Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Admitting when you are wrong rather than just going silent when people call you out will also help your credibility in case you ever happen to be right about something in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ok. So, do you have a personal objection in giving us an example a moral action that is empirically "bad" but prescribed by your moral code?
It is possible that you meant to say prohibited rather than prescribed but for the purpose of this post I will assume no such typo occurred so as to limit confusion. If this assumption is incorrect simply restate your question.
Anyway this new question is the opposite of what you asked before. Since the answer to your other question was 'yes' and the opposite of that is 'no' I must remain consistent here by saying that my moral code has no such prescription.
It would be internally inconsistent to say that it did anyway. Your definition of empirically bad is "something everyone agrees is subjectively bad", therefore since I am a subset of 'everyone' then if I disagreed with someone on some moral point (such as if they thought something was bad but my moral code prescribed that thing like in your new question) then there is no empirical agreement on said point, thus rendering the question unintelligible due to its wording requiring empirical agreement.
Created:
I think a mafia program would probably play better as town than as scum. What do you guys think?
Created:
My favorite is the Ontalogical Argument. The most common objection is as follows:
Premise one: The Ontalogical Argument requires a maximum being to necissarily exist in every possible reality in order to be sound.Premise two: It is possible to imagine a possible reality where no beings of any kind existConclusion: The Ontalogical Argument is not sound.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I don't think anyone is planning on making it against the rules to use logical fallacies (I could be wrong about that of course, in which case I wholeheartedly agree with you)... I think the point is to just create a general guide for use as reference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
refraining from obvious logical fallaciesWould you mind making a first draft for said section?
Don't forget strawman fallacy... Seems to be the most common one in my experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Nah. No wifi and videos eat up data on the phone a lot faster than text forums. Doubt it would be worth it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Haha idk maybe. If he does come back 9999 days from now, well... I for one will enjoy his absence until then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Just did the math actually, he is banned for exactly 10000 days. That explains it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i believe the bible is only inspired, not infallible or inerrant
That certainly makes more sense than the alternative. After all if the creator of the universe wanted the message to be infallible I doubt 'collection of books' would have been the basis in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's really specific. Where did the mods say that?
On his profile page. I agree it is an odd number though, would have expected exactly 20 years or exactly 30 years or something like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
And which are you saying I am guilty of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What any sane human being would determine was personally "bad", as in bad for him.
In other words something that everyone agrees with their subjective standards is bad?
Okay. By that definition the answer to question one is 'yes'.
Created:
Posted in:
Can your moral code give us an moral action that is empirically "bad"?
What do you mean by empirically bad? My answer to this question obviously depends on how you respond to this but my guess would be 'no'. Could be 'yes' though, obviously depends on your answer.
If it cannot, how is your morality different from your personal tastes?
The phrase "personal tastes" inherently has the implication that the subject is not one of great importance. Morality on the other hand is generally considered to be an important subject. Therefore the answer to your question is "personal tastes and moral judgements differ in that they are ascribed different levels of importance".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yeah okay I can get behind that I suppose. It seems the mods won't be formally endorsing the creation of such a position but enough people seem in favor that there is the possibility of actually getting something like this done. I guess I would second singus above question. If the answer is that you are willing to undertake the organization of such a process then I can volunteer my assistance in doing so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
look at cern. it's proportions are the same as the earth and moon. i doubt that was done on purpose by humans. There is another mind somewhere doing things.
What does the bolded portion even mean? Looks like random words...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Look, I get that you are trying to prove a point through parody and all... I think that is a good way to make points sometimes and as you know I am an athiest so yeah I get it... But could you at least read the Bible before you start making claims about it?
It is pretty obvious that the portion of the passage that you bolded, underlined, and italicized (bit of overkill there, as a side note) is not Jesus ordering some dudes death. It is pretty obvious that the portion of the passage that you bolded, underlined, and italicized is Jesus telling a story about some dude ordering some other dudes death. By 'pretty obvious' what I mean is that the reading comprehension level required is roughly mid elementary school level so either you already knew what I just told you, you never actually read the Bible (at least not this part) and instead just did something silly like Google "Jesus orders killing" or something like that, or the third possibility is that you legitimately do have a severe lack of reading comprehension skills. I mean seriously, these books are incredibly simplistic and easy to understand due to the fact that they were written by primitive peoples. You therefore really have to be incredibly dull not to get it.
These are litterally the only three possibilities for what is happening here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Firstly, the guns labeled assault weapons by California are civilian weapons designed for hunting, sporting, and self-defense, not mass killings.
Most people on this site already know that I am pro-gun, I mention that I am now because idk whether you are aware of this or not.
However I would still like to ask a question in regards to your above quote. Why do you think it is at all relevant what a weapon is designed for? Don't you think that what a weapon is capable of should be more relevant? That is what you seem to imply in the OP but the quote above appears to contradict this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Ah, okay.
Well this seems like a natural conclusion to said discussion. So what have we learned today in this thread about the crisis in the Middle East? We learned that we shouldn't work at Planet Fitness lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
someone did the math for inflation and the minimum would be like 9 something an hour,
Yeah 9-10 an hour sounds about right to me. That is the minimum in my state I already said I think 15 is too much.
And to answer your question 'who actually gets paid min wage?', off the top of my head the people that work at my gym have told me they get paid that much. I am sure a simple Google search could reveal more examples but I am getting ready to head to work right now myself.
perhaps spending and waste could be cut so people could keep more of what they earn, your take home is all that really matters, what you get to keep and spend.
I still don't see how that is incompatible with anything I have said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
In post 78 you say...
Your (or mine) good, logical, reasons
In post 80 you say...
If ones logic is faulty
So which is it? Are you talking about
1) The potential to be logical but wrong due to incomplete information or are you talking about
2) The potential to think one is being logical but in fact be using faulty logic?
These are clearly two very different things and the answer to either accusation would therefore have a different response from me so I need to know which you are talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
or, we could let people keep more of the money they earn?
The weird part here is that your tone of voice suggests that you believe I would disagree with you on this.
Lowes and Home Depot actually pay fairly decently.
Hahaha okay I'll need to watch myself when reading your comments from now on. Nearly laughed myself to death just now.
I worked at Home Depot for a year and a half. They don't pay minimum wage, but they sure as hell do not pay 'fairly decently".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do I think a $15 minimum wage is a terrible idea? Yes, I would certainly be against that.
Okay me too but do you at least think it should be increased somewhat to account for inflation in the several decades since it was last updated? I think $15 is a bit much but there are also those that think it should stay where it is and that doesn't seem right to me either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
44$that's how much weekly groceries for one person usually costs.
Holy shit, are you shopping at a goddamn Whole Foods or are you just a fatass?
More to the point though $20-40 is pretty average for a computer game and $60 is pretty average for a console game so I see no reason to call this price tag unreasonable. Most humans don't buy a new video game every week lol.
Created:
Posted in:
do you know what the bird of love is?THE SWALLOW
DART: Turning Monty Python memes into sexual innuendos since 2020.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
@Reece101
I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. Also are you sure it was said in context?
It is pretty obvious that I was mocking the people that argue that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is not. It is not an actual quote since it is obvious to everyone that walking thousands of kilometers is possible.
In reality the term microevolution was first coined by scientists as a legitimate scientific term with actual usefulness but has since been hijacked by creationists in order to verbalize the above absurdity, so even as a parody my post is technically inaccurate. Even so I think I made my point.
Tagging stronn in this post only because he was tagged in the post that this is a reply to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Okay. I see prediction lists like this all the time and don't really follow sports so never really understood the exact point of the numbers. I think it is more clear to me now. Basically more of an estimated likelihood that your prediction is accurate?
Created:
Posted in:
So... What is this anyway? Estimating the number of points each team will get?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Maybe. I would obviously have some problems with that idea if I was a believer but as it is it seems possible. I would need to see an English translation of what was available to the people at the time to say for sure which explanation makes more sense to me.
Created:
Lots of stupid answers and only one sensical one. Can't believe I actually read three whole pages of this lol.
Of course the only response that makes any sense whatsoever (obviously referring to post 8) is ignored by all. Typical DART.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Oh you're still alive? You should post more. 3 times more to be exact.
Created:
Posted in:
Ask me anything
What is your name?
What is your quest?
What is your favorite color?
What is the capital of Assyria?
What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
THE ONE OF MANY narratives below showing that Jesus is a serial killer?!
Lol serial killer must mean something different where you come from. How much of the Bible have you read? It is pretty obvious from your post that you never read Luke 19.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
<br>He's essentially stonewalling my challenge by questioning "genuine interest" and seeking a referendum placed on me to question his references rather than his explaining the relevance of each of his points in the first place.
His exact words (copy-pasted) were "Which would you like to discuss more in-depth?"
You were screwing around by not picking a topic to discuss in-depth and he was screwing around by insisting that you pick a topic rather than picking one himself and starting a discussion about it. My charge of obstinacy is objectively justified by a simple read-through of the conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't really see the point. We already have a popularity contest in the form of the HoF.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
“Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”But that's not how faith is used.
That is the most commonly used definition so unless clarified otherwise that is what people are going to assume one means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
D=DrFranklin
Guess I will never be on this list then lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So it is impossible for there to be an explanation for the universe that does not involve god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
So basically the title of this thread is " Athiests think some things are true" then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
ok that doesnt matter. it's your opinion and not a fact these are just rebuttals to some common objections
What about the fact that it is possible for their to be an explanation for the universe that does not involve god? Your strawman sets it up as being either god or no explanation at all as the only two options.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Faith "complete trust or confidence in someone or something"
So by your definition if one has good logical reasons for what they say then that person is still said to have faith in whatever it is they are talking about. Okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think if you took a survey of athiests probably less than half would find those objections valid because the views expressed within said objections do not match their views.
You know what a strawman is right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
You don't know the cause but you are sure that it happened, sounds like faith to me.
Oh, I thought by faith you meant 'belief without evidence'. If we are going off of a different definition then sure I may or may not have faith, depends on what definition you use. There are several different valid definitions of the word that have developed over the centuries due to its highly charged emotional connotations in society.
If you are going to claim that I have faith in something and you are going to use one of the lesser used definitions though then I would like for you to tell us which definition you are using.
Created:
-->
@Singularity
Did anybody say Dunning Kruger affect yet? That is usually the cause of extremely confident opinions
LMAO, post 7.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This is because atheists typically argue that if atheism is true, then the universe has no explanation of its existence.
Some atheists have suggested that it is impossible for the universe to have an explanation of its existence.
Some atheists have claimed that the universe exists necessarily
Does it bother you that this argument is built on a pile of strawmen?
Created: