Shila

--> @Shila

Blacks were screaming with joy the store was giving away things for free. Only the ones who tried to pay felt cheated.

Does being ignorant and foolish come Naturally to you, or do you actually easily work at it? 

--> @ebuc

My bad, I just get a kick out of people thinking they know something about the universe and how it works. I admit I don't have a clue about how the universe works which in of itself is a more accurate description of how it works than some one saying they know. But you know so I wont tell you any different.

Larry Elder covering how the media tried to bait Denzel Washington into BWM (Bitch Wine Moan) about racism in America. 

2 consecutive quarters of NEGATIVE GDP. Very likely we will have a 3rd as well since Biden thinks he can spend his way out of it with your tax dollars.

2 weeks ago I bought a brand new Toyota Highlander from Irvine Toyota. They said it was only the fourth one they sold this year. Not because they don’t have buyers, but because it’s only the 4th one they received from the manufacturer. Is that the government’s fault or is that a failure of capitalism?

This is what is curbing GDP right now.

--> @Shila

which brings us once again back to HUME'S GUILLOTINE

facts alone cannot convey meaning

facts must be colored with context

and context is by definition, subjective (sample biased)

-> @Shila

You are correct. I have a lot to still prove.

It is time to stop goofing off. I have had years to research voters that I wasted goofing off

-->

@Shila

The ones in the USA are richer. Plus, the China has like 3 times the population of USA.

China seems to have every type of economy applied. They have worker coops, they have Maos ideology, they have capitalist buisnesses, they have state run buisnesses, they have tax law with sometimes high sometimes low taxes...

Universe IS, is simple and  lacks a more descriptive narrative and clarity. 

Universe is complex and requires complexity of interactions ergo special relativity and general relativity was discovered by the above "Einstein".

My last post with odd number rule, is much simpler than the mathematical formulae of SR and GR ergo, your blowing a false narrative of hot air Sad. :--(.

Please share when you have a comment of logical common sense that adds to or invalidates the specifics of my presentation. 

You have not, because, you do not have any such logical common sense to share, ergo, no intellectual integrity. Sad :--(

“Not Us Again”

Former Officer Brandon Tatum shows a video of yet another store ransacked by black teens/adults, acting like a bunch of degenerate fools.

Fatherlessness is the cause of this degeneracy. Black people need to start taking personal responsibility and accountability for not only themselves, but their offspring as well. This country, let alone their own community cannot sustain this criminal behavior. Behavior that, as Mr. Tatum points out, that leaves others saying “no” to investment in black communities. The risk is too high, both financially and personally (including employees, if they can even find any wanting to work there).

If black people in America want meaningful change, they need to first look within and recognize that they are the first problem in this equation. Until they admit thee problem, no solution will be actualized.

Americans love liars. They voted for one to the White House. I.e Trump. Trump lied before the UN. Bush lied about Iraq and WMD. JFK and LBJ lied about Vietnam. Clinton lied about sex with Lewinsky.

--> @Shila

This should be a good one.

Yes it should. I find it strange that s/he has chosen to point out that it is in Victoria that it is a crime and not his/her home state of Melbourne. S/he's probably forgot where s/he actually lives this week.

-> @Shila

Copyright Policy: Articles may be freely printed and distributed, emailed, or shared online provided they are not sold for profit and Got Questions Ministries is clearly identified as the author. 

Perfectly legitimate source.

Perfectly legitimate source when they are clearly identified as the source.

Please feel free to paraphrase opposing arguments in order to seek further clarification if needed.

(2) Proposed definition: "science"

(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]

Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.[2]

(3) Proposed definition: "objective"

Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]

(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]

(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]

For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":

(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]

(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]

And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]

(4) Key support for resolution

Let's analyze the resolution "Science is not objective."

(k.1) Science as defined in (s.1) implies that "science" is the "knowledge" (data) acquired by "observation" (ostensibly by a human or possibly by more than one human).

