Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Stop Trying So Hard To Look Nonchalant!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Luis Hamburgh on April 24, 2002 03:53:16 UTC


>>>"Yes, that is exactly what you would think if you believed everyone followed the the urges of their id!"

First, to an extent everyone follows the urges of their "id." Without that function labeled the "id," we'd all die.

Second, the fault in your ideas stems from the nature of your examination. You use reductionist math to compare holism and reductionism, and somehow cannot see why this is doomed to favor reductionism. Do you deny being a reductionist?

You conclude that you have uncovered some fantastic "fact," a fact that no one else has discovered (and, incidentally, that no reputable scientific establishment acknowledges). You claim you will someday be recognized as a great genius with an insight far beyond that of anyone else alive today. After all, no one else seems to be capable of seeing what glorious revelations you have unearthed!

(For the interested third party -- Dick really believes this, and says as much, in earnest. Read his paper.)

Richard, the sad fact is you've invested your life in nothing more than an elaborate reiteration of Zeno's Paradox.

>>>"I am afraid your respect is worth very little in my book considering the fact that you are apparently incapable of thinking anything out."

Your actions contradict your words. You responded at length to my criticism, and in less than an hour! I seemed to have hit a nerve (as usual). Hell, a child could see you're bothered by my opinions. Indeed Dick, if my views were so trivial, then why have you bothered to respond at all?


>>>"You give no evidence of thinking at all."

Why are you so concerned with responding to a person who apparently does not think at all?

I'd pit my intelligence against yours any day. I'm curious -- has yours ever been measured? Does another bit of that transparently daunted personality of yours reject IQ tests? It would certainly come as no surprise to me.

But then, of course, it really doesn't matter what I think, right? (I'm sure had I not interjected this notion you'd be soon bending over backwards convincing me of such.)

Don't have a stroke trying to peck out a response right away, old man. I'll probably check back in a week or so.

I do enjoy pushing your buttons! :)

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins