Prev: How to Answer the Census.
Next:  Slavery. Urban Legend vs. United States law.
From: Kadaitcha Man on 20 Mar 2010 01:42
"raven1", thou repulsive fiend of hell. On my knee I give heaven thanks
that I am not like to thee. Ye issued forth:

> science takes nothing on faith

lmfao

Gawd, your delusions are deep.

"The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,”
as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has
its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption
that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn't
be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of
odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper
level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their
instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical
order. And so far this faith has been justified."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

Op-Ed Contributor
Taking Science on Faith
By PAUL DAVIES
Published: November 24, 2007

--
I have defined no god. And when I do need to define some god for the
purposes of discussing its nature with atheists I always define the
supposed some god in the very same concrete and arbitrary terms, without
variation:

God = Metaphysical X

Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic
assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue
against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly
b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.
From: Kadaitcha Man on 20 Mar 2010 01:53
"Virgil", thou awful sour annoy. Poisonous bunch backed toad. Ye mooed:

> "Spiritual science" is not a science in the same sense as, say,
> chemistry is a science.

Bullshit. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine has proven as a
scientific fact that magic mushrooms cause spiritual experiences.

--
I have defined no god. And when I do need to define some god for the
purposes of discussing its nature with atheists I always define the
supposed some god in the very same concrete and arbitrary terms, without
variation:

God = Metaphysical X

Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic
assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue
against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly
b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.
From: Kadaitcha Man on 20 Mar 2010 02:23
"Immortalist", thou lewd peevish officer. Thou hath a half face. Ye sent
out:

> A new theory of cognitive biases, called error management theory (EMT),
> proposes that psychological mechanisms are designed to be predictably
> biased when the costs of false-positive and false-negative errors were
> asymmetrical over evolutionary history. This theory explains known
> phenomena such as men's overperception of women's sexual intent

Either you are a woman or you have never analysed the nature of your own
male sexual experiences. Or you have no sexual experiences whatsoever to
speak of.

Men do not have an over-perception of women's sexual intent. Men
delusionally impose their own intended results upon women and then
proceed to behave towards women as if their delusions were true.

--
I have defined no god. And when I do need to define some god for the
purposes of discussing its nature with atheists I always define the
supposed some god in the very same concrete and arbitrary terms, without
variation:

God = Metaphysical X

Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic
assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue
against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly
b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.
From: Ste on 20 Mar 2010 05:22
On 20 Mar, 06:23, Kadaitcha Man <a...(a)no.email> wrote:
> "Immortalist", thou lewd peevish officer. Thou hath a half face. Ye sent
> out:
>
> > A new theory of cognitive biases, called error management theory (EMT),
> > proposes that psychological mechanisms are designed to be predictably
> > biased when the costs of false-positive and false-negative errors were
> > asymmetrical over evolutionary history. This theory explains known
> > phenomena such as men's overperception of women's sexual intent
>
> Either you are a woman or you have never analysed the nature of your own
> male sexual experiences. Or you have no sexual experiences whatsoever to
> speak of.
>
> Men do not have an over-perception of women's sexual intent. Men
> delusionally impose their own intended results upon women and then
> proceed to behave towards women as if their delusions were true.

I dare say men's behaviour is more a socially-conditioned ritual and a
display of their own intent, rather than an over-estimation of a
woman's interest.
From: Mitchell Holman on 20 Mar 2010 08:00
Ste <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
news:171afd72-7fac-4b25-814c-7b5cf1d754e6(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

> On 20 Mar, 06:23, Kadaitcha Man <a...(a)no.email> wrote:
>> "Immortalist", thou lewd peevish officer. Thou hath a half face. Ye
>> sent out:
>>
>> > A new theory of cognitive biases, called error management theory
>> > (EMT), proposes that psychological mechanisms are designed to be
>> > predictably biased when the costs of false-positive and
>> > false-negative errors were asymmetrical over evolutionary history.
>> > This theory explains known phenomena such as men's overperception
>> > of women's sexual intent
>>
>> Either you are a woman or you have never analysed the nature of your
>> own male sexual experiences. Or you have no sexual experiences
>> whatsoever to speak of.
>>
>> Men do not have an over-perception of women's sexual intent. Men
>> delusionally impose their own intended results upon women and then
>> proceed to behave towards women as if their delusions were true.
>
> I dare say men's behaviour is more a socially-conditioned ritual and a
> display of their own intent, rather than an over-estimation of a
> woman's interest.
>


And women rely on and even encourage that display
of male sexual intent, thru dress and walk and hours
spent trying to be "attractive" and "seductive" and
"mysterious".







 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: How to Answer the Census.
Next:  Slavery. Urban Legend vs. United States law.