1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: January 11, 2009, 01:34:25 PM »

yes, but specifically human targets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
your teeling me this was meant to go skeet shooting with

that is the only kind of target shooting there is?
And if you only get your knowledge from wiki then you will never learn anything

No, there is also person shooting, which is what I said before that started this tangent of retardation.

SO you have a choice of either shooting clay or people, nithing else. Damn not wonder the murder rate is so high someone should invent something new to shoot at, like oh I dont know some sort of paper with concentric rings on it, and then maybe someone could figure out a way to judge ones ability based on trying to hit the smallest circle possible. I guess just wishful thinking on my part though I guess I will have to stick to people

oh, im sorry, and didn't realize that i had said: no, there are people and only people...

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion in the 21st century

« on: January 11, 2009, 01:30:05 PM »

In the future, try being correct in all your posts before you start posting.

maybe you should tell this to FEers...
Also, how could I be correct in multiple posts before ever posting? are you having causality issues?

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: January 11, 2009, 01:27:58 PM »

yes, but specifically human targets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
your teeling me this was meant to go skeet shooting with

that is the only kind of target shooting there is?
And if you only get your knowledge from wiki then you will never learn anything

No, there is also person shooting, which is what I said before that started this tangent of retardation.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: January 11, 2009, 01:19:20 PM »

yes, but specifically human targets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
your teeling me this was meant to go skeet shooting with

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: January 11, 2009, 01:13:23 PM »

Were they built for the purpose of petting bunny rabbits? Other than hunting use, what are they used for?

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Did you know that NASA had a giant "moon ball"?

« on: January 11, 2009, 01:01:40 PM »

It's not that you're right, it's that you can't be proven wrong.

So if I were to say that there is a god, and that he is a flying pizza monster, its all right because I cant be proven wrong? the burden of truth should be on those makeing statements, ie: The earth is flat. If I were to say that the Earth dosen't exist, the onus should be on me to give evidence of this. if it were shoddy evidence, then its all bullshit.

ps, the flying pizza monster joke i stole from south park, lol

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion in the 21st century

« on: January 11, 2009, 12:47:55 PM »

The real question is: why do people succumb to the god delusion? why would you believe with all your heart in something that the only reason you believe it is because thats what your parents believed? (You in general, not person-specific.) What makes people so sure about the factual accuracy of a book with no evidence for its accuracy, yet there is skeptism among these same people about quantifiable, substantiated science. Its called fear. As I believe fear will exist well into this century, so to may religion.

I don't see the phrase "tha vast majority" in here

I corrected myself in future posts.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Did you know that NASA had a giant "moon ball"?

« on: January 11, 2009, 12:33:47 PM »

i agree it has nothing to do with either of those things, it has to do with you telling us about a "moon ball" that NASA has.

I think you mean had. Not has. NASA saw fit to destroy the Moon Ball right after the Apollo missions.

so now we're simply asking for proof that you have that the lunar landings were faked.  and as you know tom, photos are a no no.

The moon ball and its components are evidence that it was intended to be filmed.

If you can come up with some other legit reason NASA would need a team of artists and designers to build a hyper-realistic moon ball and larger scale convex sections please enlighten us.

I find it interesting that your evidence for the moon ball is a mockumentary, and the reason none of us will find this moon ball is because nasa destroyed it. If i were to say that the true messiah was named Brian and my evidence was a Monty Python movie, and my explanation for why there is no other evidence is that Chrisitians destroyed it, would that make me right?

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion in the 21st century

« on: January 11, 2009, 12:12:36 PM »

Colonel Gaydafi, you are correct that there are converts. But, the vast majority of religious people inherited their beliefs from their parents.

Still makes that sentence incorrect.

How so?

It would only be correct if every religious person inherited their beliefs from their parents.

I explained though that what I meant was those who had inherited their religion, which is the vast majority. The sentence may still make no sense in its original form, but when I say the vast majority, it makes it correct.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Thoughts

« on: January 11, 2009, 12:09:51 PM »

ps: if u are ever blue, 9 x out of 10 u just read some Camus

Nah when you're blue you should just get rhythm

I got rhythm,
I got music,
I got my man --
Who could ask for anything more?

lol

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion in the 21st century

« on: January 11, 2009, 12:06:25 PM »

Colonel Gaydafi, you are correct that there are converts. But, the vast majority of religious people inherited their beliefs from their parents.

Still makes that sentence incorrect.

How so?

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: January 11, 2009, 12:05:49 PM »

the difference between cars and most blades (beside switchblades, swords, etc.) v. guns other than hunting rifles is that the former are built for non-vilont purposes, while most guns are built to kill people.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Art

« on: January 11, 2009, 12:00:30 PM »

All things are art. Art isn't to be decided by individuals or groups. The very fact that someone can argue something is art proves that thing is art.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Thoughts

« on: January 10, 2009, 09:43:49 PM »

Suicide is a natural idea. Anyone who says they havent thought about it is lying. I usually only think of it when I was about to stay up all night to do some sort of long essay, but thats more of silliness or laziness than actually being suicidal.

ps: if u are ever blue, 9 x out of 10 u just read some Camus

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Art

« on: January 10, 2009, 09:35:52 PM »

there is no such thing as original art. All art, and all thought in general, is built upon other things.

It's that kind of thinking that caused the U.S patent office to debate closing in the late 1800's because they believed everything had been invented. Variations are not the same as the original. Would you claim that the motorized car was not an original thought because it was based off the horse and buggy? Or what about electricity, or the telephone? To say that originality does not exist is to (ironically) play into the same cliche that every pseudo-intellectual hepcat has ever taken part in and quite frankly it's just lazy academia.

No, what I'm saying is that all things are built upon older things. Nobody just makes something radically different then everything. Thing develop, and are based on other things.

Please explain what a tv is based off of?

Radio, movies, etc.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Art

« on: January 10, 2009, 09:28:45 PM »

there is no such thing as original art. All art, and all thought in general, is built upon other things.

It's that kind of thinking that caused the U.S patent office to debate closing in the late 1800's because they believed everything had been invented. Variations are not the same as the original. Would you claim that the motorized car was not an original thought because it was based off the horse and buggy? Or what about electricity, or the telephone? To say that originality does not exist is to (ironically) play into the same cliche that every pseudo-intellectual hepcat has ever taken part in and quite frankly it's just lazy academia.

No, what I'm saying is that all things are built upon older things. Nobody just makes something radically different then everything. Thing develop, and are based on other things.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Did you know that NASA had a giant "moon ball"?

« on: January 10, 2009, 09:24:25 PM »

Nice strawman, and lrn2quote.
[/quote]

And nice on you, Mr. Strawman. And learn to spell.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Did you know that NASA had a giant "moon ball"?

« on: January 10, 2009, 09:22:02 PM »

Once again, RE proponents resort to their classic strategy of asking for...proof.

Is my theory composed entirely of fallacies? 

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Did you know that NASA had a giant "moon ball"?

« on: January 10, 2009, 09:20:14 PM »

Tom, I know this may be hard to believe but...

Giant moon ball =/= we never went to the moon
[/quote]

That is amazing logic, if there is a replica of something, we have never been there. Let me try: picture of new york skyline = humans have never set foot on manhattan island. model of human brain = brains do not exist. I am going to make a sculpture of you, because then maybe you would no longer exist.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Art

« on: January 10, 2009, 09:07:31 PM »

Obviously the splashed paint on canvs was art, because it sparked a fervent debate on what is art. What is art? Its something that makes someone think. There is no good, no bad. Art is art, the only way to scale it is by the amount of thinking and the passion in the though brought out by it. Also, there is no such thing as original art. All art, and all thought in general, is built upon other things.

21

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why would the devil exist if there was an omnipotent god?

« on: January 10, 2009, 08:57:22 PM »

All human actions (even those labeled "evil" or "good") are merely results of the brain chemistry and psychological state of the person doing those actions. And in the grand scheme of things, any action, event or happening of any sort is completely irrelevant anyways. There is no god or creator, and there is no imperative for the existence of the universe. Although I believe this to be the case, I still have a moral code of what is right or wrong. I believe that deriving morals from religion is harmful, because ultimately you are doing "good" things not because they are right, but because you think that you are being watched by some deity. Do you want to know what happens to humans after death? They become fertilizer. (Or in the case of cremation, they become an asthma-attack in an urn.)

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control

« on: January 10, 2009, 08:44:01 PM »

Getting back to gun control, it would be intresting to have a statistic on how many gun crimes are commited using legally-purchased weapons v. guns obtained via arms trafficking.

23

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion in the 21st century

« on: January 10, 2009, 08:28:25 PM »

Colonel Gaydafi, you are correct that there are converts. But, the vast majority of religious people inherited their beliefs from their parents.

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion in the 21st century

« on: January 09, 2009, 10:15:32 PM »

The real question is: why do people succumb to the god delusion? why would you believe with all your heart in something that the only reason you believe it is because thats what your parents believed? (You in general, not person-specific.) What makes people so sure about the factual accuracy of a book with no evidence for its accuracy, yet there is skeptism among these same people about quantifiable, substantiated science. Its called fear. As I believe fear will exist well into this century, so to may religion.

25

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Fictitious Forces

« on: January 09, 2009, 09:42:54 PM »

Is the earth rotating in FE, or just moving up?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How the Earth has been formed to become "Flat" ?

« on: January 09, 2009, 09:37:33 PM »

Einstein gave an explanation for gravity. He said that it isn't the attraction of two masses, so much as the curvature of spacetime causing the geometry of space to warp. He didn't say the Earth is moving upward and is flat and thats what causes the apparent existence of gravity. Why would he explain something that isn't the result of what he says? In fact, it seems that you have merely read a few articles on the subject, and you cut and pasted sentences together, while ommitting neccessary parts of the works you mention, preying on the public's ignorance of the works of Einstein. Also, you say in "Fictional Forces" that the reader should note the difference between gravity and gravitation, yet they are synonymous. Are you intentionally attempting to confuse less-learned readers?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How the Earth has been formed to become "Flat" ?

« on: January 09, 2009, 04:03:37 PM »

Einstein wasn't wrong, you have merely mangled and misrepresented his explanation of the warping of spacetime to fit your narrow-minded views.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How the Earth has been formed to become "Flat" ?

« on: January 08, 2009, 10:47:41 PM »

I got to give u FE's a hand. When I read that "Thus, since the force of gravity does not exist, we can conclude that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upward..."(from "Fictitious Forces") I just began laughing. The question I pose is this: do you guys honestly believe this, or is this a ruse from a brilliant comedy troupe?

29

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Fictitious Forces

« on: January 08, 2009, 10:25:36 PM »

Referring to page one, im confused. Are you saying that the earth is constantly accelerating in an upward fashion. If so what is the "force" responsible for this motion? It seems to e that these "fictitious" forces explain such phenomena as pull towards the ground better than your baseless "the earth is accelerating" notion.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Whole Flat Earth Thing

« on: January 08, 2009, 09:56:10 PM »

I'm new to this forum, and I was wondering: Why do you cling to the belief that the Earth is flat. Are you afraid of space and the nature of the universe? Are you stupified by the vastness of the Universe? Are you to self-focused to acknowledge you're mere nothingness in the grand scheme of things? Explain, what of the the Sun, the moon, the stars? What of the amazing images from the Hubble telescope? Let me guess, you also debate the existence of the atom and sub-atomic particles. You debate peoples seeing a curved Earth while on a plane as their senses deceiving them, yet your personal beliefs are probably hinged on the fact that the horizon is flat.  And plese don't respond to me by telling me to read other texts. Just give me a concise, to-the-facts response. Also, if the earth isn't round, why do you depict the earth as an ecliptical shape. Thats round, isn't it?