Mojo
Mostly harmless
Basis of Immortality?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- immortality
Both sides can stop it. I do not feel, some A&F are not there in science.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No, only the side that is trying to "underestimate and degrade" science can stop doing it. And that is the side that keeps insisting that if science is not "A&F" then anything is possible.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
What Kumar is trying to say is that the basis of immortality can be found in unbounded ways of thinking. Science is bounded by reality, common sense and other nasty constrains, so it has to be enjoyed by its benefits -meth labs in the garage, for instance- and discarded when it says those wings you have are worse than Icarus'.
Hence all this mythology declaring science to be defective while A&F marvels awaits us (if you're gullible enough), as all that philosophical talk is undistinguishable from drug dealing that's using baroque language.
Hence all this mythology declaring science to be defective while A&F marvels awaits us (if you're gullible enough), as all that philosophical talk is undistinguishable from drug dealing that's using baroque language.
No, those who anticipate scientific understandings are neither A&F not can be, those underestimate and degrade it.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
Doggedly pursuing that which cannot be demonstrated to exist gets you nowhere. See the numerous responses to your delusional "A&F" in numerous threads. So far as I can tell, nobody on the face of the Earth other than yourself has any conception of or interest in this rumored but unseen "A&F."
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Kumar certainly seems unable to provide the slightest shred of evidence to the contrary.
My say is ; either A&F on all sides or not on any side.
A&F things need no further evidence.
I think, Jebba in other thread made or making that thread immortal.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Kumar, agility is very good to climb trees, but not to debate in fora.
Either you're now smudging with your elbow what you wrote in the OP with your hand, or you just wanted this to be a thread orbiting around you, like many other inconsistent posters do all over the place.
Make your A&F mind.
Ok, sorry.
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
But that is not what you say, is it? Everyone here has told you over and over that there is no A&F on any side. Values and knowledge do not require it. It is possible to be wrong without any absolute right to refer it to. I do not need an absolute knowledge of the physics of gravity to say with confidence that when I drop a stone it will not fall up. A person who says a stone might fall up is a fool no matter how much he justifies the idea.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Wow, you can't even be bothered to spell the guy's name right.
There is no member here by the name of "Jebba".
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
If, by chance, you refer to "Jabba", well he has been owned for five years with his false arguments, and even he would not agree with your nonsense arguments.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
As per irrational egoistic skepticism but not as per truth.
If you perceive to be always non-A&F, how presentations by either side can not be contradicted depending on perception or ego?Anyone on anything which is not A&F, can reject on the basis of non A&F part, if he want so.
Thanks for correction. Bit not routine in my area. Whoever could not prove, satisfy or shown progress for five years either made him odd immortal in it or do not justify to deal or agree with my logics.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
How can we tell whether you are not providing evidence because your assertion is "A&F" or you are unable to provide evidence for it because it's a lie? How do we tell which is the case?
This is the attribute of non A&F. Either accept all non A&F or all A&F. Practically, accept all non A&F.