RE: Argument against atheism
December 23, 2011 at 9:19 pm
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 9:34 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I cant make this any more plain to you. The things that I call facts are based on the production of results, not axioms or assumptions.
You're again trying to smuggle "truth" into science. I've already explained why this is inappropriate. You want to make it so because otherwise what is largely non-cognitive shit becomes irrelevant non-cognitive shit.
Speaking of perspective, nueroscience has done more to explain our perspective in the last fifty years than philosophy accomplished in hundreds of thousands......I hope you aren't referring to anything we've discussed here as "deep thought"...fuzzy thought maybe, deep thought...no.
Your harmful addiction..hehehe, allowing yourself to spend considerable amounts of time offering credibility to fuzzy concepts without appearing to bother to check and see if they have real world analogs, or if those fuzzy concepts are already handled by real world applications. Creating definitions for things so as to make a "philosophical argument" when the only argument that exists is one over your definitions. What exactly do you think I've been on about all this time? All this time in which you have not once attempted to address my initial concern, and instead decided to bait me into a conversation about science which you turned into exactly the thing I criticized you for in the first place.
You're again trying to smuggle "truth" into science. I've already explained why this is inappropriate. You want to make it so because otherwise what is largely non-cognitive shit becomes irrelevant non-cognitive shit.
Speaking of perspective, nueroscience has done more to explain our perspective in the last fifty years than philosophy accomplished in hundreds of thousands......I hope you aren't referring to anything we've discussed here as "deep thought"...fuzzy thought maybe, deep thought...no.
Your harmful addiction..hehehe, allowing yourself to spend considerable amounts of time offering credibility to fuzzy concepts without appearing to bother to check and see if they have real world analogs, or if those fuzzy concepts are already handled by real world applications. Creating definitions for things so as to make a "philosophical argument" when the only argument that exists is one over your definitions. What exactly do you think I've been on about all this time? All this time in which you have not once attempted to address my initial concern, and instead decided to bait me into a conversation about science which you turned into exactly the thing I criticized you for in the first place.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
