Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I know. Tell it them then.
I wrote to Carl Sagan in 1988 about socialism. He didn’t reply, but I wrote, and I think it’s important to do so.
And what Dawkins should be looking at, rather than at the stupidity of creationists, is WHY are people still choosing such paths.
Yes. I have left a comment on that.
Party members should leave comments. Even if Dawkins doesn’t see them, others watching the video(s) will.“the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are”).
I never said that and I would be wrong if I did.
” I just thought you might be in view of your seeming rejection of any active role for the mind in understanding the world of reality.”
I would be wrong to do that too.
“Pannekoek understood material reality to be a ‘continuous and unbounded stream in perpetual motion’”.
Something I have always said too. Even Taoism says that.
Good ol’ Heraclitus. He is right.
Marx too much for me? Rude!
Well, I’ll be an Heraclitan, thank you.
I will read this, but I just wonder if many of you are so engrossed in Marx that you confuse that with everything, even the natural sciences like astronomy.
Atoms exist, even if the word atom is invented by humans to assist understanding and converse.
Why am I a “naive realist”?
I’m a party member, aren’t I?
I just don’t put Marx into everything.
(I wondered the other day what a suspicious character who resembled him in my Asterix book was up to).What’s next? “A Marxian Analysis of the Planets”?
A real, material, phenomenon, though.
Your Atomic Self: The Invisible Elements That Connect You to Everything Else in the Universe https://g.co/kgs/edCp6X
