Guest end3 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 YOU DIDN'T SAY YES OR NO ONLY THIS TIME!!! YES, we may dispute the findings...always.I will put on hold my next chain of question. I want to clear this response first. May I dispute the findings with MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of knowing a few chain smokers who lived to the age of 90 something without contracting lung cancer? Is this a yes or no? Are all of these yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 SWIM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 End three... Since you literally have been here for YEARS... And still has not even appeared to have acquired the simple skill of "common sense".... Why are you here? Why do you stay and debate? The times you have been utterly and totally, irrefutable debunked as WRONG and totally defeated is not a subject of challenge or debate, it is a stark, obvious state of fact. Curious I am. And you know me from years ago. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 End three... Since you literally have been here for YEARS... And still has not even appeared to have acquired the simple skill of "common sense".... Why are you here? Why do you stay and debate? The times you have been utterly and totally, irrefutable debunked as WRONG and totally defeated is not a subject of challenge or debate, it is a stark, obvious state of fact. Curious I am. And you know me from years ago. Why? I don't know SWIM. Not many sites out there with thinking people(probably because I haven't looked)....but when science figures out the brain I might have a mind to consider non-belief. But since there are so many things we won't be able to answer, I imagine I will be resigned to die in belief. Good to see you. Hope all is well sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 >>>>> I imagine I will be resigned to die in belief.<<<<< It does not matter... Die you shall, as we all will... It is what we do, and the method we conduct out our lives toward that end that will ultimately matter. Spread nonesense as you will. Repeatedly for years.... Have fun with it... No-one will reward you. History, however, will despise you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 So, End3, I'm curious. How can you be "right" if everything is subjective? We agree in our subjectivity and call it objectivity. Objectivity is not a subset of subjectivity. They are different conditions. That which is totally subjective cannot be totally objective and vice versa. So humans cannot be totally subjective, nor totally objective. They can choose to be less of one and more of the other but they can never be 100% of either. So when someone chooses to think objectively, they aren't doing so inside their personal envelope of subjectivity. If that were so, then whatever they call 'objectivity' would be inside their personal bubble of subjectivity and it would simply be a subset of their total subjectivity. And the conclusion of this spurious line of argument inevitably results in humans being 0 % objective and 100 % subjective all of the time. . . . Which is clearly and demonstrably false. If all humans were 100 % subjective all of the time, then there would be no possibility of any kind of communication between humans. Meaningful communication requires mutual agreement on the meaning of words. But no kind of meaningful agreement is possible if each person is locked inside their own personal bubble of subjectivity. Since humans clearly do communicate with each other, this demonstrates that 100 % subjectivity is impossible for human beings. It also demonstrates that humans are not helplessly locked inside their own personal bubbles of subjectivity. . . . Which therefore makes End3 ...wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 It's very simple... You should have no problem proving your opinion objective.... Go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 YOU DIDN'T SAY YES OR NO ONLY THIS TIME!!! YES, we may dispute the findings...always.I will put on hold my next chain of question. I want to clear this response first. May I dispute the findings with MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of knowing a few chain smokers who lived to the age of 90 something without contracting lung cancer? Is this a yes or no? Are all of these yes or no? Yes, it is a yes or no question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 It's very simple... You should have no problem proving your opinion objective.... Go. You're confused, End. I wasn't presenting my opinion, I was presenting a logical argument. Also, opinions cannot be proven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_proof Now it's up to you to find a flaw in my argument or present a superior argument of your own. Go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Yes Next question, end3. Sleep paralysis is a pretty well researched condition in medical field. You can explain sleep paralysis with science. However, there are people who think it is caused by evil spirits. I know two people who claimed this. One guy swore he was held down by an evil spirit and he banished it by saying Our Father prayer. The other guy said he got rid of the evil spirit by repeating "help me Jesus". My question is, can we dispute the science of sleep paralysis as evil spirit possession based on these PERSONAL EXPERIENCE? Yes or no only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Yes Next question, end3. Sleep paralysis is a pretty well researched condition in medical field. You can explain sleep paralysis with science. However, there are people who think it is caused by evil spirits. I know two people who claimed this. One guy swore he was held down by an evil spirit and he banished it by saying Our Father prayer. The other guy said he got rid of the evil spirit by repeating "help me Jesus". My question is, can we dispute the science of sleep paralysis as evil spirit possession based on these PERSONAL EXPERIENCE? Yes or no only. Yes (I have had sleep paralysis....it is really uncomfortable...I always thought someone was standing over me about to get me and you can't move. It's not much fun). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Yes Next question, end3. Sleep paralysis is a pretty well researched condition in medical field. You can explain sleep paralysis with science. However, there are people who think it is caused by evil spirits. I know two people who claimed this. One guy swore he was held down by an evil spirit and he banished it by saying Our Father prayer. The other guy said he got rid of the evil spirit by repeating "help me Jesus". My question is, can we dispute the science of sleep paralysis as evil spirit possession based on these PERSONAL EXPERIENCE? Yes or no only. Yes (I have had sleep paralysis....it is really uncomfortable...I always thought someone was standing over me about to get me and you can't move. It's not much fun). Next question, end3. I have another acquaintance who is 100% sure she was cursed by her ex. She told me she and her family members experienced unexplained hysteria and sickness right after she dumped her ex and her ex told her he was cursing her. She claimed the hysteria and sickness stopped after a priest did exorcism for her and her family. The question is: Can my acquaintance PERSONAL EXPERIENCE story here be taken seriously or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 It's very simple... You should have no problem proving your opinion objective.... Go. You're confused, End. I wasn't presenting my opinion, I was presenting a logical argument. Also, opinions cannot be proven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_proof Now it's up to you to find a flaw in my argument or present a superior argument of your own. Go. Go find the flaw in my argument or present a better one, End! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Yes Next question, end3. Sleep paralysis is a pretty well researched condition in medical field. You can explain sleep paralysis with science. However, there are people who think it is caused by evil spirits. I know two people who claimed this. One guy swore he was held down by an evil spirit and he banished it by saying Our Father prayer. The other guy said he got rid of the evil spirit by repeating "help me Jesus". My question is, can we dispute the science of sleep paralysis as evil spirit possession based on these PERSONAL EXPERIENCE? Yes or no only. Yes (I have had sleep paralysis....it is really uncomfortable...I always thought someone was standing over me about to get me and you can't move. It's not much fun). Next question, end3. I have another acquaintance who is 100% sure she was cursed by her ex. She told me she and her family members experienced unexplained hysteria and sickness right after she dumped her ex and her ex told her he was cursing her. She claimed the hysteria and sickness stopped after a priest did exorcism for her and her family. The question is: Can my acquaintance PERSONAL EXPERIENCE story here be taken seriously or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 End3, yes or no only. If a man speaks and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still automatically wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Yes Since you think the case of my acquaintance accusing her ex cursed her can be taken seriously, then should the prosecutor be able to take such cases to court? After all if you believe in such thing the curse is considered as an assault. Yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 SL , you won't allow me to state what I think and now you are assuming what my tho it's are. Please make your case or let's end this exercise. Btw, sure you can take near anything to court, but courts seemingly rely on testable evidence. But then guess what, if they don't have that, they rely on the subjective opinions of a group of people.. Really not sur what the point of this exercise is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Dude, yes, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Any time you're ready, End. Go find the flaw in my argument or present a better one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 SL , you won't allow me to state what I think and now you are assuming what my tho it's are. Please make your case or let's end this exercise. Btw, sure you can take near anything to court, but courts seemingly rely on testable evidence. But then guess what, if they don't have that, they rely on the subjective opinions of a group of people.. Really not sur what the point of this exercise is This is the point of this exercise, you stated this yourself: "... courts seemingly rely on testable evidence. But then guess what, if they don't have that, they rely on the subjective opinions of a group of people..." You see, science works the same way. Science works on "testable evidence" or otherwise science "rely on the subjective opinions of a group of people"! Now, do you see why "personal experience" cannot be used in science discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 end3, if you disagree that we can use "personal experience" in science but not in in the court of law please explain why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 end3, this is to help you think, definition of science according to Merriam Webster: Full Definition of SCIENCE 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge<have it down to a science> 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and itsphenomena : natural science 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art> 5 capitalized : christian science When you click on CHRISTIAN SCIENCE it returns this: Christian Science noun Definition of CHRISTIAN SCIENCE: a religion founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866 that was organized under the official name of the Church of Christ, Scientist, that derives its teachings from the Scriptures as understood by its adherents, and that includes a practice of spiritual healing. So, this is not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts