(July 29, 2017 at 5:49 am)Succubus Wrote:

(July 28, 2017 at 9:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Thomas Nagel is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th Century. His paper, "What is It Like to be A Bat" was an important contribution to philosophy of mind and is required reading in classes on the subject. Before you start accusing other people of ignorance, you might try reading a book. YouTube is not a substitute for actual study from original sources.

Regarding the highlight: if philosophers would only stick to that sort of shite then I wouldn't have a word of criticism, crack on lads, fill your boots. But this>

"Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False"

He can fuck right off. What's his opinion on thermodynamics, or drug resistant tuberculosis, plasma physics? The moment these characters step outside of their niche they should be kicked in the shins and thrown into a pond.

I evaluate ideas on there merits not the identity of those who have them. Regardless, Nagel is more than qualified to discuss the relationship between the quantitative inquiries of natural science and the qualitative inquires of teleology, value, and experience. If what you say is true then people trained only in the natural sciences would be barred from contributing to any discussions about ethics, aesthetics, linguistics, or logic.

(July 29, 2017 at 12:33 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(July 29, 2017 at 5:49 am)Succubus Wrote: Regarding the highlight: if philosophers would only stick to that sort of shite then I wouldn't have a word of criticism, crack on lads, fill your boots. But this>

"Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False"

He can fuck right off. What's his opinion on thermodynamics, or drug resistant tuberculosis, plasma physics? The moment  these characters step outside of their niche they should be kicked in the shins and thrown into a pond.

I evaluate ideas on there merits not the identity of those who have them. Regardless, Nagel is more than qualified to discuss the relationship between the quantitative inquiries of natural science and the qualitative inquires of teleology, value, and experience. If what you say is true then people trained only in the natural sciences would be barred from contributing to any discussions about ethics, aesthetics, linguistics, or logic.

I normally don't do this in reply to things unless I'm playing along with a running joke, but...well, just this once, here's a pic retort.

(July 29, 2017 at 1:49 pm)Astonished Wrote:

(July 29, 2017 at 12:33 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I evaluate ideas on there merits not the identity of those who have them. Regardless, Nagel is more than qualified to discuss the relationship between the quantitative inquiries of natural science and the qualitative inquires of teleology, value, and experience. If what you say is true then people trained only in the natural sciences would be barred from contributing to any discussions about ethics, aesthetics, linguistics, or logic.

I normally don't do this in reply to things unless I'm playing along with a running joke, but...well, just this once, here's a pic retort.

  You don't have any!

(August 3, 2017 at 10:38 pm)Godscreated Wrote:

(July 29, 2017 at 1:49 pm)Astonished Wrote: I normally don't do this in reply to things unless I'm playing along with a running joke, but...well, just this once, here's a pic retort.

  You don't have any!

Your mom sucked 'em right off. Tell her I expect them cleaned and pressed and on my desk by Friday morning or she owes me anal again, I don't want her getting knocked up again. One of you was too many.

(July 29, 2017 at 10:30 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Science is the study of the physical world, and religion deals with the spiritual realm. Trying to explain things in the physical world through religion is barking up the wrong tree. Just as trying to explain something that deals with spirituality or the supernatural by using the scientific method. I don't expect the existence of God or angels, etc, to be proven through science because those things are not of the physical world and can't be tested.

Except where those things are supposed to affect reality. Then those effects should be at least detectable. Tell me there's an undetectable angel sitting on my shoulder and I don't care. Say that it controls the weather or something and I'm going to ask you how you can know that.

(August 4, 2017 at 6:10 am)Cyberman Wrote:

(July 29, 2017 at 10:30 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Science is the study of the physical world, and religion deals with the spiritual realm. Trying to explain things in the physical world through religion is barking up the wrong tree. Just as trying to explain something that deals with spirituality or the supernatural by using the scientific method. I don't expect the existence of God or angels, etc, to be proven through science because those things are not of the physical world and can't be tested.

Except where those things are supposed to affect reality. Then those effects should be at least detectable. Tell me there's an undetectable angel sitting on my shoulder and I don't care. Say that it controls the weather or something and I'm going to ask you how you can know that.

To add to that, I'd recommend reading (that part of it is pretty short) Richard Dawkins' bit from his book The God Delusion about Steven J. Gould's NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) concept and its shortcomings.

My husband started to read the God Delusion and said it was trash.

Idiots trying to attack idiots. I am wondering who is less idiotic at this point, I know it is assuredly not the theist . . .

By the way, Brian, I did watch the whole video. Good stuff. I'd be interested in watching one also that focuses more on the evolution of humans.

(August 4, 2017 at 5:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: My husband started to read the God Delusion and said it was trash.

Did he happen to say why or what about it was trash? Otherwise it just sounds like the kind of bias that proves the point Dawkins was making.