(k.2) I believe it is fair to say that human observation is impossible without a human mind and an individual's (definitively subjective) perception and this fact would logically place "objectivity" beyond the scope of the human mind and an individual's perception according to the definitions presented previously as (o.1) and (o.1b).

The resolution could be restated as (s.1) is not (o.1).

(k.3) Another way to say this would be perhaps, "knowledge acquired by (human) observation is not (and cannot be) independent of the human mind and/or beyond human perception".

(5) Reinforcements

As far as I can tell, Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science is generally considered authoritative. Please let me know if you dispute this and we can attempt another approach.

"According to Popper, basic statements are "statements asserting that an observable event is occurring in a certain individual region of space and time" (1959, p. 85). More specifically, basic statements must be both singular and existential (the formal requirement) and be testable by [*]intersubjective[*] observation (the material requirement)."[5]

Therefore "science" is not "objective" and does not require "objectivity". This seems to be a common misconception about the fundamental nature of "science" and by extension, just about everything else, including "law" and "ethics", some people even think they have "objective opinions".

"Science" seems to function perfectly well under Popper's model. I am unable to detect any benefit to imagining that any particular thing has some sort of (detectable?) "objective" quality or existence.

In fact, Immanuel Kant points out pretty explicitly that "objective" noumenon is fundamentally undetectable and its "existence" cannot be inferred from observable phenomena.

"Even if noumenon are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept, Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since potentially we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words: "Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge."[6]

"...to prevent sensible intuition from being extended..."[6]

The quote makes it sound as if Kant is trying to "put a box around the concept of objectivity" in order to keep people from making the mistake of thinking they can know it, or in-fact even speculate about it intuitively.

(6) Common counter arguments

I would like to bring your attention to the following quotes,

"We have shown that it is hard to define scientific objectivity in terms of a view from nowhere and freedom from values and from personal bias. It is a lot harder to say anything positive about the matter."[7]

"For instance, our discussion of the value-free ideal (VFI) revealed that alternatives to the VFI are as least as problematic as the VFI itself, and that the VFI may, with all its inadequacies, still be a useful heuristic for fostering scientific integrity and objectivity. Similarly, although an "unbiased" science may be impossible, there are many mechanisms scientists can adopt for protecting their reasoning against undesirable forms of bias, e.g., choosing an appropriate method of statistical inference."[7]

The above quotes are from the conclusions (section 7) of an extremely well sourced page from the Stanford.edu website that purports to be a thorough analysis of the concept of scientific objectivity.

One key problem with this essay, is that it never clearly defines the critical terms (i.e. "science" and "objectivity"), but instead merely reports various (definitively subjective) opinions about what "science" and "objectivity" might mean and how they may or may not relate to one another.

But setting that aside, in their conclusions they admit that although they can make some tentative statements about what "scientific objectivity" is not, they are at a complete loss to say exactly what it is (with any positive assertions). This reminds me of the "god in the gaps"[9] argument and would seem to be an example of the "appeal to ignorance"[10] logical fallacy.

They go on to argue that even if "objectivity" is perhaps (probably) an unattainable goal, it is still better than the (presumably shocking or frightening, yet undefined) alternative (clearly an "affirming the consequent"[11] fallacy). I would imagine that scientists, of all categories of people in the world would understand the dangers of pursuing an amorphous concept that presumably lends unquestionable authority to their conclusions.

(7) Round 1 closing statement

Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_science

[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+objective&spf=394&cad=h

[5] https://www.iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

[7] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

[8] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+subjective&spf=399&cad=h

[9] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

[10] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

[11] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/14/

Here you give your reasons for accepting the God of the Bible as a compromise after comparing the Bible with other religious scriptures. 

But the God of the  Bible is portrayed differently  between the Old  Testament and New Testament. So a further compromised is required.

No. You are incorrect.  There is no compromise here whatsoever.  The reasons above are not ALL of my reasons for accepting the God of the Bible. It is not a comprehensive list.  They contain just some of my reasoning to explain that my reason for accepting God of the Bible as true is not limited only to the fact that the Bible itself declares it to be the case. 

I also reject your notion that the God of the OT and the NT is portrayed differently.  In my view the God of the OT, namely the Trinity is the same as the God of the NT, namely the Trinity.  In the NT we are introduced more personally to one of the persons of the Trinity.   That is not a different God, it is simply focusing our attention on one particular member of the Godhead in a particular time.  In some ways this member is possibly revealed in the OT in forms - known as the pre-incarnate Christ.  

The Bible concludes with the crucifixion ofJesus who is worshipped as God. So a third compromise is needed.

You might need to articulate your argument a little more.  The Christian understanding of Jesus is that he is FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN. He did die on a cross and he was raised from the dead.  Yet God did not die. The Christ died. This was not a compromise. It was planned from before the beginning of the world. 1 Peter 2:19-20.  It was not a mistake. It was not an accident. It was not a plan B. It was the plan. and it was perfectly executed - pardon the pun. 

Finally Judaism which is the original source of the Abrahamic God rejects your conclusions in the New Testament. So another compromise is required.

How does Judaism rejecting the conclusions of the NT bring about a compromise?  Israel was prophesied to reject the messiah.  This is the reason why Israel lost its temple and lost its nationhood.  Historically, whenever Israel lost its temple and was invaded, it was due to it sin against God by idolatry, by evil, and by taking on false gods.  When this occurred - the covenant God put in place came into effect.  And Israel was devastated and became as nothing.  It was only after they were judged, and then repented, that eventually they came back to the land. 

The question that the Jewish nation needs to ask itself, is what was the crime against God that was so heinous that it's temple was destroyed and its people scattered around the globe - without a place to call home for over 2000 years? If it wasn't the killing of the messiah, then what other event within that generation was so significant that God would judge the nation so harshly. 

Why do you follow such a compromised version of God?

The answer is I don't.  As far as I can tell it is you who follows a compromised god. A god who would prefer its people starve rather than eat its cows and a god who would prefer its people to starve rather than destroy the vermin of rats that live in the wharves in Mumbai. That is where compromise is happening. Your god is a turd and one who cares more for itself than for people.  It is the one whose values are compromised. 

--> @Shila

What does it mean that we are all one in Christ (Galatians 3:28)? | GotQuestions.org

Copyright Policy: Articles may be freely printed and distributed, emailed, or shared online provided they are not sold for profit and Got Questions Ministries is clearly identified as the author. 

--> @Tradesecret

shila Wrote: Are you really confused about your gender?

Tradesecret wrote: In Australia, and in Victoria, for you to ask that question unless you are a qualified GP and counsellor, is a criminal offence. 

Can you show us the legislation that states it is a criminal offence in Victoria Australia to ask a person about their gender. Considering that you are a criminal lawyer it shouldn't be too difficult.

--> @BrotherD.Thomas

Question:  do you think that the esteemed moderators of DEBATEART are joking around with us in letting the Bible dunderhead Shila be a part of this religion forum?  Or, are they allowing Shila to stay here to show what NOT to be like if you want to call yourself a Christian?  As we easily agree, as if ethang5 and Tradesecret weren't obtuse enough relative to the JUDEO-Christian Bible, then comes along Shila waving the flag of their Bible stupidity as well!

Shila is your best friend BrotherD.Thomas.

I hardly attend this site anymore - but from time to time find a moment to catch up. 

I am pleased you managed to find your tongue again.  am I 

--> @Shila

Who do you do , then?

I don’t do anyone; I like to sit on the fence.

--> @Shila

And you are an entertaining AI.

The Christian Bible says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11).  The Jews were Monotheists and the Greeks were Polytheists, and yet, they were one according to the Christian Bible.

Harikrish,

WOW!  You are testing my faith in Jesus, as if what I have proposed regarding my Jesus being a serial killer wasn't enough, you come forth with more discomforting notions about Him.  I feel the ice cracking beneath me relative to my faith, but I still need to TRY and believe in TRUE Christianity, even though our leader, Jesus the Christ, is shown in such a factual bad way. Whew!

--> @Harikrish

Harikrish,

OMG!  With a dossier that you have shown regarding the exposed FAKE Christian, Dr. C&P Franklin, the embarrassment may be overwhelming for him, therefore, we can only expect a moniker name change by him to save further embarrassment.  Sad indeed.

--> @Shila

Thank you!

--> @Shila

You can't say Shila without AI

I would even debate with you that I am not wasting my life here as it's almost a gym session for the brain

Since you are the only one with direct access to your brain it would be foolish to debate that you aren't getting a workout.

You have to handle a lot of things here that translate well into the real world; such as handling unfair losses and no-vote ties. It's a great thing, it's like mental Karate.

...and what is putting someone on ignore and then conversing with them analogous to? Refusing to make eye contact?

--> @Shila

@TWS1405

--> @Shila

It will be interesting to see Kevin Hart playing James Bond.

Not gonna happen

Are You are in favour of whitewashing,   watching James Bond playing  Kevin Hart?

Stupid question. 

-->

@Shila

In New England, it was common for individual enslaved people to learn specialized skills and crafts due to the area’s more varied economy. Ministers, doctors, tradesmen, and merchants also used enslaved labor to work alongside them and run their households.

Your software could use a good rebooting.

That's the problem with AI. The article says slaveowners LOYAL TO THE UNION. That means northern slaveowners, many who were most certainly not farmers, or necessarily white.

Wrong. So grossly wrong.

Coal: In reality, however, intergenerational poverty is hardly limited to black folks' though.  White trash families throughout the South and the rest of this country remain at the bottom of the economic scale.  Ever been to West Virginia?  Eastern Kentucky?  California's numerous trailer parks?  They're as bad or worse as Chicago's South Side from a poverty perspective.  The reasons why are the same: there is no surer way to remain poor for the rest of your life than to have kids out of wedlock.

Harikrish prophesied this threat: As America and Europe sink with their fractured politics and other nations advance. The only western nationalistic pride and supremacy will be based on their colour white. Even Christianity is shifting to Africa and by 2050 the majority of Christians will come from Africa.

Will just being white be adequate to sustain white nationalism and supremacy or will it be redefined as white nostalgia?

Christians, let's say you were invited to a great gala party and you arrive and the party is full of people and its boring.  Alas, you remember that if you let the spirit of our Yahweh/Jesus come upon you, as shown in the verse below, you can start prophesying and stripping naked for Jesus that will turn the party into an exciting and memorable Christian event, praise!

“And he went there to Naioth in Ramah. And the Spirit of God came upon him also, and as he went he prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day and all that night. Thus it is said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (1 Samuel 19:23-24)

Is there any greater way to convert Atheists and other faiths to our Christianity, than to show them what the spirit of our Jesus can do by stripping naked to prophesize about Him?  I think not.

--> @Shila

Nope. You can vote regardless.

--> @Shila

You can't spell reparation without AI.

It's new york, getting a majority of new yorkers to execute Trump would probably work. Trump needs to move his assets (and ass) out of TDS states like the Jews needed to flee Germany in 1932.

-> @Shila

Reparations have already been give.  But as usual, black Americans make demands for more free shit.

I would further contend that Monotheism and Polytheism are referential to each other, which would mean that by definition they are one and the same. 

--> @Greyparrot

I really love how people keep saying "Trump picked that Judge" as though it's supposed to be understood  that every president picks corrupt judges.....

It’s okay. Just a couple more months. Then we’ll see some actual oversight of the Executive Branch. Jim Jordan as Chairman of Judiciary. MTG as Chair of J6 committee with no Democrats on it. It will be beautiful

There is no difference, food is food, eat what ever the hell you want and don't tell other people  to eat what you eat. You have no moral high ground no matter what you eat. Veganism is a luxury life style afforded to first world countries. You would starve to death in a third world country and would eat a lot less palatable meats than beef pork or chicken if you wanted to stay alive. Oh and get used to eating rotting vegetables to.

--> @sadolite

Yes.

Blocked users, by me, are not exempted from the credit system.