gobrewers14

11 ms·

1.
by gobrewers14 3y ago
> For a positivist, you’re not very strong on logic. When the ad hominems start I know I'm on the right track > The rock has no will / The god, real or not, is a being with a will. How do you know god is a being with a will
2.
by gobrewers14 3y ago
>> Sure, you can use superstition as a slur for things you don’t believe in. > I’m not dictating what the word means That is precisely what you are doing by trying to insinuate that I am using a "slur". You do not have th
3.
by gobrewers14 3y ago
> In your example the difference is that the rock effect is automatic, like gravity, but the god is a sentient being that has a will. There is no difference. This is the fallacy of special pleading. You're saying that the example wi
4.
by gobrewers14 3y ago
You're not the gatekeeper of words. Christianity and Islam are both superstitions.
5.
by gobrewers14 3y ago
> A person believes something that results in superstition. This definition states that superstition creates itself. This is nonsense. Nothing is "created" when someone says something superstitious. There is no cause and effect
6.
by gobrewers14 3y ago
I touch (swear an oath and break it to) a rock (a god) and I receive luck (anger). Both are superstitions. The rock example is actually less superstitious because rocks actually exist. There is zero evidence gods exist.
7.
by gobrewers14 3y ago
> Religion and superstition are different concepts. Please point to the part in my original response where I said religion and superstition are the same concept. I said believing in a god is superstition. Which it is. Superstition (n):
8.
by gobrewers14 3y ago
>The founders saw it necessary that people have a religious based moral system. The same system and values that they based the government on. In the system of government they created women were not able to participate in the body politic
9.
by gobrewers14 3y ago
Believing that there is a god to promise something to is the definition of superstition.
10.
by gobrewers14 4y ago
The Catholic Church declaring that a collection of fictional stories are the word of god and 1.345 billion people believing that does not make the collection of stories not fictional. You're appealing to authority and the populace.
11.
by gobrewers14 4y ago
> In the 1960s the army, with support from the U.S. CIA, committed a mass slaughter of half a million suspected communists. In 1998 there was a huge series of riots against ethnic Chinese people, which ended up toppling the country’s dic
12.
by gobrewers14 4y ago
> Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated You're implying: something is scientifically demonstrated -> government is bound by it What I said was: government has bounded something -> it can be scientifica
13.
by gobrewers14 4y ago
> How would you differentiate this argument for abortion versus for slavery? Slavery unambiguously violates the autonomy of another human being. If it could be demonstrated scientifically what life is and when it begins and that happens
14.
by gobrewers14 4y ago
> This ruling does not prohibit anything Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does. > other people's beliefs are entirely a sufficient condition in what the government will do False. Othe
15.
by gobrewers14 4y ago
I don't give a shit what other people believe. People believing in things is not a sufficient condition for the government to prohibit something.
16.
by gobrewers14 4y ago
> If you believe that life begins at conception Someone believing life begins at conception is a reason for THEM to not get an abortion, it is not a reason for the government to outlaw it.
17.
by gobrewers14 5y ago
Just a few thoughts. > I think a much better argument is to point at countries that decriminalized drugs and didn't see an increase in crime. I agree. > we've already concluded that it's okay to prioritize safety over f
18.
by gobrewers14 5y ago
>There are other substances that most people really don't think should be accessible to everyone This is not how a free society operates. I choose what I put into my body and not you or anyone else. If doing so causes me to commit a
19.
by gobrewers14 5y ago
The first integral can be solved replacing the integrand with a series of sort. Notice that the expression inside the logarithm has zeros at $\alpha = e^{\pm ix}$ So we can rewrite the function we're integrating as $log(
20.
by gobrewers14 5y ago
I thought this was an April Fool's joke. It is frightening there are people that think giving the State another reason to fine, harass, and imprison people is an actual solution to a problem.
21.
by gobrewers14 6y ago
> You don't believe that we can access meaningful knowledge about the world through logic? And there it is, the pathetic strawman. The last refuge of a person with nothing intelligent to say; the death knell of every argument. Compu
22.
by gobrewers14 6y ago
> the problem is actually a philosophical one. This is what I would say too if I had no evidence for the things I was claiming exist. > your stance is that God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist? You said Kierkegaard et
23.
by gobrewers14 6y ago
> "that you take your atheism on faith, too." This is a nonsensical statement. Atheism is a recognition that there is zero evidence for the existence of any gods. It requires no faith. > "Origen, St. Augustine, Thomas A
24.
by gobrewers14 6y ago
Great news. At some point, hopefully humanity will realize religions are the myths of our less enlightened ancestors and we can all move on to something more interesting and productive.
25.
by gobrewers14 6y ago
> 38,000 people die annually in auto accidents... This argument is nonsensical. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as
26.
by gobrewers14 7y ago
Also worth noting it is pretty disturbing, especially if you love animals. But definitely worth watching.