Would it make you feel better if I said that ALL of a statistically relevant sampling of religions have been proven false, to the point where the odds of any of the untested religions not being false is statistically irrelevant?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding. All natural phenomena do not need to be explained by science. Nor do I have to believe in an explanation for all natural phenomena.
There is faith that is required due to a lack of evidence, then there is faith that is required because the beliefs are self contradictory or in spite of evidence to the contrary. I've spent a fair amount of time researching religions, and every one that I have come across fails in that regard.
from your same source: 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
from your same source: 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
Sorry. But no. They are not the same phenomenon. Faith is a requirement for religion, because religions are always false. Faith is not absolutely necessary for politics, because people are genuinely capable of being both capable and and have good intentions, however rare that may be.
The ice caps that will cause siginificant sea rise are the several km thick continental ice flows covering Greenland and Antarctica. Melting sea ice does not cause flooding because it is already displacing the water it floats on.
And it takes even less energy to disinfect unbroken glass and reuse it. Used to do this all the time by returning coke/barq's bottles to the bottling plant.
No, the interaction of genes to the proteins that are expressed in the field is not an exact science. Fiddling with genes can and will produce unexpected changes in crops with some small number of those being potentially dangerous.
And that is not even counting the GM foods that have been intentionally modified to naturally contain pesticides.
Smart phones are general purpose computers in your pocket. Not implementing basic features because someone else also implements them doesn't make you innovative, it makes you idiotic.
You are wrong. if you persist in holding a belief that is wrong in the face of logic and evidence presented by your opponent, that means you lose the argument, not win.
An argument is won when both parties truly agree on the truth. An argument is lost if either or both party continues to hold a false position. forcing your view on the other party by unreasonable means means the other party accepts your position regardless of its truth, and you lose.
Slashdot Mirror
Would it make you feel better if I said that ALL of a statistically relevant sampling of religions have been proven false, to the point where the odds of any of the untested religions not being false is statistically irrelevant?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding. All natural phenomena do not need to be explained by science. Nor do I have to believe in an explanation for all natural phenomena.
There is faith that is required due to a lack of evidence, then there is faith that is required because the beliefs are self contradictory or in spite of evidence to the contrary. I've spent a fair amount of time researching religions, and every one that I have come across fails in that regard.
from your same source: 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
from your same source: 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
Nope. Religion always have supernatural aspects. Otherwise, it would be called science.
Sorry. But no. They are not the same phenomenon. Faith is a requirement for religion, because religions are always false. Faith is not absolutely necessary for politics, because people are genuinely capable of being both capable and and have good intentions, however rare that may be.
The articles are also a decade apart based on a cursory glance at the dates in the link
The ice caps that will cause siginificant sea rise are the several km thick continental ice flows covering Greenland and Antarctica. Melting sea ice does not cause flooding because it is already displacing the water it floats on.
And it takes even less energy to disinfect unbroken glass and reuse it. Used to do this all the time by returning coke/barq's bottles to the bottling plant.
The death penalty isn't a a deterrent because the class of crimes that it is reserved for are those that are nearly impossible to deter.
The death penalty would make a fantastic shoplifting deterrent. Murder? not so much.
Yea... they didn't actually come to those conclusions.
They tested it by lacing mice food with bpa and observing their health in a controlled experiment.
As "smart" as some of these slashdot posters think they are, they often come up with the *dumbest* conclusions.
Sorry, but no. Canned beer is worse than bottled beer is worse than tap beer.
glass
No, the interaction of genes to the proteins that are expressed in the field is not an exact science. Fiddling with genes can and will produce unexpected changes in crops with some small number of those being potentially dangerous.
And that is not even counting the GM foods that have been intentionally modified to naturally contain pesticides.
The worst I had from taking the things for my dental surgery was a mild hangover like brain fuzz/ache after waking up each day.
You should be more worried about the outer diameter. Ouch.
Smart phones are general purpose computers in your pocket. Not implementing basic features because someone else also implements them doesn't make you innovative, it makes you idiotic.
My smartphone is a camera/flashlight/gps/map
And I also have the option of writing html5 web apps on it and running a web server.
Android is a me too phone?
Tell that the the android phones with physical keyboards, hdmi output, or sd card slots. These are things that the iPhone never did.
The most important question is: does it have a fart app?
I know that is the first thing that most kids want to play with on a tablet/smartphone is the fart app.
If you have to resort to violence, the argument is lost. No matter how true and well presented your position was.
You are wrong. if you persist in holding a belief that is wrong in the face of logic and evidence presented by your opponent, that means you lose the argument, not win.
An argument is won when both parties truly agree on the truth. An argument is lost if either or both party continues to hold a false position. forcing your view on the other party by unreasonable means means the other party accepts your position regardless of its truth, and you lose.
You can turn that off.
you are right, the grandparent made the same mistake and I didn't notice it.