So that's it for the election.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My statement dealt strictly about rationality. Yet, you respond with a statement about reasonableness and not rationality. You're telling me that they mean two completely different things here, and you're switching the game up mid stroke. Hide the ball doesn't work here. Please, elaborate on the difference, and why you would respond with that. Was it meant to say that all religion is wrong? If so, the debate is not about the correctness of it; it's about the rationality of belief under a given set of circumstances. From my point of view, this change-up (if it was indeed intentional) appears to be nothing more than obfuscation.

Further, I did present a scenario which contained evidence. Circumstantial though it may be, predictive and prophetic writings, historical substantiations physical and locational, and historic accounts can all be viewed in an evidentiary light.

Now follow me here, at no point did I say that such evidence was correct or appealing to the discriminating palate. I simply used a hypothetical to illustrate a point where one can make a rational decision after weighing relevant factors.

Shit let me switch it up then, you are demonstrating a deficiency in reasoning.!

[Lexical]

For anyone who wants to know the truth behind the history of electricity: http://inventors.about.com/cs/invent...lectricity.htm

okay, so the whole atheism vs religion debate is a tried and true one. The problem the religious side has is that it doesn't have concrete and quantifiable evidence that can hold up to the scientific rigors we hold true today. However, due to the polarity of the problem, the concept of a G-d is hard to prove to either exist or not exist.

This does not mean both sides are on equal playing grounds however. The atheist argument does have the upper hand in that they can invoke many of the common rules of the scientific method. The biggest one is that the burden of evidence is on the presenter(forgot what this property is called, sorry chaps [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]), which basically illustrates you must support your claim with tangible/quantifiable evidence or it is discarded. The problem with that is that the entire concept of G-d is that of something we could never fully understand. I do feel that the idea of some all powerful being sitting in the clouds and casting judgement on everyone is rather implausible, but that is a very juvenile stance on what G-d is. If you conceive the notion of G-d as the not yet understood or properly explained, then you find an infinite well of power that drives every man or woman to their end goals. It is the same essence many atheists prescribe to, but it holds a much more spiritual role than a lot of atheists are comfortable with.

The biggest problem with strong atheism is it places too much importance on the mundane and you worry more about the details than the overall message, and the biggest problem with organized religion is that it isn't conducive to change in progress and thus stagnates as human thought continues. Of course they adapt, but it takes time. Did you know that the catholic church originally thought forks were a heresy and called them the devil's pitchfork? Think how much the church has come from there. The big problem is when people prescribe too much to their beliefs(emphasis on the idea of belief) be it atheist or religious then they stagnant and become uncooperative.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For anyone who wants to know the truth behind the history of electricity: http://inventors.about.com/cs/invent...lectricity.htm

okay, so the whole atheism vs religion debate is a tried and true one. The problem the religious side has is that it doesn't have concrete and quantifiable evidence that can hold up to the scientific rigors we hold true today. However, due to the polarity of the problem, the concept of a G-d is hard to prove to either exist or not exist.

This does not mean both sides are on equal playing grounds however. The atheist argument does have the upper hand in that they can invoke many of the common rules of the scientific method. The biggest one is that the burden of evidence is on the presenter(forgot what this property is called, sorry chaps [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]), which basically illustrates you must support your claim with tangible/quantifiable evidence or it is discarded. The problem with that is that the entire concept of G-d is that of something we could never fully understand. I do feel that the idea of some all powerful being sitting in the clouds and casting judgement on everyone is rather implausible, but that is a very juvenile stance on what G-d is. If you conceive the notion of G-d as the not yet understood or properly explained, then you find an infinite well of power that drives every man or woman to their end goals. It is the same essence many atheists prescribe to, but it holds a much more spiritual role than a lot of atheists are comfortable with.

The biggest problem with strong atheism is it places too much importance on the mundane and you worry more about the details than the overall message, and the biggest problem with organized religion is that it isn't conducive to change in progress and thus stagnates as human thought continues. Of course they adapt, but it takes time. Did you know that the catholic church originally thought forks were a heresy and called them the devil's pitchfork? Think how much the church has come from there. The big problem is when people prescribe too much to their beliefs(emphasis on the idea of belief) be it atheist or religious then they stagnant and become uncooperative.

strong atheism is bunk, atheism is the product of logical conclusions, strong atheism is almost a religion

[Lucky]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For anyone who wants to know the truth behind the history of electricity: http://inventors.about.com/cs/invent...lectricity.htm

Haha before Franklin we have some dude playing with magnets and a couple of guys shocking themselves with static electricity. My cat could do both of those things.

Franklin was the first one to start trying to find its formal laws and properties and created its place as a scientific field.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Haha before Franklin we have some dude playing with magnets and a couple of guys shocking themselves with static electricity. My cat could do both of those things.

Franklin was the first one to start trying to find its formal laws and properties and created its place as a scientific field.

Sigh despite my better judgement since I am almost positive this whole thing is a troll, from the article:
" Otto von Guericke proved that a vacuum could exist. Creating a vacuum was essential for all kinds of further research into electronics. In 1660, Otto von Guericke invented a machine that produced static electricity, this was the first electric generator."
The first giant leap into the study of electricity. Otto Von Guericke made the first electric generator.

"In 1729, Stephen Gray discovered the principle of the conduction of electricity.

In 1733, Charles Francois du Fay discovered that electricity comes in two forms which he called resinous (-) and vitreous (+), now called negative and positive. "

The basic properties of the electricity.

"The leyden jar was invented Holland in 1745 and in Germany almost simultaneously."

The leyden jar was the original capacitor which is an integral component in every modern electrical device.

Ben Franklin discovered lightning and electricity were one and the same. That is about it. Not saying he wasn't a great man. His research on flatulence was marvelous. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
(Sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_Proudly)

Anywho, the biggest pioneers in the area of electricity were Telsa, Eddison and George Ohm. They discovered most of the properties of electricity.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

strong atheism is bunk, atheism is the product of logical conclusions, strong atheism is almost a religion

I agree. Militant atheists are generally so in love with science they don't really understand the entire philosophy behind it and worship it in a manner close to a religion.

However, atheism in generally still prescribes to the belief that there is definitively no G-d which is just as unproven as the existence of G-d. The common argument I hear for the lack of existence of G-d(and I am open to hear other ones but I will probably find some logically fallacy in it) is the burden of proof argument which only is applicable when one makes the statement G-d exists. It becomes your burden of proof when you make the claim G-d does not exist.

One can not simply make the argument that since there is no evidence to support something exists, then it does not exist. This is a logical fallacy and a misuse of the scientific method which most if not all atheists prescribe to. One can only make the claim that the existence of G-d can not be determined and therefore neither side can logically claim it is right. The scientific community actually assumes a lot of things to exist before actually proving that they do. This is so we can model all areas of a field so it is easier to understand. We see such happenings in the scientific community all the time. For example, the Higgs boson which people were sure it existed but we had no proof of its existence for sometime. The scientific community developed many theories including the standard model all under the assumption that the Higgs boson existed (and thankfully we found that it does [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]) and science was able to grow. The standard model was taught in all classes as a strong theory(not fact as the scientific model does not support "facts") for a long time based on this certainty. We still treat gravity as its own separate force despite having absolutely no evidence of a gravitron force particle.

The underlying issue is that when you state "G-d does not exist" then you are saying without a doubt G-d does not exist. The scientific method can never and will never support such a bold claim so you are only left in the realm of philosophy. This makes logical reasoning very hard as you are trying to logically reason something outside that of logic and reason since both are man made constructs and therefore could not comprehend what G-d is.

[Lucky]

Benjamin Franklin conjectured, correctly, that St. Elmo's fire was electrical in nature, but it has taken a long series of experiments and theoretical changes to establish this.



AKA the 1st 1

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Benjamin Franklin conjectured, correctly, that St. Elmo's fire was electrical in nature, but it has taken a long series of experiments and theoretical changes to establish this.



AKA the 1st 1

Benjamin Franklin was an extraterrestrial race similar to the ants therefore had only a hive mind mentality so he only produced the entire theory of whatever the fuck you are talking about with the help of his billion+ alien brothers and sisters! >[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lucky]

In the 18th century, Benjamin Franklin conducted extensive research in electricity, selling his possessions to fund his work.

All so you can sit on ur ass and downplay his accomplishments.


Also when u search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity for names, Ben Franklin shows up 7 times and those noobs you mentioned barely even share 1 sentence.

[Lucky]

Ohm 5 mentions, Tesla 2 mentions, Edison 4.

AKA Ben Franklin most important person in the field of electricity