|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Apr 11, 2005 6:55:03 GMT -8
I second what Joe(y) and Tex said...this thread is past its expiration date. Yes, the milk has turned sour, but if Christopher, the creator, stirs some chocolate into this milk then, who knows... This thread could make an incredible revival, rising from the dead to most popular off-topic thread outside of those popular hot-picture posting threads... ;D Hmmm, maybe someone should combine these two threads making a thread which features "hot" religious pictures, like competeting photos for the best nude pic of Mary (or Jesus). Or how about the actress who portayed the other Mary. Or what about the best "moment of the conception" picture for Mary's famous child... That should be one awesome picture ;D I kind of missed some of the creative name-calling and wishing parts (eat s***) How wrong was I, what position does Conan and El Cid come at in your list, did they just miss the cut? -Carlton
|
|
|
Post by Jangles on Apr 11, 2005 12:51:46 GMT -8
Carlton, shut the hell up already
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Apr 11, 2005 15:36:30 GMT -8
Carlton, shut the hell up already Ah, Go to heaven already ;D... And before you go here this. At this moment, Science can't prove everything. So to belive in something that Scence hasn't (fully) proven is to use faith (belief in someting with no/little proof), Yes this belief can be based on reason and logic, but then we'd have to talk about "proof". And I don't want to enter in that "gaming universe" ;D Okay, I've gone to hell, (I'm sure the Mary post has sent me there; its purpose was to end this post), so I will shut the hell up... unless the devil has released a version of the "holy spirit" ;D -CG
|
|
|
Post by Jangles on Apr 11, 2005 15:41:43 GMT -8
You are NOT shutting up Carlton ;D Next time before you hit the "post" button, don't.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Apr 18, 2005 3:17:48 GMT -8
So to belive in something that Scence hasn't (fully) proven is to use faith (belief in someting with no/little proof), Yes this belief can be based on reason and logic, but then we'd have to talk about "proof". For the last time, Carlton, BELIEF doesn't enter into it. No good scientist should ever fully accept a theory, should ever have complete conviction -- that's why it's called a THEORY! It's called a theory even if it's supported by hundreds of thousands of facts and findings (as the theory of evolution is), because there's always the chance, remote though it may be, that it might be disproven. It's merely a working model, temporarily in place until a better one is devised. It's a scientist's job to question existing theory -- he mustn't believe. As Douglas Adams said in his interview with American Atheist, which I quoted in my VERY FIRST post in this thread, dammit:
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Apr 20, 2005 2:15:53 GMT -8
For the last time, Carlton I believe that you already said this in post 199. I also believe that you were a little premature, so bring out the Devil and some scandalous pictures next time... ;D ... Why shouldn't any good scienctist ever fully accept a theory? Can the answer, and the reasoning behind it, be used to support my intial leap of faith statement... Also, you stated that no scientist should fully accept a theory, but scientist do accept theories to help them explain, predict, and experiment, even if the theories are incomplete or inadequate at times. If they didn't accept it, they could only try to disprove it, whereas, if they accepted it, they could try to prove it and develop useful working models... Look at QM or the theory of evolution, at this moment "good" scientist accept these theories. Yes, these scientist are willing to disprove, discard, or repair certain aspects of these theories, if the evidence compels them to do so, but at the present time, scientist accept this theories, until the moment when they are adequately proven wrong by the cogency of evidence. If scientest didn't accept theories like evolution and QM, then they would be just like the creationist. I'm not saying that scientist have to absolutely accept these theories, but there is some level of acceptace on their part. Note, when I have used the word accept, I was reffering to Websters defintion-3. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Main Entry: ac·cept 3: to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable: to recognize as true: BELIEVE But what if the evidence compels him to accept (believe) the theory... He must accept it. -Carlton (whose looking forward to the pictures or name-calling)
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Apr 20, 2005 5:02:45 GMT -8
SHUT UP ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!
This topic will be locked if it continues to outlive its usefulness.
|
|