antiskeptic wrote: » Without empirical experience I doubt your onlooker would have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Have they got empirical experience?
antiskeptic wrote: » Not in the least. a) I've met God. You could begin to imagine, from say, the size of the universe, that something like that would be a cosmic scale event. Someone attempting a proof of empiricism would be throwing ball bearings at an ocean liner in the attempt to sink it, in comparison. b) I understand why they think as they do - the bible gives a pretty good manual as to how the world works.
antiskeptic wrote: » To you? That's not the set up. The set up is to an impartial onlooker, remember? And we haven't got one yet, other than by waving a magic wand. As I say, if they've no empirical experience then you won't be getting far with them, will you?
Mark Hamill wrote: » Are you saying you can't support your own argument without empirical evidence? They have whatever evidence and arguments you give them.
But the other people also say this, with as much conviction as you. There are people who have died, so much is their conviction in their contradictory (to your) beliefs. How can you tell which of the equal but contradictory convictions (yours or theirs) is actually accurate when the simple existence of that conviction can't mean anything?
And saying that all religions and philosophies are fundamentally about the same 1 God vs Satan, even if true (and I'm sure Shintoists, Hinduists and plenty of others would have something so say about that), really just shifts the goalposts to asking the question in terms of your contradictory interpretation of that 1 God vs Satan.
Is there anything, being just being sure of yourself, that makes you so sure of yourself?
The set up is me asking you how you would do it.
Why can't you even try?
Is it not easier to justify yourself to someone who isn't approaching your claims from an inherently empirical, and therefore quite so contradictory, pov?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Your friendly moderator is beginning to wonder what all of this talk of impartial empirical sauce etc has to do with LGBT sense and nonsense and a certain Australian (ex?) rugby player. It's beginning to look an awful lot like a very wordy discussion on the existence of a deity and whether he/she/they prefer Hollandaise or béarnaise or possibly BBQ. May we please get back to the nonsense topic of the thread and those who wish to continue the saucy discussion can do so in a thread dedicated to all thing diety culinary.
antiskeptic wrote: » Fair point. Mark, by all means bring your deity to a new thread. I'll bring mine too.
Majority in Brazil's top court to make homophobia and transphobia crimes
Brazil has the world's biggest Catholic population but also a growing number of young, educated urban liberals who are eager to fight for gay and trans rights.
he would rather have a dead son than a homosexual son
Bannasidhe wrote: » Sooo... any news on Israel Falou?
robindch wrote: » Izzy serious? Well, let's see - Mr Folau needs money. Specifically, he needs your money and he needs lots of it. Any cash you have which you can spare for this excellent cause, you can hand over here - $400,000 of $3,000,000 has already been donated:https://www.gofundme.com/israel-folau-legal-action-fund
magicbastarder wrote: » re the thread title, do we know what peak LGBT nonsense actually looks like? what *is* saturation point, and can it be scientifically defined? is it when gaiety gets so concentrated it actually starts crystallising in the air, and could we treat it as a renewable energy source if so?
smacl wrote: » Got front row tickets booked for the whole family for the Rocky Horror Picture show in a couple of weeks so rather looking forward to some LGTB nonsense. Got to love those sweet transvestites from transsexual Transylvania
Israel Folau: Rugby star's fundraiser shut down over anti-gay views
GoFundMe said the page violated its rules. All donations will be refunded. "As a company, we are absolutely committed to the fight for equality for LGBTIQ+ people and fostering an environment of inclusivity," said spokeswoman Nicola Britton. "While we welcome GoFundMe's engaging in diverse civil debate, we do not tolerate the promotion of discrimination or exclusion."
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Where's that, smacl?
Cabaal wrote: » . . . He has a point to be fair,
Bannasidhe wrote: » I can genuinely sing (use of the term 'sing' is loosely applied) every single song from the opening credits to the closing credits in the correct order. I am only allowed to do this while alone in my car as apparently it's the zenith of LGBT nonsense.
smacl wrote: » Live show is great big dress up party and one of the singey alongiest shows for the musically challenged known to man, take it from one who knows. Third time going as a family, always a blast and as Kenny Everett used to say, all done in the best possible taste. Dithering whether to go as Brad, Janet or Frankenfurter this year.
Peregrinus wrote: » But, to be even fairer, I don't think he has much of a point. Not a fan of Folau or his views, but unless he is saying "Donate to me instead of the kid with cancer!" I don't see that he is saying he is more deserving of the donations than the kid. Or, if he is, then every single person who is running a gofundme appeal for anything at all is saying that. Which doesn't seem right.
uptherebels wrote: » Folau dug the hole he found himself in and now wants other to help get him out. According to some news reports I've seen he has a multi million property portfolio, so even less sympathy from me.
Bannasidhe wrote: It would appear that Israel is also very familiar with the concept of small print and Terms and Conditions:
eagle eye wrote: » So you think that he wrote that and not one of his legal representatives?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Does it matter? It's the declaimer posted on his now defunct go-fund me page - he approved it. Or are you suggesting that Israel Falou is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and doesn't understand how terms and conditions work and needs someone to explain it all to him? Using crayons perhaps? Next up: How Falou didn't actually understand the first warning he received from his employers as his legal representatives had run out of red crayons.
Bannasidhe wrote: Does it matter? It's the declaimer posted on his now defunct go-fund me page - he approved it. Or are you suggesting that Israel Falou is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and doesn't understand how terms and conditions work and needs someone to explain it all to him? Using crayons perhaps?
Bannasidhe wrote: Does it matter? It's the declaimer posted on his now defunct go-fund me page - he approved it. Or are you suggesting that Israel Falou is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and doesn't understand how terms and conditions work and needs someone to explain it all to him? Using crayons perhaps? Next up: How Falou didn't actually understand the first warning he received from his employers as his legal representatives had run out of red crayons.
magicbastarder wrote: it's an interesting pitch from his lawyers so, if true. 'hey, how about we ask the public to pay your legal fees but tell them you're not actually going to use it to pay us? don't worry, this is standard legal practice.'
The Specialist wrote: Christians generally require crayon drawings on issues of morality so I wouldn’t be surprised.
eagle eye wrote: » Look, I'm just pointing out that it's very likely one of his legal team wrote it. It's weird being on the bar side of this when I don't agree with anything he says. I feel like there is nobody able to have a bit if cop on about the whole thing. I do believe he should have the right to air his opinions on things. I don't believe that what he said was homophobic because it is just religious belief. He isn't wishing ill will on anybody and it's not hate speech either. I'm sure there is some legal reason for why it was put that way. Yes, a hell of a lot of them are not very bright.
eagle eye wrote: » The crucial thing is that he just asked people to repent, no more, no less.
