Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

I personally feel that if something needs the word "science" tacked onto it, it's not really science. I barely let people who study a subject with the suffix -ology count themselves as scientists.

Oh the snobbery of a physicist.

Physicists are just trying to hide their lack of answers behind a field of study where it's ok not to be able to prove something. If they were really smart they'd be mathematicians.

When physicists don't know what to do with an equation, they go to the mathematicians who laugh at them because they've had this **** figured out for decades.

I dunno my husband seems to think I do all right.

Is this some kind of Schrödinger's husband scenario, except instead of dead cats, there are floppy **************
LOLed

Nilatai's a girl? Or gay? Always assumed he/she was a straight dude.

Poor assumption. This is the internet. I assume everyone is a gay dude until they prove otherwise.

..and bald. They're all bald, and have long black nose hairs.

Damn, I got this all wrong. I also assumed Nalati was 17 or so until it was pointed out to me other day that he/she is mid 20's.

People keep on telling you that you are effed up, so fix it.

... have you seen "When Harry Met Sally"? Because you seem to be paraphrasing it quite well Personally I have several friends I would not sleep with, for a variety of reasons (looks usually not one of them). Being platonic is perfectly easy with them. If you feel attracted to a person sexually, yes, then you'll have issues. Eventually you just need to figure out that not every woman is for sex.

Sorry, I accidentally skipped you.

My point is that the statement "it's not a viable life form in it's own right" is something people say to justify their action of the abortion. The fetus at 24 weeks in 1 day has not changed significantly from a day earlier. Nor did the baby significantly change from 23 weeks and 6 days to 24 weeks. The fact that the probability of living outside of the uterus increases as time progresses doesn't change anything.

If it's only 50% chance of survival, then that's 50%. You're looking at the glass half empty instead of half full. So, why is abortion 100% authorized on something that has a 50% survival rate? I mean, if your argument is being able to live outside the uterus, a full 9 month new born will 100% die outside of the uterus if not taken care of. You have to take care of it, which is why you can get charged if your baby dies due to neglect.



My question wasn't redundant.

I stated that I interpreted a fact as objectively true, i.e. not false. Furthermore, I said that although you may add additional information unto a fact to make it more factual, anything contrary to that fact discredits it's validity.

You countered to say that was just an instance that you provided and that new facts can reduce the margin of error from old facts. So, I asked you to provide an example of reducing a fact's error. You stated the fact of gravity exists and how additional facts on gravity gave us a better understanding of how gravity works. I replied that was fine and dandy, but the original fact in question "gravity exists" didn't have an error. It was the supporting facts that had errors and were later adjusted.

So, I ask again, provide me a scenario where you can reduce the margin of error of a fact with contradictory information.



I didn't realize that I avoided a question. By fertilized egg, do you mean a zygote? If so, yes a zygote will turn into a human being without help from you or anyone else. We were talking about eggs and sperms. An egg or sperm will never turn into a zygote which will turn into a child without some intervention.



I obviously am missing your point. You're making a connection of crappy parents and a crappy life from that one statement. My assumption is that you're making that connection because you have an emotional attachment to that parasite that was once you. Else, you wouldn't care.



While that maybe true at times, as I'm reminded of someone who fits that bill, that isn't the scenario that I'm talking about. I'm referring to the scenario of a man and a woman who HAVE some form of a relationship, but it doesn't develop because she is interested in other types of guys. After a few bad relationships, she either goes back to find the nice guy, regrets not staying with the nice guy and or realizes that she should be with someone more like the nice guy.


Although a woman has fault in the scenario, majority of the fault goes to the dirtbag boyfriend for, well, being a douchebag. If he weren't a douchebag, then the two would be a happy couple. Instead, there's a burned angry woman around who don't trust men claiming that "There are no more good guys" . Which at then end, makes it harder for the good guys to prove themselves.

"Truly admitted it", that doesn't even make sense. I was going to respond back to you, but your bold sentence tells me that you're a deceived idiot and there is no point in further trying to explain anything to you. You remind me of the EE majors who act like they know everything, but really have no clue what is going on. Your knowledge in one area or field doesn't automatically make you knowledgeable of any other field.. I acknowledge that fact, but it seems that you haven't.