Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@FaustianJustice
I am calling their objection arbitrary because there basically said it is in the constitution therefore it is should be kept. This isn't a moral judgement instead of saying what is. This if followed in other scenarios would mean they wouldn't like awful laws removed.This example and the proceeding objection are hypocritical. If you are going to appeal to a "law", you can't arbitrarily choose which laws are the ones you decided to make your point.
Slavery, btw, was officially removed from the US via Constitutional convention. Not only due you attempt hypocrisy, you cherry pick it.
Yes slavery was removed but she made no mention to being open to changing or added laws. Call me out for something I actually did. Cherry picking and an attempted hypocrisy wasn't the two I did commit. Besides he barely gave any information to say any more than I could.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I agree and was presenting Fullers viewpoint
Fullers viewpoint?
Incorrect optiions is no differrent from availble degrees of freedom Ex we a finite 3D set ---XYZ { cartesian }--- as degrees of freedoms or options.
Firstly did you agree with what I said and secondly what you mean by incorrect options?
Yes uncertainty of mind and I addressed that. Uncertainty of mind does not necessitate chaos.
Guess theists and apologists for theists are begging for Quantum mechanics to save them. I doubt that is the case.
Nor did I ever state, infer, imply suggest that it does. Ive been very clear here at DArt in many threads that all access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellec/concepts and ego are a resultant of occupied space cause and effect i.e. all that exists is deterministic resultants.
Haven't seen too much from you and with what I have seen it is difficult to understand you. Forgive me if it is taking time for me to understanding how you type.
the human leaping is third line of relationship /\ that defines a triangle.
Okay let me understand this.
1) A human an actor does an action
2) A cause occurs.
3) An effect occurs from that cause
4) That effects in some way the area the human is in
Is this correct? I am sure the triangle is complete with what I said.
1} hold you hand { occupied space } out in front of you and move it from left to right or right to left, and as you do so raise and lower your hand as if you trying to create a sine-wave pattern,
I call this a weakness of our senses or a limitation. Am I wrong?
2} once your hand comes to a stop you still see { visual } of your occupied space hand, yet the pattern no longer exists, except as concept of metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept.
I can't complete see it but maybe it is too dark for me to see the pattern.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Irrational means lack of reasoning and logic... you don't need proof to reason. Like i said, it's irrational to say something is proven without proof, but it is not if you are merely looking for the best platform. You actually have to try and be hyper rational to look at spirituality in that way.
For something to be reasonable it requires evidence. There isn't a single case where something can be reasonable but be void of evidence. Not a single case.
Trust me... i know. I just find that to be narrow-minded.
It is not narrow-minded. It is called having a standard. I don't want to gullible to bad ideas and this prevents me from that while also knowing what makes a good argument on top of just having a claim evidence and explanation.
These words aren't offensive, and don't mean you're wrong either... it just means, in my eyes, you're the guy thousand years ago saying the earth is flat bc they couldn't prove you wrong.
Different case. Religion was prevalent and that took priority over having a reasonable position. With that in mind you can't compare me to Religious people who weren't reasonable.
That's why my standard towards things isn't proof... it's reasoning and logic. I'd rather let proof catch up than make that my standard.
This is what a theist would say when they realise their God can't be proven true. Basically they pretty much say theists have already have the answer and science needs to catch up and some of them are in such denial that they actually think science has proven the existence of a God.
Do you know how many people i've found guilty in the law firm i work for off anecdotal evidence?
"off anecdotal evidence". That doesn't mean it was the reason the person was guilty it was the basis like a claim. Actual evidence was required like fingerprints, blood etcetera.
There are different types of evidence... you're aware of that right? Anecdotal evidence is only not accepted by scientists bc there is no way to test it... that's it. It's our scientific limitations currently.
You don't understand anecdotal evidence is not considered evidence which is why reasonable people scoff at personal testimony as something tangible to God.
I wouldn't say i'm the one projecting here... but, that's just me.
You don't even understand how to make a substantial argument so it is you who is projecting that I have a supposed lack of understanding even though I know how to make an actual argument.
There is enough evidence to suspect there is more than one reality
Go on then. Provide evidence.
How do you know what it is when you've never experienced it nor know my experiences?
Anecdotal evidence is subject to your feelings and you are in denial if you think otherwise.
You're not the type of person i like talking about this with... you're too sure in your echo chamber. Plus, you replied this comment on something i said spiritual people need proof... do you even understand the differences in evidence... Maybe i should wait until you learn a little more. I don't feel like being a teacher.
You really triggered. I don't need help from a person who knows less about how to make a substantial argument. You can go around believing irrational things with your lived experiences but in that mind you have lost what it takes to make a substantial argument or maybe you never knew. You sure you don't need a teacher? I would help but you believe in spirituality that has yet to be proven so I doubt I could help you.
Haha i'm done... you're pretending like you can prove spirituality wrong. The height of arrogance. What do you have to share? You have nothing if the standard is proof. I already admitted that i don't 100 times... i'm getting sick of repeating myself.
Guess you don't even understand the burden of proof. The burden was on you to prove spirituality but still you have not. That is a failure of yours. Being older than me but losing or never having a standard which makes sure you don't based your life on irrationality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Appeal to the constitution. Instead of actually giving an argument for it. You are basically saying because it is constitutional therefore it should be protected.Guns are in the Constitution, terrorism is not. Confusing terrorism and Muslims is to insult the freedom of religion in the Constitution.
Remember when slaves were allowed? Guess you have no problem with that with your line of reasoning.
Created: