Religious Typology Quiz

Cypress said:
I think the invisible unicorn rhetorical trick is widely used to invalidate and belittle anyone who is uncertain that all true, certain, and omniscient knowledge about reality can be found in a test tube or particle accelerator.
Click to expand...

And I have now said on NUMEROUS occasions no offense was intended. Yet you still refuse to engage the point. I can only assume that at this point you are avoiding the point.

Again, my apologies for the perceived slight. It was NOT intended. I don't know how much more clear I could be. If you wish to take umbrage that is fine and I am clearly at fault for making this mistake. I just wish it was possible to resalvage the point but it is clear that you will have none of that which is your right.

Thanks and sorry (again).
 
Doc Dutch said:
Sorry, not saying you did. Text is among the shittiest forms of human communication because there's no facial expressions, body language, inflection, tone, etc. It's one reason why I like using memes and emojis as enhancers to posts.
Click to expand...

So I failed to use enough cartoons in the discussion of teleology? That's unfortuante.
 
Cypress said:
I think the invisible unicorn rhetorical trick is widely used to invalidate and belittle anyone who is uncertain that all true, certain, and omniscient knowledge about reality can be found in a test tube or particle accelerator.
Click to expand...
Oh, lighten up, are you crabby today?
 
BidenPresident said:
You are not very informed or interesting.
Click to expand...

That is highly possible. And I can see I won't gain information from interaction with you.

You're just a boring person who thinks copying something from wiki makes you an expert.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've copied anything from Wiki have I? If I did I don't remember it. NOR do I think myself an "expert" on anything. I'm not that bright.
 
NovoJank said:
That is highly possible. And I can see I won't gain information from interaction with you.



I don't think I've copied anything from Wiki have I? If I did I don't remember it. NOR do I think myself an "expert" on anything. I'm not that bright.
Click to expand...

Agree. You are not bright. I think we are done.
 
NovoJank said:
So I failed to use enough cartoons in the discussion of teleology? That's unfortuante.
Click to expand...

No. You failed to use enough "cartoons" when you are joking or being "goofy".

Consider the following:

  1. Fuck you.
  3. Fuck you.
  5. Fuck you.

Which one is the joke, which is serious and which is just a friendly example?

NovoJank said:
Have I done something to offend? Honest the ONLY reason I used a "unicorn" was just for silliness sake. NOT intended to be a mockery of you or anything. It was just a goofy addition.
Click to expand...
 
NovoJank said:
BidenPresident said:
We were not disagreeing on anything. I don't give a shit what you think is weird.
Click to expand...
That is fine. Thanks
Click to expand...
Earlier you and I had a discussion about people posting they don't care.

Just looking for outside observations, but what is your opinion of Ms. BP's comment? Do you think she really doesn't "give a shit" or do you think she's just saying for reasons that are unclear and that she really does give a shit?
 
NovoJank said:
And I have now said on NUMEROUS occasions no offense was intended. Yet you still refuse to engage the point. I can only assume that at this point you are avoiding the point.

Again, my apologies for the perceived slight. It was NOT intended. I don't know how much more clear I could be. If you wish to take umbrage that is fine and I am clearly at fault for making this mistake. I just wish it was possible to resalvage the point but it is clear that you will have none of that which is your right.

Thanks and sorry (again).
Click to expand...

No problem.

The invisible unicorn trick assumes that observation and sensory perception are all that matters in acquiring true, universal, and certain knowledge.

If science has taught us anything it's that we have to transcend experience and sensory perception in any quest for knowledge. Nearly all modern scientific knowledge transcends experience and sensory observation.

If someone says to me that the only knowledge I can have is by experience and observation, I would tell them the epistemology of John Locke was sorta discredited about 150 years ago.

There are many things I believe, suspect, or remain agnostic about which are not within the range of my sensory perception, and may not be resolvable with mathmatical equations or laboratory equipment.

At this point, whether matter is actually real or meaningful to talk about is open to debate, assuming string theory or M theory are on the right track. I believe in equality and justice, even though there is no mathmatical basis behind it, they completely transcend experience, and there is no known law of biology that requires it.

There's lots of things to believe in which transcend experience and observation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top