Topic: Hey, you know how you atheist faggots are always demanding first-hand evidence?
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #122,225
...so how many of you pedophillic cocksmokers have actually been up in a space shuttle and seen for yourself that the Earth is an oblate spheroid? If you haven't, then you're believing in something without proof, you fucking hypocrites.
Meta joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #1,335,248
This was figured out centuries before the Wright brothers, let alone the Space Shuttle.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,250
Sailors would see the tops of cities before the ground, and realized it was round.
Greek academics used rudimentary math to estimate, with incredible accuracy, how big the round earth was.
Greek academics used rudimentary math to estimate, with incredible accuracy, how big the round earth was.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,251
Who cares about evidence anyways. It's a means to arrive at the truth when you are unsure but the thing is that many true things can't be proven nor do they have to be proven.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,253
I flew in the Concorde once and saw the curvature of the Earth with my own eyes.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,255
@1,335,251 (D)
> Who cares about evidence anyways.
People that want to get to the truth.
> It's a means to arrive at the truth when you are unsure
Yes.
> but the thing is that many true things can't be proven nor do they have to be proven.
Idiotic point. Just because you can't know everything doesn't mean there is no point in knowing what you can.
Would you say that if someone can't get three meals, they shouldn't bother with eating the one meal they can get?
> Who cares about evidence anyways.
People that want to get to the truth.
> It's a means to arrive at the truth when you are unsure
Yes.
> but the thing is that many true things can't be proven nor do they have to be proven.
Idiotic point. Just because you can't know everything doesn't mean there is no point in knowing what you can.
Would you say that if someone can't get three meals, they shouldn't bother with eating the one meal they can get?
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,258
@previous (C)
Yeah you should know everything that you can, idk what point you think I'm making, but the truth isn't always a matter of science.
Yeah you should know everything that you can, idk what point you think I'm making, but the truth isn't always a matter of science.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,261
@previous (D)
You said "Who cares about evidence anyways", implying it didn't matter.
Evidence matters, because that's how you "know everything that you can".
There's a difference between saying "we can't know everything" and acting like evidence doesn't matter, and asking "who cares?" about it.
You said "Who cares about evidence anyways", implying it didn't matter.
Evidence matters, because that's how you "know everything that you can".
There's a difference between saying "we can't know everything" and acting like evidence doesn't matter, and asking "who cares?" about it.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,268
@previous (C)
I wasn't saying that we can't know everything, but instead that we all believe things that has no evidence to back it. Yet we are very happy to continue to believe in those things because we aren't robots that just crunch the numbers.
I wasn't saying that we can't know everything, but instead that we all believe things that has no evidence to back it. Yet we are very happy to continue to believe in those things because we aren't robots that just crunch the numbers.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,269
@1,335,250 (C)
So, you believe some unverified second-hand anecdotes you read in a book somewhere. Thanks, that will be all.
So, you believe some unverified second-hand anecdotes you read in a book somewhere. Thanks, that will be all.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 59 seconds later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,270
@1,335,248 (Meta)
> This was figured out centuries before the Wright brothers, let alone the Space Shuttle.
How do you know it was figured out by anybody?
> This was figured out centuries before the Wright brothers, let alone the Space Shuttle.
How do you know it was figured out by anybody?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 6 seconds later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,271
@1,335,268 (D)
Many people believe things with no evidence, but there's no reason that's necessary. You could chose to only believe things after you have evidence they are the best model of the world. Superstition and religion are not required for existence.
Many people believe things with no evidence, but there's no reason that's necessary. You could chose to only believe things after you have evidence they are the best model of the world. Superstition and religion are not required for existence.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,272
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 59 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,273
@1,335,271 (C)
Seems like a odd belief you have there. For me it's a very necessary thing and it is so good that we are dogmatic in these beliefs, so much so that people like yourself don't even realize they have those beliefs
Seems like a odd belief you have there. For me it's a very necessary thing and it is so good that we are dogmatic in these beliefs, so much so that people like yourself don't even realize they have those beliefs
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,278
@previous (D)
> Seems like a odd belief you have there
Is it odd to have beliefs that are justified?
> For me it's a very necessary thing and it is so good that we are dogmatic in these beliefs
You've said this, but you haven't said why.
> Seems like a odd belief you have there
Is it odd to have beliefs that are justified?
> For me it's a very necessary thing and it is so good that we are dogmatic in these beliefs
You've said this, but you haven't said why.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,281
@previous (C)
It has to do with what I said about us not being robots that just do robot stuff. We seem to come in a certain way that for a lack of a better word is all too human.
We have feelings that are very strong and powerful and we tend to let them color our way of seeing, or our understanding of reality. Just imagine any number of cruel things done to kittens, look me in the eye and tell me it isn't the truth that such things should not be done.
It has to do with what I said about us not being robots that just do robot stuff. We seem to come in a certain way that for a lack of a better word is all too human.
We have feelings that are very strong and powerful and we tend to let them color our way of seeing, or our understanding of reality. Just imagine any number of cruel things done to kittens, look me in the eye and tell me it isn't the truth that such things should not be done.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,285
@previous (D)
> It has to do with what I said about us not being robots that just do robot stuff. We seem to come in a certain way that for a lack of a better word is all too human.
Ancient Greece was discussing rationality thousands of years before robots.
Aiming to have beliefs that are evidence-based is not something that only a robot would do.
>
> We have feelings that are very strong and powerful and we tend to let them color our way of seeing, or our understanding of reality. Just imagine any number of cruel things done to kittens, look me in the eye and tell me it isn't the truth that such things should not be done.
Just because something makes us both uncomfortable doesn't mean it is, objectively, wrong.
> It has to do with what I said about us not being robots that just do robot stuff. We seem to come in a certain way that for a lack of a better word is all too human.
Ancient Greece was discussing rationality thousands of years before robots.
Aiming to have beliefs that are evidence-based is not something that only a robot would do.
>
> We have feelings that are very strong and powerful and we tend to let them color our way of seeing, or our understanding of reality. Just imagine any number of cruel things done to kittens, look me in the eye and tell me it isn't the truth that such things should not be done.
Just because something makes us both uncomfortable doesn't mean it is, objectively, wrong.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,287
@previous (C)
So I am fair in saying that your preference for evidence leads you to think that it's not the truth that people should not do cruel things to kittens?
So I am fair in saying that your preference for evidence leads you to think that it's not the truth that people should not do cruel things to kittens?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,288
@previous (D)
No, that's not quite right. Evidence is used to discover the truth, and truth is a quality descriptive statements can have.
Normative statements do not have qualities like "true" or "false" so to ask which one applies is nonsense, and only reveals the person asking the question doesn't know the difference between those two types of statements.
No, that's not quite right. Evidence is used to discover the truth, and truth is a quality descriptive statements can have.
Normative statements do not have qualities like "true" or "false" so to ask which one applies is nonsense, and only reveals the person asking the question doesn't know the difference between those two types of statements.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,289
@previous (C)
So if they do not have qualities of true or false, you presumably do not believe that it's the truth that people should not be cruel to kittens?
So if they do not have qualities of true or false, you presumably do not believe that it's the truth that people should not be cruel to kittens?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,292
@previous (D)
You're phrasing it to sound like I'm OK with it, when really I'm saying normative statements can't have that quality at all. Why insist on phrasing it that way, except to misrepresent what I'm actually saying?
You're phrasing it to sound like I'm OK with it, when really I'm saying normative statements can't have that quality at all. Why insist on phrasing it that way, except to misrepresent what I'm actually saying?
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,296
@previous (C)
I know damn well that you are not ok with it, and you could have just said yes it's the truth but you didn't. Instead it was as if science was suddenly irrelevant, suddenly science cannot be used to check if a statement about something real and what it should do is true, it's somehow almost blasphemy
I know damn well that you are not ok with it, and you could have just said yes it's the truth but you didn't. Instead it was as if science was suddenly irrelevant, suddenly science cannot be used to check if a statement about something real and what it should do is true, it's somehow almost blasphemy
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,298
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,301
@1,335,296 (D)
It's not blasphemy, or else why would I agree with it? Who has a view they themselves call blasphemy?
Normative statements are not true or false. Evidence isn't something you use to decide whether cruelty is OK. You may as well ask if I think "don't kick kittens" is pretty or smells nice. That isn't a quality it can have, so the question is meaningless.
Where evidence applies, to descriptive statements, it does matter a lot.
It's not blasphemy, or else why would I agree with it? Who has a view they themselves call blasphemy?
Normative statements are not true or false. Evidence isn't something you use to decide whether cruelty is OK. You may as well ask if I think "don't kick kittens" is pretty or smells nice. That isn't a quality it can have, so the question is meaningless.
Where evidence applies, to descriptive statements, it does matter a lot.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,304
@1,335,298 (F)
@previous (C)
So if I say in the same way that people should believe in God, it is neither true nor false? Or is it suddenly not blasphemy to apply science in this case?
@previous (C)
So if I say in the same way that people should believe in God, it is neither true nor false? Or is it suddenly not blasphemy to apply science in this case?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,305
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,306
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,307
Fags lol
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,308
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,311
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 33 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,312
@previous (D)
It is a normative statement, which is why it isn't true. Normative statements cannot be true.
It is a normative statement, which is why it isn't true. Normative statements cannot be true.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,315
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 54 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,316
@previous (D)
No, that's not a normative statement.
It's an unsubstantiated descriptive statement.
No, that's not a normative statement.
It's an unsubstantiated descriptive statement.
(Edited 47 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,317
@previous (C)
Ok nice, so I believe God should exist, and science has nothing to poke at here because it's not allowed?
Edit: oh you suddenly edited to no.
Ok nice, so I believe God should exist, and science has nothing to poke at here because it's not allowed?
Edit: oh you suddenly edited to no.
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,318
@1,335,304 (D)
The assertion "people should believe in god" is neither true nor false, correct. People either do or don't, but truth and false don't come into it.
The assertion "people should believe in god" is neither true nor false, correct. People either do or don't, but truth and false don't come into it.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 56 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,319
@1,335,316 (C)
But how is a description about what something in this world should not do not a descriptive statement? When I say it's the truth that people should not hurt kittens, I am describing what something in this world should do.
But how is a description about what something in this world should not do not a descriptive statement? When I say it's the truth that people should not hurt kittens, I am describing what something in this world should do.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 11 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,320
@1,335,317 (D)
I misread your post, and thought you were referring to something else.
You made a descriptive statement, subject to true or false.
I misread your post, and thought you were referring to something else.
You made a descriptive statement, subject to true or false.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,321
@1,335,319 (D)
Should statements are normative.
Saying "God should exist" is not using should in the regular way. Should in this situation is being used in a non-standard way to mean what you think is the case, rather than a prescription for behavior.
Should statements are normative.
Saying "God should exist" is not using should in the regular way. Should in this situation is being used in a non-standard way to mean what you think is the case, rather than a prescription for behavior.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 32 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,323
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,324
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,325
@1,335,323 (D)
"God should exist" meaning there is probable evidence for it, is a false statement. No scientific or deductive evidence exists for god.
"You should not kick kittens" uses should in the normal meaning, prescribing behavior. A normative statement is not true or false.
"God should exist" meaning there is probable evidence for it, is a false statement. No scientific or deductive evidence exists for god.
"You should not kick kittens" uses should in the normal meaning, prescribing behavior. A normative statement is not true or false.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 32 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,326
@1,335,324 (D)
The meaning of words aren't subjective, or language would not exist. Each word has an actual meaning.
The meaning of words aren't subjective, or language would not exist. Each word has an actual meaning.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,328
@1,335,319 (D)
"In the utilitarian ethics model, it is not ethical to hurt kittens because the action would cause unnecessary suffering, which conflicts with the utilitarian goal of minimizing harm" - A truth.
"People shouldn't hurt kittens" - A subjective expression of personal belief, which can be neither verified or disproven. This type of statement is called a Normative Opinion, which means that it expresses a value judgement or prescription about how one ought to behave.
"In the utilitarian ethics model, it is not ethical to hurt kittens because the action would cause unnecessary suffering, which conflicts with the utilitarian goal of minimizing harm" - A truth.
"People shouldn't hurt kittens" - A subjective expression of personal belief, which can be neither verified or disproven. This type of statement is called a Normative Opinion, which means that it expresses a value judgement or prescription about how one ought to behave.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,329
@previous (F)
> "In the utilitarian ethics model, it is not ethical to hurt kittens because the action would cause unnecessary suffering, which conflicts with the utilitarian goal of minimizing harm" - A truth.
Going by a made up model that itself cannot be true because the expression "utilitarianism is the ideal ethical model" is neither a scientific nor deductive truth, it is a normative expression.
> "People shouldn't hurt kittens" - A subjective expression of personal belief, which can be neither verified or disproven.
Both are normative.
> "In the utilitarian ethics model, it is not ethical to hurt kittens because the action would cause unnecessary suffering, which conflicts with the utilitarian goal of minimizing harm" - A truth.
Going by a made up model that itself cannot be true because the expression "utilitarianism is the ideal ethical model" is neither a scientific nor deductive truth, it is a normative expression.
> "People shouldn't hurt kittens" - A subjective expression of personal belief, which can be neither verified or disproven.
Both are normative.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 49 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,330
@1,335,325 (C)
@1,335,326 (C)
It's just funny how I'm trying to say that I don't mean it in the way you insist I mean it. We have had this Convo before and it's annoying how you always have them with me when I really need sleep.
For me it's not a subjective statement when I say that people should not abuse kids, it's a statement of truth about objective things and how it should behave in the world. I don't care there's no evidence that people should be good, it's the truth.
@1,335,326 (C)
It's just funny how I'm trying to say that I don't mean it in the way you insist I mean it. We have had this Convo before and it's annoying how you always have them with me when I really need sleep.
For me it's not a subjective statement when I say that people should not abuse kids, it's a statement of truth about objective things and how it should behave in the world. I don't care there's no evidence that people should be good, it's the truth.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,331
@1,335,329 (C)
Whether utilitarianism is an ideal ethical model or not is irrelevant to the given statement, which is that within the framework of the model the action of hurting a cat is unethical.
For the second point, I already made an edit.
Whether utilitarianism is an ideal ethical model or not is irrelevant to the given statement, which is that within the framework of the model the action of hurting a cat is unethical.
For the second point, I already made an edit.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F double-posted this 1 year ago, 49 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,332
@1,335,330 (D)
What you mean is that you consider it a rational statement. However, rationality and truthfulness are different things.
What you mean is that you consider it a rational statement. However, rationality and truthfulness are different things.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,333
@1,335,330 (D)
> It's just funny how I'm trying to say that I don't mean it in the way you insist I mean it.
Then you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using.
> We have had this Convo before and it's annoying how you always have them with me when I really need sleep.
You could open a dictionary and resolve this quickly.
> For me it's not a subjective statement when I say that people should not abuse kids
"For me" means the following is subjective itself. Are you suggesting that whether or not something is subjective or objective is itself a subjective matter?
> it's a statement of truth about objective things and how it should behave in the world.
"How it should behave" is what makes it a normative expression.
> I don't care there's no evidence that people should be good, it's the truth.
The truth is there are no objective ways people need to behave.
> It's just funny how I'm trying to say that I don't mean it in the way you insist I mean it.
Then you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using.
> We have had this Convo before and it's annoying how you always have them with me when I really need sleep.
You could open a dictionary and resolve this quickly.
> For me it's not a subjective statement when I say that people should not abuse kids
"For me" means the following is subjective itself. Are you suggesting that whether or not something is subjective or objective is itself a subjective matter?
> it's a statement of truth about objective things and how it should behave in the world.
"How it should behave" is what makes it a normative expression.
> I don't care there's no evidence that people should be good, it's the truth.
The truth is there are no objective ways people need to behave.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,336
@1,335,332 (F)
@previous (C)
No I don't mean that. The vast majority of people who speak any language would agree that it's the truth that people should not hurt children, but fuk them they don't know what they mean and should get a dictionary lol
@previous (C)
No I don't mean that. The vast majority of people who speak any language would agree that it's the truth that people should not hurt children, but fuk them they don't know what they mean and should get a dictionary lol
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,337
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 57 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,338
@previous (C)
I love the contempt for the vast majority
Edit: oh you edited that out. Well have fun not thinking it's the truth that people should not hurt kids but i however prefer so and I'm ok with that.
I love the contempt for the vast majority
Edit: oh you edited that out. Well have fun not thinking it's the truth that people should not hurt kids but i however prefer so and I'm ok with that.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,340
@1,335,336 (D)
No, you really do. You're just being argumentative with me because you don't like being corrected.
> The vast majority of people who speak any language would agree that it's the truth that people should not hurt children
By which they mean "I agree with this statement", or to put it another way "This value judgement aligns with my moral convictions".
However, it is not a statement about objective reality which can be verified or disproven through observation or experiment, meaning that the label "true" or "false" cannot be applied to it. Instead, it is a normative statement expressing a value judgement about how the world ought to be (not how it is).
"Hurting children causes pain" is an example of something that is verifiable through observation or experiment, and can be considered scientific fact.
No, you really do. You're just being argumentative with me because you don't like being corrected.
> The vast majority of people who speak any language would agree that it's the truth that people should not hurt children
By which they mean "I agree with this statement", or to put it another way "This value judgement aligns with my moral convictions".
However, it is not a statement about objective reality which can be verified or disproven through observation or experiment, meaning that the label "true" or "false" cannot be applied to it. Instead, it is a normative statement expressing a value judgement about how the world ought to be (not how it is).
"Hurting children causes pain" is an example of something that is verifiable through observation or experiment, and can be considered scientific fact.
(Edited 13 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,341
@previous (F)
Exactly this.
If a majority of people have no real education in epistemology and ethics, they will make a statement that uses technical philosophical language in an informal way to express their values.
Those statements are irrelevant to a serious conversation on which statements are true and false.
Exactly this.
If a majority of people have no real education in epistemology and ethics, they will make a statement that uses technical philosophical language in an informal way to express their values.
Those statements are irrelevant to a serious conversation on which statements are true and false.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,355
@OP
Deducing an empirical truth from physics, mathematics and logic is not "believing something without proof". Only smooth-brains like you can't see the difference.
Deducing an empirical truth from physics, mathematics and logic is not "believing something without proof". Only smooth-brains like you can't see the difference.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,383
@1,335,340 (F)
@1,335,341 (C)
Yeah yeah.... the majority of people are just using language wrong and they say one thing but they actually mean another that is more favorable to you. Well I'll repeat myself like we both have been doing, I believe it's not a matter of who you ask (subjective) if you shouldn't abuse children, it's the truth and as true as any fact. Now I don't have evidence, but I don't need it, you don't want to believe it's the truth and as true as any fact, well that's fine but I'm just glad most people are on my side and would agree it's the truth, too bad your too hung up on evidence to also believe.
@1,335,341 (C)
Yeah yeah.... the majority of people are just using language wrong and they say one thing but they actually mean another that is more favorable to you. Well I'll repeat myself like we both have been doing, I believe it's not a matter of who you ask (subjective) if you shouldn't abuse children, it's the truth and as true as any fact. Now I don't have evidence, but I don't need it, you don't want to believe it's the truth and as true as any fact, well that's fine but I'm just glad most people are on my side and would agree it's the truth, too bad your too hung up on evidence to also believe.
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 32 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,385
I was an atheist once, until I witnessed a miracle with my own eyes.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,396
@1,335,383 (D)
You stupid faggot. Words have precise meaning.
> I believe it's not a matter of who you ask (subjective) if you shouldn't abuse children
Then why do people abuse children?
> it's the truth and as true as any fact
Then design an experiment to observe it.
You stupid faggot. Words have precise meaning.
> I believe it's not a matter of who you ask (subjective) if you shouldn't abuse children
Then why do people abuse children?
> it's the truth and as true as any fact
Then design an experiment to observe it.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,418
@OPCatherine's neighbor attempted to prove for his self the earth was NOT Flat. With his infamous Steam Powered Rocket.
FAILED His Body however ended up on Earth very Flat.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,456
@1,335,396 (F)
Haha ok have fun with your science and how it tells you it's subjective if you should abuse children or not
Haha ok have fun with your science and how it tells you it's subjective if you should abuse children or not
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,532
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,545
@1,335,383 (D)
Definitions aren't favorable to any facts, they only clarify meaning. Using informal definitions in a serious philosophical discussion is going to lead to communication problems.
Definitions aren't favorable to any facts, they only clarify meaning. Using informal definitions in a serious philosophical discussion is going to lead to communication problems.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 16 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,616
@OP
You son of a bitch, fuck you!
You son of a bitch, fuck you!