Ah - missed the distinction - thought QA was with author. Sorry. nt (Reply #5) - Democratic Underground

Create new account | My Profile | My Account | My Bookmarks | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Home Latest Threads Greatest Threads Forums & Groups My Subscriptions My Posts

DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Atheist Q&A » Reply #5

In the discussion thread: Atheist Q&A [View all]

Response to Silent3 (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:35 PM

dmallind (10,437 posts)

5. Ah - missed the distinction - thought QA was with author. Sorry. nt

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

17 replies	Author	Time	Post
Atheist Q&A [View all]	Silent3	Feb 2012	OP
Mostly agree. I think he short-sold humanistic morality a bit	dmallind	Feb 2012	#1
So you've read the book?	Silent3	Feb 2012	#2
Ah - missed the distinction - thought QA was with author. Sorry. nt	dmallind	Feb 2012	#5
As for my own answers...	Silent3	Feb 2012	#7
there is no rational basis for an idea like Occam's Razor	provis99	Feb 2012	#8
So	tama	Feb 2012	#9
But it is very good for deterrmining likely hypotheses to investigate	dmallind	Feb 2012	#10
it is of zero value when determining likely hypotheses.	provis99	Feb 2012	#12
In medicine, there is a similar construct.	cbayer	Feb 2012	#13
A) Crap b) why is either ontology or a philosopjy construct a question for scientists?	dmallind	Feb 2012	#14
Hogwash	skepticscott	Feb 2012	#15
Its NATURE!	elleng	Feb 2012	#3
You Are Searching For Certain Answers	1ProudAtheist	Feb 2012	#4
I can't get to the review that you're referencing.	Jim__	Feb 2012	#6
massimo's post	notinavat	Feb 2012	#16
Surprising that Rosenberg claims to be on board with all that; then claims the macro world is ...	Jim__	Feb 2012	#17
Pigliucci, Rosenberg etc	notinavat	Feb 2012	#11

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.