Forum Replies Created
-
Using the same logic evident here, I have a question:
Can we conclude that God does not exist?
There’s a lot of indirect evidence that an intelligent force could be behind at least much of what we see and detect, and many people have experienced unexplained occurrences in their lives that are difficult to explain. Other than our minds, we don’t have detectors that can find spiritual particles out there, just the same that no one has developed a way to detect dark matter.
Yet, with the logical comparisons, it seems many people have an easier time accepting the existence of dark matter than the existence of God.
Why is that? What is the logical difference here?
IMO, NMR, it’s impossible to answer your question because there isn’t any agreement on what “god” is. Across time and space, humans have had a gazillion different versions/visions of him, her, it, etc. and that alone, just the multiplicity of those conceptions of the divine, etc. etc. make it impossible to even start the search. We’d have to agree on the definition of “god” first, and the 7.3 billion humans on earth now, and the billions who have already passed on, don’t.
In short, how can you find “proof” of something without definition?
Personally, I don’t believe in a “god” of any kind, though I once did. I was raised Methodist, but then had a revelation at the age of nine while reading mythology. That revelation led to serious study of comparative myth and religion, and I’ve never looked back. I realized if there is such a multiplicity of conceptual beliefs, and myriad definitions of gods and goddesses, him, her, it, then no one vision/version could possibly be right — much less “the one true god.” It all depended upon our various cultures and indoctrination, our time and place, our birth lottery, etc. etc. Change that and we believe in something completely different, or in no deities at all.
As in, there is no “X” to solve for, therefore no “proof” of its existence is possible.
Add to that, the absurd nature of most religious texts, the physical impossibility of the bulk of their stories through time, and the fact that, especially when it comes to the three monotheisms of the Levant, no one really should even want these monsters to exist (as depicted) . . . I, personally, find the search for proof to be futile and contrary to the idea of “faith” to begin with. But to each their own, etc.
At least the Republicans had faith in democracy. They were willing to let their party burn to the ground, but…they let the people who showed up at caucuses and primaries decide WITHOUT anyone at RNC HQ deciding the outcome.
Good post Mack. More later. First, just a quick drive-by.
On the Reps not trying to fix things?
That we KNOW OF.
There were no wiki-leaks on the reps.
And I think the odds of them not playing party games are slim to none.
As you said they did maneuver to get Pence in charge of the appointments so where exactly did they play it free and fair?
…
I was thinking the same thing after reading Mac’s very good post.
If the GOP had faith in democracy, they wouldn’t have spent so much time — and decades now — trying to suppress the vote by any means necessary. Election after election, they’ve done that, by hook or crook, via slashing chances for early voting, to closing thousands of polling places in, big surprise, likely Democratic areas, to making it as difficult as possible for the poor to organize, register voters and vote themselves.
I see absolutely zero trust in our democracy from the Republicans.
And what do we call it when they block Obama from filling Scalia’s place on the Court? First they tell us that “the people should speak” by way of the next election, even though presidents are elected for four-year terms, not three. Then they changed their minds again when they thought Clinton would win. Then it was all, “We’re going to block ALL of her nominations!” Now, because Trump won the EVs, it’s “The people have spoken! This is a historical win!!” Even though it’s beginning to look like HRC will win the popular vote by several million.
Only 56% of the electorate chose to vote, and a hell of a lot of that has to do with how hard the GOP has made it to do just that. High negatives for both candidates drove a lot of that as well, of course. They were both despised by large numbers of Americans. But if the GOP really wants to claim they support our democracy, they’ll do whatever they can to make it safe, easy and ultra-convenient for everyone to do just that.
One of the best ways? Everyone should be automatically registered at age 18. Nothing to sign. You’re just automatically on the voting rolls. Period. We move the day to a Saturday, or make it a national holiday on whatever day of the week.
The GOP will never, ever go for that, because they know if every registered voter turns up, they lose the vast majority of national elections.
IMO, Dude, you need to raise your skepticism meter up to eleven whenever you see this kind of thing, and check sources. It makes no sense to try to counter the MSM’s “bias” with whacked out, fringe, tin-foil hat folks on the far right.
lol. It was a real Craigslist ad, and people screencapped it.
It’s not outside the realm of possibility that someone with tons of disposable income (Soros, maybe?) would orchestrate an inorganic protest in order to keep the movement going. It’s not a big deal, and it’s probably isolated, but it’s worth noting. I don’t see the benefit of sticking to the “these are nothing but organic and peaceful protests” narrative if there are instances where it isn’t. I mean, you don’t want your news spoon-fed to you, do you?
X,
I see fake news being spoon fed to Trump followers, and they’re eating it up.
Why post something like that, when you have no idea who created it, no idea if anyone responded to it, and no idea if it’s even real?
You don’t think we have the technology to create what looks like “screen-captures,” or change the ones we do ourselves? I did Internet and computer tech support for fifteen years, and got a communications degree before that — and Art before that one. It’s easy. Extremely easy to manipulate images anyway you want.
Again, I think you need to rev up that skepticism meter for this kind of thing at LEAST as high as you have it set for the NYT. At least.
Not sure how organic these things are, and they’re becoming increasingly less peaceful.
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 13, 2016
X,
Come on. He’s an editor for infowars. Alex Jones is his boss. Deeply paranoid far-right fringe is his internal geography, and you shouldn’t believe a word he or anyone from that site EVER says.
You think the New York Times is “biased”? Alex “Sandy Hook was a false flag operation” Jones is beyond anything the NYTimes could ever dream of being, when it comes to rabidly partisan. And I personally don’t view the Times that way. But no matter.
IMO, Dude, you need to raise your skepticism meter up to eleven whenever you see this kind of thing, and check sources. It makes no sense to try to counter the MSM’s “bias” with whacked out, fringe, tin-foil hat folks on the far right.
