Search results for query: *

Funny that because the last post you made to me, I didnt reply to. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Nice one Peez. I can't stop LOL.

Give me your definition of free thought and I'll explain to you how you don't meet it.

You claim that you can read my mind by saying I am arguing for these views and yet you have shown no evidence whatsoever to prove that. OH how ironic. :hysterical: You provided no evidence from the thread of anything I have written to support your view, you merely claim that you can somehow...

Your cumbersome post was a good attempt to be smart but was really quite naive. I do not care if these phyicists vews are true or not. I've said that previously. I am not making an argument from an authority as I am not making an argument in favour of these views and never have. Look through...

Now you're really making me laugh. I'll say it again. I don't support their claims and didnt try to. Where's the logical fallacy there. You're inventing stuff now. Also anyone who knows me knows I have zero respect for authority.

Why would I show evidence for the views expressed? They are not my views. You haven't even read the thread, I have said all along that these physicists may or may not be right. I'm not bothered either way. You however attempt to create an argument where none exists. I have mentioned this to...

You mention argument from authority and then ask for a peer review. Isn't that another argument from authority. :hysterical: Unlike you, I don't need arguments from authority. I don't need one or more scientists to tell me what to think. :hysterical: You also have not explained what is...

Authority can go and piss into the wind. Don't try to misrepresent my views. I mentioned these physicists as these are their views and they are coming from people who has actually studied the subject matter. Which reminds me, have you?

These physicists might be right or they might be wrong. I posted the article as I wanted to see how atheists would react to scientific opinion which is unsettling to their worldview, ie, immortality of the conciousness, as opposed to a scientific opinion which is not, such as dark matter...

Peez Its nothing to do with an argument from authority. I'm saying I just don't dismiss their views like you do. It seems clear that materialism (meaning philosophical materialism) is your religion and you dismiss anything outside of that. That is your right, as it is the right of...

The physicists state in the article that having studied the field they have reached their views, out of necessity. Dark matter, dark energy and multiple universes are all hypotheses and lacking in evidence. They are however also put forward out of necessity. Who can provide evidence and...

I agree, I'd ignore the articles first 2 paragraphs about the ghost story. The rest of it is worthwhile though and comes from different sources.

Maybe, maybe not, but its coming from respectable physicists.

Some international physicists are convinced, that our spirit has a quantum state and that the dualism between the body and the soul is just as real as the "wave-particle dualism" of the smallest particles. The link to the full article is here.

Well said George S.

I've already told you what to do. You discuss what you want.

Thats not what we were discussing. Go back and read the thread.

It's ok, you've already agreed with my position. I also know from past experience that if I said the sky is blue you'd try to argue that it isn't.

No the discussion if you had actually read it, was about what prevents an animal from reproducing. What are the types of selection and show me who ever said reproduction was a type of selection (besides you). :hysterical: 'Evolution by reproduction'. :hysterical:

Well done Keith&co that is exactly what I have been saying all along for most of this thread.