Total posts: 3,475
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Be honest, when you read that Trump was available, you wanted to drive to Mar-A Lago, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Melanie Trump is not divorcing Trump.So why is Marjorie Taylor Greene getting divorced after 27 years of marriage? Trump isn’t available.
Greene's husband asked for the divorce, and just because Trump is not divorcing Melania doesn't mean he's not available, just ask Stormy Daniels, or Marla Maples, or Jessica Leeds, or Karen McDougal, or all the women he grabbed by the naughty parts because "when you're a star, you can do anything to women", or........
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Yeah, and that bothers you?Yes, because it makes your argument appear inconsistent.
I would think quoting scripture in a random, haphazard way would be what appears inconsistent.
So Christians who act immorally aren't Christians?That question makes no sense, you can’t be something that your not.
There
are two billion Christians, are you saying they all act morally, or are you
saying that only the ones who act morally are actually Christians?
What
about the Christian that becomes an atheist? If Christians can’t act immorally, then what is this forgiveness of sins
concept, what is that about?
How about Muslims, they believe in God, if a Muslim acts morally, are they moral?I’m no religion expert but some believe that God only acknowledges one religion as correct so there’s that.
There are people who believe that in practically every
different religion, so that isn’t really an answer.
How about Buddhists, they don’t believe in a God, are you
saying no Buddhist is moral?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are such a snowflake.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Yet, you judge all Atheists as immoral?That’s because I believe they’re going to hell, I love how you only want to quote The Bible whenever it suits your narrative.
Yeah, and that bothers you? Do you quote the Bible randomly?
Can you show me where in the Bible you get the idea that morality is a matter of belief?Psalms 14 and 53, and Rom 3:10–12.
Interesting, I hadn't thought of those and they do appear to support your position.
Do you think a Christian is moral because of his faith, no matter what his actions are?Your actions are a part of what makes a Christian.
So Christians who act immorally aren't Christians?
How about Muslims, they believe in God, if a Muslim acts morally, are they moral?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I see on your profile that you are a Christian, the Bible says not to judge others others over 40 times, why do you suppose that is?Because we don’t know what it’s like to be others.
Yet, you judge all Atheists as immoral?
how can we do that if we don't recognize that his belief is to him, what your belief is to you?But it’s not, if your referring to the discussion between Double_R and I then I recognize my belief as objective fact and he recognizes his as subjective opinion, we are not the same.
No, I'm not talking about Double R specifically, I'm talking about the Golden Rule, the principle that Jesus said was the most important commandment of all. The Bible also says "There
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male
nor female; for we are all one in Christ Jesus". I find nothing about divisiveness, or prejudice in Jesus' teachings, Jesus said he came for all men, transcending the very concept of
religious exclusion. Can you show me where in the Bible you get the idea that morality is a matter of belief?
I don't know, but accordoing to the Bible it's not for me to decide.Although you have no problem deciding that those who reject God are moral
I have no problem understanding that by definition morallity is about behavior and conduct, and I'm told not to Judge others. Do you think a Christian is moral because of his faith, no matter what his actions are? And the Atheist who leads a morally pure life is not because of his lack of belief?
You can have that attitude, just don't try to blame it on Christianity, that isn't where it came from.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Morality is about behavior and conduct, not about metaphysical beliefsCan those who don’t believe go to heaven?
I don't know, but accordoing to the Bible it's not for me to decide.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I see on your profile that you are a Christian, the Bible says not to judge others others over 40 times, why do you suppose that is?
When asked what the most important commandment of all was, Jesus summarized all of His teacjings with Love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself, how can we do that if we don't recognize that his belief is to him, what your belief is to you?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
If only God can define goodness, how do you account for the fact that most atheists tend to be ethical people of high moral character.There’s nothing moral about the rejection of God.
Morality is about behavior and conduct, not about metaphysical beliefs, people who don't believe in God can act morally, and people who believe in God can act imorraly.
Is there a particular denomination that is moral, or will any Theistic belief do?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Just as I could choose to define goodness differently.But you can’t, the concept of goodness existed long before you but it started with God hence why only He can define it.
If only God can define goodness, how do you account for the
fact that most atheists tend to be ethical people of high moral character. Those who do not need to hide their humanity
behind the rationalizations of any religious system, can be just as moral as
theists.
Those who don’t live their life with any anticipation of some kind of post life reward are just as able to discern goodness and fully express their humanity in a moral way.
I’m a pretty devout Theist, but nevertheless, I would have to say that prudential bargaining with an authoritarian God is a terrible basis for morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The expanding universe was discovered by Hubble.Did Hubble discover the expanding universe?In one of the most famous classic papers in the annals of science, Edwin Hubble's 1929 PNAS article on the observed relation between distance and recession velocity of galaxies—the Hubble Law—unveiled the expanding universe and forever changed our understanding of the cosmosSo the expansion was visibly observed by the Hubble Telescope.Evidence that the Universe was expanding was observed by Edwin Hubble, the Hubble Telescope was launched 60 years later.So the expansion was visibly observed by the Hubble Telescope.
No, Edwin Hubble wrote the PNAS article in 1929 after he had made the observations, he died in 1953, it was in 1990, 37 years after he died, and almost 60 years after he published the discovery, that they launched the most powerful telescope in the world, and to honor Hubble's tremendous contributions they named the telescope after him. What he visibly observed was redshift, and from that data he inferred the expansion of the Universe that Einstein's General Theory had predicted. The Hubble Telescope did not make the observations, Edwin Hubble did.
It was a Belgian Catholic Priest and Theoretical Physicist named Georges Lemaître that recognized that the equations of Einstein's theory predicted an expanding Universe and brought it to Einsteins attention. Einstein didn't believe that was possible, so he adjusted his theory to remove the expansion from his equations by adding the "cosmological constant". Twelve years later, when Hubble provided observational evidence that it was indeed expanding, Einstein removed the cosmological constant and said it had been the biggest blunder of his career.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The expanding universe was discovered by Hubble.Did Hubble discover the expanding universe?In one of the most famous classic papers in the annals of science, Edwin Hubble's 1929 PNAS article on the observed relation between distance and recession velocity of galaxies—the Hubble Law—unveiled the expanding universe and forever changed our understanding of the cosmosSo the expansion was visibly observed by the Hubble Telescope.
Evidence that the Universe was expanding was observed by Edwin Hubble, the Hubble Telescope was launched 60 years later.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your lexographer buddies told you their dictionary definitions are just suggestions, the actual definition of a word is arbitrarily up to the person using the word.Monitoring trends in the way people speak and write is a major part of this job. Lexicographers are often required to pay attention to the use of specific words, phrases, and jargon.The use of a word or phrase may change over time. When the general population recognizes and accepts this change, a lexicographer may update a dictionary entry to reflect the new use of the word.For example, the word “awful” was originally used to describe something worthy of awe, such as an inspiring moment. Over the years, the word “awful” took on a negative meaning. [**]
NOUMENON
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
The idea that space is expanding is based on Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, and backed by Hubble’s observation of Redshift. The General Theory of Relativity says space has a shape, if it has a shape then it isn’t infinite. The Standard Model of Cosmology presupposes a Big Bang universe expanding from a point in time and space, because you can’t traverse and infinite either spatially or temporally, both the Standard Model of Cosmology and the General Theory of Relativity explicitly deny the proposition that the universe is infinite. If it was infinite, it couldn’t be expanding, it’s also logically and cognitively inconceivable that an actual infinity could exist. If an actual infinity did exist we could not confirm it through observation because there would be no way to measure it. If I did exist, there is no way for us to know it.For something to have shape it must have dimensions. As such, even a flat surface has shape - by virtue of it having at least one dimension.
Maybe so, but the
universe is spatially three dimensional, and a shape implies a surface, which implies
a demarcation between inside and an outside, if there isn’t a surface and an
outside, then how can it really be a shape?
There is no contradiction nor shared consensus on whether the universe is infinite or not.
It was Aristotle that said
actual infinities couldn’t exist, so the idea has been around for quite some
time. Our best science regarding the
subject matter, General Relativity and the resultant Standard Model of
Cosmology, are a matter of scientific consensus, and both are quite explicit
that an infinite universe contradicts theory.
We don't know if there is an issue with infinity. I would wager there isn't as it isn't contradictory to imagine something being infinite. It is perfectly logical to imagine a flat plain going on forever. 0 x 0 also always equals 0. Would you claim there is an issue with that and that we cannot find 0 of something in the real world?
