Later than sooner...I would hope. :)Quote:
We shall see.
Printable View
Later than sooner...I would hope. :)Quote:
We shall see.
Absolutely. And it'll be interesting to see what the next generation of thinkers has to offer, as well as how it might affect the views of those who came before.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
~BB~
I'm not sure there's much to be said on the issue of belief in the gods. The evidence against is been fairly definitive. There is not much one can use either hypothesis for. No scientific paper ever uses the hypothesis, "There are no gods," and no scientific paper ever starts out, "Let's assume there is at least one god." Once an intelligent person dispenses with the question there's not much more to say...unless you're Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens. IMO most of their useful discourse relating to the subject was about the evil effects of belief rather the issue of whether to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
Would you count Sean Carrol or P.Z. Myers as among the newer generation of atheists?
I love this site!!!
See this is why you have to open most threads - who knew with this threads title, that it was an interesting debate on race and religion.
As to the OP - lap dancers don't usually kiss, the illusion that they might is part of the play.
I'm actually not familiar with them. I don't consider us as being in a post-Dawkins generation of thought yet, and so I'm sort of tuned out of the debate at the moment. I just haven't had the time. I'm waiting for the next big thing. I'll look into them, though. Thanks for the suggestion. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
~BB~
fuck it
im kissing the tranny
You can approach the question about Gods/God from a different perspective by taking the philosophical path and asking questions such as "Why is there something instead of nothing" or "Why do I exist..." which throws up numerous paths of enquiry, scientific and philosophical. There can be NO proof of God's existence. In the end all believers talk of the leap of faith - hat unbridgeable gap. A recent and excellent book on these questions was "Why Does The World Exist" by a New Yorker writer called Jim Holt (science is his discipline) in which he talked to many leading scientific, religious and philosophical thinkers to come up with a range of thoughts and questions. It is good in that itis intellectually rigorous, well written and, in each of these disciplines, offers an explication which does not exclude those without prior specalist knowledge. Highly recommended.
Why is there something instead of nothing? Because if there were nothing, no thing could ask the question, “Why is there nothing instead of something?”
Why do we exist? Because we’re the only ones who can make the super heavy elements.
Why do I exist? That was a mistake.
I'm curious as to what counts as an answer to a why-question.
You can ask, “Why don’t you eat breakfast?” And the acceptable answers run along the lines of, “I don’t have time in the morning,” or “Food makes me nauseous when I just get up,” or “All I need is a cappuccino and I’m good.”
You can ask, “Why did the shooting in Newtown happen?” The answers range from, “The shooter was a maladjusted sociopath with an available arsenal who was seeking attention,” to “God was punishing the people of Connecticut for accepting homosexuals into their fold.” These answers may not be found acceptable by everyone, but they have the form of an answer to a why-question. They attempt to answer the question, “Why this?” by showing how “this” meets a goal or fulfills an intended function.
Why don’t I eat breakfast? The question speaks to my intentions and dispositions. Do I have intentions that take precedence over eating breakfast? Is there some about breakfast that predisposes me against it?
Why the horrible tragedy in Newtown? The possible answers speak to the intentions and goals of the people that range from the shooter, to gun manufacturers, politicians and God.
Can we ever answer a why-question without referring to someone or some agent’s intentions, dispositions and goals? Do why-questions ask specifically for a teleological answer? If so, it is always reasonable to presume they have a matter-of-fact answer? Do they not always presume a teleological answer is possible and thereby sometimes lure us into error?
(By the way, the Holt book is on my wish list and I hope eventually to get around to reading it. Thanks for recommendation Prospero)
Not kissing your favorite t-girl is like not using a car in case you get in a wreck! You need to get where you're going!
Even with confusing negatives and improper syntax, I think I get what you're saying.
Wow! I must not drive much. I been in this a minute and I can count the girls I've lip locked on one hand. What if the car locks you out???
i always use a condom on my head while driving..and never touch the steering wheel without latex gloves/
Yeah...ummm... You probably shouldn't kiss ANYONE! I'm thinking you need those sex machines from Demolition Man-- no yucky bodily fluids!Quote:
Originally Posted by sheyum
Thanks for the recommended read Prospero. I just ordered the book tonight, hopefully I will like it enough that I will be able to recommend it to my kids as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
[quote=RyderMonroe;1288243]Hey - your mom's hot!Quote:
Originally Posted by doctor screw
I'm all about confusing negatives and improper syntax - or why not? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sucka4chix