• 0 Posts
  • 1.37K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 20th, 2023

help-circle

  • No they drive and that removes their pedestrian status in traffic. It is very impractical to log all accidents as “technically a pedestrian” because they had the ability to walk. The same rules apply to a tank. When it is knocked off with a drone, we don’t say “oh wow a 6 pedestrian and one tractorgun kill by a toy helicopter” because once we have a term for something it means what it means and that is useful to us


  • I don’t think we can assume someone in a traffic accident caused by an Other event was being irresistible. The few instances of Other-calling are probably insignificant in the whole when it comes to traffic accidents. It also maybe just seems impractical to be irresistible while driving? Unless you wanted to maybe make some insurance claim that the crash caused the coma and not the Other.










  • Yeah, because that’s what all religious practicioners engage in at every point of their study. I just haven’t ever heard someone whine at others for doing so without evidence, since from our adolescence we learn that people don’t come back from or report from any afterlife making every single belief about it a guess, aka belief. I don’t know what you are smoking to hold these in your head simultaneously but it seems intensely frustrating honestly.







  • I have lots of information. You require that nothing must have happened before big bang for an infinite time. None such requirement exist. It is clear you are riffing on guesses you like, and then blaming ontological philosophy yet still claim scientific realism? Since your standpoint has no scientific evidence, every other must also not. But not so. It’s not untested. It isn’t impossible to know. You just have to research the topic. You will move the goalpost out of scientific realism forever, yet never understand that infinity itself.



  • A feeling should not be the reason you convert to any religion

    My refute: it is always feelings, the alternative is science

    you are wrong

    Can you explain?

    you are wrong to even ask

    Then the other person stated how there is no logical argument, that you have to use “feelings” (explaining again the same refutal)

    you can’t expect to use science to explain

    What we refer to then is feelings?

    state my argument back at me to prove your faith, peasant

    This is this discussion so far from my viewpoint. To add to that, I have to say also that it is clearly triggering for you and difficult to discuss. I don’t mind but take a breather whenever. It makes for a better quality enlightenment.

    ( Small aside: The supposition that we don’t use science in matters of theology and metaphysics is very important to examine. What do we use? )