it?

    Those videos were a cheap shot. Yeah, it was obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The video i posted wasn't a cheap shot, it was an interview by Feynman. If you don't know who he was may be you shouldn't be getting into this debate at all. But "What the bleep we know" was indeed a cheap shot because it artificially mixed myths and outright fabrications with known discoveries in quantum physics and tried to pass it off as "scientific".

    Next, i never in all my life argued that God doesn't exist.

    It is you who makes positive assertion that God exists and very specific one at that. You , just as everyone else, are free to believe whatever you chose to believe but if you assert something and tell others that they must accept it as universal truth then you are also obligated to back it up, it's just a rule of argument. Doing the opposite is the logical fallacy.

    Here is some Logic 101 for you, davdah , try to read and comprehend it before coming back to post again.

    http://wiki.ironchariots.org/i..._God_doesn%27t_exist

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    E, I have to disagree with your statement of a random scientific approach. A postulation is made and experiments are conducted to prove it. They don't arbitrarily throw compounds together to see what happens with no guiding objective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You can disagree with me all you want, it's just slightly more difficult to credibly disagree with those brighter minds i quoted

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    And, in any argument, both sides have a duty to prove their position. A negative assertion is just as significant and requires the same evidence bar to maintain it's validity. If what you say were true, then all things in physics with opposing forces, positive & negative, would never have been discovered with only the one extreme being called into question.

    ya really need to stop these bating techniques, there obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No, i have to disappoint you because the established rules of argument , if you want to argue on scientific and logic grounds (and if you don't then that's a whole different subject), postulate that it is the positive assertion that has to be proven and not vice versa.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    Being of sceptical mind I always take any youtube posted videos about "Latest scientific discoveries...." with heapful of salt.

    One thing i noticed in the clip that everyone here refers to is the absence of credentials.

    However, sound effects and visuals in place, that alone didn't immediately capture my attention, what did was that many of the speakers were saying lots of nonsense mixed with known discoveries in physics , thus cementing my conclusion that the video is a hogwash meant to make you a lot more stupid by means of subtly passing it through your consciousness under the guise of "scientific".

    My advise to all: if you want to know anything about sciences go read books and check carefully who wrote them. Be critical. Be sceptical. Be open for discoveries that will leave you dumbfounded.

    And if you want to watch videos about physics, watch at least ones where you know you won't be taken for a fool.

    Here is one from Feynman

    Leave a comment:


  • Kollerkrot
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    Not at all. In all three cases a search is made for the same conclusion. That there is no God and another explanation exists for what there is. Without providing that explanation but asserting that it exists is what I find dumbfounding. Of equal note is the theist who argues against science. In truth, they have no faith since science will ultimately prove their faith, that is, if they believed themselves. Their fear is what makes them ignorant buffoons and the atheist greatest ally. To see science is to witness God's ability. The more the merrier. Watching those videos, got to number 3, it illustrates clearly one fact. We don't know sht. For anyone to use lack of knowledge as a foundation to disprove something is beyond ridiculousness. It's like the question of whether radio reception in space was possible way back when. The answer was already known before the first flight but fear provoked the question. Yes, we are all connected and space really isn't a vacuum at all. Question is, what are we all connected to? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No, davdah. In physics, unlike some other not so punctiliously exact disciplines, research is not made to arrive to certain predetermined conclusion. You can't say in physics "let's do some research so we can conclude that elephants can fly".

    The ultimate goal of physicist is to find out why Nature is what it is. And nothing but empirical observation and application of rigorous scientific method to determine causality really mattters in reaching one or another valid conclusion.
    If for any reason you reach wrong conclusion in physics it simply won't work. It won't be applicable or in any way practically useful in the relevant context.

    Einstein himself at one point became too rigid by allowing his philosophical, preconditioned by whatever past experiences he had, views about Nature dictate his interpretation of emprically observed phenomena that was too shockingly in contradition to it and asserted that "God doesn't play dice".

    To which he got stern reply from Neils Bohr who hammered out the following memorable words: "Stop telling God what to do!"


    P.S. In terms of proving or disproving something, i will just quote myself from earlier post:
    "The rules of argument (if you want to argue logically) require one to prove existence rather than non-existence.
    In other owrds, one is not obligated to prove non-existence, it's those who make positive assertion that also bear the burden of proving it".
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I like that! Watching the the clip, I learned that the atheist-physicists all proved that they are on a fishing expedition and the conclusion is that we all have a conscience. But, I new that before.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    Not at all. In all three cases a search is made for the same conclusion. That there is no God and another explanation exists for what there is. Without providing that explanation but asserting that it exists is what I find dumbfounding. Of equal note is the theist who argues against science. In truth, they have no faith since science will ultimately prove their faith, that is, if they believed themselves. Their fear is what makes them ignorant buffoons and the atheist greatest ally. To see science is to witness God's ability. The more the merrier. Watching those videos, got to number 3, it illustrates clearly one fact. We don't know sht. For anyone to use lack of knowledge as a foundation to disprove something is beyond ridiculousness. It's like the question of whether radio reception in space was possible way back when. The answer was already known before the first flight but fear provoked the question. Yes, we are all connected and space really isn't a vacuum at all. Question is, what are we all connected to? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No, davdah. In physics, unlike some other not so punctiliously exact disciplines, research is not made to arrive to certain predetermined conclusion. You can't say in physics "let's do some research so we can conclude that elephants can fly".

    The ultimate goal of physicist is to find out why Nature is what it is. And nothing but empirical observation and application of rigorous scientific method to determine causality really mattters in reaching one or another valid conclusion.
    If for any reason you reach wrong conclusion in physics it simply won't work. It won't be applicable or in any way practically useful in the relevant context.

    Einstein himself at one point became too rigid by allowing his philosophical, preconditioned by whatever past experiences he had, views about Nature dictate his interpretation of emprically observed phenomena that was too shockingly in contradition to it and asserted that "God doesn't play dice".

    To which he got stern reply from Neils Bohr who hammered out the following memorable words: "Stop telling God what to do!"


    P.S. In terms of proving or disproving something, i will just quote myself from earlier post:
    "The rules of argument (if you want to argue logically) require one to prove existence rather than non-existence.
    In other owrds, one is not obligated to prove non-existence, it's those who make positive assertion that also bear the burden of proving it".

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    E, to agree with it is to be atheist lacking faith and ability to grasp the possibility of something greater than themselves.

    And to state something isn't possible without a plausible alternative is an arrogant display of ignorance.

    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    To agree with what ,davdah?

    To be exact, Einstein wasn't an atheist in strict term of the word, but believed in deterministic nature of Universe (he was at odds on this with his contemporary Bohr who thought it to be random or undeterminable on quantum level) and reflected on what he compared to limitless intelligence that could have been responsible for apparent celectial order ,without ever interfering in the course of events after things were set on the course. As to Stphen Hawking he clearly declares himself to be an agnostic. Also not a definition of an atheist.

    So you may reconsider your opinion of what it implies to agree with what they had to say on the subject.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kollerkrot
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kollerkrot:

    You just go and stick with your Pure Abstract Potential then. I'll stick with mine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Now, that's what I call evil, however much I abhore the word along with other biblical terms.
    I don't expect you to change, you are who you are, and I'm fine with it. I wouldn't expect you to change your views, just as I expect you not to try change mine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    How ironic, ...Now that is a good laugh. You don't believe in evil...but you spot it if you believe to spot evil. I on the other hand didn't even contemplate. It just stuck in my mind that many of the physicist in that clip used the word "potential". That's why I am open to both. It doesn't hurt!

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    He didn't say it? What does the idea of being the only profoundly religious people mean? It's to say anyone else, subject being those who don't worship the cosmos, are not. Who didn't read it?
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No, he didn't "...state pursuits in physics and like sciences are greater..."

    He wrote specifically: "A contemporary has said, not unjustly,that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."

    So, not "greater" but "the only profoundly religious people" is what he wrote. And if you fully comprehend what he means by saying it you can't disagree with that statement.

    As to how it all came to be or what had transpired there before Plank epoch , well nobody claimed to know it, neither Einstein nor the latest authority in the current research Stephen Hawking , who had particularly dedicated to disentangling this subject matter the past decades of his life.

    But just because nobody knows the answer doesn't mean we can invent one and impose it on others as the undisputably valid one.

    Leave a comment:


  • NO AMNESTY!!!
    replied
    S12: KollerKraut was raised Catholic, so don't expect anything but bull from that guy who cannot even help himself with his myriad of immigration problems, yet he is fast enough to advice others. He's messed up, it's best to ignore him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    and ole sourkraut promptly demonstrates why bible thumpers cannot engage in a debate....they have no ammunition except the book of dogma....

    Leave a comment:


  • Kollerkrot
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Someone12:
    when bible thumpers are asked to defend their 'opinions' on creationism or evolution, (and many others) all they can do is find some quote from the book of dogma....none have an original thought in that cleansed-out space between their ears....the bible is for those who cannot (or will not) think...there are far too many inconsistencies that would (should) leave a reader ready to believe and follow without variance all the blather in that collection of stories.....for example, how many bible thumpers follow to the letter everything written in Leviticus???? None. Most dogmatic believers will then try to defend that position by claiming that the bible is open to interpretation and that it wasn't written to cope with 21st century cultures....huh??? wasn't it supposedly written/suggested by their favorite deity???? Wouldn't that deity have had the foreknowledge to draft his/her memos to match any century???? And if this collection of dogma is open to interpretation (but usually only by those who have the 'inside' track to whatever god was thinking while in front of the word processor), well, I can interpret it anyway I choose, and I choose to label it under the 'nonsense' category (and could choose even more negative categories)....thump thummp thump.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You just go and stick with your Pure Abstract Potential then. I'll stick with mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    when bible thumpers are asked to defend their 'opinions' on creationism or evolution, (and many others) all they can do is find some quote from the book of dogma....none have an original thought in that cleansed-out space between their ears....the bible is for those who cannot (or will not) think...there are far too many inconsistencies that would (should) leave a reader ready to believe and follow without variance all the blather in that collection of stories.....for example, how many bible thumpers follow to the letter everything written in Leviticus???? None. Most dogmatic believers will then try to defend that position by claiming that the bible is open to interpretation and that it wasn't written to cope with 21st century cultures....huh??? wasn't it supposedly written/suggested by their favorite deity???? Wouldn't that deity have had the foreknowledge to draft his/her memos to match any century???? And if this collection of dogma is open to interpretation (but usually only by those who have the 'inside' track to whatever god was thinking while in front of the word processor), well, I can interpret it anyway I choose, and I choose to label it under the 'nonsense' category (and could choose even more negative categories)....thump thummp thump....

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X