dimreepr

Well, it's certainly biased...

Well, I'm guessing that you're employed, boss...

So what happens when you run out of work? It's like saying, no work no value; and we all know where that ends... 😉 In answer to the OP, every person should be included, just in case they're valuable. 🤞

Reductionism fails because of tomorrow and becomes less and less relevant with every succeeding tomorrow. You can't reduce consciousness, mostly because we can't understand the concept beyond ourselves; but also it's binary, because at the middle the spectrum consciousness is a switch and therefore it's a binary question; how do you reduce a binary question?

Yup fair enough +1, I read his post through the lense of my bias, sorry @Genady...

Don't worry, you'll only get into trouble, here, if you use bad faith arguments 😉 or insult's (in this context). It does in the context of the thread, assuming we consider a geologist is a scientist and therefor is considered rational in their beliefs; scientifically it's not rational to believe the earth that old. So @Genady suggesting that, is conflating that one belief with religion; it's like saying science isn't rational because of phlogiston.

And that just begs the question... 🤔

You're scraping the barrel, with that argument in the context of this thread.

I thought I did... What about the idea of karma, do you disagree with?

The next bit, you know, the context you ignored "why would a geologist believe the Earth is 5 thousand years old?", for a working geologist to believe the world is 5 thousand year's old, would require some serious weed. But for a geologist to believe in karma, would just require a little thinking...

I disagree, why would a geologist believe the Earth is 5 thousand years old? You don't need to believe in anything specifically, to believe in an idea... +1, please teach me your eloquence.

No it's not, nothing of what I've said in this thread AFAIK, is conflating anything. Edit. I understand what you're arguing, what I don't understand is why you're arguing it.

Agree, because it's happened before and we seem profoundly blind to yesterday. Disagree, if you mean part 3 equal's mutually assured destruction.

If the playing fields are level then I would agree with you, but they're not; so the problem occurs when we're on the down slope; in comedic term's it's punching down, and in this fora it's a valid discussion because we all get the joke. The problem is, not everyone gets the joke; so, just saying "I don't <insert dislike>" in public just keeps the ball rolling towards their goal; we need a better defence...

The "Lord of the flies" require a monster. Then why pick up the conch?

Quite, the other day I saw a women, who in both size and shape was the spitting image of Hagrid (seriously); my mate and I had a good laugh at her expense, but not with her knowledge.

Then @iNow is right to be annoyed with our bickering.

That's the insidious nature of the innocent joke, not everyone gets it but we all feel the need to laugh, even if we find it distasteful (for a reason we're not entirely sure about). That feeling only grows with the respect we give to the joker.

No, that's the point...

Because it's a different question; what is a fact? or why does my belief trump another's?

So, if they're not you they can't believe in a fact? "Cogito ergo sum", has it's flaws.

No one is asking you to suck on something that you find distasteful, especially if you're "normal". It's the insidious nature of culture, that if enough people innocently say "that's distasteful" it has an effect on their neighbours/neighbourhood, who then require otherwise innocent people to acquire your taste. It's a simple question of balance, is your distaste more important than their taste???

The difference is, I have evidence... 😉

Point well missed, besides how is 0 worse than -1? How did you do that? Context missed: I'm starting to think your arguments are less than, honest. Much like your voting protocol. 🙂

But not why, that God is central to that culture, so much context is lost between the generation's.