Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1097093 Posts in 72569 Topics- by 19545 Members - Latest Member: cepatinog
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 ... 75   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Religion Matters: Take 3  (Read 56157 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5932

View Profile
« Reply #1260 on: Feb 14, 2018, 11:30AM »

This is pure hogwash Bob.
Don't ya just love that intellectual, logic based support? It's so refreshing!

There's another category that Bob is too young to have experienced, but is very real to me and people my age.

That is when I think I used to know something but I no longer do.  But am I right? did I really know it once?  
Nice try, but again, nope.


All you are proving is that I am correct. When your argument fails, or you can't logically support it, attack elsewhere. And clearly, your argument is failing. Even more, you know it.




Now.... the greater question: when your logical argument is faulty, can you recognize it yourself and admit it and correct it?

The common answer to that is actually no. Occasionally, when it's something you're not invested in, ok. But the more invested, the less likely to change. Just as above. Rather than support logically or re-evaluate, attack.

Which is kinda the thing here - The idea that logically we can override those base level ideas we are so heavily invested in. So far, not looking good when the major proponents for said idea regularly fail to uphold it themselves.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18814
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1261 on: Feb 14, 2018, 11:41AM »

Just trying to make sure this isn't buried in the ... "discussion", as used to happen on a regular basis during these kinds of eruptions.
 
 
I'd like to know what kind of assumptions presuppositionalists assume I'm making though (I'm not assuming that means you). More importantly, if everyone does make assumptions, how does that excuse them from being assumptions?
I would think that you would assume things like:
- that reality is entirely natural and that it is as we perceive or measure it
Nope. Again, and this is going to be the response every time this one comes up just as it has been every time prior, it's about what we can know--observations we can verify are in fact observations of reality rather than the imposition of our biases upon reality. In other words, we have to have some pretty solid assurances that we're not fooling ourselves. That's what science and critical thinking boil down to, ultimately.
 
This is accepting the unknown and the limitations that all human brain owners have to work with--perhaps the most fundamental, definitive facts of life in terms of our experience and understanding of it. If you don't warm up to this one, I'm not sure much in the way of genuine understanding is at all likely. But since we all function through our senses that's not necessarily as much of a thing as it sounds--most of our basic, visceral understanding of the personal cosmos (that which is the immediate world of our experience)
 
- that reality is all potential
I have some guesses as to what you mean by that but I'd rather not presume. Can you unpack it a bit?
 
- that the supernatural does not affect the natural cosmos
Again, see the initial reply above.
 
- that history is a result of a cause and effect chain
I have less of a sense of what you mean on this one--could come up with some guesses, but ...
 
- that there is no afterlife
Same as first and third ... I certainly hope the evidence is just lacking though!
 
- that truth has a high value
Woah! That's an interesting one.
 
I'm not sure how one values truth is relevant. It's still what it is, regardless--what's true is true, and if you're interested in what's true rather than what's not, it's important. But again, maybe we can get to a better understanding on this with a little unpacking--give me a sense of how this would apply in the real world and/or rhetoric (i.e. whatever you're referring to).
 
What sort of questions do you ask about that?  I assume that this is the same as asking if 'reality' is simulated.
Heh. I see what you did there!
 
Basically that's it ... yeah.
 
You can call it an axiom
A rose by any other name (to stick with a bit of an ongoing useful theme here).

But maybe there are facts about reality that can't be verified: that you have to take on faith.  Are you assuming that there are none of them?  How would you verify whether that assumption is true or not?
Sounds like denying uncertainty to me, but what kind of facts about reality do you think we have to take on faith?
 
I think you're asking about people who change their mind on things that clash with their world view aka faith.  They either live with the dissonance or change their  understanding of their world view to include the new truth or swap their world view for another one they are more comfortable with.
That's not an unfair way to put it--can't disagree with that.
 
It takes us right back to the difference between deriving your understanding from the data reality offers vs. imposing something else you've decided to add upon that data. I'd argue the latter is pretty clearly a problem, and that our posture, if we're interested in as accurate an understanding of reality as we can manage, must be to eliminate all of those artificial additions as we can. Defending the knowing addition of our own baggage into the data we consider is hardly an appropriate way to understand what's really there rather than what our minds slip into the mix.
 
Again, as Feynman and many other highly astute types have said in so many words, science (and critical thinking) is how we've learned to avoid fooling ourselves. Defending bias (ex. presuppositionalism) is defending fooling ourselves.
 
I talk in terms of world views because they have sets of assumptions that characterise them.  But that is an assumption too I guess.  Do you have a world view that only has the assumptions that you mentioned above?
That I'm not likely a brain in a vat, so to speak? ... sort of.
 
I acknowledge that I have some basic assumptions.  eg That God exists and is the fundamental fact of reality.  I understand that they come as part of my world view.  I think that your world view would have its own set of assumptions/axioms but am still checking that out.
How about:  
  - Uncertainty is the fundamental nature of life using a human brain (and probably just of life, period,
    assuming the cognitive capacity for it, of course).
  - Adding our own brain baggage to our data on reality isn't deriving data about reality from reality
    itself, it's imposing our baggage upon it ... changing it.
  - We have to accept that anything we can't be sure of is uncertain.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
John the Theologian
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 16, 2013
Posts: 1024

View Profile
« Reply #1262 on: Feb 14, 2018, 11:58AM »

This is pure hogwash Bob.

Not really when such claims color so much of your and Byron's thinking.  Skepticism can only take you so far, because soon one is making claims that really don't fit with skepticism.  Claims that naturalism is true, really fall into that category.  It can never be more than an assumption, axiom or whatever you want to call it.  You can make the claim that it appears to you to be be true, but never that you can be certain that it is true, at least no more certainty than you regularly chide theists for.  In other words, it's a subjective, not an objective claim, as all starting assumptions must be.

Naturalism can not be proven by evidence because one would have to be omniscient to evaluate all of the possible evidence and some piece of evidence could potentially disprove your naturalistic assumption.  Thus naturalism can only be an assumption.  It may be the assumption that you believe makes the most sense to you.  No quibbles from me on that point, although I'm convinced you are dead wrong in making that assumption.  However, it still is Top Down thinking because it can not either be proven or falsified by empirical evidence.  It's a presupposition, a world view, an assumption, an axiom, a starting point, or whatever you want to call it.
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12635

View Profile
« Reply #1263 on: Feb 14, 2018, 12:12PM »

Not really when such claims color so much of your and Byron's thinking. 

Your claim that Byron and bill's biases override the evidence is just that, an unsupported claim.

They claim to be closer to correct because they use the methods of science to avoid fooling themselves to the maximum extent possible.

You claim to be closer to correct because you get direct revelation from supernatural creatures.

Both positions are possible, but not equally probable. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5932

View Profile
« Reply #1264 on: Feb 14, 2018, 12:19PM »

Your claim that Byron and bill's biases override the evidence is just that, an unsupported claim.
That would be a bad misreading. 

There is no claim that their bias overrides the evidence. Simply that they can't evaluate it all. Even then, not everything can be weighed and measured in evidentiary fashion. At best, each person has a partial picture, and takes the rest of trust, faith, whatever you want to call it.

Which you already know full well. It's why scientists have to specialize to such a degree in current study. There is more "known" now than you can personally learn in 100 lifetimes.
Logged
John the Theologian
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 16, 2013
Posts: 1024

View Profile
« Reply #1265 on: Feb 14, 2018, 12:22PM »

Your claim that Byron and bill's biases override the evidence is just that, an unsupported claim.

They claim to be closer to correct because they use the methods of science to avoid fooling themselves to the maximum extent possible.

You claim to be closer to correct because you get direct revelation from supernatural creatures.

Both positions are possible, but not equally probable. 

Tim I didn't say that it overrides the evidence.  I'm not even sure exactly what evidence each has looked at.

What I said was the evidence will always be inconclusive because without a framework the evidence doesn't provide a full picture.  The full picture each of us holds to is dependent upon a framework and that framework always has a key element of subjectivity in it.  That subjectivity means that our pre-commitments will always play a role.  A pre-commitment to naturalism will always color the framework, just as a pre-commitment to theism will.  As Kuhn argues, we always hold on to our paradigms until paradigm overload kicks in.  I believe that they are holding on to a naturalistic paradigm and I see no real evidence-- if I can use that term here :) -- that anything would overturn their POVs, in spite of what they might claim.  They have strong commitments to naturalism, which are inherently subjective, not objective.  That's the point I'm making.
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3630

View Profile
« Reply #1266 on: Feb 14, 2018, 01:07PM »

Not really when such claims color so much of your and Byron's thinking.
You'll have to point that sort of thing out.

