Will the apocalypse happen?

[Omnonia]

Prove it.

You will fail.

Correct, but likewise, no proof has been brought forth for the non-existence. Agnosticism (whether agnostic theism or agnostic atheism) is the only stance on "the god question" that is actually supported by evidence.

"Strong atheism" is just another form of blind religious faith.

[The Portland Territory]

Should we bring this to the CDS?

[West Esung]

Do I hear the mods coming to intervene?

[Omnonia]

Do I hear the mods coming to intervene?

Probably soon. *watches skies for signs of ominous looming*

Not by god, though. Different initial consonant.

[The Antichrist Trump]

Should we bring this to the CDS?

What's CDS?

[Godular]

I doubt they were truly third parties.

Doubt as you may, but they were.

Doubtful.

What's there to say that I should doubt that Global Warming statistics were botched because it would allow the Left to rise?

Because they can be repeated. Also, the dem/repub opposition on the issue does more harm than anything. There are ways to resolve the issue that don't involve leaving coal-miners in the cold and whatnot, but ideology has obfuscated the issue.

[Tierra de Gohni]

I don't believe in an apocalypse, but everythung can happen...

[Ifreann]

For things to be coincidental they would have to be true.

Are you saying that Scientific research done by third parties is fake?

I'm saying I don't believe you.

[Heloin]

Prove it.

You will fail.



Bleeding Eucharist? You mean like the one in India where it was shown to be a rusted pipe leaking on it?

I heard the congregation practically ran the guy out of the country for shitting up their narrative.

No, I mean the ones like in Poland, Portugal, France, America, and Italy. The ones where blood tests were done by third parties

You fucking think testing a rusted pipe will get a type AB blood type?

You do know most cases of "Bleeding Statutes" have been disavowed by higher ups in the church, the ones that haven't been aren't even considered relevant enough to bother with. As for the third party testers, conformation bias is a thing.

[The Portland Territory]

Are you saying that Scientific research done by third parties is fake?

I'm saying I don't believe you.

Ok, you dont have to. But if youre typing to me rn, then you can look it up yourself

[The Sixth District]

Of course the apocalypse will happen. It's just a matter of time.


Or maybe it won't. I'm not much of an astrophysicist/religious philosopher.

[The Portland Territory]

Doubt as you may, but they were.

Doubtful.

What's there to say that I should doubt that Global Warming statistics were botched because it would allow the Left to rise?

Because they can be repeated. Also, the dem/repub opposition on the issue does more harm than anything. There are ways to resolve the issue that don't involve leaving coal-miners in the cold and whatnot, but ideology has obfuscated the issue.

The hell does "Repeated' mean?

Also, I agree. Over the months, I've become more of a "Green Conservative". CO2 tax or even a cap-and-trade should help a lot, as well as car emissions limit

[Godular]

Prove it.

You will fail.

Correct, but likewise, no proof has been brought forth for the non-existence.

Irrelevant. The burden of proof is on the party making the positive statement. If no evidence supporting that positive statement can be produced, then there is no reason to accept that anybody's god-claim is anything more than being overly invested in their imaginary friend.

Agnosticism (whether agnostic theism or agnostic atheism) is the only stance on "the god question" that is actually supported by evidence.

"Strong atheism" is just another form of blind religious faith.

Incorrect. Agnosticism and Atheism are two different axes. My position is that I acknowledge the inability to prove no God exists, but I'm not the one with something to prove.

[Minoa]

I’m probably the worst person to try and predict the end of the world, having being vulnerable to falling for conspiracy theories, often struggling not to fall for the worst the case scenarios associated with Trump’s actions, and trying to understand that the doomsday nonsense is just that.

[The Portland Territory]

No, I mean the ones like in Poland, Portugal, France, America, and Italy. The ones where blood tests were done by third parties

You fucking think testing a rusted pipe will get a type AB blood type?

You do know most cases of "Bleeding Statutes" have been disavowed by higher ups in the church, the ones that haven't been aren't even considered relevant enough to bother with. As for the third party testers, conformation bias is a thing.

Ah yes, the higher ups in the church that are pandering to modernism and spreading heresy amongst it's people for the past many decades

Those higher ups

[Godular]

Doubtful.



Because they can be repeated. Also, the dem/repub opposition on the issue does more harm than anything. There are ways to resolve the issue that don't involve leaving coal-miners in the cold and whatnot, but ideology has obfuscated the issue.

The hell does "Repeated' mean?

Also, I agree. Over the months, I've become more of a "Green Conservative". CO2 tax or even a cap-and-trade should help a lot, as well as car emissions limit

Repeated. On command. By anybody. No matter what their faith.

[Ifreann]

I'm saying I don't believe you.

Ok, you dont have to. But if youre typing to me rn, then you can look it up yourself

I did. I still don't believe you.

[The Portland Territory]

The hell does "Repeated' mean?

Also, I agree. Over the months, I've become more of a "Green Conservative". CO2 tax or even a cap-and-trade should help a lot, as well as car emissions limit

Repeated. On command. By anybody. No matter what their faith.

What their faith, sure, but their politics.........?

[Godular]

You do know most cases of "Bleeding Statutes" have been disavowed by higher ups in the church, the ones that haven't been aren't even considered relevant enough to bother with. As for the third party testers, conformation bias is a thing.

Ah yes, the higher ups in the church that are pandering to modernism and spreading heresy amongst it's people for the past many decades

Those higher ups

Seems like you only care about what the voice of god says if it agrees with your existing narrative.

Hmm.

[The Sixth District]

Repeated. On command. By anybody. No matter what their faith.

What their faith, sure, but their politics.........?

If a scientific experiment has easily repeatable results, it is significantly more likely that it's true. The method to an experiment isn't (or shouldn't be, at least) affected by political views.

[Godular]

Repeated. On command. By anybody. No matter what their faith.

What their faith, sure, but their politics.........?

Pfft. Quibbling.

[United Massachusetts]

1.) There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2.) It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3.) To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4.) If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5.) Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

Taken from:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/cause.shtml

Oh that dumb-as-shit first cause argument that Aquinas lobbed out because he couldn't fathom the idea of something existing before the beginning!

How about this: If all you have is wordplay that makes assumptions you can't back up, you ain't got shit.

Still waiting for a real response.

[The Portland Territory]

Ah yes, the higher ups in the church that are pandering to modernism and spreading heresy amongst it's people for the past many decades

Those higher ups

Seems like you only care about what the voice of god says if it agrees with your existing narrative.

Hmm.

I also listen to priests and theologians who have remained faithful to the true faith

[The Sixth District]

Seems like you only care about what the voice of god says if it agrees with your existing narrative.

Hmm.

I also listen to priests and theologians who have remained faithful to the true faith

Who determines what "the true faith" is?

[The Portland Territory]

What their faith, sure, but their politics.........?

If a scientific experiment has easily repeatable results, it is significantly more likely that it's true. The method to an experiment isn't (or shouldn't be, at least) affected by political views.

EXACTLY

I'm trying to make a point here. You can't botch blood type results done by third party scientists who have done it multiple times on multiple Eucharists

What their faith, sure, but their politics.........?

Pfft. Quibbling.

I'm trying to make a point here, so yes, quibbling