Hall of wit and epicness.

[Edwardo Piet]

This one gave me a very rare belly laugh:

He probably thinks NHS means Normal Hair Service. No wonder he's suspicious of it.

Very rare for me I mean.

[downbeatplumb]

Gawdzilla Sama


Foxholes are great places to find out how useful religion really is.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-53405-p...pid1699648

[The Grand Nudger]

What's Morris code?

It was a very early form of internet even before phones.

LOL, QFT.

https://atheistforums.org/newreply.php?tid=53706

[Succubus]

You're a ruthless bastard and no mistake. 

[Fireball]

Ahhh, the hugster's mess is all cleaned out. Nice job, folks!

[SaStrike]

Lets consider for a second 

1. What is the life expectancy and general quality of life of a wild animal compared to a farm animal 

A few years give or take spent in pain from accumulated injury or illness before it succumbs to starvation or infection or gets eaten alive asshole first.

That's assuming it doesn't get exterminated on grounds of sheer inconvenience.

2. What's the solution ?

There isn't one, at least not for that.  That is, after all, the "natural state" we're supposed to be transgressing against with our heinous breeding and feeding and caring and sheltering and slaughtering and eating of animals.  Why this isn't recognized as a "natural state" and mutually beneficial to both involved species completely escapes me.  Even more strangely....suppose that some animal actually "prefers" the state of things on a farm, or satisfies these conditions of it expressing what it is to be x and having a generally pleasant life?  We prefer our cities to caves..after all.  Then what?

Laughed for this one, it's so true, they do get eaten alive like that. I saw it on TV

[vulcanlogician]

If there's anything the southern baptist convention is known for..it's all that rampant leftist progressivism.

[Edwardo Piet]

So epic:

Your second level is nonsense.  Which is fine.  There's nothing wrong with pondering things.  But it carries 0 weight.  So you using it as an escape hatch to get out of a position you don't like is theistic.

Objective world outside of science?  Can you word the question more clearly.  What constitutes 'inside of science.'

Is it that you just don’t understand him?  Science is the most accurate tool that we presently have to build working models of the physical world as we experience it, but science is still contingent upon human experience.  There may be aspects of reality that we, as temporal and experiential beings, simply can never have access to.  

Example: It may be a fact that there is a difference between a rock, and the human experience of a rock.  But if there is, we have no way of knowing.  We can’t leave our subjective experience.

Hammy’s position (and mine) is simply the philosophical acknowledgement that science is objective within the frame work of subjective experience, and therefore we are limited in what we can know.  There is nothing supernatural or fantastical about that.  It’s actually the most intellectually honest position to take regarding epistemology, IMO.  And, it in no way undermines the value science. There are no mutually exclusive ideas here.  Science and philosophy can cooperate with one another.

LFC successfully and clearly defends my position on the matter more concisely than my verbose rambley self could ever dream of!

[Edwardo Piet]

[LadyForCamus]