there's other drugs I'd legalise before pot
one issue I do have with it is just how much stronger your modern weed is compared to back when it became popular
lots of baby boomers or early gen x folks like to talk legalisation when they haven't smoked in decades and don't understand how utterly, tit-rippingly potent current shit is - I reckon they may change attitudes if they punched a few cones today
still nothing from mkfs. plastic christianops:
we will loose
You unable to see my post 40 mins before this one???Originally Posted by snake
still nothing from mkfs. plastic christian
aye. hydro grown shit is ridiculous, as well as the even more potent still things like shatter. it's by no means going to kill you but it's not as minor as it once was.
Too busy cherry picking which rules to followstill nothing from mkfs. plastic christian
images.jpg
#plasticjesus
Parksey would marry my dogs in a heart beat.
If you guys want serious answers to religious questions, then ask them in the religion thread and I will endeavour to answer them. The religious numptiness used to ridicule MFKS here is pretty amateur for intelligent people who see the value in understanding scientific systems.
religiontherein lies the problemscientific systems
i'm stayin' out of it
No that's not a problem for me at all. Who do you think first proposed the Big Bang Theory?
If I knew the answer to that, there'd be no more suffering that infernal TV programme.
yes yes, lemaitre did, and he was a priest
he also firmly believed in the separation of the lab and the church, and wanted his scientific theories to be judged exclusively on their physical merit, keeping metaphysical implications completely separate
I simply see all these digs at MFKS on here over the last few pages about evolution as if his belief or not in evolution proves something about him or religion, or the assumption that a Christian cannot also be a scientist, or that religion and science are incompatible. Which is bollocks. The many, many Christians who are also scientists can validate that, throughout history in fact. The fact that Lemaitre wanted to keep his studies purely in the scientific realm is a logical position, because that is where it belongs (and it prevents the possibility of house arrest)
hauss - the reason we pick on mkfs is because he uses religious arguments to take an irrational position on gay marriage (hence politics thread).
i take particular interest where he says he doesn't accept evolution, because developing the theory of our origin and our relationships with the living world is one of humanities crowning achievements. and it's not just a nice theory - it's also incredibly useful. its framework and predictions is actually worth a lot of money to the economy, and we owe in part, the quality of our life to it. beyond that, it's also at the point that it's plain fact. only the ignorant can deny that.
as for your comments or religious scientists. i've met a few, but not many. every example has the same beginning - they were raised into it. they say they think there's no contradiction, but in reality, they're only cheating themselves imo. how can they live their professional life by evidenced-based principles, and turn it off on a sunday morning to hear zombie stories? i can't respect that.
will add more later - i'm off for dinner
we will loose
Pretty small sample size to reach the conclusion you have.
Just how does this scientific method work anyhow? Can you use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the only way to discover truth? If you can do that, I'm sold.
And for the record, to call my religion "zombie stories" is really ****ing insulting, but I guess you already knew that. Those people who say that this politics discussion over gay marriage has been good natured are fooling themselves.
Last edited by tha_hauss; 05-06-2015 at 09:23 PM.
To be fair our track record compared to our biggest competitor on this issue (ISIS) is pretty good.
Sadly religion and politics are intertwined that's why the marriage equality issue has sparked these tangents.
Anyway care to chuck your opinion in on gay marriage while you're ere?
it's quite simple
you observe, come up with a theory, then test
if the observations you test don't match the theory, you are wrong and you need to re-think
simple
so to answer your question - the scientific method isn't saying it's the only way, but by using the scientific method itself to analyse itself, if it wasn't the best way you would replace it with whatever way you can come up with that's better
there is quite a bit of philosophical discussion on the scientific method, in particular on it's shortcomings - so far no one has come up with anything better but the important part here is that people, including snake and myself, have an open mind to it
lol, now we're talking about the scientific method?
The scientific method is based on "best practice" logic and rationality. As boz alluded to, it's not a perfect system, and depending on whose version of it you go by it could all be wrong, but **** me if it isn't the best we've got to go by.
As for christian scientists, yes it's nothing new. I know lots of scientists who believe in kooky shit, like homeopathy, chiropratic medicine, chinese medicine etc. and it doesn't make any of that any less stupid.
My kids doctor thinks the Jets are good.
total whack job.
taking my kid to a new doctor.
Firstly my position is not irrational.
It is my opinion. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it irrational.
I don't agree with your opinion but that doesn't make it irrational. You feel the way you do for whatever reasons you do. That's fine your welcome to do so
As for my thoughts on Evolution I believe in the good book. Evolution and the good book clash in their views.
I go with what I have chosen to accept and embrace.
You on the other go with the Evolution belief at the expense of the good book.
You go with what you have chosen to accept and embrace.
One thing that does concern me though is your claim that it is FACT.
It was once FACT that the world was flat. Look how that panned out
It is believed to be correct by some would be a better way of putting it.
boz has covered this. it's a system of continual questioning and testing. weeding out hypotheses that don't work, and challenging those that (for now) do.
if that's not enough for you, have a think about how we are having this discussion. what system made it possible? actually, try and think about any part of your life that hasn't been improved by the scientific method. my initial suspicion is that perhaps other than a sense of wellbeing from your belief in a deity, you won't come up with one. if you think you do, think a little deeper. i'd be interested to hear if you think there's any exemptions.
it's only insulting because you've been told it's sacrosanct. but why? why should one set of ideas (hypothesis) be exempt from any form of scrutiny? because they don't hold up to any serious scrutiny?And for the record, to call my religion "zombie stories" is really ****ing insulting, but I guess you already knew that. Those people who say that this politics discussion over gay marriage has been good natured are fooling themselves.
breaking the jesus resurrection myth doen into its modern day equivolent was meant to highlight its ridiculousness.
you're catholic, right? i could mention a few things i find insulting about that group...
we will loose
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote