(March 18, 2014 at 5:03 am)fr0d0 Wrote: What the OP is after is your ownership of the commitment to beliefs in things you have no empirical evidence for esq. He has given examples.
His examples were little more than presuppositional gotcha questions, the answer to which, somehow, don't seem to have altered his line of questioning in the least.
Quote:Dishonesty is what you are doing in hiding from that question. I see no reason why you should be scared of it because it proves nothing.
No, dishonesty is equivocating between our trust in, and usage of, scientific and logical processes which have been proved through repeated use and testing to reliably correlate to reality, with faith in unproved, untested and unfalsifiable religious ideals. Dishonesty is trying to make the thing that I can use and show you the effectiveness of repeatedly, right now, with the thing that refuses to be tested in the same way and seems to work differently for every person who even attempts to use it.
We have plenty of evidence of the efficacy of science, reason and logic. We have none for god. And no amount of stupid, bullshit "could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?" presuppositional nonsense will change that.
This entire thread is Disc attempting to drag down real, proven ideas to the level of his irrational assertions, and you're complicit in that. I hope you're proud of yourself, for denigrating the very idea of knowledge outside of useless absolutes.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
