Shila

-> @Shila

If one is an atheist, there is little reason to believe in an afterlife

have you ever met a GNOSTIC ?

--> @Shila

is it possible for a judge to "objectively" enforce the law ?

Depends on the narrative.

that sounds a lot like a "NO"

Depends on who hears it.

please explain if you intend this to be a "yes" or a "no" or a "maybe sometimes"

--> @Sidewalker

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Now, do you think asking questions in some way answers questions?

what makes you think a dragonfly has "consciousness" ?

Snarky political mode: If the media bias of the magnitude required to report Trump endorsed bleach injections or slanderously claim he supported neonazis at Charlottesville was turned on Biden they would say this is an admission of pedophilia.

Tounge-in-cheek mode: I wonder if the site rules now prohibit anyone from supporting Biden?

Objective mode: This combined with the diary, the sniffing, the pool story, the lack of Epstein related prosecutions all combine to give the pedo witchhunt crowd plenty of material to work with; if he had any marbles left he would be extra careful but he doesn't. The man is not responsible for what comes out of his mouth at this point, he belongs on the rocker; and saying "we go way back" is hardly an admission of pedophilia.

--> @Polytheist-Witch

They actually like it a lot when they hear pedophiles are being tortured or killed

-->

@Shila

Read the book.

I have

Where my Ravenclaws at

-> @Shila

*facepalm* 

No 💩 sherlock. But the glaring fact is you failed to “quote” it and credit who said it. Context matters. 

--> @sadolite

My Mom and both sisters are in Sarasota, all of you, hunker down and stay safe.

And if you are in the evacuation zone, do it, don't make first responders risk thier lives because you were stubborn.  

-> @3RU7AL

Atheism: there is no god, therefore there is no afterlife, therefore nothing you do or think matters at all. There is no moral standpoint, only what you like matters.

ATHEISM is simply "not a theist"

it has absolutely nothing to do with "afterlife" or AXIOLOGY or any other ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions

Apparently, you don't know what epistemological means.

OK, and that also isn't what epistemological means.

--> @Shila

GQM is an organization of  Christian, Protestant, evangelical, theologically conservative, and non-denominational. It is church ministry, coming alongside the church to help people find answers to their spiritually related questions.

You really can't comprehend the Copyright policy, the subject here is one sentence, a very sinple sentence:

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. 

I get what it is, and they want you to identify the organization as the author when you thier articles.

--> @Shila

If you ascribe to physicalism, why is a physical state conscious?  Why (and how) are physical processes accompanied by experience?

For the brain to process a stimulus it has to be conscious and tuned in with the five senses. Touch, smell, taste etc.

Experience In a different sense  refers not to conscious events themselves but to the knowledge and practical familiarity they bring with them.[

For there to be an experience, there needs to be an experiencer, consciousness is the conceptual space within which we find the experieence, it's the entity that experiences, no consciousness, no experience, no consciousness, no knowlege.

--> @bmdrocks21 @ILikePie5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f1mAXNFlmA

7.6 trillion dollars later...

--> @3RU7AL

Atheism: there is no god, therefore there is no afterlife, therefore nothing you do or think matters at all. There is no moral standpoint, only what you like matters.

ATHEISM is simply "not a theist"

it has absolutely nothing to do with "afterlife" or AXIOLOGY or any other ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions

Apparently, you don't know what epistemological means.

--> @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. 

Putting the link would make little difference because the site does not reveal authors names.

Why doesn’t GotQuestions.org give the names of the authors of its articles?

https://www.gotquestions.org/authors.html

Their Copyright Poliy is explicit, either provide the link or clearly identify Got Questions Ministries as the author.

Why are you arguing it, do you want us to think it's your work?

The link explains why GotQuestion.org does not reveal authors names.

Now you know why I provided the article but did not reveal the author’s name.

No.  That is not why you violated thier copyright policy, the policy says you can reprint it if "Got Questions Ministries is clearly identified as the author".   GQM is the author

--> @3RU7AL

How do you define the “hard problem” of consciousness ?

If you ascribe to physicalism, why is a physical state conscious?  Why (and how) are physical processes accompanied by experience?

Polytheist-Witch: There is no hell in the Old Testament it's a completely Christian concept. And honestly if you read through the Bible it's not even discussed until Revelation. Hell is a bunch of malarkey it doesn't exist.

--> @cristo71

she then sent several dozen to a suburb without warning:

Yes, they should have notified the mayor, but they didn’t dump these people on the street. Chicago had arranged for these families to be put in hotels temporarily. That’s a big difference from what Deshitstain did.

--> @Tarik

is it possible for a judge to "objectively" enforce the law ?

Depends on the narrative.

that sounds a lot like a "NO"

--> @Tradesecret

and by the way - I never said it was a criminal offence to talk about gender.  I was talking  about it being illegal to talk to someone about whether they are confused about their gender.  you may not appreciate the difference but the legislation does. 

Stop playing semantics. This is what you have literally wrote.

Tradesecrete wrote #50 " In Australia, and in Victoria, for you to ask that question unless you are a qualified GP and counsellor, is a criminal offence". 

And let us not forget that you also live in New Zealand and speak Greek too TRADESECRET-BIO-FEMALE.jpg (1847×967) (ibb.co)

I see your little break from the forum has done nothing for your personality disorder.

--> @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. 

Putting the link would make little difference because the site does not reveal authors names.

Why doesn’t GotQuestions.org give the names of the authors of its articles?

https://www.gotquestions.org/authors.html

Their Copyright Poliy is explicit, either provide the link or clearly identify Got Questions Ministries as the author.

Why are you arguing it, do you want us to think it's your work?

Where my Ravenclaws at

--> @Harikrish

If you take the Genesis account. The garden of Eden was not in Africa. The Jews being the diect descendants of Adam and Eve were not Africans. In fact Christians trace the lineage of Africans to Ham.

When you actually look at this closely, it can be seen that the "first humans" were created somewhere else (Africa ?) and then placed in the Eden believed today to be Iraq.

--> @Shila

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.

You forgot Joe. Joe lied about being in bed with the Chinese with his son Hunter

--> @Stephen

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.

I assume you realise that Melbourne is the capital city of the State of Victoria. Or are you just having a lend of Shila? 

As for the legislation - go to the Victorian State Site. It is easy to find. All you need to do is google - how Victoria in the most progressive state in Australia in relation to gender legislation. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au or if find that too difficult to navigate try https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/vic/   The first one is more authoritative in Victoria.  The second one more comprehensive.  you might learn something. 

and by the way - I never said it was a criminal offence to talk about gender.  I was talking  about it being illegal to talk to someone about whether they are confused about their gender.  you may not appreciate the difference but the legislation does. 

As for finding the specific piece of legislation and its penalties for breaking such laws - you are the wise and noble one - the one who knows their capital cities from their states.  You go and do it. 

It's legitimately a source, but one that has a copyright policy that says you must attribute when you reproduce it.

I use links in posts from time to time, but in putting the link in I'm lso letting you know the source.  Maybe it would be best if you put the link in the post,  and if you do cut and paste, then let us know where it came from per the source's copyright policy. 

Right” does not always mean “factually correct”. It has other applications.

An employer terminates an employee after determining the employee’s conduct was counterproductive to the company’s goals. If the determination is accurate, they made “the right move”. There is nothing objective about this decision because the company’s goals are very much subjective.

A dancer in the middle of a choreographed performance performs “the wrong move”. It’s wrong because it is not what was planned with the group. There is nothing objective about the move itself being wrong because the group could have decided the move to be anything they wanted.

A singer sings the wrong note to a song. There is nothing objective about this statement because songs can be sung in any way the singer wants and alternate renditions have been written many times before.

There is no need for any of this to be objective for us to recognize a right or a wrong. All we need is a shared starting point so that we can arrive at the same conclusions together.

--> @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.