Total posts: 1,740
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The fact that Jesus was a male suggests he had a father who contributed the Y chromosome.
There is no DNA of Jesus so far as I am aware. At best, we can say he presented himself as male.
Luke even points to Joseph son of Heli as father of Jesus,
Well, this is awkward.
I (non-believer) must point out you (believer) are taking that verse out of context. The author was describing the consensus of those who didnt have his 'insight'. The Gospel according to Luke describes Jesus would be born of the virgin Mary. It cannot be true that the author both thought Jesus was born of a virgin and also that Joseph was his biological father.
Luke 1:30-38
And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” But Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God. And behold, even your relative Elizabeth herself has conceived a son in her old age, and she who was called infertile is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, the Lord’s bond-servant; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
Well if someone disagrees with metaphysical solipsism being the most likely, they were free to show me why. None of them did.
That is attempting to shift a burden. Why would anyone need to disprove what hasn't been proven? Also, there were other issues with your argument which you failed to address. Namely, atheism isn't a worldview. Ie. Someone can believe in anything (accept gods) and still be an atheist.
I also don't hold theists or atheists to any sort of standards,
Sure you do. If there is no standard, there can be no hypocrites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
Assuming parthenogenesis, Jesus would have been female. That would make Jesus trans. 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
the evidence can be verifiedThen verify it
How would that help you? Are you going to verify my verification?
That would mean all the u238 in the earth should be almost completely gone, since it has a half life of 4.46 billion years.
No, it would mean about half of u238 has transmuted to a different element.
I would much rather err on the side that finds dinosaurs in North America (e.g. real, undisputable, physical evidence) and u238 measurements detected globally
Neither of the 'sides' you're describing are denying dinosaurs in NA or that U238 is common.
Because, if uniformitarian principles are true, then it would be physically impossible to find dinosaurs in North America, since they did not "appear" until about 250 million years ago.
North America split from Africa 200 million years ago. What's physically impossible about dinosaurs living atop a tectonic plate while it splits and moves away from Africa?
My mother is a young earth creationist (which I assume you are). I've had all these discussions before, my friend. You're being misled.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
but the point is, you don't have toCan you, right now, prove a zircon fragment is 4.3 billion years old?bingo
Sir, you have to wait for numbers to be called before exclaiming "bingo". 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
but the point is, you don't have toCan you, right now, prove a zircon fragment is 4.3 billion years old?
Well, not right this second... I'm still in bed, but the point is the evidence can be verified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
You're asking about things that no one has an answer for. Is there an internal/external reality? I don't know, but I function as though I share reality with others (what's the alternative?) I like the taste of steak in this reality though 😁.
As for the BoP, I have none - I've not claimed to have solved Hard solispism and I'm not trying to persuade you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Nope, I want to question your beliefs, but as I pointed out, all of you BOPers know it's a meaningless game, you are willing to serve, but you won't step up to the plate.
If that is the case, then perhaps you should start with asking about my beliefs rather than getting upset because I don't believe what you (dubiously) think I should.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting that you can only have "justified & true" "knowledge" of physical objects ?
No. You asked for an example. I've given two that are easy to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
but when they tell you that a zircon fragment is 4.375 billion years oldyou sort of have to take their word for it
....but the point is, you don't have to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you maybe have another example of "knowledge"perhaps something that doesn't require specialized equipment in order to verify ?
I've provided 2 examples. One requires no specialized equipment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Irrelevant. The collective knowledge of humanity isn't null and void if I personally haven't verified all of it. If evidence warrants a true belief, it is knowledge.it sounds like you have FAITH in the modern priesthood
You give actual priests too much credit. Preists cannot justify their core beliefs or show them true. That is not true of, say, geologists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Sidewalker
so, you're actually asking about ONTOLOGICAL AXIOMS
I guess he would rather question reality than his beliefs. 😆
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
have you yourself measured the atomic mass of Sodium ?
Irrelevant. The collective knowledge of humanity isn't null and void if I personally haven't verified all of it. If evidence warrants a true belief, it is knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because something is defined by measurement does not mean it is true by definition - it is true by observation. The definition is dependent on evidence not the other way around. It seems to me you are suggesting anything with a definition cannot be knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
can you perhaps provide an example of "justified & true" knowledge ?The atomic mass of Sodium is 22.989769 u.that's an example of a tautology
I disagree and do not follow your reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
can you perhaps provide an example of "justified & true" knowledge ?
The atomic mass of Sodium is 22.989769 u.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STORIES IN THE BIBLE
I believe the Bible has a story about a worldwide flood. Anyone can read the Bible and recognize my belief is justified and true - ie. knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
As you said, any position can be held of faith, Theism and Atheism are both matters of faith.
Atheism (lack of belief) is not a claim and has no association with hope in unseen things.
To say you simply lack belief is to say you simply have no knowledge, its an assertion of total ignorance of the subject matter.
Lack of belief is not an assertion of total ignorance. That is hyperbolic. The absence of belief follows from an absence of reason for belief.
I provided the definition of faith, the argument is that, by definition, faith does not carry a burfen of proof.
Hand waving away a burden of proof doesn't make unjustified claims "knowledge". If your claims about reality can't be substantiated, why should anyone accept them? More importantly....why do you?!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The number of gumballs is either odd or even, that is not absurd reasoning.
That is not what you've been advocating. You are suggesting dismissing a claim of even (based on faith alone, not evidence) is equivalent to making an alternative claim of odd. That is absurd. That is not how logic works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
knowledge is simply datapeople obviously have knowledge of both "unjustified" and "untrue" things
Do they? Can you give examples of 'unjustified' knowledge?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
“Knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief”,
Agreed. However, it should be pointed out, faith is not a reasonable basis for justification as there is no position that cannot be held on faith. Faith is not a pathway to knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
basically,"go back and read this entire conversation over again, and if you still don't agree with me, you are not intelligent"does that sound about right ?
Yes, but with a side of over-the-top condescension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist
'If it is not your position that a gumball machine contains an even number of gumballs, then it is your position that the gumballs machine contains an odd number of gumballs.'
This is absurd reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
It was never intended to be read literally as a historical record.The genealogies of the OT and NT suggest, at least in some instances, the texts were meant to be taken as an historical record.Genealogy has always been central to Jewish sacred history, [...]
I'm confused as to what your view is. You've said the Bible is not meant to be historical and that it represents a sacred history. This is conflicting unless you are defining sacred history as something other than history.
Also, you've not addressed my other post regarding the OP. Is it wrong to take the Bible literally when Jesus says "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
It was never intended to be read literally as a historical record.
The genealogies of the OT and NT suggest, at least in some instances, the texts were meant to be taken as an historical record.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
As long as something is metaphysically possible you cant rule it out. Its just as dead as a nail that atheists constantly go on about how God is not proven therefore why believe?
possible=/=probable ...what kind of broken epistemology accepts possibility as fact?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I think it’s common for young children to see the Bible as a story book and to have a childish understanding of God as an invisible man in the sky that grants wishes to those who pray. Of course, as children age and mature their conception of God and their understanding of faith develops and matures beyond such childish ways of understanding things.But apparently, that isn’t always the case. There seems to be a group of very vocal Atheists whose conception of God and faith did not mature as they got older
Perhaps children and atheists take the Bible at face value, whereas, some believers discount verses that are demonstrably false:
John 14: 12-14
"Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in My name, this I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it."
If this verse is true, either no believer has ever asked for regrown limbs, an end to starvation, an end to child cancer....or Jesus lied or doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Depreciation of a house is inevitable over time. Property values of the land do not inevitably rise. Especially property in a city where crime is on the rise.
