- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
This is a semantical difference. I distinguish conscious/unconscious differently than voluntary/involuntary. You have put them together.
It's actually "subconscious" rather than "unconscious", a distinction that arises when looking closely but fades from afar. Subconscious is all involuntary thoughts, when conscious is all understandable+voluntary ones. Unconscious are the nonunderstandable thoughts to the conscious monitor, such as internal bodily processes.
This sounds like a compatibilist position.
As a materialist, you can't attribute your control to things from which you are isolated. An immaterialist and a duelist can do that, for you have completely different criteria for the "self" that can effectively separate it from its material causes and effects.
I said that not learning language at all hinders one’s ability to later learn language at all. That part of the brain where language occurs needs to be utilized and conditioned within a certain span of time, or else it can hardly develop at all.
It seems contradictory. First, you say that it's hindered. Then you say that it can hardly develop at all. Earlier, you had used only the latter claim.
There is no reason to believe that higher level math could develop without the fundamental language having first been established, not only because it would be meaningless, but because many, if not most, higher math concepts arose as a result of working with the language of fundamental math.
It's unlikely, and, of course, wouldn't be the conceptual branch as I said, but merely consisting of particulars. It's still possible, though, but without language and learning, it will generally be pretty primitive.
Though the parts of advanced pure maths which are not pragmatic enough to notice even for particulars will stay unnoticed.
It is because of power i'm not catholic. Satan sits where ever world power is. That is not christ followership.
Not like you don't want Christus to be in power.
Any religion that can be used against the state is an unsafe one. One could claim to be your messiah and make you people revolt. That is, incidentally, about exactly what happened 2000 years ago. If it wasn't for Nero burning them on crucifixions, they'd have been given more power sooner.
In whiich book do you find the synonym for chimp to be 'I'.
I don't need to.
Its not fair the way you shift blame in times of difficulty. You never complained till now. Very convenient.
I wasn't complaining, but just wondering if it's a better option to make the unsafe religious nuts yield or just dispose them off. The whole point of such religion is to try to escape torture, so they will submit sooner or later if given the choice to. There's a reason I called it The Purgatory.
You always claim to be rational. Is that the normal in your rational world? Then even hope can't save you. I mean why would a monkey suddenly go fuck a pig? And also how many of them? All of them?
Yes, it's normal. Interbreeding and hybrids are normal in evolution...that's how it works, after all. I'd guess that you can still breed with a real chimp if you prefer so. Not a pig probably, though, but you can still try and tell me whether it works.
It's also normal that I not be stubbornly stuck on any old theory that doesn't seem to work well enough.
DNA is the code, it is contained in the cells and every where, no matter how dirty or wet or crumpled the envelope may be, the message still remains.Cells die. DNA still lives.
It lives, but can not replicate perfectly. That's the reason humans are mortal, because inside a body, you must have almost perfect replication, and that depletes soon enough, so you die.
how come all planets follow a certain pattern?
No, they don't.
And just right where the sun and moon could give them light,
It is common that planets have a satellite.
However, such arguments are completely arbitrary and senseless, for Earth isn't so special that we should be surprised enough to conclude omnipotent entities. The argument could have been used for any planet we were on.
All the stars seem to be gathered at one place, meteroids orbiting around the sun, asteroid belts etc.
Asteroids are common in space, and even if they weren't, an asteroid best isn't anything special.
And you wanna talk about the universe?
With you? No.
I see that the edit wasn't completed. Perhaps I closed the browser or something.
Obama's ideal America, as it was portrayed to be since ages, would have been a fine place to find a World Order on. Trump has exposed that it's a worthless pit and all the effort there has been pitiful. I'd have expected more for the newly discovered continent that was brought to power, a place without any old culture. It requires, after all, a lot of effort.
Thanks to more integrated economies now, it won't take centuries to bring it back down. You people could have shined in the pages of history, but it seems like you want a smaller illusion power.
Just...be prepared to lose if the things get out of control. Hiding them again won't work.