Quake3World

To me, the definition of strict naturalism is pretty clear. Naturalism is a model that takes the natural world as its basis, where all knowledge is inducted by examining the natural world. Strict naturalism holds that the examining of the natural world is the only way in which we can obtain any knowledge. It is extreme in the sense that it is making an assumption, not proven, about the ways in which knowledge can be obtained.

Me:

Only if by strict, you mean to actively refute that which they cannot test, verify, falsify.

So if as mjrpes suggests, this is the case, then I don't think it's a mischaracterization to call strict naturalism, extreme.

mjrpes wrote:It is extreme in the sense that it is making an assumption, not proven, about the ways in which knowledge can be obtained.

According to her doctors, the woman has been brain dead for the last 15 years. She ain't getting better folks.

Her parents are devout Catholics and claim they've seen her laugh and cry and respond despite her being brain dead.

I guess she should have put it in writing that she'd want the plug pulled. Even then there'd probably be people fighting to keep her 'alive'.

Yanks are dumber than a room full of 15 year old vegetables.

Freakaloin wrote:
shut it jackass...

Nice example of your intelligence and broad range of vocabulary, actually lack there of. Please pester someone else with your idiocy.

RiffRaff wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:
shut it jackass...

Nice example of your intelligence and broad range of vocabulary, actually lack there of. Please pester someone else with your idiocy.

go fuck urself u fat fuck...any questions?

tnf wrote:
I'm a liberal, and not for late-term abortion. You won't find a lot of us who are (I'm sure there are some). Even fewer who are in favor of late-term abortions as a means of birth control. I'm not for abortion at all, TBH, but I think it skews the issue to say "pro-death" in many cases. In fact, many people simply want doctors to have the right to make medical decisions in the extreme cases where an abortion might be required to save the life of the mother. And I believe there is a lot of angst towards the administration regarding this issue because the laws being looked at are moving towards preventing docs from having that ability.
It was like Bush asking Kerry if he was for or against abortion as a yes or no question...and Kerry saying he was for doc's having the right to make that decision, which was not given in the bill he did not vote for (the bill about partial birth abortions.) But Bush didn't want to hear WHY he didn't vote for it. He is a binary president - Yes or No. Good or Bad. Us or Them. But those issues are not always binary in their possible solutions. Kerry could have responded to Bush "Yes or No, are you for or against war?" Then followed up with how he must be for it, because he authorized it..

These are all grey areas, all very difficult to really legislate.

Problem is you may not be for abortion or late term abortions, I think it shows character to not blindly follow a party liine, but it's the Democratic party that supports the abortion agenda so unfortunately you may have great intentions and ideas but your party gets lumped in to the "Liberal" agenda theme.

I totally agree TNF that a mothers health should be the most important issue, no argument there. I think we can agree that most abortions are not for the mothers health but actually for some form of birth control. Most of the laws that I have heard of have had some form "Mother's health clause".

I see the spin on Bush's side but I also feel that Kerry would not restrict any form of abortion. He can't. He must be supportive of the party's platform of "allowing a woman to choose". That's why pro-choice advocates will not let a partial-birth abortion ban go through even with a clause for the mothers health. They see any limits on abortion as chipping away at the total right of pro-choice.

My intention wasn't to re-hash the abortion right on this board as I've seen it here before. In my previous post, I merely was responding to several positions through this thread.

Besides, failed abortions leave the world with retards like Freakaloin and it's better to not let them suffer through life that way. :icon27:

Freakaloin wrote:

RiffRaff wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:
shut it jackass...

Nice example of your intelligence and broad range of vocabulary, actually lack there of. Please pester someone else with your idiocy.

go fuck urself u fat fuck...any questions?

Very proud of you. You've doubled the number of words you can use. BWAHAHAH.. You're stupidty really makes me laugh.

Go molest your dog you piece of dribbling crap. BTW, that's not a flame it's an accurate description of what I think you do in your spare time. I know this isn't R&R.

a douchbag says what?

RiffRaff wrote: I also feel that Kerry would not restrict any form of abortion. He can't. He must be supportive of the party's platform of "allowing a woman to choose".

Why's that in quotes? Unless of course you think a woman doesn't have a right to chose.

I come across lots of girls who are having their third abortion at age 20, that sort of thing. When you suggest to them that there are more convenient and safer methods of contraception, they either look at you dumbly or give you some crap about how the guy doesn't like to use condoms (I work in an area of london with a high incidence of HIV and a stratospheric incidence of chlamydia).

However, I still defend their right to chose, because the job of society is to help its members, not to dictate to them. If that baby's really not wanted, then it probably is better off not having been born. If you don't empower women by whatever means possible, and that includes access to condoms your holiness, then you end up with the third world.

Bush, as Governor, signed in a bill that allows hospitals to pull the tubes/plugs on hospital patients in vegetative states. Even if its against what the family wants.
And guess what?
A baby had this done this very week, in Texas, against the parents wish.

http://www.dailykos.com/section/Media

Yanks are so dumb they cant see that they are the clowns of the world now.

blood.angel wrote:Bush, as Governor, signed in a bill that allows hospitals to pull the tubes/plugs on hospital patients in vegetative states. Even if its against what the family wants.
And guess what?
A baby had this done this very week, in Texas, against the parents wish.

http://www.dailykos.com/section/Media

Yanks are so dumb they cant see that they are the clowns of the world now.

yeah that lil negro baby...his mom was a crazy bitch...

HAHAHAHAHAHA BUSH
HAHAHAHAHAHA AMERICA

Pauly wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHA BUSH
HAHAHAHAHAHA AMERICA

Thank fuck they are the butt of jokes now instead of you chavs, eh?

blood.angel wrote:

Pauly wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHA BUSH
HAHAHAHAHAHA AMERICA

Thank fuck they are the butt of jokes now instead of you chavs, eh?

I aint no chav, paddy

mjrpes wrote:Strict naturalism holds that the examining of the natural world is the only way in which we can obtain any knowledge. It is extreme in the sense that it is making an assumption, not proven, about the ways in which knowledge can be obtained.

'Naturalism' is a word with multiple meanings...this is certainly true even within philosophy...which is why it is always good to explicitly state what version one is employing in a particular argument.

What you've described as 'strict naturalism' is undoubtedly false. It is akin to a kind of naive empiricism that virtually no one takes seriously anymore.

alright

@ tnf

Yeah don't misunderstand me, I'm just saying that there's a bunch of idiots in America just because this news is so sensationalized. The only reason it's being so sensationalized is BECAUSE there's so many people out there that just aren't educated but obviously, not everyone in the US is stupid.

However, on your argument about religion and stupidity you have to understand there's different levels of stupidity so to speak.

Like you could be intellectualy stupid, socialy stupid or many many other types of mental habits people just develop. The problem with religion, isn't religion itself it's the fact that religion is false, it's a lie plain and simple.

Now bear with me for a second before you jump up and down screaming that it's not false (not that I'm calling you a religious nut either but just keep reading) Let's assume for a second, play pretend, that religion REALLY doesn't exist.

If you beleived in religion you would be naive, because you were mislead and you beleived it. It's easy to be mislead when you're young and you were likely mislead from a very young age by people who were also mislead that you trust and beleive. These same people tell you to do things that are good morals and good ideas for civilization because these were ideals built to control a population to begin with. The problem is that beleiving in one lie, and even denying the idea that this may be false means you are prone to beleiving lies. You're prone to being led around and believing things that simply aren't true. Whether you choose to admit it or not is irrelevant, it's you're choice in what you beleive that is.

I have nothing against agnostics cause really theyre just open to both sides of the story but a little logic and common sense can go a long way in solving problems when it comes to "supernatural" things like god etc etc...j

So my point is that no matter how intelligent someone is, it doesn't mean they aren't prone to being naive. Which in itself is a flaw, and something thats just as dangerous as stupidity.

Kracus - is there one morality superior to another?

Massive Quasars wrote:

megami wrote:This reminds me of a BBC article I read a few weeks ago about a college aimed at far-right homeschooled Christian children, available here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/c ... 311709.stm

One choice tidbit:

In fact all students have to sign a statement before they arrive, confirming, among other things, that they have a literal belief in the teachings of the Bible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/c ... 313107.stm

...
A literal belief in the Bible is not a bad thing, because the Bible has not been shown to have any error or fault.

Evolution is what worries me. Nobody who looks at the true evidence with an open mind can honestly believe that the earth is millions of years old, and that man and monkey are kin.

Man was made in the image of God. Look at the accomplishments and advances made by primates and compare them with human accomplishments. Pretty different, aren't they?

Which explains the reason for this better, creation or evolution? You decide.
Rick McDonnell, Illinois, United States
...

:icon32:

I'd like to drive to Illinois and beat that man to death with my 2000+ page "The Structure Of EVolutionary THeory" by Steven Jay Gould. Better yet, I'd have a monkey do it for me, then throw its own shit on him.

MY PENIS IS HUGE

Kracus wrote:@ tnf

Yeah don't misunderstand me, I'm just saying that there's a bunch of idiots in America just because this news is so sensationalized. The only reason it's being so sensationalized is BECAUSE there's so many people out there that just aren't educated but obviously, not everyone in the US is stupid.

The Laci Peterson trial was sensationalized by the news media (to give the masses what they want), but this is different, as the government is the one sensationalizing the issue.

Yeah but that's a different situation completely. The peterson case was just that, a case about a really disturbed individual that killed his pregnant wife.

This however is complete bullshit. She's a vegetable. Whether she's alive or dead is irrelevant, you don't come back from having your cereberal cortex liquified. Once that's gone you're done, it's over. No more you.

If people weren't so fucking stupid to understand then this wouldn't be an issue. Who cares if she's on a machine that keeps her alive, it's a moot point, there's no one in there. All they're doing is spending about 300,000$ a year to keep her body breathing. If the peeps that want her to be alive want to front the bill then fine, let em have her, why the hell not, but otherwise it's time to end the bullshit cause she's obviously can't recover.

People are too fucking dumb to understand this, all they see is a live body, so she's just retarded to them when really all that's functioning is the rest of her brain, the conciousness is gone.

i'm just saying that a lot of the sensationalism is valid in this case, seeing that the government, up to the highest levels, is stepping in to have its say on an issue that should have been a very personal and private decision. people are divided over whether government should be involved, and are looking closely at the outcome of the issue.

No that's my point, the reason is stupidity. This whole case is like deciding whether to pound sand or not.

It's a pointless thing to discuss wheras the peterson case is not. She's a vegetable, alive or dead is irrelevant, people don't seem to be getting this concept.