3RU7AL

hardly. just been around the block a few more tours than you have. Not omniscient, just observant.

the collapse of QAnon came less than three weeks after YouTube bans and 3 months after Twitter bans.

I've never met a true believer who really stopped believing anything and I'm sure there is some core membership that will mutate and persist if only for fellowship.  The new Russian security/domainname ought to cut deep into the old Q's reputation but perhaps somebody can recreate a new version of 8kun with a new version of Q.  Q's access becomes a lot harder to pretend in a Biden administration.  So not the end of believing, no, not in the short term anyway but the steady increase in believers that has surged pre-election is a tide we might hope has turned.

Is that a mental issue?

While I understand the intention is to take down harmful conspiracy theories before they become an issue, it ends up backfiring.

Without a reference moral standard moral claims cannot be (dis)proven.

...beyond the limits of perception or of logical proof,

It simply boils down to trust I suppose....Sometimes we just have to have trust in things....

Otherwise, how would we ever get anything done.

So, argue for your limitations; they'er yours.

"the capacity to spiritually apprehend divine truths, or realities beyond the limits of perception or of logical proof, viewed either as a faculty of the human soul, or as the result of divine illumination."

You exclude that these claims can be true because you believe these ancient people cannot tell the truth or are not authorities in the matters they speak of and appeal to.

Although beauty is not a moral value, I would still argue that its ideal is God. He is again the fixed reference point.

Historically, these indications were used to euthanize "undesirable" demographics in the early twentieth century if I'm not mistaken.

This was an "interesting" watch. I'm not sure what a sample of six black women is supposed to help elucidate,

What might those be? Who says there are limits to what can be known.

I'll give you one I know you to which youi have opposition, but I'll wager it has never been tried. Try it, honestly, completely, and without doubt. Faith.

A revelation God supplies those values.

So...Would believing any of this actually CHANGE how you acted in-real-life?........No.

It simply boils down to trust I suppose...

You special plead for the universe causing itself, or that something was before it, or that it is eternal, depending on which stance you take.

The GOD principle is a logical concept and worthy of consideration....But theistic belief in an unproven, specific deity, is illogical.

I'd go a step further and say that EVEN IFF something like "YHWH" was accepted as an AXIOM (ONTOLOGICAL FACT), that even then, following the supposed teachings of such a thing would be immoral (logically incoherent).

In other words, "YHWH" is a FACT and "The Bible" is 100% TRUE, now what?  Do you want everyone to stop mixing their fabrics and stone all divorcees to death?

And I would suggest that Axiom and ontology are not compatible...And similarly, ontology and fact are not compatible.

i had not necessarily included them, but, why not? All I'm saying is that limiting our perception of reality to 5 senses is nonsense.

If I feel that I cannot accept data at face value, I would have to verify utilising a reputable reference source.

Your worldview does not have what is necessary for the knowledge of origins. 

Perhaps my favourite evidence for the existence of God is the prophetic argument. I have not found an atheist on this forum (or any other) that understands the evidence's complexity and proofs.

The Christian worldview already has what is necessary, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal Being [OOOIEB]. 

I am saying that without a reasoning being who created the universe, the universe is without reason for its existence.

And what does taking the "average I.Q." and juxtaposing them among your so-called "races" intend to indicate?

I do know. I know intelligence is abstract. And that intelligence is informed by definition only.

We're not writing research papers. We're having a discussion. Had you read your own source, you would've noticed where it was from, rather than accuse me of "plagiarizing" it from a source, which, by the way, you failed to identify correctly. Furthermore, if I had intended to "plagiarize," then quoting the content would've been unnecessary. I would've simply passed it off as my own unaltered.

Appropriate is substantiated in that, for example, lumping all Japanese, Chinese, Malaysians, Koreans etc. into Asian, isn't as accurate as dividing them further. Of course, there is infinite regression until the individual has his/her group, but the same logic applies to colours, and we take no issue calling things red, orange, yellow etc. (i.e. what is considered to be appropriate).

Argumentum ad antiquitatem. The trends and traditions one indulges (i.e. parsing colors) does not provide substantiation to "appropriate."

What I attempted to convey to you is that skin colour alone doesn't determine race all that well. It's fine for Europeans and Africans. It's not fine for Africans and Australian Aboriginals.

So "Black" is not a race.

First, objectivity is irrational; Second, regardless of the source you cite, it will be biased.

Voting is difficult, has a high degree of accountability, and it time-consuming.

"the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another."

Only a racist can have racial hatred, but not all racists are hateful.  There is an obvious distinction.

Atheists  believe in atheism .....That is a contradiction in terms....Atheists lack belief in concepts.

Atheists might accept logical concepts as worthy of consideration....But they do not believe in them.

The GOD principle is a logical concept and worthy of consideration....But theistic belief in an unproven, specific deity, is illogical.

In a meaningless universe where you are a biological bag of atoms and derive your morality from genetic and environmental factors, why is it wrong to torture or kill innocent human beings?

prevent "geocentrism" style mistakes 

wrong question. Is there inherent prevention in any definition of any word?  No.

Do you deny that we may have more senses at our disposal than five?

I have no idea what  you are actually intending to communicate, in regards to anything Ive stated in last post.

Facts exist irrespective of unknowns.

Do you believe a god or gods exist?