I think he'd probably correct his mistake and murder you first.
woscar
Didn't feel like (or thought that it warranted) starting a new thread for this...
Quite hilarious debate between Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris vs two rabbis on the question Is there an afterlife?
It's good to see Hitchens hasn't lost one bit of his wit and that both him and Harris called out the rabbis on their constant cop-out arguments and fake "I agree with everything you said" crap.
At the 40 minute mark, Hitchens makes a hilarious remark that made me spit out my lunch, LOL.
Desiderata
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
I Think they're equally credible, or equally incredible because neither are proven, or provable, and I don't think it matters that they are or aren't. My point isn't about the validity of either, my point is that they are both complete suppositions based on completely fallible perception of different things.
Why does it matter how we got here? Why do we need an 'answer' when it is logically impossible to ever have one? The only reason i was backing religion is because I think it is equally as irrational for people to make scientific claims about the state of reality, when they are based upon equally flimsy premises.
Sure, empiricism deals with things we can physically experience, but look at Descartes, and other methodological skeptics. Nothing is beyond doubt. You and I most likely realise that science is a suggestion of hose things might be, but I personally get extremely annoyed (and have had many rants on here about) lay scientists who see scientific principles as absolute truths, despite completely fallible, historically contextual and entirely subjective perceptions of a universe in flux. To me personally that is the same as people who base their world view on metaphysical perceptions.
I know i'm in the minority and i don't think you and i disagree on many points, but I personally think its important :)
In a rough read it seems you are sort of almost saying, don't try to make advancements in Science and don't try to ponder the Universe and all of it's many Theory's that are in the work, just give it time and some of these Theory's will become fact but we need more space travel which is going to take place beyond our years.
::Correct me if I am wrong here::
Edit: I personaly think we should spend timeon wondering how we got here, and actually I think that question is already answered. I think the problem is what are we supposed to do while we are here.
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by Desiderata
we need more space travel which is going to take place beyond our years.
::Correct me if I am wrong here::
NASA has posited that there will be a manned mission to mars within the next 20 years.
Desiderata
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
NASA has posited that there will be a manned mission to mars within the next 20 years.
I can't wait...seriously
I remember seeing Halley's Comet in the 5th Grade, it only shows up once ever 75 years or so, never will see that again and while living in Texas I was outside at school for playtime in 1st to 3rd grade and saw that Challenger Space Shuttle blow up right above me, I will never forget that moment even though I didn't fully understand the gravity of the situation at the time. I'm a freak when it comes to anything beyond this Earth and Theroy's on Space. I am thrilled we might actually get the 'Grand Design of Everything' soon.
Meat187
lol at my own random rant. :stongue: Read that post people, it's the best and most profound one in this thread. :toothless ;)
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
NASA has posited that there will be a manned mission to mars within the next 20 years.
Considering the amount of money such a program will cost for no direct benefit I have my doubts if it'll happen.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
lol at my own random rant. :stongue: Read that post people, it's the best and most profound one in this thread. :toothless ;)
I actually did :stongue:
Well, not the whole post, but the best bits :p
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
Considering the amount of money such a program will cost for no direct benefit I have my doubts if it'll happen.
How would you define no direct benefit? I would think the first manned mission to another planet to be of huge impact on the scientific community. It would completely blow the first mission to the moon out of the water. It's not just aimed at tackling the feat of actually traveling there, as NASA has determined that a nuclear-powered rocket would only take about 4 months to reach Mars, but the implications of a first step towards colonization of an extraterrestrial planet/moon could prove to be invaluable considering the rate at which we are destroying our own planet. The co-founder of Google has also pledged to donate well over a billion dollars to the project, and they've estimated that the total cost would be around 10 billion.
Here's the article, and to correct myself, they said it would be likely that they would first put people on one of Mars' moons before landing on Mars itself, and that NASA could put people on one of the moons by 2030. They also noted that it would be feasible that humans could be put on Mars permanently by the middle of this century.
Originally posted by srussell0018
How would you define no direct benefit? I would think the first manned mission to another planet to be of huge impact on the scientific community. It would completely blow the first mission to the moon out of the water. It's not just aimed at tackling the feat of actually traveling there, as NASA has determined that a nuclear-powered rocket would only take about 4 months to reach Mars, but the implications of a first step towards colonization of an extraterrestrial planet/moon could prove to be invaluable considering the rate at which we are destroying our own planet. The co-founder of Google has also pledged to donate well over a billion dollars to the project, and they've estimated that the total cost would be around 10 billion.
Here's the article, and to correct myself, they said it would be likely that they would first put people on one of Mars' moons before landing on Mars itself, and that NASA could put people on one of the moons by 2030. They also noted that it would be feasible that humans could be put on Mars permanently by the middle of this century.
I hear but I have to disagree with on thing and that is the colonization of any planet in the Milky Way. Yes, Mars is the most similar to Earth. At one point in my life I thought well maybe the space probes to Mars can take a long with them Green House gases and slowly let them into the atmosphere of Mars thus slowly turning it into an Earth like atmosphere and make it habitable over many years but this is most unlikely, at least with today's technology.
Meat187
I meant that it's just of a theoretical scientific interest and for prestige. In the short and middle term the money is spend for not much actual benefit, so my thought is that this budget will be cut at some point.
And I don't believe in any scenarios regarding space colonies during my lifetime.
My basic point is that I believe prestige projects and nice futuristic dreams will eventually have to face economic reality and take a step back at that point.
srussell0018
Maybe, but look at how far technology has come in the last 20 years. Now think about where it will be in the next 20. I think it's definitely feasible for this to become reality within that timespan. I mean cars can park themselves now ffs!
Desiderata
No need to argue, in 20 years in you two are still on TA just bump this Thread and see who was right or closer to the actual topic