Bob made the ridiculous claim "saying I don't know requires a great amount of knowledge.", then immediately followed it with:

"It requires knowing what you know.
It requires knowing enough about what you don't know to say it isn't something you already know."


Which, while not ridiculous, in no way supports his previous statement.  If I ever do that, please let me know.

Quote
Skepticism can only take you so far, because soon one is making claims that really don't fit with skepticism.  Claims that naturalism is true, really fall into that category.  It can never be more than an assumption, axiom or whatever you want to call it.  You can make the claim that it appears to you to be be true, but never that you can be certain that it is true, at least no more certainty than you regularly chide theists for.  In other words, it's a subjective, not an objective claim, as all starting assumptions must be.

Naturalism can not be proven by evidence because one would have to be omniscient to evaluate all of the possible evidence and some piece of evidence could potentially disprove your naturalistic assumption.  Thus naturalism can only be an assumption.  It may be the assumption that you believe makes the most sense to you.  No quibbles from me on that point, although I'm convinced you are dead wrong in making that assumption.  However, it still is Top Down thinking because it can not either be proven or falsified by empirical evidence.  It's a presupposition, a world view, an assumption, an axiom, a starting point, or whatever you want to call it.
You must have missed when I said this earlier:

1)"'that reality is entirely natural' - No I do not assume this, but since I also don't assume there is a divine creator I am left to look about and find answers to what reality is in what I can perceive and measure.

2) 'that reality is all potential' - No, I cannot assume this as I don't know all of reality.

3) 'that the supernatural does not affect the natural cosmos' - No - see 1) & 2).

4) 'that there is no afterlife' - This one is in the untestable list provisionally.  I certainly do not assume there is an afterlife, but I'm fairly sure sure that does not imply that I assume there isn't one.  Although I can see how one might infer that.  I guess I'll have to wait and see on this one but it is certainly untestable in 'this life'."


I'm also pretty sure we've had a conversation sorta kinda like this earlier.

I think we are not only confusing testable and untestable assumptions, but are also having issues with logic, and to top it off I honestly think those of us that rely for our worldview on untestable assumptions assume that everyone else needs to do that too.

For instance to say "I do not assume God exists" does not mean "I assume nature is everything".  What it does mean is that I'm going to have to go and look for my reality in what I can perceive and measure.  You need to understand: that does not preclude I'll find something that is supernatural in origin.  Neither does it say anything about whether I will even recognize it as such or not.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3630

View Profile
« Reply #1267 on: Feb 14, 2018, 01:16PM »

What I said was the evidence will always be inconclusive because without a framework the evidence doesn't provide a full picture.
Some of us are okay with having to build our framework.  Is it complete?  No.  Will it ever be complete?  Not in my lifetime, but does that mean I should give up on the build?  No.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
John the Theologian
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 16, 2013
Posts: 1024

View Profile
« Reply #1268 on: Feb 14, 2018, 01:29PM »

Some of us are okay with having to build our framework.  Is it complete?  No.  Will it ever be complete?  Not in my lifetime, but does that mean I should give up on the build?  No.

The key issue, of course, is that sometimes we assume are are still building, when in reality we are depending on so much that we've "built" already and don't realize that we have made a number of assumptions that can't of necessity flow from evidence, but are rather assumptions that we've made. 

My point is that we all do that, but that you seem to be denying that you really do, at least to any significant degree.  Not only is it a matter of "coming clean," but a theist would argue that a significant number of those assumptions only make real sense in a theistic worldview, not a naturalistic one.

Those assumptions would include issues of order, coherence, etc and also topics of genuine human significance, etc.  In a random world that, by naturalistic assumptions, can ultimately only be the result of time, space and chance, it's hard to ultimately explain those assumptions.  Theists believe that naturalists deep down actually deny their own assumptions.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5932

View Profile
« Reply #1269 on: Feb 14, 2018, 02:09PM »

You'll have to point that sort of thing out.

Bob made the ridiculous claim "saying I don't know requires a great amount of knowledge.", then immediately followed it with:

"It requires knowing what you know.
It requires knowing enough about what you don't know to say it isn't something you already know."


