Online:6 Years Ago Name:- Private -
Updated:6 Years Ago Gender:Prefer not to say
Joined:7 Years Ago Birthday:- Private -
President:Not Saying Email:- Private -
Ideology:Not Saying Education:Not Saying
Party:Not Saying Ethnicity:Not Saying
Relationship:- Private - Income:Less than $25,000
Interested:- Private - Occupation:- Private -
Looking:- Private - Religion:Atheist
About Me:I'm a tropane alkaloid.
Activities:I like to do physics, pharmacodynamics, neuroscience, and philosophy. Physics is the abusive spouse that beats me up, makes me feel stupid, but ultimately forces me to come back to it because I love it so much. Pharmacodynamics and neuroscience come from my personal interest in the human brain and psychoactive substances. As for philosophy, I shouldn't have to explain that.
Books:Paradise Lost/ Existentialism is a humanism/ The Myth of Sisyphus/ Thus Spoke Zarathustra/ On the Genealogy of Morals/ The Doors of Perception/ Macbeth (it's a play, but still)/ Physics: Principles and Applications/ Vienna 1814/ Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology/ The Felt Meanings of the World/ Quantum Physics for Poets/ The Atheist's Guide to Reality/ Basic and Clinical Pharmacology
Quotes:"But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the "observer," could be eliminated. "

But why then had Born not told me of this "pilot wave"? If only to point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing ""impossibility"" proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978? " Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?" -J.S. Bell
University of California, Graduate Class of 2019
Berkeley, California, United States

Idealism is true


Definitions Idealism: Idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality is fundamentally mental, or otherwise immaterial. First round is for acceptance only. Burden of Proof is shared....

Post Voting Period
Updated 6 Years Ago

Physics is not able to determine whether or not A or B theory is true.


Resolution: Physics is not able to determine whether or not A or B theory is true.A-theory (the "A-theory of time"): the tensed view of time in which the past and future do not existB-theory (the "B-theory of time"): the tenseless view of time in which the past, present, and future are all equally real"Not able to" refers to the current state of physics, not the practice of physics in principle....

Post Voting Period
Updated 6 Years Ago

God exists


Definitions God: An entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and the cause of the universe. Universe: all and only that which exists (in this case, synonymous with reality). Cause: Something that brings about an effect or result First round is for acceptance only....

Post Voting Period
Updated 6 Years Ago

General Relativity Implies that God does not Exist


For some time, Sargon has contended that general relativity supplies an argument for atheism; that is to say, implies that God does not exist. Him and I have debated this issue else where, and I am more convinced than ever that general relativity implies no such thing. But for the convenience of DDO users, a debate here would be helpful. First round is for Sargon to present his argument as Pro. For an equal number of rounds, Sargon will not be posting a reply on round four. Plagiarism...

Post Voting Period
Updated 6 Years Ago

Science has shown/is about to show God to be implausible/unecessary as an explanation


I tried this debate earlier but someone accepted it by accident who agreed with me (at least thats what I think happened). So I'm trying it again. I want to debate whether or not science has shown or is on the verge of showing that God isn't needed to explain the universe or that God doesn't exist. In other words, does science show God to be less plausible?I contend that this is NOT the case Note, this is not a debate about Christianity per se or any other religion. It is a debate...

Post Voting Period
Updated 6 Years Ago
Sargon's profile comments are private.
Win Ratio:100.00%
Elo Ranking:4,166
Forum Posts:524
Votes Cast:83
Opinion Arguments:2
Opinion Questions:1
Poll Votes:8
Poll Topics:0
Sargon's friends are private.
1 Album
Updated 6 Years Ago
Disagree: 0.00%
Agree: 0.00%
Affirmative ActionN/S
Animal RightsN/S
Barack ObamaN/S
Border FenceN/S
Civil UnionsN/S
Death PenaltyN/S
Drug LegalizationN/S
Electoral CollegeN/S
Environmental ProtectionN/S
Estate TaxN/S
European UnionN/S
Federal ReserveN/S
Flat TaxN/S
Free TradeN/S
Gay MarriageN/S
Global Warming ExistsN/S
Gold StandardN/S
Gun RightsN/S
Internet CensorshipN/S
Iran-Iraq WarN/S
Labor UnionN/S
Legalized ProstitutionN/S
Medicaid & MedicareN/S
Medical MarijuanaN/S
Military InterventionN/S
Minimum WageN/S
National Health CareN/S
National Retail Sales TaxN/S
Occupy MovementN/S
Progressive TaxN/S
Racial ProfilingN/S
Smoking BanN/S
Social ProgramsN/S
Social SecurityN/S
Stimulus SpendingN/S
Term LimitsN/S
United NationsN/S
War in AfghanistanN/S
War on TerrorN/S

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.