Jump to content

dimreepr

Senior Members
  • Posts

    12115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Posts posted by dimreepr

  1. 58 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    Well that is too bad because that is clearly wrong.

    There is matter in the universe, that due to the expansion of the universe, has a recession velocity greater than the speed of light therefore that matter cannot be exerting any gravitational effect on our region of space.  IOW matter that has a recession velocity greater than c cannot transmit any signal we could detect.

    Perhaps he meant the observable universe, you know these student's, some of them miss a word or two.

    3 hours ago, Gian said:

    What I mean is that all objects - matter and energy - have a single common ancestor; Creation, the Big Bang. 

    And???

    3 hours ago, Gian said:

    In dendrochronology we can see the weather year by year affecting tree rings. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the behaviour of some objects is discernible as "mirages" in the behaviour of other objects within our universe, as they all had the same single starting point. If so this is not remotely supernatural, and is so inexact it probably isn't very useful.

    The only problem is, as with all complex signal's they degrade with distance and so become indiscernible from the background noise, at some point; if so it is entirely supernatural to somehow see the object...

  2. 41 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    When you will learn to write full length sentences so they are not ambiguous?

    You seem easily confused 😕, I haven't misspelled/mistaken humilty for humanity, but you have; I'm not sure what's ambiguous, please explain.

    45 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    ps. Down vote? Really?

    I didn't think your post deserved a +1, it's not a downvote, think of it as redressing the balance... 

  3. 23 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    Humility? Or you misspelled humanity?

    Nope.

    24 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    Humility depends on the context in which it is used. One prefers to survive, another wants to gain something, another has no self-esteem.

    But you have... 😉

     

    30 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    The selected discussion topics clearly indicate that you are not..

    Let's at least give him/her/it the chance to explain themself, who knows it might be interesting.

  4. On 11/5/2022 at 12:20 PM, iNow said:

    You were correct also the first time you mentioned this

    From 3 days ago, yet 6 entire pages of “discussion:”

     

    Sealion plus bad faith equals boring 

    It's a shame though, he's clearly intelligent and with, it seems, a good deal of knowledge; he could be a valuable member of our community, if his boredom could be directed more positively.

  5. 2 hours ago, Dis n Dat said:

    None of this is relevant to me. This is all a strawman effort. 

    I questioned you on your claim and your claim only. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not on the questioner. It's absolutely simple. 

    Have a great day. 

    I think you need to learn a lot more philosophy, because your understaning of logical fallacy is fundamentally flawed.

    Or your deliberately trolling...

    Have a nice day... 😇🙏

  6. 25 minutes ago, geordief said:

    Deterrence (in the eyes of the holder of the weapons)

    Since a  nuclear  exchange can destroy nearly all life on the planet we have to find an alternative way  for people to co exist without that recurring nightmare.**

     

    What  does "scientifically senseless" mean ,anyway.? 

     

    **all contributions and proposals welcome

    We human's are so vane, that someone could imagine that a life in a bunker could be a life worth living...

  7. 23 hours ago, TheVat said:

    Because he's looking for precise definitions here, a perfectly legitimate quest in a philosophic chat.

    I'd have been happy with that answer, it's a very good reason.

    However he seems determined to find excuses to dodge legitimate questions, rather than get caught in a rational cul-de-sac.

  8. On 11/2/2022 at 12:49 PM, Dis n Dat said:

     

    Did you really get any valid response to this post at all in this thread? If there were any, I would like to hear about it from you. 

    Nevertheless, I am thinking that this verse does not really speak about why God created life or the birth of life. It's a verse that's speaking to you as a reader, not as an absolute ontology of life itself. 

    Instead of resurrecting long dead thread's that should be left in peace; please start one of your own, so we can get a better handle on your position as regards religion/philosophy and the flavour you favour.

     

  9. 19 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

    Okay. So you think others are just like you and are just fishing for an exchange of insults to fill their time!

    Great. 

    Nothing bores me more than excuse over reason... 😉

  10. Just now, Dis n Dat said:

    Because you made a claim about a "dictionary". Unless now you claim your previous claim is just made up. If that's the case, just state it. It's okay. 

    cheers. 

    That's just an excuse to not answer my question, so I'll ask again.

    "What is the reason you care so much about something no-one has accused you of"?

  11. 1 minute ago, Dis n Dat said:

    So which dictionary defines atheism as "not believing in some Gods"? 

    WOW, so many post's and we're back to this, why do you care?

  12. 6 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

    I was talking about the meaning of the word atheist.

    Whatever you think it used to mean isn't relevant, what it means now is found in a dictionary; for us to have a reasonable discussion we have to agree on the meaning and since this discussion IS now, then a relevant meaning has to take precedence.

  13. 38 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

    So your usage of this does not fit in anywhere but the anti religious apologetic group of atheists on the internet who make the same case like you. Why not engage in more pertinent arguments than this kind of baseless missionary type of dogma repeated by other atheists on the internet?

    I'm anything but anti religious, ask anyone or read some of my topics, in philosophy or religious thread's I've posted in (including this one if memory serves), but I am a full blown, dyed in the wool athiest.

    Usually when a theist resorts to such an attack, it means they've run out of logical/reasonable argument's, what's your excuse?

  14. 13 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

    Anyway, even if there are a million concepts of God, "that does not mean does not exist".

    But it is evidence that the concept of God is man made, which strongly suggests that "does not exist" is evidential... 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.