Dragon Ball Z Uncensored

Action Hank · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:11 am)

http://www.videosift.com/video/Gravity-Wave

This is cool. Weather phenomenon called a Gravity Wave.

8 bit orgy · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:33 am)

You're not supposed to talk about things that can't directly entertain penis at this forum.

8 bit orgy · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:17 am)

Scary stuff!

8 bit orgy · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:18 am)

This is about that relavent to fagtown members as the giant hexagon on Saturn.

Action Hank · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:39 am)

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT REAL SCIENCE, NOT YOUR GAY ALIEN BULLSHIT!

Big Fagot · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:13 am)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8669488783707640763

MADali · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:37 am)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6933059.stm

MADali · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:39 am)

More about the above scientist -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett

So how realistic is this guy's dream? When I listened to a BBC interview with him a couple of days back, BBC claimed that his articles are publiches in respectable journals.

Also, I like how he claims that it is only possible to go back in time only as far back as when the machine was created. That makes it more plausible in my mind!

Big Fagot · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:58 am)

I've heard of using wormholes to accomplish time travel but I have no idea about this guy's method, so I can't say anything.

Theldorrin · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:25 am)

Have you guys read about that guy that wants to use tornadoes to cool nuclear reactors?

Stupid Fucking Faggot · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:32 pm)

Richard Dawkins is such an insufferable fundamentalist faggot.

He's the Jerry Fallwell of science!

Theldorrin · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:04 pm)

Religious people hate him because his arguments are so lucid and clear that they're irrefutable.

Stupid Fucking Faggot · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:15 pm)

Whatever you think of his arguments, he's raving and emotional and passionate about them, and that's more what I'm talking about.

He does not present his ideas with scientific objectivity. He has that whole "missionary" attitude which is becoming more and more prevalent with materialists as time goes on.

As far as his arguments being "irrefutable," that's silly, but that's something else.

I was at Borders yesterday reading the latest issue of Skeptic, and Deepak Chopra (of all people) kicked his ass.

Action Hank · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:34 pm)

So you don't like that he uses the tactics of those he rails against as well, or better, than they do?

8 bit orgy · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:45 pm)

Atheism is completely dead. People don't give a fuck about taboo subjects wether they're true or not. Even less are willing to set public policy to them. Yes, we know you guys want the freedom to molest little girls legally, but no, it's not going to happen no matter how many British pricks preach on.

Nowadays we go through phases that give us energy and ambition. Note that atheist champions often target people of faith to show how "destructive" it is rather than truly stick to technical, philosophical theories. One is easy, fun, and might change the world, the other is hard, boring, means nothing to anyone (and is ultimately wrong).

Instead we get ramblings about how bible stories don't match up with historical context and that Mormons are fucking nuts. Wow, who the fuck cares?

MADali · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:09 pm)

I guess a religious debate between 8 Bit Orgy and Theldorrin is what we've all secretly lusting for.

Action Hank · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:12 pm)

That sounds as exciting as a Ramoth/Ataru argument.

Theldorrin · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:12 pm)

Chris, Dawkins presents both logical and emotional arguments that are much more accurate and rational than anything else. Deepak Chopra is a farce, and debating Dawkins is a big mistake because he always makes the other side look incredibly ridiculous.

For example, looking at an article by Deepak Chopra (it may not be the same one), I see many of the typical mistakes.

People that don't agree with Dawkins like to say that his argument is 'poisonous' and weakens his own position, but that's really just another way of saying that they don't agree. Obviously the fact that they don't agree weakens his argument in their eyes, since it means that they don't agree with it!

Incidentally, both Newton and Einstein were deists, which share more in common with atheism than it does with theistic beliefs (Ie. it believes everything can be explained via natural processes).

And there are numerous other problems, but there's no point in mentioning them because they're simply beyond your understanding, Chris.

Theldorrin · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:13 pm)

Also, most pedophiles are Catholics. And a disproportionate number are members of the clergy.

Derek Payne · (Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:15 pm)

flaweles lojik