Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
If you start out with a bad premise, I don't see how youre going to end with a valid premise. Surely, you wouldn't waste your time on something obviously dubious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
We know with absolute and omniscient scientific certainty that...
Someone doesn't understand how science works: Absolute certainty is not a science thing.
You lost me with the first statement.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
NOBODY IS REQUIRED TO FEDERALLY REGISTER AND PROVE AND CARRY A CERTIFICATE FOR SEATBELT AND OR HARNESS COMPLIANCE.
Nobody is required to federally register, prove, and carry a certificate for covid vaccinations either.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
ILLEGAL DRUG TESTING IS NOT FEDERALLY MANDATED.
Drug testing illegal? Nah. Why you screaming, bud? You okay?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Buckling a seatbelt is not a medical procedure.
So? Besides, companies require drug tests on a regular basis. Some jobs might require a physical...
Your employer does not require you to present a certificate declaring your "100% seatbelt compliance" as a condition of your employment.
If you have a driving job, your employer can certainly require you to wear a seatbelt. If you drive a cherry picker, you will 100% lose that job if found not wearing your harness.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
It's not illegal - there is precedent. Eg. Seatbelts in our vehicles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeadFire27
I play on Chess.com - user name Cgibbson11. I prefer a 3 day limit. My rating is in the 1300's.
Anyone interested is welcome to set up a challenge there.
Created:
I think more dead kids is exactly the image Biden needs right now.
With Republican governors literally working against schools (and local governments) trying to protect children (and society in general), Republicans have absolutely no room to criticize....
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
LOL NOW YOU GIVE ANY SHITT ABOUT DRONE STRIKES AS SOOOOOOOON AS BIDEN IS ELECTED YOUR HILARIOUS!
Of course. The Orange Manchild could do no wrong...Biden can do nothing right - or so the narrative goes.
If Trump were in office, Parrot would be defending this because, for him (or so it seems), his objections are purely political.
Created:
More criticism absent context. It is thought secondary explosions (which are responsible for unexpected deaths) were caused by explosive materials in car. If that is the case, then a strike to prevent 'an imminent ISIS-K threat' appears justified.
That being said, my heart goes out to those dealing with the loss of their innocent loved ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Question to the Bible: Should foreigners be treated the same way as native born people?Bible: Yes"The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”" Exodus 12:49Bible: No“At the end of seven years, you shall have a release of debts … Of a foreigner you may require it; but you shall give up your claim to what is owed by your brother” (Deuteronomy 15:1-3)
Contradiction created by translation.
Exodus 12:49 foreigner = guest
Deuteronomy 15:3 foreigner = stranger
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Margaret Taylor Greene for president?!
Eek.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Any brains cells within a teratoma can be very much alive.How? Wouldn't the cells have died outside the human body (maybe like not getting enough oxygen)?
Teratomas exist within the human body.
[Link]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think those brain cells are dead when they are displayed on a human.
Any brains cells within a teratoma can be very much alive.
I assure you a teratoma meets your standard of personhood: human DNA and specialized cells (including brain cells). I encourage you to re-think this standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
My bad; I thought teratomas were a type of animal for a second.
Glad we were able to clear the confusion.
But teratomas don't have brain cells so if someone wanted to get a teratoma removed, it would be like getting a haircut.
Teratomas can have brain cells.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Human DNA has very little in common with Teratomas.
Yah, no joke.
I'm not comparing teratomas to human DNA - I'm saying they have human DNA and specialized cells exactly like a fetus. If this is your standard for personhood, then teratomas are people. Are you good with that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If having brain cells is your line, then teratomas can be human beings too.Teratomas don't have the DNA to be a human. You need both the DNA and specialized cells to be human.
Teratomas have human DNA and specialized cells...
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Reality has a well known liberal bias - Stephen Colbert
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
No doubt, if no equipment were left in support and the Taliban took control, some would be arguing we left Afghanistan defenseless.
...and how can you say we've left anyone behind when we are still in the process of evacuating?
Listen, if you want to say the process could have been done better - fine, Ill agree, but if you just want to nitpick because politics I can't really take the objection seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
Let's compare one situation absent of context to another absent of truth...so dishonest.
For the record Obama didn't give 17 billion worth of taxpayer funds to Iran, and US equipment was left to Afghan forces - not the Taliban. Plus 85B is a gross overestimate for the equipment - try less than $10B.
Parrot boy still has me blocked so this is for informational purposes for anyone interested in reality.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
it's considered a fact of science that damaged retinas to the point of blindness cannot be repaired.
Ahh, so now its not just damaged retinas, but retinas damaged to the point of blindness. Moving the goalposts....
Without specifics its difficult to address your example, but I do have questions. Was the damaged retina properly diagnosed? Was there a surgery before the 'miracle'? I suspect a misdiagnosis, self-diagnosis (no diagnosis) and/or a surgery. I look forward to more info from you.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am a protestant.. This does not mean I reject all of Catholicism. I personally don't go for the RC definition of Saint either. But one assumes that even in the RC they must have some standard definition of a miracle and also a standard of proof that needs to be met in order to make a person a saint. After all, if there were no definite standards then there would be more saints - and not too much difficulty to become one.For the gate to be managed effectively, there must be a standard of proof - for a miracle. That is my point.
Best I can tell, the Vatican has the same philosophy on miracles you do. They deem unexplained healings/events as miracles. What's worse, is that they have also deemed what CAN be explained as miracles too. Its not about a consistent standard of proof, but a hurdle to sainthood which can be adjusted as necessary.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
retinas dont just heal themselves.
You equate retinas being healed without treatment as supernatural because you wrongly assume retinas cannot heal without treatment.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
but the examples are just never reported. for me, if someone prays and then something supernatural looking occurs, i see no reason to assume similar things happen to atheists too.
"Super natural looking"
I went to a magic show and saw what appeared to be magic...but it wasn't. Likewise, someone who sees something "supernatural looking" hasn't necessarily seen the supernatural. That being said, it shouldn't come as any surprise super natural looking stuff can happen to atheists too.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I suppose you could also go the Vatican's homepage in relation to Saints. Apparently in their denomination - a Saint can only be made a Saint, having done 3 verifiable miracles.
I thought you were a protestant. I seem to remember you distancing yourself from Catholicism. Did you change your mind?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I will consistently reject the unexplained when submitted as knowledge.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
By the definition you pushed, my 14 year old son doing his homework before attempting to play Xbox would be a miracle. Its a very low bar, and clearly not what most people mean when they *seriously* claim miracles. It is quite clear miracle are thought to be the work of the claimants preferred god-concept more often than not. My definition is accurate.
Re fraud - it is a significant argument against miracles when known fraudulent accounts are still counted among the body of evidence for miracles by believers [link]. That fraud exists amongst those claiming 'miracle' isn't the problem - its that people choose to believe what has been admitted as fraud because there is no critical evaluation whatsoever (unlike science).
If people were claiming ignorance (the unexplained) was a demonstration of florb - skeptics would not be out of place saying there had been no demonstration thus calling into question the existence of florb. Florb believers might cry about skeptics pointing that out, but until claimants can establish and share knowledge of florbs (or miracles) skeptics aren't wrong.
Tl;dr? It is appropriate for skeptics to disbelieve miracles exists while the evidence/argumentation for them is literally ignorance.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
For this reply I am using a tentative definition of miracle: a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws that is thought to be the work of a deity.
Personally, I don't believe in miracles because of a few reasons.
1. The frequency of 'miracles' decreases as our knowledge (and ability to investigate) has increased.
This suggests people attribute miracles to misunderstood events (we know this has happened) or are dishonest (we know this has happened).
2. Miracles have not been shown to be something other than misattribution or fraud. The burden of proof still rests firmly on those who claim miracles are real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Really the issue exposes the hubris of the secular, Western mind that believes everyone in the world would be just like us, if only they were enlightened enough!
Disagree. It says we honor our promises; we take care of those who risk their lives for us. Besides, I'm certain if a translator wanted to go to another country besides the US we could make that happen too.
If we're being honest the motivation to disallow Afgan refugees to the US is fear. Those objectors are happy to benefit from people risking their lives, but not at the expense of having them among us because that *might* risk our culture... a culture known to be a melting pot of cultures. Its fear speaking to the mindset of *our* culture being more important than *their* lives. "Hubris of the secular, western mind". Gtfo with that projection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And is this collectivism promoted by a "sense of duty" or by some perceived incentive like "you help us now and we'll help you later" ?It could be either or both.It still sounds a lot like communism.
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And is this collectivism promoted by a "sense of duty" or by some perceived incentive like "you help us now and we'll help you later" ?
It could be either or both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd say its a mixed system.
When the kids are young (and potentially unable to understand explanation), it is more likely to be totalitarian since following instructions can be crucial to their survival.
When they get older transactional exchanges have their place - money for chores/grades is beneficial to all involved.
And then there is communism - our time and energy collectively goes to maintaining and progressing the family.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It is the Atheist who says they do not have a worldview. The Theist totally accepts he has a worldview. In fact - it is pretty much only the Atheist who denies he has one.
Yea, I think you've misunderstood atheists. Atheists have worldviews - of course! ...it just isn't atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
So how then can an atheist do good things if it does not flow from their atheistic view?...because they have a worldview which isn't atheism or religion - Humanism for example.Thanks for that SkepticalOne. And thank you for acknowledging that atheists can't do good simply as an atheist.
That's not what I said.
Would you consider it [Humanism] to be an Atheistic worldview? Or is it a religious one?
The existence of God is unimportant for humanism, but people can (and do) flavor it with their own religious beliefs.
Hmmm, why did the early humanists desire to do good?
Evolutionary heritage.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Yea, I have no idea what you're talking about there. I have a family member transitioning, and it has nothing to do with getting laid.
Also, I personally see little wrong with a man crying from time to time. We've all been brought up to hide our emotions and be stoic *manly* figures no matter how badly we've been hurt or how happy we are. That's just dumb.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
"I want you to know you are loved."
Good words applicable to everyone in any situation - including you.
As for the OP, it seems everyone associates transsexuals with man ---> woman. Much fear/hate and shame is cast toward this subset of transexuals. It is almost like people either don't realize transitions happen the other way too or that they only object to biological males transitioning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
So how then can an atheist do good things if it does not flow from their atheistic view?
...because they have a worldview which isn't atheism or religion - Humanism for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I understand what you mean, but you're attempting to sidestep the criticism by massively begging the question. The Gospels weren't written at the time of Jesus (or within decades of his death) and they are not eyewitness accounts.No, you are side-stepping now while claiming the opposite.
Just to recap, you claimed there was no historical dispute of the resurrection. I showed this was mistaken. You then said there was no historical dispute *at the time of the resurrection except for what was recorded in the in the Gospels*. I pointed out the Gospels were not written until decades after the life of Jesus. Now...you are arguing against Biblical scholarship in an attempt to justify your original mistake.
If you want to argue against Biblical scholars, be my guest, but that is a different argument altogether, my friend.
Keeping in mind this was your attempt to establish the existence of an afterlife, I think its safe to say no demonstration has occurred.
Source X (say the Gospel of Matthew) is backed by Source Y and Z (the other Synoptic gospels), as well as other sources too.
FyI, the synoptic Gospels are either copied from each other or utilize a separate unknown single source. Either way, they are functionally one source...my point stands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yep, I should have gone with option B. Ludofl3x has responded as I would. There is nothing more I need say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Things often claimed to be material are contingent upon the immaterial.
Option A: "such as?"
Option B: "if you say so."
Decisions, decisions...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
A question for Atheists and Theists.Is the world material or immaterial?
Material. Things often claimed to be immaterial are contingent upon material.
Is there anything apart from God that is immaterial?
The qualification (other than God) pre-answers the thread title (loaded question?). As for how an atheist would answer "Is God material or immaterial?", I think the question had 3 words too many.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
There is no historical account of it being disputed, and it was not just one man that witnessed His resurrection. Peter, John, James, and other NT writers speak of witnessing the resurrected Christ.Actually, (not that it is needed) there is historical dispute of the resurrection of Jesus - Plutarch.If you reread, I'm speaking of during the time of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus,
I understand what you mean, but you're attempting to sidestep the criticism by massively begging the question. The Gospels weren't written at the time of Jesus (or within decades of his death) and they are not eyewitness accounts.
Plutarch was not born until 26 years after the resurrection. He is not an eyewitness to the events of AD 30 or thereabouts.
If we are discounting non eyewitness views, then we are likely discounting most, if not all, of the NT. Also, Plutarch was born in 46 AD, not 56 AD.
Nope, the Gospels contain accounts that some authors expand on and others contract, their different styles telling different aspects of the same event, and these "purported events" are logically reconcilable.
This does not address legendary accretion. The Christology in the earliest gospel is low but by the time we get to the last gospel Jesus is not just given authority by Yahweh - he is God (since the beginning of time). This is what legendary accretion looks like, my friend.
On top of that, you can use the Bible for claim or evidence, but not both. Pick one or the other. I'm not impressed by Biblical 'clevidence'...and I don't know why you are.And you can use many historical writing written way after the fact to make claims also, which is what you are doing. I'm not impressed by these accounts, and I don't know why you should be other than you suffer from 21st-century bias and the prevailing secular thought on the subject. So why should I trust your opinion, over 2,000 years removed from the accounts of the Bible?
I'm pointing out using a source X to support the claim of source X is logically invalid. Your response does not address this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
"White supremacist" is descriptive. The n word is not.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
.1 ....or somewhere there abouts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So since you believe there is some obligation to the person you injure, why would you stop at monetary obligations?
This is very 'eye for an eye' type mentality. I object to that in principle because it blurs the line between crime and punishment. If crime is something to be avoided, then punishment should not look exactly like it. Its a bit like the parent spanking their child for hitting others. It doesn't make sense.
Should you be able to force the person who put you in that position to give you a liver transplant or do you think you should be left to die?
This seems extreme and improbable. Nonetheless, I would not want to be responsible for someone else's death.
I'm arguing for equal rights, not absolute rights. Don't misrepresent my argument.But no rights are truly equal. Some are more important than others. Having a life without free speech is quite different from having no life at all. The fact that free speech is limited to preserve life shows that you weight those two differently. You restrict one to defend another.
I believe I gave 'life without speech' as an illustration of an incomplete life. Obviously a life without bodily autonomy, freedom of thought, or, yes, life - would be incomplete as well. You're reading something into statement which isn't there.
Rights can be removed because of bad actions. Again, it sure seems like you are suggesting getting pregnant is a bad action.Getting pregnant when you don't want to is to some degree a bad action. It's reckless.
...but is it a crime?
Yes. I am now ...being many decades old. ;-p At conception, I was not the being I am now...in fact I wasn't even a being.The fact that people change over time seems to support what I am saying. You must take their entire life into account, as there will be dramatic changes. Even abortion proponents use the future of that life to justify their actions. They say that the life of that kid won't be good because they don't have a lot of money to care for it. But then the question is, is a bad life better or worse than no life at all?
I'm not an antinatalist, but I do accept a life never coming to exist is much more humane than forcing a miserable existence.
...but you're getting ahead of yourself. My statement was pointing to the fact that, even though some cells with my DNA existed at conception, I didn't.
That being said, this is more personhood talk - it an unnecessary debate for abortion.
Created: