Viviane

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 4,484 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Viviane

• 
  508

  If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future

  by DJS in

  1. social
  2. current

  scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.

  by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.

  updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Christianity is, by it's nature, anti-semitic.
• 
  79

  Death is not something to be feared!

  by iconoclastic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  science can explain how of things, but it cannot explain why of certain things (for example, why did life arise from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms only to die and disappear?

  ) so are the conflicted religions whose chief concern is in safeguarding each ones separate identity..

  next option is to look for pearls among the stonesusing power of our own reason.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Viviane, You see how people differentiate between HOW and WHY

  Of course!

  Smilarly, science may explain HOW life originated?

  In science, "how" and "why" are the same question, "how". To suggest otherwise is to simply show your lack of science education or understanding.
• 
  79

  Death is not something to be feared!

  by iconoclastic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  science can explain how of things, but it cannot explain why of certain things (for example, why did life arise from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms only to die and disappear?

  ) so are the conflicted religions whose chief concern is in safeguarding each ones separate identity..

  next option is to look for pearls among the stonesusing power of our own reason.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  I was quite clear about the fact that I was questioning an assumption I believed you rested your statement upon, not accusing you of expressing said assumption. Perhaps you also should take care.

  Well, you were wrong.

  And honestly, really, if I did "mistakenly think" you wrote something, how on earth would I be able to "discuss what I actually wrote" with you?

  I dunno, by correcting your mistaken belief, I guess.

  Either your point stands upon the shoulders of the assumption (and silent claim therein) that there are no teleological answers

  Oh, and, out of order, but, in case you don't get it, this is completely untrue. I never made any claim about the existence of teleological answers. That's where you're going off the rails.
• 
  26

  How does God view atheist and devotees?

  by iconoclastic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  1) he views devotees with disgust; because they use god as a means to fulfillment of their materialistic ends, and they constantly pester him with request to violate his own laws (principle of action and consequence).

  hence devotees are materialistic in its true sense.

  they even interpolate things into scriptures to suit their convenienceas confirmed by prophet jeremiah himself (jeremiah 7:22; 8:8).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  You seem to view BKs are invincible.

  Hey look, something else you're wrong about!
• 
  79

  Death is not something to be feared!

  by iconoclastic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  science can explain how of things, but it cannot explain why of certain things (for example, why did life arise from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms only to die and disappear?

  ) so are the conflicted religions whose chief concern is in safeguarding each ones separate identity..

  next option is to look for pearls among the stonesusing power of our own reason.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Well, this is a bit silly .... arguing semantics is *SO* boring. YAWNS.

  I know. It's SOOOO boring to use words in the right way so we understand each other. So boring you needed to jump in.

  Science asks "How?".......... whilst working on "how", science may ask "why?" in the context of seeking a verifiable theory and or explanation.

  No, it doesn't. Perhaps if this is such a boring thing, you could take the time to pop out of the discussion and read a book on science.

  *PUKE*

  That definitely sums up your post.
• 
  79

  Death is not something to be feared!

  by iconoclastic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  science can explain how of things, but it cannot explain why of certain things (for example, why did life arise from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms only to die and disappear?

  ) so are the conflicted religions whose chief concern is in safeguarding each ones separate identity..

  next option is to look for pearls among the stonesusing power of our own reason.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  In philosophy, they are not. Teleology anyone?

  I didn't mention philosophy.

  However, calling "how" and "why" the same question - is Begging the Question (gently, I'll grant), in this context.
  Your answer assumes that there is no greater "Why", that there is in fact no purpose

  It isn't and doesn't. Begging the question, is it's true form, is to reach a conclusion based on an assumption that needs as much proof as the conclusion. It is a form of circular reasoning. My answer didn't reach any conclusion, it's simply stating a fact of how science works, not assuming that there is no purpose or greater why. Should there be evidence that there is a "greater why" that "how", science will adapted evolve to handle that. As of today, however, there is zero evidence that such a thing exists.

  "How" and "Why" may very well be the same question in science, but that is hardly what the OP meant (the opening statement contains the claim that science cannot answer the why).

  Regardless of what he meant, he was wrong.

  Science avoids anything of a teleological bent, or reduces it to metaphor. To answer a teleonomic question with anything that begins "In science", is to dismiss the actual question being asked.

  The OP didn't ask a question, he made an incorrect assertion. Far from dismiss a question, I corrected his opening, incorrect premise.

  Perhaps you should discuss what I actually wrote instead of construct a faulty argument around what you mistakenly think I wrote.

  I don't think I put words in your mouth that were not there. 'Though if correction comes, corrected I will stand.

  You're standing corrected.
• 
  26

  How does God view atheist and devotees?

  by iconoclastic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  1) he views devotees with disgust; because they use god as a means to fulfillment of their materialistic ends, and they constantly pester him with request to violate his own laws (principle of action and consequence).

  hence devotees are materialistic in its true sense.

  they even interpolate things into scriptures to suit their convenienceas confirmed by prophet jeremiah himself (jeremiah 7:22; 8:8).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  WARNING: OP IS A BK CULT RECRUITER IN ACTION!
• 
  175

  Implications of gay marriage ruling

  by Rattigan350 in

  1. social
  2. current

  while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

  but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

  five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  The constitution was written late 1700s.

  To which part of the Constitution do you think I am referring? When do you think the Constitution was last updated?
  

  Are those laws interpreted? Or is it the origional meaning?

  
  Why do you think that matters?
  

  If the origional meaning, shouldn't a person have the right to defend themselfs against ink that was spilled so long ago? Isnt to live by laws written in the late 1700s, insane?

  
  Give me an example. I can't really say until I know which law you are talking about.
• 
  79

  Death is not something to be feared!

  by iconoclastic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  science can explain how of things, but it cannot explain why of certain things (for example, why did life arise from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms only to die and disappear?

  ) so are the conflicted religions whose chief concern is in safeguarding each ones separate identity..

  next option is to look for pearls among the stonesusing power of our own reason.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  He was also poetic.

  He was. The two are not mutually exclusive, as you shown, and a perfect example of how being scientifically minded doesn't mean someone is cold and distant emotionally.
• 
  46

  Another Kim Davis inspired self-invented "gay issue"

  by Simon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  what is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.

  we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.

  they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  American Fundamentalism is a recent invention, and one born of lack of education, misunderstanding and the passionate defense of those by making up easily disproven "facts" and literally distrusting education.

  Any argument based on that is bound to be pure derp.