Damn! Beat me to it. Usurped even
Oh, glorious pi! Why ist thou irrational so?
tomorrow is march 14 (3.14), so its known as pi day, to honour the all-important constant.. incidentally, the bible has been criticized by mathematicians because the scriptures give a very poor value of pi.. the scripture is based on 1kings 7: 23 and reads as follows:.
"and he proceeded to make the molten sea ten cubits from its one brim to its other brim, circular all around; and its height was five cubits, and it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it".
now that shape is actually mathematically impossible to construct, because if the diameter is 10 cubits, the circumference would have to be 31.4159 cubits.
Damn! Beat me to it. Usurped even
Oh, glorious pi! Why ist thou irrational so?
however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
Here we go...lol@ Twitch
Are you on drugs?
No, actually. Relevance?
however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
So you posted a quote from the UDHR that you agree has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.
I agreed to nothing, Mr. Chairman. I think the articles have some relevance to the topic. While it doesn't address or qualify a religious belief, it nonetheless supports the right to any belief and explicitly, the freedom to express opinions without interference. It says nothing of proof or criticism or what interference really means but clearly the charter encompasses critical thought under freedom of opinion and expression. So in essence, the charter does support your assertions though the question may be where the line is between one's freedom and anothers especially with regard to the topic.
But if you felt the post was irrelevant, you could've just said so in the beginning, yes?
You did
Then you proceeded to "address the person".
I didn't address the initial post to anybody in particular and posted no opinion on it. Rather than speaking to what the articles say and support, you questioned me on what I think they say and support or rather, what they don't. This does not mean you failed to address the issue, only that you did so by making it personal instead of objective. Such a distinction should be apparent
Like I said, you could've addressed the ideas directly. "While I agree with the articles, I think criticism is/is not...etc" That you chose to make it personal instead is a matter of record. It could've been a different and better conversation IMO
But while we're on the personal note, I suspect this post of the charter ruffles your feathers a bit, yes? I mean, why would you rather question me and my alleged misunderstanding of the charter's intent? Do you have a problem with me posting such ideas or the ideas themselves?
however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
Who said you failed to address the issue? I just asked if you had issue with what was posted. Clearly you do have issue with the idea it would seem. But why ask me? Can't you address the assertion directly?In what way did I fail to address the issue? I asked you a very specific question about the issue.
You could've addressed the post with "what the charter says is/is not" or "I think the charter implies that criticism is/is not" etc. I find your tack rather personal in nature, which is unnecessary but seems a pattern.
Besides I don't "owe" you anything.
Do you think that means that other people are not allowed to challenge your beliefs? Do you think that it the intention of the Declaration?
The only people that try to change other people's beliefs are religious people, in my experience. I don't listen to 'em but it's their right to espouse their beliefs, like anyone. Equality and respect, me thinks is the idea.
If the Declaration intends that beliefs shouldn't be challenged then it would say so, wouldn't it? Does It?
Would that not make all religious preaching a breach of the Declaration too?
Does it? Because if it does, then the people who wrote this should be informed.
Don't you think you have misunderstood the Declaration?
Not at all. I merely take it at face value for what it does say, not what it doesn't.
How should it read?
however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
Do you feel as if your rights are being infringed Twitch?
Do you have issue with what I posted?
If so, why?
Do you have a right to be protected from criticisms of your beliefs?
See above
Perhaps we can address the issue rather than the person, if that's agreeable to you?
however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
;)
hi, i believe that a lady is put on earth to satisfy the needs of her partner and respect his views in all matters.. i realize some here may consider that old fashioned and not based on sexual equality.. yet a lady and man are not created equal because the lady gives birth and the man must sire many children.
if you are a lady under 30 and keen to meet me, willing to cook and breed, then please message me here.
please do not contact me if you disagree with my views, we can agree to differ.
Satire is so underrated sometimes...
Lmao
i even hate to use that word worldly tm.. any way i'm probably the worst.. 1 when the jw s come to my door i say i'm not interested .
2 i have gone to many churches and volunteered.. 3 i shredded all my jw books and magazines out in the woods.. 4 had the mormon elders over and studied with them.. 5 tried pot (its legal here).
6 open carry my fire arm every where (legal here also).
It's not even a term thought of anymore
Does that count? ;)
i've never found dualism - the idea that the mind and the brain are two different substances with the mind being "immaterial" or "non-material" - a valid manner in which to address consciousness or any mysteries relating to it.
to show the reasons why i think it's bad metaphysics i'll use analogous reasoning to make a case for my newly made up "mystic essence".. for hundreds of years scientists have studied plants and animals all across the world.
but they still can't explain where ecosystems come from.
I think that guy was just thinking on too small a scale...
i've never found dualism - the idea that the mind and the brain are two different substances with the mind being "immaterial" or "non-material" - a valid manner in which to address consciousness or any mysteries relating to it.
to show the reasons why i think it's bad metaphysics i'll use analogous reasoning to make a case for my newly made up "mystic essence".. for hundreds of years scientists have studied plants and animals all across the world.
but they still can't explain where ecosystems come from.
Materialism claims that nothing exist except matter.
The idea that "nothing exists except matter" does not itself consist of matter.
Therefore materialism is self-refuting.
Bertrand Russell and his paradox would be proud