Not a TARDIS, but a Portaloo, aka TURDIS.
Not a TARDIS, but a Portaloo, aka TURDIS.
There might be reasons to get rid of that law, but this reason is stupid.
I'm certainly with you there. But to solve the problem, I think one has to look at the deeper causes and find out why it is that so many people become outsiders, who then end up hating the world and their society enough to want to kill indiscriminately. And I think it is necessary to have an open-minded discussion about *ALL* the issues, even gun ownership and -control, as well as issues like the increasing inequality, disenfranchisement and hopelessness that too many people feel trapped in. If people would talk to each other with an honest view to solve the problems, it would without a doubt be solved; what keeps this from happening must be nothing better than narrow, abysmal egotism. I think that is deeply shameful.
I was simply pointing out that there are things which science has so far been unable to explain.
- and you were implying that this somehow has a bearing on the veracity of your faith. That's OK with me - each individual has the responsibility for their own conscience and therefore the freedom to choose their own reasons. To me, the fact that science doesn't know everything is comforting - the joy of science lies in the discovery, not in the knowing.
I have studied the article about 'Our Lady of Akita'; but again, it does not offer anything for a scientist to work on. There is no coherent, logical hypothesis that leads to predictions which can be tested. Why would God or any other supernatural entity choose to make a statue produce tears? Why would he choose to cure one person om disease and not somebody else? It is not difficult to think of many, natural explanations - the church or monastry that own a weeping statue can make loads of money from the increased number of visitors, for example, and it is not difficult to make a statuse produce 'tears' by fitting thin tubes in the right place, and as the many revelations about child sex abuse by Catholic priests all over the world show, the Catholic church is not above such things.
You can try to attribute that I am somehow blinded by religion,...
Not necessarily - mabye you see something that I can't. But if you start to talk about science to a scientist, then you will be met with the arguments of a scientist.
I'm not the guy to which you replied. This may explain why your reply seems so confused.
Whatever - the same observation holds. After comparing this reply to your previous one, I can see that you are simply repeating the same statis arguments combined with the same attempts at spinning mine as ill-conceived. In short, you argue like a Jehovah's Witness and it seems disingenious. I'm willing to discuss subjects in both science and religion, but a discussion is not what we are having, and there is no point in continuing.
You're not going to get anywhere.
I knew already when I replied, that I wouldn't be able to convince you - but I think even a futile discussion can have a wider impact. If your well-meaning, but false ideas are not countered, some might think you have a point, which you don't.
What I'd like you to do is try to find an example or two written up in a proper peer-reviewed journal. You'll find it incredibly difficult.
Nope - it doesn't work like that. If you want you hypotheses to be taken serious, you work out the logic, design experiments, predict the outcome etc. No religious thinker has, as far as I know, ever done that and got a reliable result. Don't expect scientists to go and do your work for you; we have our own projects - that we are getting paid for doing.
Science, as it happens, is not the end of epistemology. Neither is it some static and unchanging thing necessarily beyond question.
Well, that is rather the point of science, isn't it? Scientific method is a tool by which we can improve our knowledge, false as it inevitably is, by cipping away the falsehoods and hopefully getting closer to some form of truth, that can actually be relied upon independently of whether any given individual actually believes in it or not. It is search for reality, if you will - as real as a brickwall.
I'm concerned that you've elevated science the same way a religious zealot would elevate some sacred texts.
I don't think you sincerely feel any concern about that, if I'm honest. You just trying to see if you can find a crack in my conviction, that you can pry open. But why don't you propose a better way of testing a hypothesis than the process known as the scientific method? Scientists are practical people - the Method is a tool, and we would all welcome one that is better.
There are things that no one can explain. Science doesn't have all the answers.
The link you give points to an advert for one of the many collections of miracle anecdotes that evangelical Christians like to read (and the Muslims, Jews, etc have their own versions, of course). The problem with such stories, nice as they are, is that they are not consistently reproducible. Every attempt at reproducing them fails - so, science has to conclude that the reasoning behind the story was wrong. There's no shame in that - scientists are proven wrong all the time, and usually don't mind too much. That is the thing about science and the scientific method: it can't prove that something is absolutely true, but it can definitely prove that something is false with absolute certainty. If your predictions based on your hypothesis fail, then your hypothesis is wrong in the absolute sense.
And of course there are lots of things nobody can ever explain - why did a lightning follow one rather than another of many equally possible paths? Science doesn't know, and nobody thinks they have all the answers - except the religious. It isn't desperately important for us to have absolute certainty about anything, except perhaps the scientific method; and even that one we only accept because there is no alternative. Scientists are doubters through and through, who positively revel in asking probing questions.
Surgical marketing messages are taken for granted on the Internet
This is quite startling news - I have never seen the word "surgical" used to mean "clumsy, useless". Novel, I grant.
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact. if you think the realms do interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about
Well, up to a point. Science has no opinion to offer about whether there is a god or God, but science can and must offer input on any testable claims made by any religion. So far all statements saying that God does something real have tested false. Now, as a very open minded scientist, you still have to say "we don't know if God exists", but I think it is a very reasonable position to take, as a scientist, that since all positive statements about God's reality have been disproven, then he probably doesn't exist in any real sense.
The other part of your claim is also dubious, I think. You seem to claim that morality comes from God: "religion tells you how to live in the world". It is the other way around, actually: we have evolved certain moral behavious, because it gave us better chances of surviving as a social species, and our ideas of God are likely to spring from that as the ultimate 'because'. In a sense, God didn't create us, we created Him.
"Give me Dick Cheney strapped to a folding table and a pitcher of water, and in 5 minutes I'll get him to confess to the Manson Family murders."
It would also make for an excellent reality tv show. I'm in favour.
Trump says her face is a form of waterboarding.
Which leads us to the question: what kind of atrocity is Trump's face? Or are we getting into something too horrible to discuss even on slashdot?
From the list of languages I suspect that the ones he design are built largely around Indo-European (all of the languages are from that family, except Arabic), which is a little disappointing. It was the same even in LotR - you would hope a linguist would be better placed than most to look around in to world of languages, of which there are apparently some 7000+, and find some inspiration.
We've had an anti-government undertone basically since the nation was founded.
Interesting. I read an article a few days agout some research about this - it seems that this increasing polarisation in the US has coincided with the deregulation of the press some time in the 90es; you probably know a lot more about it than I do. But it seems quite plausible to me that since it sells more papers/attracts more viewers, the media see their advantage in stoking the fires of controversy, which would explain why there seems to be such a lot of vitriolic idiots on American tv.
I could see Trump getting elected on name appeal alone.
Scary. I suppose I shouldn't mind, living in UK, because a primitive schoolyard bully like Trump will make the Chinese less interested in dealing with the US, and hence more interested in cultivating relations with UK; but it really pains me to see how America is sinking further and further down into this quagmire. Americans are good people, in general, and deserve better.
Nothing to do with me; I'm from Denmark. We may have discovered America, but didn't get involved in the later stages.
What's wrong with voting for a self-confessed ex-drunk?
Perhaps nothing - but it illustrates how little American voters actually care about real issues. Alcoholism, or any other form of drug addiction, is not something that simply goes away, nor is it something that you can easily shrug off. I think, if people cared about what kind of person became president, they would have taken an interest, since it strikes as important to know whether the guy has actually kicked the habit, or just replaced it with something else. I don't mean this in a hostile sense - but the US would not be well served by a Yeltsin-type of president.
Dear me, what is actually wrong with Americans and their politics? Maybe you guys need a Jeremy Corbyn to change the tone - somebody who has the temerity to shuffle along in slippers and speak plainly, but politely about things that actually matter to people. I thought it was amazing to watch him during the first PMQ - no jeering, no cheap point scoring. You can respect a guy like that.
How much does it actually matter that she sent some emails from her home server? And before you get into hysterical overdrive, remember that the people of America actually elected a self-confessed ex-drunk like GWB into that office, and got perilously close to letting Sarah Palin into power. And there are people right now who seriously consider voting for a windbag like mr Trump. So, how much of this email hype is actually about the seriousness of having been a bit lax with her emails, and how much is about trying to paint her in a bad light no matter what the objective reality is?
It is no wonder that all your politicians seem to be somewhat out of contact with the real world, because nobody in possession of their full, mental capabilities would voluntarily subject themselves to the sort of treatment they get from the press and the lobbies - with the willing, not to say eager participation of You the People. As a side note, next time anybody from the US suggests that 'Democracy' should be introduced in country X, remember that the way you do those things does not look all that attractive to foreigners.
"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer