|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,628 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,628 Likes: 2 |
Little boy fit triggered in 3 2 1…
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
[quote=AcesNeights]If “proof” is so important and science is your religion…facts are necessary and evidence is required……why did Tweedle Dumb Ass and Tweedle Dipshit get vaccinated? Why did you suspend your rigorous requirements and why did you ignore the facts and evidence? It was obvious to anyone with 2 or more brain cells that the entire approach to the fake pandemic was a joke. The “jab” didn’t prevent transmission nor did it didn’t prevent infection yet idiots far and wide ignored the facts and evidence and fought to be first in line for the largest voluntary human experiment in history. 😂
If you were “vaxxed” and boosted and you try to use facts and evidence and scientific-y stuff to hide behind you’re an egotistical dumb ass. 😂 Logic is not your strong point. Nor manners, tolerance, reason or debate. Your specialty is hurling insults. Yet even there, because it's school boy level, infantile, you fail. Great answer Tweedle Dumbfuck. We can’t all be expected to use such incredible intelligence to discern the facts from the bullshit like you two Einstein’s. Your incredible grasp of science and your fervent demands for irrefutable evidence is what led you 2 butt pirates to get “vaccinated”? Throw some logic out there for us wouldja?…is it logical to be forced into “voluntarily” submitting yourself for human trials and medical experimentation whether you want to or not? Since you 2 dipshits fancy yourselves as mental giants…a duo powerhouse of intellect and reason that only you two recognize maybe you could explain how your “vaccination” meets the DEFINITION of a vaccine, a real actual vaccine? Your Nappy may need changing, Sweetie. Don't cry, someone'll come along and change it. Logic is not your strong point. Nor manners, tolerance, reason or debate. Your specialty is hurling insults. Yet even there, because it's school boy level, infantile, you fail. Gosh, DBT, I did not think you would succumb...your words="Nor manners, tolerance, reason or debate." So it's alright to insult but not defend. Christians can be abusing, insulting, obnoxious, intolerant....yet heaven forbid that an atheist retaliates? So the "standard" of "That's so Christian of you", as you always stated, is out the window....Christians, can now defend themselves?
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
The trust in science when applied to any discipline is always dependent upon the honesty, integrity, self questioning and introspection of the practitioner.
All science is hamstrung with such a handicap. This is what is so laughable about the atheists willingness to rely on humanity selectively. Science is testable and falsible, religion is neither. It's kinda hypocritical to deny science yet live in the modern world shaped and built on the findings of science. Our lifespan has increased significantly since we started working our what was really going on. If we hadn't you'd probably be dead already covered in your own filth and whatever pox you may have succumbed to. Medicine and technology didn't come about by praying for it, some people instead better spent their time focussing on working out the understanding of the real world. According to my old research, you are a little bit right, however, falsifiability is a standard created by philosopher Karl Popper to distinguish scientific theories from unscientific ones. But religion is not a scientific theory, nor has it ever claimed to be. "God exists" is not a hypothesis about the interaction of physical phenomenon, it's a metaphysical argument. Because of this, falsifiability is completely irrelevant in religious questions. There's thousands of gods and all are unfalsifiable. You picked one of them. Did you pick the right one? It's your eternity on the line isn't it? You apparently do not understand the philosopher Karl Popper's eloquent statement...again he states, "But religion is not a scientific theory, nor has it ever claimed to be. "God exists" is not a hypothesis about the interaction of physical phenomenon, it's a metaphysical argument. Because of this, falsifiability is completely irrelevant in religious questions." In laymen terms, you are mixing bananas and pig-poop....oh, I mean apples and oranges.
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,501 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,501 Likes: 1 |
I'm not trying to do anything more than sort fact from fiction. The clearly observable and repeatable evidence that we’ve all seen from you on these type of threads proves otherwise.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,804 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,804 Likes: 2 |
The trust in science when applied to any discipline is always dependent upon the honesty, integrity, self questioning and introspection of the practitioner.
All science is hamstrung with such a handicap. This is what is so laughable about the atheists willingness to rely on humanity selectively. Science is testable and falsible, religion is neither. It's kinda hypocritical to deny science yet live in the modern world shaped and built on the findings of science. Our lifespan has increased significantly since we started working our what was really going on. If we hadn't you'd probably be dead already covered in your own filth and whatever pox you may have succumbed to. Medicine and technology didn't come about by praying for it, some people instead better spent their time focussing on working out the understanding of the real world. According to my old research, you are a little bit right, however, falsifiability is a standard created by philosopher Karl Popper to distinguish scientific theories from unscientific ones. But religion is not a scientific theory, nor has it ever claimed to be. "God exists" is not a hypothesis about the interaction of physical phenomenon, it's a metaphysical argument. Because of this, falsifiability is completely irrelevant in religious questions. There's thousands of gods and all are unfalsifiable. You picked one of them. Did you pick the right one? It's your eternity on the line isn't it? You apparently do not understand the philosopher Karl Popper's eloquent statement...again he states, "But religion is not a scientific theory, nor has it ever claimed to be. "God exists" is not a hypothesis about the interaction of physical phenomenon, it's a metaphysical argument. Because of this, falsifiability is completely irrelevant in religious questions." In laymen terms, you are mixing bananas and pig-poop....oh, I mean apples and oranges. So you don't care about what might be true and are willing to bet your eternity on it? Supposedly a god created everything, including physical reality, you'd expect there to be evidence of that. Speculations and assertions don"t create evidence - the source has to be proven to exist and then linked to the observations before being evidence can be claimed, not the other way round. You can't just make stuff up and then claim observations automatically as evidence - superstitous people have been doing this for yonks, as a pacifier to pretend to know what they don't really know but at least can close off their minds to further angst from not knowing.
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
It's kinda hypocritical to deny science yet live in the modern world shaped and built on the findings of science. Our lifespan has increased significantly since we started working our what was really going on. If we hadn't you'd probably be dead already covered in your own filth and whatever pox you may have succumbed to.
Medicine and technology didn't come about by praying for it, some people instead better spent their time focussing on working out the understanding of the real world. According to my old research, you are a little bit right, however, falsifiability is a standard created by philosopher Karl Popper to distinguish scientific theories from unscientific ones. But religion is not a scientific theory, nor has it ever claimed to be. "God exists" is not a hypothesis about the interaction of physical phenomenon, it's a metaphysical argument. Because of this, falsifiability is completely irrelevant in religious questions. There's thousands of gods and all are unfalsifiable. You picked one of them. Did you pick the right one? It's your eternity on the line isn't it? So you don't care about what might be true and are willing to bet your eternity on it?
Supposedly a god created everything, including physical reality, you'd expect there to be evidence of that. Speculations and assertions don"t create evidence - the source has to be proven to exist and then linked to the observations before being evidence can be claimed, not the other way round.
You can't just make stuff up and then claim observations automatically as evidence - superstitous people have been doing this for yonks, as a pacifier to pretend to know what they don't really know but at least can close off their minds to further angst from not knowing. You are still confused as what I am trying to convey to you.....you said, quote >>>"Science is testable and falsible, religion is neither. It's kinda hypocritical to deny science yet live in the modern world shaped and built on the findings of science. Our lifespan has increased significantly since we started working our what was really going on. If we hadn't you'd probably be dead already covered in your own filth and whatever pox you may have succumbed to....Medicine and technology didn't come about by praying for it, some people instead better spent their time focussing on working out the understanding of the real world."<<< Seems reasonable to me... Karl Popper's statement...again he states, "But religion is not, IS NOT a scientific theory, nor has it ever claimed to be. "God exists" is NOT a HYPOTHESIS about the interaction of a PHYSICAL PHENOMENON, it's a METAPHYSICAL argument. Because of this, falsifiability is completely IRRELEVANT in RELIGIOUS questions." You said "Science is testable and falsible", religion is neither....this is true...so do you see that Karl's statement that falsifiability is completely IRRELEVANT in RELIGIOUS questions?
Last edited by Raspy; 10/15/22. Reason: punctuation
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,575 Likes: 5
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,575 Likes: 5 |
Those who point to the advances in discovery and understanding as achieved by humans in the field of science, and how those have helped bring about things we appreciate in our "modern world", are merely observing the outcomes of human activity. The atheist has no other belief bases. Thus, some among us wish to applaud and glorify the products of mankind and base their knowledge and belief systems on observable and verifiable human endeavors. End of belief basis.
Is such "rational" human worship also able to justify and solidly rationalize all of the human produced/conducted outcomes that are fiercely negative and degrading - also observable and verifiable? Are those products of human invented science, or something else?
Other humans, who may well understand and appreciate the discoveries and accomplishments of human science also unabashedly accept and understand the weaknesses and limitations of the human condition. They understand that mankind will never reach the sublime state - an understanding based on centuries of human behavior as understandable through verifiable and reproducible evidence.
To profess to have seen, felt, experienced, etc. a basis for beliefs in a being far superior to man in every way is an act far separate from and beyond the known limitations of human science. If such understanding is beyond the reach of those who base their beliefs solely on the actions and abilities of humans, they would seem to be trapped in a circular route without any hope beyond what humans might be able to accomplish. Overall, how good is that track record - and how good the prospects?
Is that verified and reproductive human record - overall - positive enough to form a basis for ridicule or criticism of those who see beyond the human plight and celebrate a much higher power?
