(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.
![[Image: Gt+he+forgot+to+pull+the+cap+on+the+firs...c50683.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=static4.fjcdn.com%2Fcomments%2FGt%2Bhe%2Bforgot%2Bto%2Bpull%2Bthe%2Bcap%2Bon%2Bthe%2Bfirst%2Bone%2B_ebd1e820a770bc105c716aaf7bc50683.jpg)
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
