Originally posted by bbarrI doubt I have that honor having read this place, but if you say so.
That is the dumbest thing I've read in weeks. Beliefs are between our ears, but beliefs that have more evidence in their favor are more likely to be true. Beliefs with a lot of evidence in their favor are very likely to be true. When we believe on the basis of a lot of evidence, we are justified in believing. When we have sufficient justification, the just ...[text shortened]... e desist in saying such stupid sh_t about evidence and faith! It makes you look like a retard.
Beliefs with a lot of evidence may be true, but at the same time it
isn't always so, especially if you have to explain your evidence to
make it appear to be something it may not be, which puts it all back
between the ears again. You know what occured billions of years ago?
You know how old the earth is, or is it a matter of faith?
We all shoot for absolute certainty, it isn't something any of us get
at many times, it doesn't stop us from looking for it, but you still
have to call faith what it is, if you are proclaiming something to be
true no one can disprove. We have levels of certainty where what we
have is right before us, and even then we can be wrong.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I run into contradictions I'll look at it and change if I have too, do
It is a question of word usage. To you, yesterday may not have happened and you may not even actually exist right now. You just have faith that you do. I would agree that there is no way of proving that you exist but I still call it 'fact' and 'real'.
However the evidence for the age of the earth is not less significant nor more inherently flawed than th ...[text shortened]... faith based on? If your observations of the world contradict that faith then what do you do?
you? I'm in agreement with you that I call what I went through
yesterday a fact, as time passes so will my memory, but that does
not mean that what occurred didn't, only my memory of it. Facts do not
depend upon my grasp of them that is perception and beliefs.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWe've been over this and you avoid the conclusions of your skeptical framework.
I doubt I have that honor having read this place, but if you say so.
Beliefs with a lot of evidence may be true, but at the same time it
isn't always so, especially if you have to explain your evidence to
make it appear to be something it may not be, which puts it all back
between the ears again. You know what occured billions of years ago?
You know ho ...[text shortened]... ls of certainty where what we
have is right before us, and even then we can be wrong.
Kelly
Either everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) is faith which gives no credence to
evidentiary weight or something are more worthy of being believed than others.
Do you want to resume discussing the example you avoided in the other thread
or are your feelings still too hurt to reflect upon the implications of your own point
of view?
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayIs this your way of avoiding the real issue here? All the hundreds of years of scientific probing building up solid cases that would be pronounced real by any competent jury in a court of law? I notice you have yet to comment on that, just whining about the use of 'them' and 'they'.
"You always refer to scientists as 'They' or 'Them'." We are still
speaking about people are we not, or have you placed scientists upon
a pedistal beyond the rest of humanity?
So you don't think of scientists as them and they?
What do you think of them as?
Kelly
My 'they' and 'them' are Einstein, Dawkins, Darwin, Maxwell, Witten, Hawkins. People. Genius. I gather you don't approve of looking up to genius?
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYour question doesn't make sense.
Nice dodge, but that's not quite yes or no.
Here, I'll make it easier for you. Which of the following sentences is true for you:
A.) I have posted under the username dj2becker.
B.) I have never posted under the username dj2becker.
Please explain how it is possible for Phuzudaka to post under the username dj2becker.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me guess: dj2becker was a Catholic, and you hate Catholics because when you were a kid the priest slipt up with your circumcision job?
Considering that he also lacked the ability to answer yes or no questions and also the ability to understand simple English words like 'name' we can assume that you are essentially identical to him and therefore not worth debating with as he was an inconsistent liar who apparently had no interest in actual genuine debate but rather seemed to find entertai ...[text shortened]... questions and making false claims whilst never admitting to the fact when he was proven wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by PhuzudakaMore like dj2 approached this type of thread with the exact same disingenuous attitude and set of arguments presented in exactly the same manner and acted all dumb when the numerous previous times he had been proven wrong were mentioned. It is not out of the realm of possibility for him to make a new account so that he wouldn't be constantly confronted by his past stupidity. That way he could present fresh stupidity more easily.
Let me guess: dj2becker was a Catholic, and you hate Catholics because when you were a kid the priest slipt up with your circumcision job?
1 edit
Originally posted by PhuzudakaOh dear. You'd have been better off waiting for your lawyer, who would have told you not to answer the question. Failing that, you should have lied.
Your question doesn't make sense.
Please explain how it is possible for Phuzudaka to post under the username dj2becker.
Colum2bo gets his man.
(edit: and you also need to brush up on your Sinn and Bedeutung)
Originally posted by XanthosNZMost people say that dj2 was a liar... If they think that I am dj, why would they expect to find out the truth by asking a yes, no question? If dj2 was a liar and he was supposedly me, then theoretically dj2 would lie and they would never know if dj2 and phuzu were the same person. Or they were just lying when they said dj2 was a liar...
More like dj2 approached this type of thread with the exact same disingenuous attitude and set of arguments presented in exactly the same manner and acted all dumb when the numerous previous times he had been proven wrong were mentioned. It is not out of the realm of possibility for him to make a new account so that he wouldn't be constantly confronted by his past stupidity. That way he could present fresh stupidity more easily.
Originally posted by PhuzudakaConfirmed it seems.
Most people say that dj2 was a liar... If they think that I am dj, why would they expect to find out the truth by asking a yes, no question? If dj2 was a liar and he was supposedly me, then theoretically dj2 would lie and they would never know if dj2 and phuzu were the same person. Or they were just lying when they said dj2 was a liar...