|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 22, 2019 23:01:37 GMT
She claims to have debated in school, but to have missed something so essential makes it seem unlikely. I have never made such a claim. Well, did you? I would guess you did not.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 22, 2019 23:23:42 GMT
I have never made such a claim. Well, did you? I would guess you did not. What has whether I ever debated in High School, got to do with anything at all?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 22, 2019 23:39:53 GMT
Well, did you? I would guess you did not. What has whether I ever debated in High School, got to do with anything at all? At this point I'm wondering how I thought you said you or a relative had experience debating in school. Did you say anything at all like it? It's possible it was someone else. The issue for the topic here is your notion of "absolute" faith, which as usual for you has no real world criteria with which to establish any definition. Does a person of "absolute" faith believe Jesus died on the cross? Does a person of absolute faith believe the Red Sea parted by magic? Does a person of absolute faith believe sin is always and readily forgiven? What you want to do is say that to be a "theist" by definition requires absolute faith. In order to prove that is true you want a dictionary definition (or your own) to say it is. That is never done in disciplined debate. Definitions are just labels, whether they fit requires proof without depending on the dictionary.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jul 23, 2019 18:27:34 GMT
in the light of autism
a is for the awkward way i see.
u it means you of course that's naturally.
t is tantamount to everything that life's about.
i is in suspense so i can steer my common sense.
s is serious no doubt except when you let your panties out.
m is for mankind and thousands of those near miss rhymes...
sjw 07/23/19 inspired at this very moment in time by the portal and eyes of the one hundred i claim as the prize.
from the 'beauty series' of poems
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jul 23, 2019 19:37:53 GMT
the illumination proclamation to the aforementioned amendment
it didn't have to come from outer space or any inner place where thoughts of cherished memories lie and it definitely wasn't wrapped in a flag or baked deep within a patriotic pie but i undoubtedly swear by everything i see there within your eyes dedication is the hallmark of the road to an endless high.
sjw 07/23/19 inspired at this very moment in time by alan and maybe my rico too. ;-)
from the 'beauty series' of poems
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jul 23, 2019 20:46:40 GMT
upon detailing slavery
here in the kingdom of the heart the children thought long and hard over the subject matter of abject slavery.
and after years and years of what i would consider bravery concluded that no manner of color splattered draped upon a flag nations may think mattered is worth the endless drone of the blathered perpetuating crimes leaving far too many hearts shattered.
for children have always been the only mother fucking light that actually matters!
sjw 07/23/19 inspired at this very moment in time by how dare you.
from the 'baby series' of poems
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jul 25, 2019 7:25:16 GMT
The second sentence just doesn't make any sense:
Take out the "even perhaps because of"... and you have - "Faith is belief in spite of the lack of evidence"
Why would any conclusion that evidence doesn't exist to contradict be "in spite" of that lack of evidence?
There could only be belief "in spite"... if there was evidence to the contrary to be in spite of.
And why would he even use "perhaps because of" as a clause?...
Don't worry, they will teach you more about English comprehension in 5th grade!
Yeah... It could mean that "It's belief without any evidence"... but that's just a bad way of putting it.... and then there is fact that ONE DOESN'T NEED EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE SOMETHING.. EVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. If people didn't believe in anything without evidence there would be no hypothesises.. es… hypothesii?.... ever being tested to find evidence. It's still just a dumb quote. An hypothesis is not belief without evidence - that would make it a wild stab in the dark, a random guess, but it isn't. A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess, as there is always a reason why one thinks, "I think X might be caused by Y". And even then, the hypothesis is not given much credence until it has undergone a certain amount of testing. And in the scientific method, it is always assumed that the hypothesis is wrong. Dawkins was absolutely right when he defined faith as believing in something without evidence. I would add that faith often manifests as the belief in something in spite of evidence to the contrary. But if you believe something to be true without having evidence for it, that qualifies as blind faith. And the plural of hypothesis is hypotheses.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 7, 2019 17:10:06 GMT
Well, it looks like it is time for another quote:
"Every other sect supposes itself in possession of all truth, and those that differ are so far in the wrong; like a man traveling in foggy weather, those at some distance before him on the road, he sees wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people in the fields on each side, but near him, all appears clear, tho' in truth he is as much in the fog as any of them." Benjamin Franklin.
And, just for a short, sweet comment from a bumper sticker...
"Militant Agnostic - I don't know and you don't, either"
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 7, 2019 17:25:24 GMT
And.. No. This isn't the quote of a smart man. Set aside the stupidity of just blindly lumping all faith of others as an excuse of theirs...Yeah.. The guy is kind of an asshole.. The second sentence just doesn't make any sense: Take out the "even perhaps because of"... and you have - "Faith is belief in spite of the lack of evidence" Why would any conclusion that evidence doesn't exist to contradict be "in spite" of that lack of evidence? There could only be belief "in spite"... if there was evidence to the contrary to be in spite of. And why would he even use "perhaps because of" as a clause?... It should be obvious - to any one not a bitter dumbass - that the primary cause of faith is because of a lack of evidence to the contrary. And.. No.
This isn't the quote of a smart man.
Set aside the stupidity of just blindly lumping all faith of others as an excuse of theirs...Yeah.. The guy is kind of an asshole..
Wow, how profoundly analytical!
The second sentence just doesn't make any sense:
Take out the "even perhaps because of"... and you have - "Faith is belief in spite of the lack of evidence"
Why would any conclusion that evidence doesn't exist to contradict be "in spite" of that lack of evidence?
There could only be belief "in spite"... if there was evidence to the contrary to be in spite of.
And why would he even use "perhaps because of" as a clause?...
Don't worry, they will teach you more about English comprehension in 5th grade!
There aren't many things more laughter-provoking than watching a subliterate try to play pedant and parse out the 'meaning' of an easily comprehended sentence. Easily comprehended by everyone except Vegas, that is.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Aug 7, 2019 17:42:02 GMT
slamming skulls in montana
i'm almost positive that slamming a young boy's head into the ground fracturing his skull is not the best approach to teaching anything resembling respect.
then again i wasn't directly involved in vaporizing iraqi kids as a method of protecting petro-products.
so what would i know.
sjw 08/07/19 inspired at this very moment in time by those ever irrepressible red necks and their inalienable rights to be free.
from the 'bizarro series' of poems
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 7, 2019 18:05:54 GMT
slamming skulls in montana i'm almost positive that slamming a young boy's head into the ground fracturing his skull is not the best approach to teaching anything resembling respect. then again i wasn't directly involved in vaporizing iraqi kids as a method of protecting petro-products. so what would i know. sjw 08/07/19 inspired at this very moment in time by those ever irrepressible red necks and their inalienable rights to be free. from the 'bizarro series' of poems Anyone who injures a young child, especially their own child, in that manner needs to lose custody of any other children and be rendered sterile so that nut case is out of the gene pool. And incarcerated.
|
|