Which, while not ridiculous, in no way supports his previous statement.  If I ever do that, please let me know.
Not ridiculous at all once you take your blinders off. It takes much more knowledge than the typically assumed do I or don't I know what this is. And the recognition of what you don't know, why, and where that whole fits in... in honestly a major career difference in fields where a great deal of learning is required. Asking intelligent questions is one of the hardest skills in today's workforce.

Now, I can see and understand if you are unaware, it does seem so simple. But that'd just be another incorrect assumption, and why you wouldn't be likely to expand into what you don't know.


For instance to say "I do not assume God exists" does not mean "I assume nature is everything".  What it does mean is that I'm going to have to go and look for my reality in what I can perceive and measure.  You need to understand: that does not preclude I'll find something that is supernatural in origin.  Neither does it say anything about whether I will even recognize it as such or not.
Which gets back to... if you are going to have to go with what you can perceive and measure and that's your toolset...

How do you know if you love you spouse?
How do you know if you are a good person?
How do you know if your life feels empty?
What does it mean to be joyful?

Should these be measured? If so, how? Number of "loving" gestures or words? Number of friends on facebook? The recommendation of a stranger who sees you 4 hours a year? Relative stress level measured in blood pressure and heart rate?

There is an awful lot of life that is missed in measurements. Yeah, they can help improve what we can do and how we do it, but they often completely ignore the real substance and meaning in  life.


Hint: if you value your love for another person, but cannot measure it... then your assumption that you go with what you can measure... well, it's wrong. That simple.
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3630

View Profile
« Reply #1270 on: Feb 14, 2018, 02:34PM »

Hint: if you value your love for another person, but cannot measure it... then your assumption that you go with what you can measure... well, it's wrong. That simple.
You are forgetting perception.  Both your own and that reported by others.  Yes, it really is that simple.

And... you and I have had a conversations kinda sorta like this before too.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3630

View Profile
« Reply #1271 on: Feb 14, 2018, 02:42PM »

The key issue, of course, is that sometimes we assume are are still building, when in reality we are depending on so much that we've "built" already and don't realize that we have made a number of assumptions that can't of necessity flow from evidence, but are rather assumptions that we've made.
I'll agree with this, but that is where you need to be careful not to embrace untestable assumptions.  In science this happens almost automatically.  The tools sets require it.  In the rest of life it takes the discipline to be a critical thinker.  To doubt your first assumptions and question/test them.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3630

View Profile
« Reply #1272 on: Feb 14, 2018, 02:42PM »

Double post - pls. delete.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5932

View Profile
« Reply #1273 on: Feb 14, 2018, 02:56PM »

You are forgetting perception.  Both your own and that reported by others.  Yes, it really is that simple.
Not forgetting it at all. Guess IT was a slower field when you were actually in the trenches.

I'll agree with this, but that is where you need to be careful not to embrace untestable assumptions.  In science this happens almost automatically.  The tools sets require it.  In the rest of life it takes the discipline to be a critical thinker.  To doubt your first assumptions and question/test them.
Science is also almost entirely focused on items that can be used for competitive advantage with others. How do things work? How can we use that to our advantage? It itself is a tool set. A process.

So what about everything that falls outside of that toolset? I go to work to make money, I use tech to help do somethings... but the questions and meaning of life far exceed those things and what is measurable.

Attempting to expand a toolset to a philosophy misses an incredible amount.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18814
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1274 on: Feb 14, 2018, 03:20PM »

You just have to wait until Bob puts his crazy funhouse ruler away before you can expect to have anything like an actual discussion with him.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3630

View Profile
« Reply #1275 on: Feb 14, 2018, 03:21PM »

Not forgetting it at all.
Then you must understand, right?  If I love someone and they respond well to my applying that love then I know they perceive it.  I don't have to make any utestable assumptions.

Quote
Guess IT was a slower field when you were actually in the trenches.
Damn if that ruler just doesn't flip out without warning!  Actually - no.  Mine was the IT generation that built the libraries you young tykes now rely on.  We had to do much much more with a lot less.  Remember, hardware was expensive and gutless.  We had to make it perform.  Nowadays, you've got gigs of memory, teras of disk storage and CPU power coming out the wazoo for pennies a piece yet the code crawls like sick worm.  Example - 93% of today's MS Excel is to support code that practically no one uses.  Go figure.  Have resource, will waste.

Quote
Attempting to expand a toolset to a philosophy misses an incredible amount.
Yeah, that's not what I'm doing at all actually.  Time to peak out of your bubble Bob.  There are other ways to skin the cat of life, whether you want to acknowledge them or not.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3630

View Profile
« Reply #1276 on: Feb 14, 2018, 03:25PM »

You just have to wait until Bob puts his crazy funhouse ruler away before you can expect to have anything like an actual discussion with him.
Infuriating, isn't it?

Now, I have to go make dinner.  Have at it in my absence.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
ronkny

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 11413

View Profile
« Reply #1277 on: Feb 14, 2018, 03:45PM »

You just have to wait until Bob puts his crazy funhouse ruler away before you can expect to have anything like an actual discussion with him.
Dont you have a crazy psychology fetish that you need to control in order for anyone to have a discussion with you?
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5932

View Profile
« Reply #1278 on: Feb 14, 2018, 03:46PM »

Then you must understand, right?  If I love someone and they respond well to my applying that love then I know they perceive it.  I don't have to make any utestable assumptions.
So you "just" know? Without measurements? How much do they love you? You can perceive it... or someone faking it... but how do you quantify it? How do you test it? How do you verify?

After all, that is what the critical thinking/scientific approach is all about.

Damn if that ruler just doesn't flip out without warning!  Actually - no.  Mine was the IT generation that built the libraries you young tykes now rely on.
Slower indeed. Ah, back when languages were simpler, fewer, and stayed around for far longer in roughly the same way. Don't know? Oh they having classes and training for that. Oh, the nice easy days. When you didn't have to ask, because they had classes to teach because the tech stayed around so long. I remember those days. Much faster paced now. Don't take out your own ruler unless you're willing to be measured in return.  Evil

There are other ways to skin the cat of life, whether you want to acknowledge them or not.
Oh I fully acknowledge it. Which is the odd thing about the approach you and Byron state here. Everything needs to be testable, examinable, verifiable. And truth to tell, only a small fraction of life really fits that bill.

After all, a loved one may tell you she loves you...

But how do you know? Short answer: You don't. You accept and trust.



Which is kinda the thing about religion. Maybe it doesn't focus so much of the details of how little things work. Instead, it often focuses on how people work... and rather than what makes a life profitable, before seemingly decaying into compost and leaving it all behind... It focuses on what makes life meaningful and worthwhile, while we're here and alive.

If your base assumptions don't focus on that, then what is the point?
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18814
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1279 on: Feb 14, 2018, 03:47PM »

It's actually completely relevant.  One changes basic assumptions when one thinks that they no longer explain reality adequately.  I don't deny that at all.  No one really should.
So what happens to assumptions once they're tested? Would you say that genuinely tested assumptions that pass are still assumptions, or does challenging them turn them into history, hypotheses or has it been authenticated at least to some extent?
 
Can a proven assumption remain an assumption somehow?
 
And how are genuinely tested or proven assumptions different from religious beliefs?
 
To say that one has no assumptions simply is not workable.
I'm not sure that's true. I keep seeing you state this as fact, but I don't think you've made much of a case for it, regardless of whether it's true or not. I haven't decided if it's a linguistic disconnect, purely a rhetorical device that's important for presuppositionalism, or if there's merit to the allegation. I'm pretty sure there's practical merit in the large majority, but I'm not sure it an absolute barrier to objectivity, as you seem to be arguing.
 
The brute fact is the mute fact unless it's put into a context.  The context is our assumptions.
Cute rhyme, but I don't see any meat yet.
 
You seem to be suggesting I can't for example observe the shadow of the sun at the equator, then at a point halfway up to the North Pole, and then deduct facts about the shape of the Earth without making assumptions. Even if that's true, then those assumptions are of a fundamentally different character than assumptions about an alleged being that created the Sun and the Moon and the Earth. Then there's the host of other beasties that live in the same realm outside of our perception.
 
You changed your basic assumptions.   You believe that you did so because your older theistic assumptions no longer worked.  However, you did not go from having theistic assumptions to having no assumptions. You moved from have theistic assumptions to having naturalistic ones.
If anything you could argue that I started with both and jettisoned the religious ones because they failed under genuine scrutiny, but I think you're still stretching on the notion that accepting what we perceive is impossible without imposing something else on it. You also haven't addressed accepting uncertainty rather than making assumptions--at least not that I've seen yet.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 ... 75   Go Up
Print
Jump to: