South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

June 23, 2017, 12:15:28 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Atheist Kids (split)

 (Read 6063 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2010, 09:04:15 AM »

Quote from: Gogtjop
Nah. Can't be arsed. I guess you win, right? Here, have another cookie.

LMAO!!!!  Grin Grin Grin
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2010, 11:27:06 AM »

It depends on how many decay-prone particles one is considering.  One cannot predict when, or even if, any one particular particle will decay.  Nor is there any known force or influence that one can subject it to in order to produce, hasten or delay a decay event.  On the other hand, if one considers a large collection of similar decay-prone particles, there are simple statistical laws that govern the collection, the principal parameter of which is the so-called half-life.  This quantity tells us how long it takes for half the particles in the sample to decay, but not which ones they are.  These laws become more and more certain as the number of particles in the sample increases, and, conversely, less and less certain as their number diminishes.  When the sample is down to a few tens of particles, the statistical half-life formulation is practically unusable and unreliable.  

Is there a cause to it or are these acausal features of reality? Would you put it in the same scientific manner as rwenzori does... tada "sh|t happens?

If one asserts that consciousness cannot be split from physical structure and functioning (which I do), then yes.
Define "physical structure" and what you understand it to be.
Define consciousness and what you understand it to be.
Give an explanation for everyday goal-directed behaviour by making use of your own terms and how you understand "physical structure".

I am also not sure you know what dualism (just like philosophical materialism and naturalism) is. Perhaps you can describe it in your own words just so that we can both understand each other and be on the same page.
Win what? Nobody wins when one claims a loss or victory out of ignorance. So I am going to apply a bit of new atheist logic here if you don't mind:
There is no evidence that you are able to define and understand the above mentioned concepts, therefore there no need to believe you are knowledgable about them.

Where is bitchy and moany complaining about how others are evading questions?


« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 11:40:07 AM by Teleological » Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2010, 12:19:13 PM »

Quote from: Teleological
Where is bitchy and moany complaining about how others are evading questions?

Oh, Oh, is that me?  Evil

Gogtjop, stop feeding Teleological biscuits and answer the question, don't be so evasive{{Slaps Gogtjop on the wrist}}  Grin Grin Grin

Teleological, have you considered the fact that Gogtjop is not answering your questions because he doesn't want to get drawn into a fruitless,long winded discussion with you, that will ultimately end up with everyone calling each other names.

Psssst, in case you haven't noticed, you tend to bring out the worst in people.
 
Besides, feeding you biscuits and patting you on your head is much more pleasant way of dealing with you.
 
XOXOX
{{Hugs and Kisses}}

Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2058



« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2010, 12:24:16 PM »

Quote from: Teleological
Where is bitchy and moany complaining about how others are evading questions?

Oh, Oh, is that me?  Evil

Gogtjop, stop feeding Teleological biscuits and answer the question, don't be so evasive{{Slaps Gogtjop on the wrist}}  Grin Grin Grin

Teleological, have you considered the fact that Gogtjop is not answering your questions because he doesn't want to get drawn into a fruitless,long winded discussion with you, that will ultimately end up with everyone calling each other names.

Psssst, in case you haven't noticed, you tend to bring out the worst in people.
 
Besides, feeding you biscuits and patting you on your head is much more pleasant way of dealing with you.
 
XOXOX
{{Hugs and Kisses}}


LMAO

I'm generally a very loveable person too. I'll add my lovies and huggies to this thread.

{{{{{*****}}}}}}}
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2010, 12:33:59 PM »

Quote from: Teleological
Where is bitchy and moany complaining about how others are evading questions?

Oh, Oh, is that me?  Evil

Gogtjop, stop feeding Teleological biscuits and answer the question, don't be so evasive{{Slaps Gogtjop on the wrist}}  Grin Grin Grin

Teleological, have you considered the fact that Gogtjop is not answering your questions because he doesn't want to get drawn into a fruitless,long winded discussion with you, that will ultimately end up with everyone calling each other names.

Psssst, in case you haven't noticed, you tend to bring out the worst in people.
 
Besides, feeding you biscuits and patting you on your head is much more pleasant way of dealing with you.
 
XOXOX
{{Hugs and Kisses}}


Greaaat, now it is my fault if people have bad sides and showing it. Where is the love man, think...
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2010, 12:43:05 PM »

Quote from: Teleological
think...

Not today, it's Friday.....tralalalalalala

I'm in the mood for spreading love, Telly old bean..... Grin

Here, have another biscuit and lots more hugs

XOXOXOXOXOXOX
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2010, 13:29:13 PM »

There is no evidence that you are able to define and understand the above mentioned concepts, therefore there no need to believe you are knowledgable about them.

Sure, chief. I'm out of Romany Creams, but I'm sure I can dig up a stale Marie for you?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +58/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3665


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2010, 16:23:59 PM »

Is there a cause to it or are these acausal features of reality? Would you put it in the same scientific manner as rwenzori does... tada "sh|t happens?
As far as we know, individual decay events, whether particle or radioactive, are completely spontaneous and unpredictable.  As mentioned before, “{there is no} known force or influence that one can subject {a decay-prone particle} to in order to produce, hasten or delay a decay event.”  That means we lack understanding of a cause for such events, if there even is one.  Indeed, to the best of our present knowledge, decay has no cause and is truly random.  Nonetheless, the degree of decay proneness of matter can be characterised in terms of its half-life, which quantity can be viewed as an inverse measure of its propensity for decay: the shorter the half-life, the more “eager” a particle is to decay, i.e. the more probable it is to decay within a given period of time.

While generally unwelcome in science, the “coprophanetetical hypothesis” is at present what best accounts for individual decay events (and certain other subatomic phenomena).

'Luthon64
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.351 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 30, 2017, 08:49:04 AM
Privacy Policy