The value of my home is 4x what it was in 1999....and it was built in 1938. So...yea. Also, it sure seems like you're suggesting crime will be on the rise where POC live...
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As usual democrats change rules at the last minute to get power
You got to wonder how those NOT in power have the power to change rules to get power...
Created:
-->
@Avery
You should be addressing my claim (since you quoted it) of: "we don't need to know this data".
And your claim is wrong because you easily lose the ball when percentages are presented. If only 25 respondents are black, then claims that '44% of black people believe X' would be referring to 11 people out of 1000. If 1000 respondents were black it would be referring to 440 people out of 1000. There is a pretty big difference between 1.1% and 44% of respondents. We need this data to better understand the poll results.
I explained why in the following paragraph, of which you've manage to drop and not address:"So it's only Liberals who buck the trend with this: "Among liberal voters, 27% see most white Americans as racist, and 21% say the same about black Americans." That 6% gap isn't going to be enough to cover all the other gaps from the other demographics (White, Asian, Hispanic, Republican, no strong political belief etc.)
You think this is a point worth repeating? That statistic comes from the 2013 poll rather than the 2020 - you're referring to old data. Beyond that, the fact you think the difference between 27% of liberals indicating white Americans are racist and 21% indicating blacks are racist is significant illustrates you don't understand the poll. It could have been that 100% of 'group X' indicated whites, and blacks, and Hispanics, and Asians were all racist. The questions were independent from one another.
Blacks are voting Blacks as majority racist more frequently than they are voting any other race. Hence, we conclude that Blacks believe Blacks are the most racist.
I see no info being provided regarding how blacks voted on blacks. Ive already shown how the Rasmussen article refutes this assertion. Blacks view all races equally racist. You pulled that stat out of thin air.
Therefore, Blacks are shown as "more" racist than any other racial demographic, hence the OP's title is correct.
That is a misrepresentation of what the poll shows. It doesn't show blacks are more racist- it shows more people (a small minority of people) think blacks are racist.
...and also, there was really only one relevant poll, so 'poll after poll' was also hyperbolic.
Also, you dropped all of the following, so I'll just assume you agree with it all:
It wasn't dropped. It has either already been addressed and/or it is a strawman. Repetitions and misrepresentation speaks to your dishonesty. Keeping it out of my reply speaks to me having better things to do than entertain you.
Created:
-->
@Avery
It's possible to have liberal and black respondents, but the results to overwhelmingly represent white and right-leaning answers.We don't need to know this data
The demographics of the respondents is relevant. If we are to take the conclusions of the poll as a reflection of pluralistic American opinion, knowing the demographics is representative of the American populace is important.
It doesn't matter with Blacks because they are voting themselves most racist anyway.
Where did you get that? I see no break down of showing 100% blacks think they are the most racist. In fact, this poll shows "Blacks see themselves, whites, Hispanics and Asians as equally racist."
It's totally unreasonable to imply or argue that all or even the majority of poll respondents were voting Black [...]
I'll stop you short. The article says of the 75% that acknowledged racism as "any discrimination by people of one race against another", only 27% thought blacks were racist. 75% of 1000 is 750 and 27% of that is ~202...far from a majority. Even if we add those who preferred the other definition for racism (15%), only 21% voted black.. .that's another ~31 people. Rasmussen itself admits to only 25% of respondents voting against blacks:
"[...]25% believe most black Americans are racist."
Whites or whoever are the most racist, and that this poll is an accurate indicator of who is the most racist.
According to this poll, as high as 75% of respondents don't think blacks are racist. In other words, most Americans don't think blacks (or other races) are racist.
Created:
-->
@Avery
Liberals voted in this poll, too. Same with Black people.
What percentage? It's possible to have liberal and black respondents, but the results to overwhelmingly represent white and right-leaning answers.
Besides, maybe those people who voted were influenced to become Republican after experiencing racism from Black Americans.
Prove it.
why would you think Black people are racist for no reason?).
I doubt anyone believes another group of people is racist for no reason, but I recognize a racist and someone who has been the target of racism might give the same answer.
Is it solid evidence for Black Americans being the most racist in America? Yes.
No, its not. At best, it records what 1000 people believe or want everyone else to believe. The questions make no effort to weed out personal biases or ignorance. How would someone harboring distrust/dislike for another group answer the questions? How would someone who doesn't understand racism answer the questions?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Polls don't prove anything.
Agreed.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
What I meant by it being a clown diagnosis is that it [is] a mental disorder and not meant to coddle those genuinely afflicted with it.
Well, that's just it, "Gender Identity Disorder" is not a legitimate diagnosis. Plus, who is arguing diagnoses are meant to coddle?
Created:
-->
@Avery
There were multiple polls referenced in the OP, not just a South African one. There is American data referenced in the OP.
Yes, there were two polls referenced in the OP - one reflects the views of a group of right leaning Americans and the other views of South Africans about South Africans. Neither prove black Americans are more racist than other races.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I guess that's easy for you to think that when msm censors all coverage of the violent left.
Is that what conservative media is reporting now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A Democrat psychopath won't know the difference if you are wearing a maga hat. The hat that most Trump voters wore at some point.
Keep your hat on - political violence is strongly associated with the Right currently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Are you unaware that every single person who voted for Trump in the 2024 election sees this as Biden saying half the country are extremists which also implies that they need to probably be put on some terrorist watch list?
Meh. Unwarranted fear-mongering. Biden made it clear he wasn't referring to all Republicans, dissenters, or Conservatives.
Created:
-->
@Avery
It's quite astonishing the wild arguments people grasp at to dodge a poll's obvious conclusion.
The poll was regarding South Africans. The OP is about Americans. Isn't it a reach to deem OP's conclusion "obvious"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lair77
Same for me. Some people are much more precise thinkers and can concisely (and efficiently) write a refutation/argument. I tend to mull over my responses and hone them until I am satisfied. Hopefully you get an answer we can both benefit from!
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless it is not possible to actually detect light with via ones ears, nose or skin
Unless you're attempting to argue a blind person can't use tools (utilizing their other senses) to detect photons, I don't see the relevance to @Ramshutu's analogy. You're stating the obvious.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Gender Identity Disorder is a clown diagnosis
Indeed. If your medical professional uses this diagnosis, he/she is a clown:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
@Shila
Biden’s speech was a call to Americans to get real!! The institutions, constitution and democratic government are being attacked by the marginalized fringe minority led by Trump who will not accept he lost the elections 2 years ago yet still sees himself as the President of US. and republicans at the highest levels of government are still promoting the big lie.
Sounds like a good summary to me.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Opinion =/= factNever claimed that it was.
If you say so:
[Opinion] Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race
Created:
-->
@Shila
That’s like giving a blind man a torchlight and taught how to use the on/off switch. How does he know when to apply it?
You're inability to grasp how a blind person functions in the world is not a valid indictment of the analogy.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Blacks are also responding in that poll, and their opinion matters too. Or does it?
Opinion =/= fact
Created:
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race.Truth is truth. I stand by the truth. I defend the truth. That's my position.
The only truth shown by the poll is that a group of right leaning Americans *perceive* blacks to be more racist than other groups...which, for the record, doesn't show blacks *are* more racist than other groups.
The conclusion is not supported by the evidence provided.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Do photon detection machines for blind people provide a braille print out, or voice output. Or do blind people rely upon a third party to tell them the truth.
You're off in the weeds... suffice to say, a blind person can rely on tools like anyone else.
Created:
-->
@Shila
How Cana blind person agree how bright the sun is by virtue of being able to agree on the number of photons per square meter?
The same way we 'see' anything beyond any of our sensory ranges. A sighted person can't see radiation any better than a blind person, but both can detect and measure it. In the same way, a blind person can measure photons.
Created: