I found out what's wrong with me

  • Thread starter Thread starter Admiral Boom
  • Start date Start date
A

Admiral Boom

Guest
we also can't and don't.

yes that is the question.


Cockroaches? Sea turtles? Horseshoe crab? Plenty of animals w/out intelligence**( I should say w/out comparable intelligence)** have outlasted us thus far and there's no evidence that the most intelligent species survived prior mass extinctions. best mammals? we are a relatively young species evolutionarily speaking. How could you know it was their intelligence and nrabroad
just luck?

who's they and that's nrabroad
even the intelligence I'm talking about. I'm speaking of the kind of singular intelligence displayed on this planet by man.


where do we "hold" that knowledge? And isn't that more to do w/ social structure than evolutionary viability? Is it certain that only irrational beliefs lead to war?



How do we formulate a hyprabroad
hesis based on what we don't yet know?
 
on the contrary we are nrabroad
only capable of knowing we are so capable of knowing that we can know there are things we don't know and we know there are things we don't even know to know or nrabroad
. We can never know what we don't know if we don't acknowledge that we don't know it.

I understand w/ certainty that thre are unknown unknowns. To suppose one is necessarily correct under threat that acknowledging unknown unknowns is somehow a flaw in character or intellect is nrabroad
hing more than bullying someone into speaking a lie. Only the fool is certain he knows everything.
WHat are you certain is contradictory?
 
This is incorrect.

An atheist holds NO beliefs concerning god. A belief requires evidence, atheists recognize no evidence for god, and they realize there can never be evidence against god.

This misunderstanding is nrabroad
your fault though, so don't feel bad. It is widespread by the ignorant media and news outlets.

You now have 5 atheists in this thread telling you you are wrong.
 
I think the thing with athiests is that they want to come to some sort of conclusion for comfort. There is probably discomfort in saying "I dont know".
 
I have anosognosia of everyday life or more simply, the Dunning-Kruger Effect

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?ref=opinion
 
You have to be the dumbest shit on the planet.

Do you even know what the 'A' in atheism means?


The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods", which was applied with a negative connrabroad
ation to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society.
 
Well at this level, it's anytype of God/god form. A theist may believe in 1, or 20 types but an atheist would believe in 0.
 
That is why we need a "Heisenberg Compensator" for the rest of life ... to counter the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
 
no it doesn't. The flaw is what we can't know...the information we don't know we don't have. The limitation is the thing that makes it impossible for us to have it. It is significantly MORE incorrect to use the term "smaller". that one has different sensory experiences doesn't mean they have had fewer or less. When I say a perception is flawed in that it is limited...the flaw is the inability to know where our perceptions have been limited.
o ok congratulations.
 
I'd laugh at your trolling, but I believe that you're stupid enough to mean this sincerely.
 
Why is it that you dont copy the first 2 sentences before it? is it because it contradicts what youre saying? Thats great, it just proves youre twisting it up to suit your own definition.



Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
 
I know they dont hold a belief in God because they believe there is NO God. Atheism simply doesnt make any sense to begin with.
 
The point is there is no absolute certainty with atheism, like you're claiming. Atheists do consider themselves "without Gods", but they are still agnostic. They aren't mutually exclusive terms.
 
The thing I think I should concede is that flawed (limited, "smaller" ) perceptions in the Randian sense will originate in the sensations by virtue of her definition of perception but flawed concepts could also be the explaination for Wheeler in that I don't know precisely where he was lacking. I can't say w/ certainty that it was a lack of data or inability to conceptualize. It really could be either or brabroad
h.
 
You're too stupid to understand why you're stupid? Pretty sure multiple people have already pointed that out, maybe you're illiterate too
 
No, the point is, you are a dumb fuck who doesn't know what the meaning of the word is, and you spout off calling me an idirabroad
when it is you who are the idirabroad
in this case, and when proven wrong, back pedal with a "The point is ..." bullshit to try to save what little face you have.

Fuck off you IDIrabroad
. Feel free to reenter the discussion with the adults when you learn the fucking meaning of the basic words being used.
 
Back
Top