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,804 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,804 Likes: 2 |
It's kinda hypocritical to deny science yet live in the modern world shaped and built on the findings of science. Our lifespan has increased significantly since we started working our what was really going on. If we hadn't you'd probably be dead already covered in your own filth and whatever pox you may have succumbed to.
Medicine and technology didn't come about by praying for it, some people instead better spent their time focussing on working out the understanding of the real world. According to my old research, you are a little bit right, however, falsifiability is a standard created by philosopher Karl Popper to distinguish scientific theories from unscientific ones. But religion is not a scientific theory, nor has it ever claimed to be. "God exists" is not a hypothesis about the interaction of physical phenomenon, it's a metaphysical argument. Because of this, falsifiability is completely irrelevant in religious questions. There's thousands of gods and all are unfalsifiable. You picked one of them. Did you pick the right one? It's your eternity on the line isn't it? So you don't care about what might be true and are willing to bet your eternity on it?
Supposedly a god created everything, including physical reality, you'd expect there to be evidence of that. Speculations and assertions don"t create evidence - the source has to be proven to exist and then linked to the observations before being evidence can be claimed, not the other way round.
You can't just make stuff up and then claim observations automatically as evidence - superstitous people have been doing this for yonks, as a pacifier to pretend to know what they don't really know but at least can close off their minds to further angst from not knowing. You are still confused as what I am trying to convey to you.....you said, quote >>>"Science is testable and falsible, religion is neither. It's kinda hypocritical to deny science yet live in the modern world shaped and built on the findings of science. Our lifespan has increased significantly since we started working our what was really going on. If we hadn't you'd probably be dead already covered in your own filth and whatever pox you may have succumbed to....Medicine and technology didn't come about by praying for it, some people instead better spent their time focussing on working out the understanding of the real world."<<< Seems reasonable to me... Karl Popper's statement...again he states, "But religion is not, IS NOT a scientific theory, nor has it ever claimed to be. "God exists" is NOT a HYPOTHESIS about the interaction of a PHYSICAL PHENOMENON, it's a METAPHYSICAL argument. Because of this, falsifiability is completely IRRELEVANT in RELIGIOUS questions." You said "Science is testable and falsible", religion is neither....this is true...so do you see that Karl's statement that falsifiability is completely IRRELEVANT in RELIGIOUS questions? Yeah, it's called faith. Many other people however prefer to deal in facts and truths.
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,804 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,804 Likes: 2 |
Those who point to the advances in discovery and understanding as achieved by humans in the field of science, and how those have helped bring about things we appreciate in our "modern world", are merely observing the outcomes of human activity. The atheist has no other belief bases. Thus, some among us wish to applaud and glorify the products of mankind and base their knowledge and belief systems on observable and verifiable human endeavors. End of belief basis.
Is such "rational" human worship also able to justify and solidly rationalize all of the human produced/conducted outcomes that are fiercely negative and degrading - also observable and verifiable? Are those products of human invented science, or something else?
Other humans, who may well understand and appreciate the discoveries and accomplishments of human science also unabashedly accept and understand the weaknesses and limitations of the human condition. They understand that mankind will never reach the sublime state - an understanding based on centuries of human behavior as understandable through verifiable and reproducible evidence.
To profess to have seen, felt, experienced, etc. a basis for beliefs in a being far superior to man in every way is an act far separate from and beyond the known limitations of human science. If such understanding is beyond the reach of those who base their beliefs solely on the actions and abilities of humans, they would seem to be trapped in a circular route without any hope beyond what humans might be able to accomplish. Overall, how good is that track record - and how good the prospects?
Is that verified and reproductive human record - overall - positive enough to form a basis for ridicule or criticism of those who see beyond the human plight and celebrate a much higher power? Sounds like good reason to be superstitious then.
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,575 Likes: 5
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,575 Likes: 5 |
Superstition has nothing to do with it all - rationality does.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,804 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,804 Likes: 2 |
Superstition has nothing to do with it all - rationality does. Rationally why would a higher power even care about a bunch of sinning arrogant apes?
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 4,813
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 4,813 |
Niqqa dat bee raysus.
Last edited by Raferman; 10/15/22.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,575 Likes: 5
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,575 Likes: 5 |
Superstition has nothing to do with it all - rationality does. Rationally why would a higher power even care about a bunch of sinning arrogant apes? Good question - try to consider what was demonstrated and continue to ask yourself that question - the answer can be rewarding.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,804 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,804 Likes: 2 |
Superstition has nothing to do with it all - rationality does. Rationally why would a higher power even care about a bunch of sinning arrogant apes? Good question - try to consider what was demonstrated and continue to ask yourself that question - the answer can be rewarding. Nothing was actually demonstrated though.
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,659 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,659 Likes: 1 |
[quote=AcesNeights]If “proof” is so important and science is your religion…facts are necessary and evidence is required……why did Tweedle Dumb Ass and Tweedle Dipshit get vaccinated? Why did you suspend your rigorous requirements and why did you ignore the facts and evidence? It was obvious to anyone with 2 or more brain cells that the entire approach to the fake pandemic was a joke. The “jab” didn’t prevent transmission nor did it didn’t prevent infection yet idiots far and wide ignored the facts and evidence and fought to be first in line for the largest voluntary human experiment in history. 😂
If you were “vaxxed” and boosted and you try to use facts and evidence and scientific-y stuff to hide behind you’re an egotistical dumb ass. 😂 Logic is not your strong point. Nor manners, tolerance, reason or debate. Your specialty is hurling insults. Yet even there, because it's school boy level, infantile, you fail. Great answer Tweedle Dumbfuck. We can’t all be expected to use such incredible intelligence to discern the facts from the bullshit like you two Einstein’s. Your incredible grasp of science and your fervent demands for irrefutable evidence is what led you 2 butt pirates to get “vaccinated”? Throw some logic out there for us wouldja?…is it logical to be forced into “voluntarily” submitting yourself for human trials and medical experimentation whether you want to or not? Since you 2 dipshits fancy yourselves as mental giants…a duo powerhouse of intellect and reason that only you two recognize maybe you could explain how your “vaccination” meets the DEFINITION of a vaccine, a real actual vaccine? Your Nappy may need changing, Sweetie. Don't cry, someone'll come along and change it. Logic is not your strong point. Nor manners, tolerance, reason or debate. Your specialty is hurling insults. Yet even there, because it's school boy level, infantile, you fail. Gosh, DBT, I did not think you would succumb...your words="Nor manners, tolerance, reason or debate." So it's alright to insult but not defend. Christians can be abusing, insulting, obnoxious, intolerant....yet heaven forbid that an atheist retaliates? So the "standard" of "That's so Christian of you", as you always stated, is out the window....Christians, can now defend themselves? I wasn't the one attacking or insulting anyone. I didn't initiate it. That is your mob. It's there for anyone to see. I retaliated to Ace's vicious attitude. If someone shoots at you and you shoot back, that is defense. Plus you seem to suggest that questioning beliefs is the same as as a personal attack and insults. If so, you need to brush up on the terms of debate, ad homs, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,628 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,628 Likes: 2 |
Which is really what this is meant to be.
These two BOTS are not interested in discussing the Christian faith.
They are programmed to debate.
If you are engaging the BOTS you will never come to the end of the “discussion” because it is really a debate. It’s all about winning the argument based on an accepted algorithmic apologetic.
For you guys who are engaging the BOTS you will find that doing so on logical terms is futile. Programming drives the response that you receive.
Disengage is your best option. The programmer of these two accounts has been keeping the Algorithm on the same track for several years. This is like the HAPPY CAMPER sock puppet only with BOTS.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,123 Likes: 7
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,123 Likes: 7 |
These dumbass Ausstard mfkr's are a hysterical laffin riot
They lined up & willingly handed in their "repeater" guns to their .gov masters... to be destroyed ...... Because they wanted to be "safe from gun crime" ......., not a year later ... crime went up 30-60% depending on location...
Read that again ........ yes those lines above ^^^
.....
Yet, you see Ausstards talking shyte about gun crime in the USA while ignoring the chaos at home ... especially the Muslim rapes that have increased 100 fold in the last decade, these proud Ausstards will gladly push their 12 yr old sister into the hands of a muzzy rapist while proclaiming they prevented a shooting ....
Anyone who takes an Aussie seriously since ... is as brain dead as they are ....
no other citation is needed .....
The Aussies willingly lined up and gave up their guns to their Government .....
fast forward ..... These same mendicant imbeciles again lined up & happily bent over to get their azzholes injected with toxxines ...
"Stupid is ... as Stupid does"
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,659 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,659 Likes: 1 |
There it is, Christian tolerance on full display. Make Jesus, the Saviour that you profess to believe in proud, guys. Unable to engage in rational discussion or debate, Men? Adults? Nah, schoolboy level insults are all you have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,501 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,501 Likes: 1 |
Is the church just for believers and discipleship…? Or is it also for unbelievers and evangelism…? And is there a better and more appropriate way for the church to engage our culture nowadays…and especially those to whom the article is specifically referring to…in order to reverse the trend that is the gist of the article…?
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,092
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,092 |
These two BOTS are not interested in discussing the Christian faith.
If you are engaging the BOTS you will never come to the end of the “discussion”.
For you guys who are engaging the BOTS you will find that doing so on logical terms is futile.
Disengage is your best option.
.
|
|
|
|
|
562 members (12344mag, 10gaugemag, 16penny, 007FJ, 1Akshooter, 10ring1, 65 invisible),
2,495
guests, and
1,342
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,049
Posts18,500,964
Members73,987
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