I think I worded what I
was trying to say in a clumsy manner, what I meant by “logically and
cognitively inconceivable that an actual infinity
could exist” was related to what followed, even if it existed there is no way
we could know it. Of course we could
imagine it, but we could never logically or cognitively know that it actually existed…still
feels clumsy…the point is that we could never have knowledge of an actual infinity
existing.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You have a lot of imaginary freinds, don't you?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Was it these lexographers that told you a person can only use the definition of a word if the word describes them?they did manage to explainthat dictionaries are not "authoritative"and in order to understand how someone is using a wordyou need to ask the speaker
Your lexographer buddies told you their dictionary definitions are just suggestions, the actual definition of a word is arbitrarily up to the person using the word.
LOL, you are hilarious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
well, i think its best to remember that nothing outside of the universe exists. The universe is everything so nothing exists outside of itself. The expansion of the universe can simply be viewed as the stretching of space. since space is everything, it doesn't stretch into anything but itself, this highlights two propositions (1) the universe is infinite
The
idea that space is expanding is based on Einstein’s General Theory of
Relativity, and backed by Hubble’s observation of Redshift. The General Theory of Relativity says space
has a shape, if it has a shape then it isn’t infinite. The Standard Model of Cosmology presupposes
a Big Bang universe expanding from a point in time and space, because you can’t
traverse and infinite either spatially or temporally, both the Standard Model
of Cosmology and the General Theory of Relativity explicitly deny the proposition
that the universe is infinite. If it was infinite, it couldn’t be expanding, it’s
also logically and cognitively inconceivable that an actual infinity could
exist. If an actual infinity did exist
we could not confirm it through observation because there would be no way to
measure it. If I did exist, there is no
way for us to know it.
Of course, a cyclical model could be considered infinite, but none of our scientific models
are cyclical.
or (2) laps back on itself. In case 1, it could be described as Somewhat like if we bounce on a trampoline it spreads out and closes back in depending on the force put upon the trampoline, but the amount of material on the trampoline never increases or decreases. All that increases and decreases is how stretched out whatever is already there is. In this same sense the universe is never stretching or going into anything new, but stretching what is already there, like the trampoline. It may be that space simply is literally bending into itself.
The
problem I see with option 2 is that if in fact space itself is expanding then by
definition, the distance between all the objects in space are increasing, but
if it laps back on itself, wouldn’t that entail the distance between at least
some objects decreasing, which would mean space in that region would be
contracting.
If the universe is indeed infinite, then the simple answer is that the universe doesn't have anything to expand into. A good analogy can be made with math. Imagine you have a list of numbers, 1,2,3,etc all the way up to infinity. Then you multiply every number in this list by 2, so that you now have 2,4,6 etc all the way up to infinity. The distance between the numbers in your list has "stretched" (it is now 2 instead of 1), but can you really say that the total extent of all your numbers has expanded? probably not, because in the end it all leads to infinity again anyways. So there is still stretching but you still end up with the same total.
That’s the problem with the concept of infinity, I don’t
think it can be said to be a valid mathematical concept, at least in the sense
that when you apply mathematics to it, you get logically incoherent results. One
of many examples is algebraic, infinity + infinity = infinity, subtract
infinity from both sides of the equation and you get infinity = zero, which is nonsensical. It’s a useful concept for referring to a
cyclical function, but it really can’t be considered a number or even a valid
mathematical object.
Modern science produces a lot of mathematical infinities
but I tend to think they represent places where the mathematical formulas break
down. When scientific equations introduce infinities and zero divisors it does
not speak to what is possible in the real world as much as it speaks to the
limitations of our mathematical equations to adequately represent reality.
I suppose the only way that infinities could be actual would be “dimensionally”
speaking. If the reality that we
experience, that we are capable of experiencing, is a lower level,
four-dimensional aspect of a far greater reality that we are incapable of even
fathoming, certainly more than we can adequately express with the limitations
inherent in the tool of mathematics, then I suppose that would entail the
possibility of actual infinities, but that would transcend our science and our mathematics. (that plus many of those words would be a Pavlovian trigger for all of our spiritual detractors to lose it and throw a tantrum lol).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You really don't get the whole definition of words thing?i know a few lexicographersand they tell me thatwhen compiling a dictionarythey survey editors of prominent magazines and newspapersin order to convey"current usage"
Was it these lexographers that told you a person can only use the definition of a word if the word describes them?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you consider yourself an atheist ?No.if you're not an atheist, how do you know what atheists believe ?
You really don't get the whole definition of words thing?
Since you aren't an atheist either, how do you know what atheists believe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
It could be said to be expanding into itself.
What does "expanding into itself" mean?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you consider yourself an atheist ?
No.
Do you consider yourself rational?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
the minimum qualification is simplyto be unconvinced of the reality of any specific godsOK, and that has something to do with epistemology.being unconvinced does not demand any epistemological explanation
Being Gnostic Deist does not demand any philosophical comprehension.
in the same exact way, you do not feel compelled to explain why you don't happen to believe in grondrakmorph the immortal
In the same exact way, I do not feel compelled to explain why you don't comprehend basic philosophy.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions
Oooh, good one.
Maybe if you keep repeating it, eventually it won't be so stupid.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes", "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"
Yeah, so what
the minimum qualification is simplyto be unconvinced of the reality of any specific gods
OK, and that has something to do with epistemology.
being unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemology
Apparently being a gnostic deist does not require any understanding of epistemology either.
epistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you knowwith emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know
Yeah, I know about epistemology.
Play your kiddie games with somebody else, you are never going to convince me that atheism is this special subject matter that is invisable to all philosophical systems of thought, that's just your dogmatic religious belief, it might be in your burden of proof game rule book, but it's not got anything to do with the real world of philosophy.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Which God are you Deist about, be specific.NOUMENON
Yep, another one of your oh so kewl words, I happen to know what it means, so I know it is a non-sequitor, maybe you should go look it up.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Out here in the real world,it is a nonsense statement to say that the subject matter, Atheism, "has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions". You can redefine words all you want, your deeply held religious convictions don't change the factthat Atheism entails ontological and epistemological questions.You’re confusing atheism with skepticism.Skepticism is the ground on which most atheists deal with questions of ontology and epistemology, atheism is merely the result of this exercise.
LOL, nope, I'm still not playing your puerile game here, I'm simply stating the fact that it's innane to say Atheism "has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions". I'm not talking about your little Atheism cult with it's dogmatic beliefs, it's rituals and it's childish burden of proof game, I'm talking about real Atheism, a subject matter that raises both epistemological and ontological questions.
I also know what skepticism is, it is not a philosophic system that only applies to Theism, that's just your kiddie game, I'm talking about real world philosophical issues.
It just isn't that complicated if you understand the actual definition of the words, get a dictionary.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm not "preaching atheism"i'm a gnostic deist
Which God are you Deist about, be specific.
The burden of proof is on you!!!
Woohoo I win!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes", "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"the minimum qualification is simplyto be unconvinced of the reality of any specific godsbeing unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemologyepistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you knowwith emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know
I know what the principles of your religious faith are, and I know just how important that innane burden of proof game is to your fundamentalism, I but you don't have to let it make you completely incoherent about everything.
Out here in the real world,it is a nonsense statement to say that the subject matter, Atheism, "has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions". You can redefine words all you want, your deeply held religious convictions don't change the factthat Atheism entails ontological and epistemological questions.
But don't worry, you can still turn Atheism into a religion if you want, you haven't lost your ability to blather on about the childish burden of proof game, you can be as irrational as you want, nobody expects more from you, you can even evangelize your faith here, but you don't get to insist that we join your cult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Um, does anyone else think the OP is nuts?
You think?
Let's apply the whackjob verification test, yep, Greyparrot agrees with her, that proves she's nuts
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In fact, if you want him/her to be prevented from pedophilic acts and genuinely believed he/she was unaware of the danger of prison why would you warn him/her? Why are you trying to keep pedophiles free?I suppose you could see trying to keep a pedophile from acting on his impulse as trying to keep him free, and I have no idea why that's a problem for you, but then again, I don't really understand your alternative logic.If he/she thought it was legal then he/she would just walk up to someone and ask. If he/she was informed that it was illegal he/she would create a secret plot. Got it?
Whack job, got it.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Nope, I see him trying to justify an illegal action and perhaps he needs to be reminded that his argument in favor of it just doesn't matter, it is still illegal, and he needs to understand that there are consequences.You thought you needed to explain that he/she would be sent to prison when he/she claimed to have been sent to prison? I don't believe that.
Oh no, I'm crushed, I really wanted you to comprehend a simple comment, it really is all about you, crap, now I probably won't ne able to sleep tonight.
In fact, if you want him/her to be prevented from pedophilic acts and genuinely believed he/she was unaware of the danger of prison why would you warn him/her? Why are you trying to keep pedophiles free?
Maybe if you go back and read it again, real slow for comprehension, you will get it, did you try the breathing thing, count to ten?
I suppose you could see trying to keep a pedophile from acting on his impulse as trying to keep him free, and I have no idea why that's a problem for you, but then again, I don't really understand your alternative logic.
I really do think that if you can calm yourself down, count to ten and breathe, it will probably all make a lot more sense to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
And don't forget, Trump can always divert it with a Sharpie.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No shit, of course this is a non-sequitor, my point was that engaging in pedophilia is illegal and it will land him on prison again if he does it.Trying to justify it on a debate board does not change that fact..Forgive me for thinking you were trying to make a point.
No problem, forgive me for thinking you could grasp that "engaging in pedophilia is illegal" is a point.
Yes, he says "legally unable" is not an argument, it is in fact a valid argument under the lawYet not an argument. You cannot justify a law by saying it is law. You cannot establish truth by saying it has been written in a law. If you aren't justifying a law or inferring a fact about that is not a valid defense in a court of law.you're acting as an unsolicited legal librarian.
You're babbling again, trust me, that is not a valid defense in a court of law.
It's unlikely you were simply compelled to start pointing out the blindingly obvious and uncontested fact that adult/child sex is illegal almost everywhere. It's far more likely you were angry and gave into the temptation to make threats by proxy.
Nope, I see him trying to justify an illegal action and perhaps he needs to be reminded that his argument in favor of it just doesn't matter, it is still illegal, and he needs to understand that there are consequences.
I just don't think all your babbling about how the law isn't justified, and it isn't truth, or whatever the hell all that pablum coming out of you is supposed to be about, isn't going to help keep him out of prison.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison.I think you're confusing torture with logic and morality.There is no connection between being raped in prison and being morally wrong.No, I'm saying the crime of pedophilaa is morally wrong, the connection be that by acting on that impulse that he's trying to justify, is what puts you in prison.What lands you in prison or not has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. What gets you tortured in prison or not has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. That was appeal to force, nothing more.
No shit, of course this is a non-sequitor, my point was that engaging in pedophilia is illegal and it will land him on prison again if he does it.
Trying to justify it on a debate board does not change that fact..
Before I posted this you made it even more explicit:"Legally unable" is not an argument.If you want to stay out of prison, you better accept that as a valid argument.
Yes, he says "legally unable" is not an argument, it is in fact a valid argument under the law, and staying out of prison is a matter of accepting that.
Prison is supposed to be a deterrent, he had a very bad experience in prison, but nevertheless, he's still here justifying the crime, saying it should be OK. But it's not OK, he needs to understand that or suffer the consequences.When people who advertise their willingness to be rational by signing up to a debate site fling logic out the window and openly use well known fallacies in fits of anger and disgust it sends one message: You're right, we haven't a clue why it is wrong.
LOL, nice try, if comprehending the law is over your head, then it's over your head, but I'd advise that if you find yourself accused in a court of law, you probably shouldn't babble about how the law isn't a valid argument, I assure you that it won't be seen as a valid defense.
If you want to know why he/she might be able to look in the mirror and feel justified look no further than your own lack of control over your emotions, at your own shallow contemplation.
LOL, my my, aren't we the angry little dreamer, but hey, if you can't cope with a simple statement of fact about the law, thats fine with me, whatever floats your boat. But maybe you should relax, there's no reason to get so worked up about it, try counting to ten or something, breathe 123, breathe 123, breathe 123...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.please explainOh pulease, just get a dictionary, look up all three words, try to understand the definition of all three words and you will see that the statement "ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions" is simply an innane statement.i know the definitionsplease explain specifically how these concepts are REQUIRED
I see, so you know what the definition of the words are, you just don't understand how putting them together into a sentence works. Next time that happens, how about you don't type the sentence.
But hey, let me try to dumb it down for you.
The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes", "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".
Now, the nature of the above belief relates to whether or not something "exists", in particular a "being" of some kind, then note that "Ontology" is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of "being" and "existence". Ok, so now note that the definitions of both "Atheism" and "Ontology" involve the words "existence" and "being", so it also follows that "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Ontology".
See how that works, so yes, the words you put together into a sentence do each have definitions, and it's a good idea to know the definitions of the words you use in a sentence, but there's more, when you do put them together into a sentence you need to put them together in a certain order, and you also need to relate the words to each other in a way that allows the sentence to have meaning. If you don't do that, it's not really a sentence, its just a list of words.
If you still don't understand, then there's nothing more I can do to help you, I guess you'll just have to keep posting lists of word that don't mean anything.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Yep, words have the same meaning whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, they are spelled the same too.It should also be the same with Taoism which is what he follows
Yes, believe it or not, even if you are a Taoist, words have the same meaning.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
First, I am not committing anything. I dont know where you got that from.Do you just assume that everyone who says "children can consent" is a rapist?
We assume that everyone who says they went to prison for acts of pedophilia is a rapist.
"Legally unable" is not an argument.
If you want to stay out of prison, you better accept that as a valid argument.
If you claim children are not physically ready, then explain why.
You are a pedophile, you probably aren't capable of understanding why.
All you really need to understand is that there are consequences if you act, you began this thread by telling us you know what the consequences are, if you act, there are a lot of parents in prison that will explain it to you.
Created:
-->
@Shila
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.If it applies to Atheists it also applies to Christians.
Yep, words have the same meaning whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, they are spelled the same too.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.please explain
Oh pulease, just get a dictionary, look up all three words, try to understand the definition of all three words and you will see that the statement "ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions" is simply an innane statement.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison.I think you're confusing torture with logic and morality.There is no connection between being raped in prison and being morally wrong.
No, I'm saying the crime of pedophilaa is morally wrong, the connection be that by acting on that impulse that he's trying to justify, is what puts you in prison.
His recommendation was don't go to prison, my recommendation was don't commit the crime so you don't go to prison.
Prison is supposed to be a deterrent, he had a very bad experience in prison, but nevertheless, he's still here justifying the crime, saying it should be OK. But it's not OK, he needs to understand that or suffer the consequences.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I know that, there are plenty of people who don't know what the words "ONTOLOGICAL" and "EPISTEMOLOGICAL" mean, but you don't usually see people like that using them in a sentence.what is your specific claim ?
It's not really that complicated, pay attention.
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
"I think I have already made this point ... children can be easily manipulated therefore they lack the capacity to consent. But you don’t want to hear that."Your point was already refuted. Child is the only one who can make decisions about own body.
Your point was already refuted when you went to prison.
You cant decide about childs own body. You cannot decide instead of a child.Even if a child doesnt know everything, you are still not allowed to decide for them against their will.Child is the only one who can decide."Children are naive and need to be protected"Children need to be educated.
Pedophiles need to be incarcerated.
"would telling a child not to eat poisonous berries take away control about what happens to their bodies"This is you confusing education with force.First, the force is only allowed if it uphelds personal control over own body.Forbidding child to have sex does not do this. In such case, you are using force to forbid child to decide about own body.
This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison. If forbidding pedophiles to have sex with children does not deter them, then the law will be using force to decide how long you will be incarcerated.
One of the strongest instincts is that of a parent protecting a child, many of the people in prison are parents, this should be enough of a deterent, and if not, then accept that it will be the other prisoners that make decisions about your welfare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what makes you think a dragonfly has "consciousness" ?What makes you think it doesn't have "consciousness?the same thing that makes me think my car doesn't have a soul
Comic book? The one that made you think robots are organisms maybe?
Created:
Posted in:
What makes a vote a troll vote, when it occurs, can you give an example, when it occurs, is it always intentional or can a voter unintentionally cast a trull vote, do both sides of the debate usually agree that it's a troll vote?
I'm wondering if you are defining it as a vote you disagree with?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
ATHEISM is simply "not a theist"it has absolutely nothing to do with "afterlife" or AXIOLOGY or any other ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questionsApparently, you don't know what epistemological means.there are many self-identified "atheists" who have no idea what epistemological limits are
I know that, there are plenty of people who don't know what the words "ONTOLOGICAL" and "EPISTEMOLOGICAL" mean, but you don't usually see people like that using them in a sentence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.Now, do you think asking questions in some way answers questions?what makes you think a dragonfly has "consciousness" ?What makes you think it doesn't have "consciousness?If he knew he would not have asked the question in the first place. And you would have answered if you knew the answer, but you didn’t either.
I know
why I think a dragonfly is conscious, what I don't know, is whether or not
3RU7AL is actually conscious, since he doesn't appear to be aware or in any way responsive.
Dictionary definitions of consciousness refer to “awareness”, a sensate
being is “aware” and therefore posseses consciousness to some degree. To avoid philosophical or
metaphysical implications, lets define consciousness as the ability to perceive
sensory stimuli and respond by purposeful action or by a behavioral change, and
therefore an organism that demonstrates those abilities can be said to possess
consciousness.
Seen the way
evolution demands that we see it then; there is a direction to life, towards greater
complexity and higher forms of sentience. At the historically base level of life we have the
prokariotic single celled organism, the bacteria, which demonstrate a rudimentary form of
consciousness as sensate
beings with complex behavior responses well beyond contrived mechanistic
explanations regarding “robots” or “data processing”.
Bacteria can respond to a broad range of stimuli,
demonstrate elementary forms of “memory”, and engage in purposeful activities.
They have shown themselves to be extraordinarily perceptive, demonstrating
elaborate behavioral responses and adaptations to a wide range of attractants
and repellants and other environmental stimuli such as light. They have complex
signaling capabilities, show the ability to communicate, and change their
behavior based on population size, which implies some kind of quorum sensing
ability and clearly demonstrates social behavior on at least a rudimentary
level. They have been proven to have some form of memory and a rudimentary
ability to learn, and the discriminatory ability to “choose” among
alternatives, regarding among other things, gene expression. They clearly
integrate these capabilities into a self-organized and sensate being that in at
least an extremely attenuated way is perceiving, discriminating, remembering,
and even “thinking”, on some level it is conscious.
On the developmentally
increasing spectrum of sensate beings, a dragonfly falls somewhere between
bacteria and human beings both evolutionarily and in terms of complexity, so I consider it to be aware, sensate, and therefore
conscious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Yes, and it's commonly referred to as the "Metric Expansion of Space", it's space that is expanding, not the objects in space. It also implies the violation of two of our most basic laws of physics, the 1st law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy), and the Relativistic principle that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.Now here is something new that might confuse you, or might help. In the standard physics theory, the galaxies are all getting farther apart; that is the expansion of the Universe. Yet in the way the theory describes it (I mean in General Relativity Theory) none of the galaxies are actually moving. All that is happening is that the amount of space (vacuum) in between them is increasing.No, you will not learn this in school, or even in college (unless you have an extraordinary professor). It is usually taught in graduate school, when you are earning a Ph.D. degree. At that point the language you will encounter is this: "In the Big Bang Theory, all galaxies have fixed coordinates. (That means they are not moving.) The 'expansion' is described by the 'metric tensor', which describes the distances between those fixed coordinates. In the Big Bang Theory, it is the metric tensor which is changing; that represents the expansion of the Universe, even though the galaxies aren't moving. The recent discovery of accelerated expansion means that the rate of expansion is increasing."
Yeah, I know, that's why in the post you are responding to I said "it's commonly referred to as the "Metric Expansion of Space", it's space that is expanding, not the objects in space. "
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
According to the Standard Model of Cosmology, the Universe is temporally and spatially finite, and it is expanding.The question becomes, what is it expanding into?The expansion of the universe is the increase in distance between any two given gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time
Yes, and it's commonly referred to as the "Metric Expansion of Space", it's space that is expanding, not the objects in space. It also implies the violation of two of our most basic laws of physics, the 1st law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy), and the Relativistic principle that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
Created: