Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you suggesting that the ownership of small arms would in any way regulate the tyranny of a government which can field a multi million dollar multi branch military?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I do not necessarily support either but both are technically examples of "Well regulated melitias". Perhaps the question should not be "what does the 2nd amendment mean?" But rather "is the 2nd amendment efficacious?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If I get the chance I will but the mere fact that one specific person owns something does not make that thing practical or correct to own nor is it necessarily indicative of personal rights either in general or for that individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
does the muslim religion have specific texts, I honestly don't know but I assume they do since they toss gays off of buildings etc they must, which I gather you'd give them a pass
What specifically about 3RU7AL 's claims lead you to believe he supports any form of violence ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Does he find that he has much use for them beyond conversation starters?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
You are making a category error driven by quote mining.the brain is "tuning in" to other parts of THE SAME BRAIN. That is in no way suggestive of an outside frequency. We are talking about levels of attentiveness to existing information not outside signals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Originally the 2nd amendment was held against the federal government
Yes but that is Passe in today's military environment unless private citizens can own anti aircraft guns and attack drones. Small arms are insufficient to the purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you are the people(a citizen), you can have a gun, and be a part of the militia.
Yes. By joining the police force or the armed forces (two such malitias).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The 2nd ammendment states that "the people" aka the general public, should form a "well regulated malitia" aka an elite few. You will also notice the words well regulated. As in gun regulations. As in gun control. Gun control is constitutional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The 2nd amendment calls specifically for a well regulated militia. In what way does this not describe "guns in the hands of the elite few instead of the many"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Do you contest that 100 percent of mass shooting and 100 percent of accidental shootings and 100 percent of unlawful shootings involve weapons?
And I quote "Correlation does not equal causation, but the revealed trend is striking: States with more gun provisions consistently see fewer gun deaths."
this means two things. The first is that statistics such as the one you quoted are not in and of themselves proof that banning firearms leads to violence and two that even if such statistics can be trusted when viewed on a larger (and therefore more comprehensive) scale they do not support your position anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
It sounds as though the problem was "one gun too many" more than "too few guns". Perhaps the secret is to keep guns out of the hands of as many potential mass shooters (aka the general public) as possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If a gun was present then the venue cannot have been gun free. To call a venue where a gun was present "gun free" is logically incoherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If guns deter violence then why do all mass shooting involve guns?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
In the case of refusing services to individuals service do you feel that some practical accommodation can be made which protects both the one refusing services and the one seeking them? Are (possibly made up) religious objections more important than other classes of protection offered by the civil liberties act? If so on what grounds?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Is your argument that people should be able to claim religious objections that are made up on the spot? If not and there is no way to separate legitimate religious objections from false/made up ones then how do you suggest we determine which objections should be protected?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Text is useful as a common basis, a testament or a proof, or a check on reason. The Bible is not an instruction manual.
Is your argument that people should be able to claim religious objections that are made up on the spot? If not how should we determine if a religious objection is legitimate without a specific corresponding religious text?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Your source states and I quote "Brain circuits can tune into the frequency of other brain parts" this in no way indicates an outside source but only communication between the various parts of the brain.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Changes in the physical brain has effects on consciousness. That's all we know.
So if all we know is that there is correlation between the physical brain and conciousness how do you justify claiming more than That?
I will again point out the example of how making changes to your TV has effects on how the signal displays.
And I will again point out that any direct comparison between this and how a brain functions is pure conjecture on your part.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Then again I point out to you that every observable conciousness (provided conciousness even exists) would appear to be emergent of physical processes and that any argument about what people accept prima facie is an argument from popularity so the burden of proof would seem to be on the one claiming conciousness can exist without an organic physical brain to maintain it not the one who is skeptical of nonphysical conciousness.
Created:
Well consciousness being the only plausible candidate for something causally efficacious and non-physical to have caused the singularity is evidence that consciousness can exist without a physical brain.
I do not accept your first premise until you logically justify this leap from some cause to some conciousness. We observe cause and effect all around us and if it is guided by some conciousness it is not a conciousness that we can observe. Cause and effect does not appear to require a conciousness and so I'm not sure what logic you are uaing to justify a necessary consciousness rather than a possible conciousness. Unless there is some way to assess the actual probabilities involved we cannot determine which cause is more rational to believe (if indeed a singularity in which the normal laws of physics break down requires a cause at all). Please address this issue.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
The only abstract concepts I am aware of are assignations by humans. They would appear to be brainstates not objects/things unto themselves.
Put another way they appear to be merely electrical energy and chemical reactions within an organic brain and are physical to that extent.
Please logically justify the leap from humans have created abstract concepts in order to discuss qualia to an abstract concept necessarily must be a prime mover and further please logically justify that this concept must be conciousness rather than some other abstract concept (such as the number 42 for example).
Put another way they appear to be merely electrical energy and chemical reactions within an organic brain and are physical to that extent.
Please logically justify the leap from humans have created abstract concepts in order to discuss qualia to an abstract concept necessarily must be a prime mover and further please logically justify that this concept must be conciousness rather than some other abstract concept (such as the number 42 for example).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If there is an answer to the problem of tribalism that would not do away with the benefits of tribalism I am unaware if it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You are making an appeal to special knowledge. Unless there is some independently verifiable evidence which does not rely on personal testimony I have no choice but to reject your claim.
This is not determined by my desires but by my epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I mean no insult when I say that this is a very privileged position that minorities may not be able to afford to adopt.I'd prefer to know what kind of person I'm dealing with instead of someone who is hiding because of the law.Would you want someone preparing you food who would ordinarily discriminate against you, but because of the law they can't? I'd want to know upfront so I can find an alternative place who I could trust, who does want my business and then i could inform others.
In a marketplace dictated entirely by profit if the bottom line is unaffected by prejudice it is rarely corrected. The majority of people are not disabled for example and as a result before the civil liberties act protected the disabled few businesses went to the extra expense of wheel chair ramps as the cost versus gain did not seem to justify having them. A standard was necessary in order for the disabled to merely enjoy normal services others might take for granted. In a majority christian setting a homosexual could hypothetically be refused the bulk of ordinary services and the businesses that would cater to them might abuse them in other ways (such as price gouging or offering inferior goods) since they have no alternative. We know this is possible specifically because of the conditions in America that led to the civil rights movement in the first place.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
#57I covered reasons indicating our consciousness isn't generated by the brain in 57.
Well consciousness being the only plausible candidate for something causally efficacious and non-physical to have caused the singularity is evidence that consciousness can exist without a physical brain.
I do not accept your first premise until you logically justify this leap from some cause to some conciousness. We observe cause and effect all around us and if it is guided by some conciousness it is not a conciousness that we can observe. Cause and effect does not appear to require a conciousness and so I'm not sure what logic you are uaing to justify a necessary consciousness rather than a possible conciousness. Unless there is some way to assess the actual probabilities involved we cannot determine which cause is more rational to believe (if indeed a singularity in which the normal laws of physics break down requires a cause at all). Please address this issue.
Prima facie, people perceive themselves to have souls that are independent from their brain.
Any argument about what people percieve or accept is simply an argument from popularity. People are perfectly capable of accepting untruths as axioms. Please address this issue.
Out of body experiences and near death experiences where the person leaves their body and has "realer than real" experiences.
Physical phenomena often repeats itself with some predictability. That is the basis for the scientific method. If one of the physical side effects of near death is a delusion that generally follows a similar pattern how would they be differentiated from a genuine experience? Unless we can determine the difference it may be impossible to justify a belief in NDR accounts especially fron an outside perspective. Please address this issue
Qualia.
Qualia by definition cannot be measured and is completely subjective. Only quanta can be said to be "true" or a "fact" but quanta is merely cold hard logical facts. It is intrinsically meaningless unless we assign it meaning. You do not need to address this qualia is irrelevant to truth and facts regardless of your prefered definition.
The irreducibility of consciousness to physical components.
Only one feature need be added or lost from an organism at a time in order for it to progress through forms. Complex irreducability is not a concern in evolutionary science only to pseudoscientists attempting to prove some form of ID or another. You do not need to address this issue though I would do a Google search for the proposed stages of brain development put forward by various independent studies by biologists, geneticists, zoologists and paleontologists.
The fundamentality of consciousness is indicated through recent breakthroughs in quantum mechanics.
That the physical universe reacts (sometimes in a way that suggests nonlinear causation) to being observed does not necessitate a non physical conciousness it merely precludes an omniscient one. I am not trying to construct a straw man here and I understand that you are not necessarily suggesting any omniscient being but we can only illuminate some possibilities with the findings that have to date been generated about quantum mechanics. Please address this issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
How do you know what you're seeing is real versus a mirage or optical illusion?
Or did you mean how do I know that a mirage is not what it seems even within the context of our perceived reality? Because I am aware of the phenomena of mirage within our perceived reality and when I see one I recognize it as such. Whether reality is real or not a mirage misrepresents it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I do not know. I merely accept it as real as a convenience since it is the only "reality" of which I am aware. Pain is unpleasant even if illusory so I do not touch a hot iron even though it may not be real (whatever real even means).
Now if we accept our perceieved reality as genuinely real we can determine certain things about the universe by a process of experimentation and these observations are "useful" in the context of our perceived "reality".
This belief is not determined by my desires but by my epistemological limits
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
If we have the power to change the plan what's the point of making the plan?
And
Does he not know in advance what you will do? If not then he is not all knowing and if he is not all knowing the sort of plan you are talking about would seem to be unfeasble.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Well stated.Getting a group going from nothing takes to much.But simply change a few things in a already created group, And you got yourself a group in next to no time.Now you got ten blokes working your farm.A strict for profit business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If intuition is sometimes right and sometimes wrong how can we possibly know which is the case if there is no independently verifiable evidence with which to confirm or deny the efficacy of any given intuition? (Say in the case of the supernatural)
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
What is the observable physical evidence that we are more than our brains? Or is this more speculation based on anecdotal evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Have you ever had an intuitive thought and it turned out to be wrong? You must count them as well or you are guilty of confirmation bias.Have you ever experienced an intuitive thought you followed that turned out to be right?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
I dispute that we have any evidence to suggest that conciousness can or does exist in the absence of physical organic brains (if indeed it exists at all) that it seems to be an emergent quality of matter not the other way around and also that the number of people that accept something, prima facie or otherwise, is immaterial unless your intention is to commit an argument from popularity fallacy.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Well consciousness being the only plausible candidate for something causally efficacious and non-physical to have caused the singularity
I do not accept your first premise. Since your argument hinges on it perhaps you should justify it more than conjecture/personal opinion before we move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
One that is not merely the subjective opinion of christians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Sex outside of marriage
Please explain how this amounts to anything more than subjective personal opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
In the absence of evidence of any such place this is largely irrelevant since there would be no reason to.think that anyone would be going to a place that cannot be demonstrated to exist.Yes. Virtually none of them are going to heaven. I think this is tyrannical of God, but it's just the way it is.The verses I presented said any male who has sex with other men won't go to heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Please give a rigorous definition of sexual immorality.You realize that the majority of Americans currently have issues with sexual immorality at some point in their life, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I did not mention a discriminatory act at all in post 26 I asked you how applying the same standard universally to all individuals counts as discrimination. I even went so far as to suggest that this is the OPPOSITE of discrimination.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Evidence indicates the physical universe expanded from a point of infinite density. This suggests a non-physical cause.
How does this suggest any particular cause over another and why would this "non physical cause" necessarily be any god(s) or even a concious force? Please logically justify this leap from "some cause" to "some god(s)".
The only plausible candidate for something causally efficacious and non-physical is consciousness.
What is your evidence that conciousness even can exist without a physical brain? Is this just more conjecture?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
In what way can it be considered discrimination to apply the,same standard equally to everyone? Please explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Can you provide any sufficient evidence ofIf someone encounters the creator outside of the 5 senses, for lack of better terms, a 6th sense, or area of intuition (or spirit man), then the evidence becomes overwhelming.
a 6th sense, or area of intuition (or spirit man), or is this an appeal to special knowledge?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Innocent until proven guilty is something that should be applied EQUALLY to everyone. This would be EQUALITY which is the diametric opposite of discrimination.
If you see a logical flaw in my reasoning please point it out specifically otherwise you will need to provide an example that is actually an example of discrimination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
So long as this axiom applies equally to everyone I fail to see what your example has to do with discrimination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I fail to see how discrimination is ever conscionable.I wouldn't say that anything is mandatory in Christianity. What we have here is a matter of conscience.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
And again I ask what makes the idea of a non physical conciousness (something we have no evidence for) a better explanation then any other cause or simply a lack of cause (since as you said the laws of physics would have broken down).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If it is immoral to force a christian to offer goods and services to the lbgtq community then it is immoral to force muslims, buhdists and/or atheists to offer goods and services to the christian community.
If it is immoral to refuse services to christians based on religious disagreeance then it is immoral to refuse services to the lgbtq community based on religious disagreeance.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
What about the universe requires a deity? Unless you can answer that what is "required" to hold a garage together is largely immaterial in comparing the two.
Created: