Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well it was made up? wasnt it
No, it wasn’t. I’ve already explained this.
The alleged bounties that Russia was putting in US troops was in Trump’s Intel briefing. It was never a certainty, it was something that our agents picked up on as a possibility. Trump then ignored it.
Months later, the media *reported* the above facts. Trump’s response was to attack the media (his only card).
It literally is a hoax, how can YOU not understand that fact, you keep beating around the bush thinking that the media reported it honestly, they didnt- they didnt consider trump was correct and slammed him for all the hoaxes under the sun
There was no deception here. The intelligence was in his briefing, he did nothing, he defended Russia *before* it would later be determined for sure that it was false, and he did absolutely nothing to assure our troops, our people, or anyone else around the world that this kind of aggression against the US would not be tolerated. You know, the kind of thing ANY president would have done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
well, this battle is farrrr from over, what about using our state legislatures to get our power like in Georgia
Are you talking about the presidential election?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't generally trust rich people unless they give me a VERY good reason to trust them.
What does your trust or lack there of in rich people have to do with it?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you have any sort of process by which you judge something the media says to be a lie, like say Occam’s Razor, or is that just the default for any story you don’t like?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Actually, IT IS when something is completely made up and the liberal elite establishment promote it for their gain
They didn’t make it up. They *reported* on the fact that the Intel was in Trump’s briefing and he did nothing in reaction to it. What is so difficult about that? Why do you refuse to understand it?
He reacted to it truthfully. He called what it is- a hoax, he is the trustful man in this story clearly
It wasn’t a hoax and his reaction to this had absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the story. Trump did what Trump always does, attack the messenger. If that is how you judge someone as trustworthy I feel bad for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The individuals background is a focus for me, because I dislike how a part of society is glorifying him.
I just explained how you are wrong. Did you read what I wrote? Do you have any thoughts on it?
The individuals background is a focus for me, because it pertains to their physical health, which pertains to the possible cause of death.
Every medical expert who examined Floyd before and after his death made clear that he was killed by having a knee to his neck. What more information do you need and why?
I 'expect if the person was white, there would not have been such mass protests,
Nice dodge. The question was, do you really believe that his past, just like the past of every other black person we’ve seen die at the hands of the police, would be scrutinized the same way of all these people were white? Do you really think there would be this national effort to paint them as thugs and criminals?
I 'don't agree with the.. lack of personal responsibility, claims of being the 'only individuals with any hardship in life.
You’re just wrong on both of those. Lack of attention to personal responsibility is not as you are conveniently interpreting it, a suggestion that he/they handled the situation perfectly. It’s about the fact that if we are going to discuss responsibility we need to start with the professionals. It’s absolutely absurd that a police officer, someone who is trained, paid, and entrusted makes a mistake that kills someone, and you want to instead focus on the actions of the civilian who meets none of that criteria and carries none of that responsibility. Until people like you stop raging about silly things like your imagined national worship of George Floyd, that will and should remain the focus.
And no one is claiming that black people are the only ones facing any kind of hardship. Where did you get that from?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
right about calling the intel a hoax, which it was
Do you even know what the word hoax means? Clearly not. Hint: it’s not when the intelligence community gets something wrong.
THE MSM created a story and trump handled it the way he always does- he told the fucking truth
No, the MSM reported on what was in Trump’s intel briefings that we all know he doesn’t read, and Trump reacted to it not the way any normal president would have - by ensuring the country that he takes these kinds of threats seriously - but by doing what he always does, making it about himself and how everyone is always out to get him.
But this thread is proof of why he does that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So the best leaders are the ones that can spin a tale.
No genius, the best leaders are ones who take threats to their troops seriously, regardless of whether they turn out to be true after they leave office.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
If someone with rough, life risking past, of disobeying the law, consuming drugs, threatening other humans dies at the hands of police, then a person is not so surprised or outraged as when a stellar past fellow dies at the hands of police.
But why is this your focus? Floyd dies at the hands of police and instead of focusing on why the people who are trained with our tax dollars, sworn to protect us, and given a gun and a badge would treat someone like that, you focus on Floyd’s poor life decisions and suggest he just wasn’t with caring about. It’s disgusting.
This is exactly why black people feel the need to tell the world that their lives matter. We we see this every single time a black person is killed, a race to dig up every single bad thing they did in their life so they can be painted as a worthless thug. Do you really believe the same would happen if these people were white? Honestly, do you?
Certainly I and some others judge Chauvin upon his past complaints.
Of course, because Chauvin was the one on trial. His actions are the ones being evaluated, so of course his past is relevant. Floyd never got that chance, which is why it’s so disgusting when people like you focus on him.
'I see hypocrisy and lack of self responsibility in the movement at large.
You should probably listen to what the movement is actually saying. Hint: you won’t find it on Fox News.
But a significant part of society see's him as an angel, hero, martyr, innocent lamb.
No they don’t, that’s what you’re projecting onto everyone else. Floyd is not a martyr, he’s a symbol of what nearly every black person in America fears. Read your own links; “George Floyd reflects our pain”
This isn’t that hard. I’m not sure whether it was meant as a serious statement before when you said you don’t feel empathy, but it seems clear that you don’t. I suggest you spend some time practicing it before you judge where others are coming from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
but I wonder if he acted as he did because he thought it was expected of him
Though what was expected of him?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
looks like trump was right again
Right about what? The reporting was that Trump was briefed on this back in February last year and did nothing about it, which is as far as we know all true. It was clear when the story broke that this wasn’t definite, and that wasn’t the point. Trump’s handling of this story afterward is what made this such a big story because it shows, as Trump always does, that he doesn’t care about these kinds of things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
A large man, career criminal, robber , drug addict on illegal drugs at time of arrest, with heart problems, who once threatened a pregnant woman, get's caught counterfeiting a bill, resists the police, has a panic attack and dies.Much of public goes overboard in whining about race, claim the criminal is an 'angel, put up pictures of him everywhere idolizing him as some saint-like martyr, threaten to loot and burn.
Why is it so difficult for folks like yourself to understand what this was about?
George Floyd’s character and criminal history is completely, utterly irrelevant to this entire issue. No one is saying he was an Angel, we’re saying he doesn’t have to be one for his life to matter.
The job of the police is to protect and serve, they are not the judge jury and executioner. We have a criminal justice system for a reason, or at least we have always taken for granted that we do and that we know how it works. This trial was about whether that is actually true. It’s about whether police officers are free to disregard the lives of anyone they decide to put in handcuffs. A not guilty verdict would essentially mean they can do whatever they want. That is why people would have rioted.
The fact that you can’t tell the difference between recognizing someone’s humanity vs idolization says quite a bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It isn't a separate conversation, it's the entire conversation. If black people are NOT being unjustly killed at a disproportionate rate, adjusted for rates of violent crime, then All Lives Matter is actually a more appropriate slogan when it comes to police brutality.
Except that All Lives matter doesn’t care about police brutality. All Lives Matter is not a movement. There are no ALM organizations or ALM rallies being held in response to white people or anyone else being brutalized by police. It’s not a call for national unity around this issue, it’s a call for BLM advocates to sit down and shut up.
By claiming it’s a more appropriate slogan you are ignoring the entire context of this conversation. If your stance is that black people have no legitimate grievance with regards to police brutality, then argue that. But don’t retort by pretending that you care more about this issue than they do even though you never gave a crap about it until they started voicing their grievances on it. It’s disingenuous.
And I don’t mean you personally, for clarification. I’m speaking against the “movement” or whatever it is.
I mean, I think that reaction is kind of silly, sure.
But yet you are defending it. All Lives Matter, by definition, includes black lives. So if someone says Black Lives Matter and you respond with All Lives Matter, the only correction you made was to say that other lives matter also, which means that what you heard was “other lives don’t matter”. That’s the exact reaction I just described.
And it just emphasizes everything else I’ve argued here. If you care about black lives (as ALM definitionally entails) then you would have the basic sense to understand where they are coming from when they are expressing their grievances. Empathy is one of the most basic prerequisites to caring about someone else. Thus the lack of empathy that is needed to strawman BLM in the way ALM does is demonstrative of the exact opposite of what ALM means, making it an absurd statement in this context.
I see an obvious attempt to divide the population through a purposely toxic narrative.
There is nothing divisive about telling the country that the lives of black people matter. Even if you disagree with the premise that black people are being brutalized in any significant way there is still absolutely nothing about that which would lead you to go out and counter protest a BLM demonstration.
I mean think about what that says of one’s priorities; you care about all lives, but when someone is killed your reaction is to protest the people protesting the murder of that someone that you care about, all because those people singled out that person’s race and didn’t include you? What?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
When you adjust for rates of violent crime, police are not disproportionately shooting black people.
This is an entirely separate conversation. I don’t deny that the statistics aren’t as bad as most woke activists would have us believe. But BLM isn’t just about police shooting statistics, it’s about the way black people have been treated throughout this country’s history. Whether the current reality regarding this one topic matches the collective trauma is one thing, but pretending that that trauma doesn’t exist and/or itself isn’t justified is where I take issue.
The point of pushing this stuff isn’t to enact sensible reform, or else advocates would take a more conciliatory approach that makes at least nominal concessions to white people or police supporters.
The same can be said of every movement in America today. Look around, no one is trying to make any concessions on anything. Close to 90% of Americans support background checks yet we still can’t get legislation passed.
Think about the effort expended going after someone saying “all lives matter” instead of Black Lives Matter. So what?
So what is the fact that ALM is a complete dismissal of everything BLM is saying. When a white person hears someone say “Black Lives Matter” and their instinctive reaction is to translate that into “my life doesn’t”, that right there demonstrates the entire problem.
White people have no collective grievance to air, so ALM is a completely vapid slogan whose only purpose is to combat BLM. It’s just like when, in a response to mass shooting, republicans will start talking about mental health. Then, after everything calms down we never hear about mental health again. It was never a genuine concern, at least not one that demanded any kind of response. It was just being used to silence the opposition with a slogan that is reasonable in the abstract but is not being uttered in the abstract. No one is holding an ALM rally in anything other than protest of a BLM rally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
But whites are not killing black people. The vast majority of crime is intra-racial
I didn’t say white people are killing black people, I said black people are asking to stop being killed by police officers, the ones who are being paid to protect and serve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You implied White people weren't lynched, I showed that it happened plenty.
I never implied that. Your entire counter point here was literally in response to one word; “lynched”. You heard that and it translated into “no white people were lynched”. If there was ever a perfect example of what is wrong here, this is it. It’s all about you.
You completely disregard the history here and reduced everything down to one statistic. You disregard the fact that lynchings were used as a way to remind black people that they had no rights and were less than human, and that white people were still in charge. You completely throw away the trauma that the black community suffered and is still working to overcome, which is right at the heart of this conversation.
You claim lynchings were mostly done against murderers and rapists, yet you find nothing odd about the fact that black people had 3x as many rapists and murderers despite having 1/7th the population compared to white people, and this was at a time when black people were scared to death of white people because slavery was still fresh. That alone demonstrates everything I’m actually talking about.
Housing for blacks rose quicker during the redlining period than any other period recorded.
So Black people should be thankful for what took place during the period where the banks singled out their neighborhoods and decided they would not loan money for houses in them and also decided that they would not loan money to black people trying to buy a house in a white neighborhoods. Great argument.
More white men are shot per violent crime arrest than black men.
Per violent crime arrest? Setting aside that you provided no source for that very selective category, you know who else is not factored into those statistics? George Floyd, Eric Garner, Breanna Taylor, Tamir Rice, Fernando Castile, etc. etc. etc. You know, pretty much every single person BLM has protested. We’re not talking about people shot while being arrested for violent crime, we’re talking about people being arrested for things like using a counterfeit $20 bill, or playing in a park, or sleeping.
However, a group that says that all lives matter has much broader appeal in that it doesn't only care about one small group.
Did you listen to a word I said? I explained the problem with ALM in detail. Do you have any response to it?
And sure, the organization is based on a complete lie, but I suppose, as you say, that is besides the point.
It is, because the question of whether it is correct for black people to believe they need to be singled out for protection is an entirely separate conversation. This is about the motives behind Black Lives Matter and whether All lives Matter is a legitimate slogan. Again, I went through this in my last post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
[White people] were [enslaved] for hundreds of years in the North African slave trade. We just don't complain very much, so you probably weren't aware of it.
3,446 African Americans and 1,297 whites were lynched between 1882 and 1968. So yes, Whites were lynched.
Black home ownership rose very quickly during "redlining"
WTF? Did you seriously just try “both sides” racism?
In your tit for tat rant you seem to have missed the most important word in my first paragraph... “then”. I wasn’t listing things that randomly happened at some point, I was going through a period by period history of black people in America. For you to pretend that there is any comparison to the history of white people is breathtakingly absurd.
We’re not talking about the African slave trade, we’re talking about America and how we got to where we are here in America today.
Your lynching statistic proves my point, not yours. During the period you referenced white people outnumbered black people by more than 7 to 1, yet nearly 3 times as many black people were lynched. That’s bad enough, but that’s still not even the point. Black people were lynched by white people for being black. White people were lynched by white people for being sympathetic towards blacks.
Home ownership rates rose for everyone during the redlining period. The difference is that black people were not allowed to buy houses in white neighborhoods so that the value (and by extension wealth) of homes in white neighborhoods rose substantially relative to black neighborhoods, the effects of which are very prevalent today.
When we have tens of thousands of black and Latino cops, you're telling me not one killed a white guy for being white?
I considered this a test of whether you are arguing honestly or not, you failed.
You know damn well what I’m talking about. You know that black people are judged differently because they are black and that this works its way into policing. You know that a police officer is more likely to “fear for his life” if he’s dealing with a black person than a white person. You may not think the difference is as significant as most black people do, but please stop pretending this isn’t obvious.
This is all based on the lie that black men are disproportionately shot and killed by cops. If you look at data by the amount of arrests by race and fatal shootings that occur, whites are overrepresented compared to blacks.
You are just factually wrong. From 2017-2020 there were 1,683 white people killed by police vs 983 black people, yet white people outnumber black people today by almost 6 to 1.
We can argue all day about why that is, and for what it’s worth I don’t necessarily disagree with the argument that some of it is caused by black people resisting arrest among other things, but that is not relevant to what we’re arguing about. Let’s remember where this started, you are claiming that All Lives Matter is a legitimate slogan and that black people are wrong to take issue with it. I’m explaining why that’s nonsense.
Black people are on perfectly legitimate grounds to ask for their lives to be valued like everyone else given the history and current state of affairs. You can claim they are wrong in their perceptions, but that’s not what All Lives Matter does. ALM is an attempt to throw away the grievances of others without acknowledging them or doing any work to reconcile them, and to egregiously place yourself above them while doing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
They want us to only care about them, because when we try to make it an all-inclusive movement, they call you racist.
I’m sorry, were white people enslaved for 400 years, and then segregated, lynched, redlined, and mass incarcerated? Do white people ever get followed or pulled over because of their skin color? Are white people ever told to go back to their country?
Black people focus on themselves because no one else in this country ever has. You don’t get to demand inclusiveness when you don’t have the same grievances. Yes white people are killed by the police also, but no white person ever got shot by the police because they were white.
That is the point of Black Lives Matter. No they don’t want you to only care about them, they want you to care about about little Jamal as much as you care about little Timmy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
blm responds more or less with "you're racist for caring about White people dying. You should only care about us"
If someone says to you “my life matters”, they’re not telling you that your life doesn’t. They’re telling you this because they don’t feel like their life is being valued. That’s basic common sense.
To hear black people plead with the public to value their lives and think to yourself “hey what about me”, well, I’ll just say is quite amazing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Any person who says All Lives Matter thinks Black Lives Matter including me.
Ok cool. So on 9/11 come down to ground zero with an “all buildings matter” t-shirt and explain that same logic to the families of the victims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Liberals come out as socialist all the time, and socialism is a radical left ideology. If conservatives did that with racism(a radical right ideology), there would be a backlash.
Because they’re not remotely the same thing. Do you believe in social security? If so, then you’re a socialist too. That’s what democrats are talking about, not this cartoonish idea that conservatives concocted in their heads. Every developed nation on earth is a mixture socialism and capitalism, including the US. This isn’t comparable to white supremacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wanting free healthcare (actually it’s *affordable* healthcare) is not the same thing as being a white supremacist.
Plus “All lives matter” is a response to Black Lives Matter. It’s black people saying “stop killing us” and white people saying “hey, why should you being killed warrant any special attention?” It’s just plain stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
Tragedy aside, I think this case in interesting in one particular respect, that it highlights the complete divide and alternate realities by which we take in the news, even when the event in question is on video.
Most on the right look at this video and their immediate inclination is to point to yet another example of a black man resisting arrest. I understand this sentiment and for what it’s worth I think the left has shut themselves down to this, even though it is one of the biggest reasons why we keep seeing this happen. If Dante Wright had cooperated he would more than likely be alive today, that’s really not debatable. In fact this is the story of the vast majority of police shootings.
But then the question is, why are so many black people not cooperating? If that is the point you tend to focus on, this video is the perfect example. Here we have a 26 year officer who was in charge of training other officers, killing Dante because she couldn’t tell the difference between a glock and a taser. To make things worse, she was actually training the other two officers at the time and shot her “taser” into a car and at Dante’s chest, two things that the training manuals specifically tell you not to do. So if you see this and you are black or a sympathizer, this video is exactly the point you’re making.
So here we have two completely opposing viewpoints, both watching this video and both getting confirmation of their viewpoints from it. I’m not sure what the solution here is, but we can start by collectively acknowledging the obvious truths both sides are pointing to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Really? Go rob a bank get caught and see who the "you" is. Argument for the sake of argument. "YOU" dont break the law because "YOU" are afraid of the punishment. Now tell me some shit about how you commit felonies on a daily bases and have no fear of the law or punishment
Actually, I asked the question because I don't commit felonies or contemplate murdering anyone else and it's not because a higher power told me I'm not allowed to.
What about you? Is fear of punishment the thing that stops you from killing people and committing crimes?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Whether you believe it is true does not alter the facts of its truth or falsity. It IS either one or the other. It cannot be both true and false at the same time.
You are confusing the truth value of a proposition and what one believes about that proposition.
A statement is either true or it is not true. Those are the only two options.
With regards to what a person believes, they can either believe a proposition is true, believe it is false, or not hold a belief either way (3 options).
This is why your original statement is false. Rejecting theism tells us nothing about what position someone takes on naturalism or any other proposition.
Even so, those who don't know act contrary to a belief in God. The way they live usually reflects their convictions.
This is where the Null Hypothesis comes in. We have to have default positions. With regards to existential claims, the default position is that nothing exists until it is demonstrated to exist. That's why we don't run around chasing big foot. We don't have evidence of his non existence, yet I'm pretty sure you would claim he does not exist.
Non existence is the default because the alternative leads to absurdity. It would result in is believing every God claim ever made, including mutually exclusive claims, all at the same time until each of them has been demonstrated to not exist.
Atheism compiles with that list.
No, it doesn't. This is nothing more than an attempt to hold up theism by mischaracterizing atheism so you can claim they are equally dogmatic and unsubstantiated.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. That's it. That's all. This isn't rocket science.
An atheist believing the moon is magical does not make belief in a magical moon a part of atheism. Atheists are people. People believe all kinds of things.
Rather than inventing a world view to place me into, if you want to know what I believe how about you just ask?
When you push logic, it is helpful to realize its origins. Do the laws of logic exist outside of each one of us, or do we make them up?
The laws of logic are things we recognize about reality and serve as the foundation for all coherent thought. They are not proven, they are necessary presuppositions. Any attempt to prove or disprove them requires the use of them so there is literally no way to function without accepting them.
You only have relativism to fall back on in regards to right and wrong.
So do you. Theism does not solve any of the criticisms with regards to mortality that it hurls at atheism.
If you value logic and truth, you should try and understand what is necessary for both in the first place. How does logic come from an atheistic worldview, one that denies God?
Question; is God subject to the laws of logic? Can God created a five sided triangle?
And most atheists value the comfort that comes from their denial of God. It means there is no ultimate accountability for your actions, no ultimate justice.
Let me offer you some advice; stop using this when talking with atheists. It just makes you look ignorant and uninterested in a thoughtful dialog.
I have a far greater grasp on mortality and a far greater appreciation for doing the right thing as an atheist than I ever did as a theist, and there was nothing comforting about leaving theism behind, in fact for many atheists it's the hardest thing they ever did. I didn't choose to give up theism, I was convinced that it was all bunk after being confronted with issues I could no longer pretend made sense. Focus on the logic stuff, psychology is not your strong suit.
That's all I have time for...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Does God 2 know whether he is created or eternal? If not, then he isn't all knowing with regards to anything in his bubble.
God 2 believes he is the beginning and the end, he is everything.
You are correct that he isn’t all knowing... from an outsider perspective. The point to this thread is his perspective.
The "real" God is all-knowing with regards to everything, and thus knows all possible bubbles, and that he is the actual God. Solipsism solved.
Defining God as all knowing doesn’t solve solipsism any more than defining God as being powerful enough to create a 5 sided triangle makes 5 sided triangles possible.
The question at the start of this thread is not whether God knows he is not God 2, it's how could he possibly know this? If you can't answer the how then you cannot claim there is a solution to solipsism. And if you cannot claim there is a solution to solipsism them you cannot claim omniscience is a coherent concept.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
1] To disbelieve in God, you must believe in naturalism or some other ism.
That’s not how logic works. For any given proposition you can either believe the proposition is true or not believe the proposition is true. Not believing the proposition is true does not mean you believe it is false. You can instead say... “I don’t know”.
Right now in Texas there is a man charged with murder. Do you believe he is guilty or do you believe he is innocent?
I hope you choose choice C; neither, because you can’t possibly extract enough information out of what I just gave you to make a determination. Just as we can’t possibly have enough information to determine what if anything exists beyond that which we have access to.
That is because Evil is not an empirical attribute; it is not...
We can debate the problem of evil another time. You brought this up as support for your claim that atheists believe no gods exist. I am simply pointing out that someone arguing that your claim is incoherent, is not making a claim about what does or does not exist. Their only claim is that your argument is incoherent.
You are pushing your atheistic beliefs while denying you have any—the absurdity of it all.
Making things up about others tends to lead to absurdities.
There’s is no such thing as “atheistic beliefs”, because atheism isn’t a belief system no matter how many times you claim it is. What I’m pushing here is logic, just as I do in any other forum. Characterize me all you want, claim that I think I am my own God (as silly as that is) all you want. If you actually care about understanding people who think differently than you, perhaps you should focus on that.
If there is no ultimate, absolute final reference point, what makes your idea of wrongness that opposes my contrary view any better? To have something better, you need a best or else it becomes meaningless. Better in relation to what, and who says?
We all do. It is up to each of us to decide for ourselves what we ultimately value, and from those values we derive standards from which everything else is measured.
I value the truth. I want to know if I’m buying into a load of crap or living my life blind of the pitfalls I am steering towards. By valuing the truth, I have developed a strong desire to understand how logic works, because most false beliefs we hold, and certainly the most avoidable ones, are the result of faulty logic. When a salesman for example tricks you into buying something you don’t need, they do so primarily by appealing to emotion or using other logical fallacies. I value knowing how to spot the BS before I allow it to harm myself.
It seems to me that most theists value the comfort that comes with religion. The idea that you need a final reference point to tell you what’s right and wrong for example instead of relying on yourself to figure it out I think supports that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The entire point to this thread is that omniscience is incoherent. I did not say God 2 was all knowing, I said he’s all knowing with regards to anything inside of this bubble.
Created:
-->
@Nevets
Atheism is still a theism as far as I am concerned.
This is like saying being apolitical is the same as being political, which is an obvious absurdity.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God. Anything else is something else. It is true that the belief in the absence of all deities fits within atheism, but that doesn’t make it atheism any more than a chef who also fixes cars makes all chefs mechanics.
The problem of evil is logical negation of theistic claims. There is nothing about that which requires empirical evidence.
The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. Since atheism is not a claim it cannot hold the burden of proof. If an atheist claims there are no gods then the atheist does have the burden, but by that point he had already stepped outside of the definition of atheism.
There are atheist groups out there but the overwhelming majority of atheists do not belong to any such group. It’s not about opposing someone else’s beliefs, it’s about combating the nonsense being peddled by much of society which in many cases is very dangerous. Someone who still believes the earth is 6000 years old is for example, far less likely to accept the findings of science resulting in anti-Vaxxers, climate change denial, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
God CAN know that he is not God 2 -- because God 2 is logically contradictory. You can't use a logical contradiction to make any conclusions.
Please explain how God 2 is logically contradictory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So as you see, you did state that God 2 was "all knowing" even if it's with respect to his own "bubble."
That is not the definition of all knowing. Omniscience does not mean all knowing, except for anything outside of this one specific bubble.
In layman's, your proposition presumes that God can know that which can't be known, which are unknown-unknowns or unknown-can't-be-knowns; and those are irrational.
The entire point of this thread is to demonstrate the opposite of what you are claiming I’m am presuming. What in earth are you talking about?
I don’t even believe in a God. I’m an atheist, so why would I presume God can know that which is unknowable? And how many times have I stated that the entire point here is that the omniscience quality that theists normally ascribe to a God is not possible?
You're arguing that there's a possibility--a possibility that is informed by nothing more than metaphysical nonsense--that God is encased within a bubble of which he can know nothing outside. And because of this "possibility" God therefore can't know everything. You haven't substantiated your premise at all, and yet you're extending this conclusion. You self admittedly "imagined" your premise.
The demonstration that it is possible, is that there is no logical contradiction in the scenario I laid out. If you think there is, please enlighten me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You are working on the assumption that A =/= A, that God 2 is omniscient but still doesn't know God.
No, I’m not. My whole point is that Omniscience is incoherent. God cannot possibly know that he is not God 2, so this trait cannot be substantiated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Yes, it is irrational. Because a God that "exists" outside their capacity to perceive is irrational.
This is a complete strawman
You're using an assumption of an unsubstantiated possibility that a metaphysically objective God prime may exist outside the knowledge of an all-knowing God.
No, I’m not. I never claimed God 2 was all knowing. In fact the entire point is that an all knowing God is not possible, because even if there is a God prime there is no way for him to know that he is God prime.
The irony in your statement is that it reflects the concern of the very materialists whom you deem irrelevant.
It seems clear at this point that you really aren’t paying attention. I never deemed anyone irrelevant. Please read my statement again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That was perfectly clear. Nothing about the topic describes the God I know exists. The terms "God" and "cannot," let alone associating the first with "solipsism" are not logical constructs. "Cannot" does not apply to God, at all
I understand that this is what you believe, I’m trying to understand why.
Is God capable of creating the “bubble” I described?
Is God capable of creating the being I described?
Is God capable of concealing himself from this being?
If yes to all 3, then *how* would this being be any different from its own perspective from the God you pray to?
And if there is no difference, then *how* does God know that no such external reality created by a higher God exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Therefore the issue you raise about his not knowing is completely irrational since those encased within the Reality of "God 2," including "God 2" wouldn't question his being God.
There is nothing irrational about it. Whether it matters is an entirely different question, and one which is not the subject of this thread.
I still fail to understand what you take issue with. The point of this question is twofold; to theists who use God as the solution to this (usually prepositionalists) I’m demonstrating that it’s not a solution at all. And more importantly, when theists claim God is all knowing, I’m demonstrating how that’s not even possible because there is no way for God to know that there isn’t some higher God above him who has concealed himself.
If you don’t think the topic is worthy of discussion you don’t have to partake in it. Or, if you think there is a flaw in my logic you are welcome to point it out.
Because solipsism isn't falsifiable. And this is a concern typically proposed by materialists.
That has nothing to do with whether solipsism is a problem. The fact that there is no way for us to know for certain whether the reality we experience including the people we love and care about are actually real is considered a problem to most. The fact that it is unfalsifiable or that it is brought up typically by a certain group of people is irrelevant to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It's not a "problem." It's a contrivance.
First off, can you clarify? Are you sure you’re using the right word?
Second, if it’s not a problem then why in philosophy is it referred to as “the problem of hard solipsism”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Does the title of this thread accurately describe a fact about the God you believe in?No, not even close
You plan on telling us what you take issue with?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So, what?
Does the title of this thread accurately describe a fact about the God you believe in?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Case in point: suppose God 2 is only a remnant and allows God prime to believe he created it. And it's actually God prime that's encased in a bubble created by God 2 outside the bubble?Do you see how absurd your line of reasoning is?
Absurd? All you did was reiterate the point of this thread, that God himself cannot solve this problem.
Theists often appeal to God as the solution to this, I’m just demonstrating why that is flawed.
Created:
Posted in:
While definitions of God vary, some of its central tenants are that he is all knowing, all powerful and creator of everything. Let’s imagine the following:
God creates a bubble of reality unconnected to anything else. Within this bubble he creates a being that is all powerful and all knowing with regards to anything inside of this bubble, so this being is free to create anything he wants; Universes, multiverses, heaven, hell, etc. We’ll call this being God 2. But God decides that he will conceal all knowledge of himself or anything outside of this bubble from God 2. As far as God 2 knows, this bubble is reality, nothing outside of it exists.
Question: if you pray, how does the God you pray to know that he is not God 2?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So to say that he would very likely have died anyway because of his poor health, drugs, and stress is not at all a stretch.
But that’s not the question the jury is tasked with answering. It doesn’t matter if he would have died anyway in some hypothetical alternative reality. The question is; was Derrick Chauvin’s actions the primary cause for what did kill him? To that question, correct me if I’m wrong, but all of the expert’s who actually diagnosed him before and after his death agree they were.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
There are many reasons why we see things differently, but I think one thing that goes even deeper than differences in our core values is the way we look at any given political issue.
To use an analogy, it’s always been my observation that liberals are looking at the forest while conservatives are looking at the trees. In other words, conservatives seem to view everything in terms of what it means to them personally or to individuals directly, while liberals view everything through the lens of what they think is best for society as a whole.
Take taxes for example. Conservatives typically say “I don’t want the government taking my money”. Liberals don’t view the issue in personal terms. I don’t want to pay taxes either, but what no one did?
Think of capitalism vs socialism. Conservatives say “if you earned it then you are entitled to whatever you get”. Liberals look at what this means on a holistic level and take issue with what happens when capitalism is left unfettered.
Or gun rights... conservatives: “I have a right to protect myself”. Liberals: “all of these guns everywhere is why so many people are dying”.
When I first had someone explain to me the difference between democrats and republicans I said I’m a republican, because that stuff makes so much more sense. But after getting into some of the debates I started to realize that I was looking at things the wrong way (in my view of course). So to me this is what made the entire difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I just explained this to you. I didn’t skim over anything, I don’t take issue with anything you said so I saw no need to respond to it, especially since it is not relevant to any point I have made in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wasn't implying anything I was asking you why it matters to you. If your answer is anything except. "It doesn't" then you are a racist by default.
Hence the entire point of this thread. Thank you for proving it.
Setting that aside, my response was not that race matters to me, my response was that the “it” you were referring to has already been done and can’t be undone by wishing it away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Now you are talking about reparations.Why don't you start a reparations thread then? I seriously doubt anyone reasonable is going to advocate your position about continuing a destructive policy of segregating people based on arbitrary physical phenomes. Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean the destruction needs to continue.
I don’t support reparations, or at least anything that I think could reasonably be called reparations. Try again.
This conversation started with you asking me why it matters for us to be divided by race, implying that myself and others like myself who point out racism when it’s obvious are really the ones doing the dividing. I responded by pointing out that we’re not the ones who divided us. Historical context matters, so I talked about the context and this is your response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And where do you think physical characteristics come from?
I notice that you leave the vast majority of my claims unchallenged, do you agree with them? If so - why did you see fit to not mention them at all?
If I don’t respond to a point then I don’t take issue with it. Either that or I’m being bombarded with so much nonsense that I can’t respond to everything, in which case my replies would have been a lot longer.
While the characteristics that separate us may be genetic the classification of them is a human construct and one that should have no place in a civilized society as it is arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. I don’t know why any of this is relevant to the conversation though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
I can't tell...Are "they" illegal immigrants, or the "brown people" (legal and illegal)?
Illegal people who are brown
Historically, when a region flips Republican it tends to coincide with a reduction in racism.
Can you explain this?
In this context, most everyone is referencing the illegality of being somewhere one has no legal right to be. You were expressly focused on skin tone.
Pointing out the elephant in the room does not mean I’m the one who put it there.
The comments I criticized had nothing to do with illegality, I was specifically pointing out the absurd hypocrisy of the same people who’ve spent the past year ignoring COVID now arguing that Biden is jeopardizing their health by setting free migrants with COVID.
The bigotry could hardly be more obvious, and it’s absurd to claim that you’re really the one who’s thinking about race when it’s others who change their position on an unrelated issue because of it.
Would you care to explain how learning English is "white" in your view?
I didn’t say it was. I used the term white bigotry to describe a mindset driving a political movement, far more commonly held by white people. That mindset is this “otherism” directed towards people who do not speak English, and the idea that such people are less deserving of whatever benefits come with being an American regardless of their contributions to our society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Race isn't genetic
Race is literally defined by genetics. You’re confusing race and ethnicity.
While I often disagree with Greyparrot, it is true that such a thing is fairly arbitrary
I never disagreed with that. What I take issue with is the way he uses this to act as if there is no historical context. As if how we got here is totally random and it’s today’s generation dividing society up for no reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@coal
Tell me why this matters again for a functioning society to divide people like this?
Our society has already been divided. The plight of the black community for example was not self caused. You don’t just change the rules and expect that the effects of the previous rules suddenly disappear along with them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Republicans are new to the game, but they are catching up.
And what game exactly are republicans are not playing?
Created: