Odin.Zicdeh said: »
SO I propose we rename the Discovery network of channels 'Shortbus Media.' Is that in poor taste?
I'd probably watch more Discovery Channel and TLC if that were the case.
Mormon Dating Site Sued By Mormon Church
|
Mormon dating site sued by Mormon church
As a consequence of an art film released a few years back, I associate the word "shortbus" with using hardcore pornography to make a philosophical point. I'd probably watch more Discovery Channel and TLC if that were the case.
[+]
[+]
Never argue with a Zealot of either science or religion. Neither side will admit when wrong and everyone loses.
[+]
fonewear said: » I can't find any reason to hate Amish. I mean really what did the Amish do to you ? Shiva.Onorgul said: » As a consequence of an art film released a few years back, I associate the word "shortbus" with using hardcore pornography to make a philosophical point. Shiva.Onorgul said: » fonewear said: » I can't find any reason to hate Amish. I mean really what did the Amish do to you ? [ETA: The point of this was to say that you make no claims that there is a higher incidence of abuse among this people, so that statement is misleading, and is probably unable to be substantiated anyway.] And who cares if people are xenophobic? Is it really such a big deal, especially among people who isolate themselves from the rest of society as a general rule anyway? Would you hate the Eskimos if you found out everything you said about the Amish was true about Eskimos too?
[+]
Oh no google knows in here. I'm getting advertisements for Mormon dating sites.
[+]
Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » Odin.Zicdeh said: » Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » Personally I believe that the physical world as we know it is a product of the conscious mind, as suggested by the Observer Effect re the double slit experiment. This explains why you're so prone to personal delusions. Reality must be right because your conscious mind believes it's right. The irony in your feeling this way is that the human mind was never meant to comprehend existence on the quantum level. http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/the-illusion-of-matter-does-consciousness-create-reality/ Open your mind. Basing the world on what you have evidence for makes you nothing more than a modern-day flat-earther. Sounds like circular logic to me personally. The premise is that reality is entirely subjective yes? That means any manner of evidence or support would be subjective. You get nowhere really, really fast that way. Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » Would you hate the Eskimos if you found out everything you said about the Amish was true about Eskimos too? I have an Amish beard and I find this very offensive.
fonewear said: » I have an Amish beard and I find this very offensive. Isn't it just called a neckbeard if you aren't actually Amish? fonewear said: » YouTube Video Placeholder
[+]
Village people are solely responsible for the US Navy being the best int he world.
Women and sea men don't mix !
[+]
fonewear said: » Village people are solely responsible for the US Navy being the best int he world. Women and sea men don't mix ! YouTube Video Placeholder
[+]
Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » .... As for Hitler, the Catholic Church was NOT in favor of Hitler, although keep in mind that Italy was on Germany's side. And if you want to argue that church prepares people for subjugation, I would argue that statism does it far worse. But there is little doubt that Pius XII was. Wiki on two different books about Pius XII: Hitler's Pope The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis Odin.Zicdeh said: » Sounds like circular logic to me personally. The premise is that reality is entirely subjective yes? That means any manner of evidence or support would be subjective. You get nowhere really, really fast that way. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » Would you hate the Eskimos if you found out everything you said about the Amish was true about Eskimos too? Aside from all of this, you have severe anger issues. Maybe you should seek help. Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » .... I think anti-theism is silly. To hear someone say the entire universe was compressed into a speck smaller than an atom and say "Oh, that's cool!", then turn around and mock someone who believes an old guy built a big boat with a lot of animals on it.... Not was compressed into, expanded from. Before the decoupling there was nothing but light. No atoms, no subatomic particles, just photons. Sounds a lot like "Fiat Lux" to me. There was a documentary about the truth behind "Noah's Ark", that revealed that there was a great flood, however, it was during the time of Gilgamesh, which was even written by him, as it was witnessed.
There was only "2 of every animal within a certain distance", so they could have room for themselves and not suffer the effects of the flood before they could round up 2 of every animal on the planet. So in short, Noah's Ark didn't happen, as it was clearly an adaptation from on of Gilgamesh's earlier stories. That is supposedly the evidence being referred to, though mistakenly believed to be evidence of Noah's Ark. Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » Odin.Zicdeh said: » Sounds like circular logic to me personally. The premise is that reality is entirely subjective yes? That means any manner of evidence or support would be subjective. You get nowhere really, really fast that way. I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Circular logic in debate means that the premise is reinforced by itself. God is real > Because the Bible Says so > Because the Bible is the word of God. In this case: Reality is Subjective > Because the evidence is subjective > Because Consciousness is Subjective. You see what I mean now? There's just nothing to be gained in this line of dialog. It's perhaps a jumping off point for the future, and I'm not discounting its academic credence but it just doesn't do anything. Garuda.Chanti said: » Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » .... I think anti-theism is silly. To hear someone say the entire universe was compressed into a speck smaller than an atom and say "Oh, that's cool!", then turn around and mock someone who believes an old guy built a big boat with a lot of animals on it.... Not was compressed into, expanded from. Odin.Zicdeh said: » I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Circular logic in debate means that the premise is reinforced by itself. God is real > Because the Bible Says so > Because the Bible is the word of God. In this case: Reality is Subjective > Because the evidence is subjective > Because Consciousness is Subjective. You see what I mean now? There's just nothing to be gained in this line of dialog. It's perhaps a jumping off point for the future, and I'm not discounting its academic credence but it just doesn't do anything. No, but I am well aware of evangelistic atheists' eagerness to accuse others of using circular logic. It's not that I am saying it must be subjective because it is subjective. The evidence is no more subjective than any other evidence. From our current vantage point it is entirely objective. The objective evidence only becomes subjective if it is proven to be true. That would make the pro argument linear, but the con argument circular. I clearly took the pro side. Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » Odin.Zicdeh said: » I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Circular logic in debate means that the premise is reinforced by itself. God is real > Because the Bible Says so > Because the Bible is the word of God. In this case: Reality is Subjective > Because the evidence is subjective > Because Consciousness is Subjective. You see what I mean now? There's just nothing to be gained in this line of dialog. It's perhaps a jumping off point for the future, and I'm not discounting its academic credence but it just doesn't do anything. No, but I am well aware of evangelistic atheists' eagerness to accuse others of using circular logic. It's not that I am saying it must be subjective because it is subjective. The evidence is no more subjective than any other evidence. From our current vantage point it is entirely objective. The objective evidence only becomes subjective if it is proven to be true. That would make the pro argument linear, but the con argument circular. I clearly took the pro side. Wait, are we even talking about the same thing anymore? I'm not accusing you of using any circular logic, I'm accusing the article/theory of using circular logic. Odin.Zicdeh said: » Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » Odin.Zicdeh said: » I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Circular logic in debate means that the premise is reinforced by itself. God is real > Because the Bible Says so > Because the Bible is the word of God. In this case: Reality is Subjective > Because the evidence is subjective > Because Consciousness is Subjective. You see what I mean now? There's just nothing to be gained in this line of dialog. It's perhaps a jumping off point for the future, and I'm not discounting its academic credence but it just doesn't do anything. No, but I am well aware of evangelistic atheists' eagerness to accuse others of using circular logic. It's not that I am saying it must be subjective because it is subjective. The evidence is no more subjective than any other evidence. From our current vantage point it is entirely objective. The objective evidence only becomes subjective if it is proven to be true. That would make the pro argument linear, but the con argument circular. I clearly took the pro side. Wait, are we even talking about the same thing anymore? I'm not accusing you of using any circular logic, I'm accusing the article/theory of using circular logic. Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » Odin.Zicdeh said: » Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » Odin.Zicdeh said: » I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Circular logic in debate means that the premise is reinforced by itself. God is real > Because the Bible Says so > Because the Bible is the word of God. In this case: Reality is Subjective > Because the evidence is subjective > Because Consciousness is Subjective. You see what I mean now? There's just nothing to be gained in this line of dialog. It's perhaps a jumping off point for the future, and I'm not discounting its academic credence but it just doesn't do anything. No, but I am well aware of evangelistic atheists' eagerness to accuse others of using circular logic. It's not that I am saying it must be subjective because it is subjective. The evidence is no more subjective than any other evidence. From our current vantage point it is entirely objective. The objective evidence only becomes subjective if it is proven to be true. That would make the pro argument linear, but the con argument circular. I clearly took the pro side. Wait, are we even talking about the same thing anymore? I'm not accusing you of using any circular logic, I'm accusing the article/theory of using circular logic. I was just speaking towards the Observer theory, and it's possible the article just failed to bring up the right points. I get the basic idea which it's coming from though, it's also used a lot in the theory behind quantum computing. Until observed, a particle exists simultaneously in all it's forms. These are usually described as oscillations going up, down or side to side. So the observation effectively "Creates" the reality of what the particle is doing. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.