Beer Virus V

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,401
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Please cite evidence that it has ever been found to be lying
    I did not expect a discussion about it. But this is INGO. So here we are. I'm sure you understand that you've asked a mostly unfalsifiable question. The supernatural claims are not testable. Therefore the claims are not falsifiable. That doesn't guarantee that they're false. But it means I can't prove that negative, because the universe of discourse is unknown. Surely you understand this.

    You have a spiritual sense that tells you it's true. And that's something I don't believe in. I haven't disparaged you for believing. I didn't even say you were wrong. I simply said that your belief is a matter of faith.

    I think belief is a deeply personal and sacred thing--not in the sense of spiritually sacred. I mean more in the venerable sense. The ability to believe is along the lines of "I think, therefore I am." Except I think the better expression is "I believe, therefore I am." So I'm not going to disparage your religious beliefs, though it might spice up the conversation if you disparage me for my non-belief. I don't think reason is the only way to get to the truth. But, I might give you a hard time if you're basing your belief on reason, and I think your reasoning is flawed.

    As far as me saying it's a matter of faith, I think it's fair that I have as much right to express my non-faith as you have to express your faith. Agreed?
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,570
    149
    Columbus, OH
    If you can cite a site that's trustworthy 100% of the time that would be dyn-o-mite outta sight!
    Foz posted this
    To which I replied ^, speaking to the 100% trustworthy requirement
    First i was gonna object on grounds of Site but then I realized few probably read the book anymore
    Then Foz indicated he wanted digital content, so I posted a site where The Word was available, thus citing a site
    It seemed you wanted a site cite
    Then you proceeded to somehow conclude that I was citing the bible to prove the bible via this post string, when all I was doing is posting a site where The Word was available. In a different post I challenged you to prove that the bible contained any falsehood, which seems to be the current criteria for being a reliable source

    Perhaps if non-believers were not so quick to fall all over themselves in their desire to mock or discredit The Word they might seem better exemplars of that 'reason' that they claim to worship
     

    NKBJ

    at the ark
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 21, 2010
    6,240
    149
    The really cool part of "now" is that The Word is rapidly manifesting in visible form, those who brought us the bank bug making it happen despite their allegiance being elsewhere.

    Now that's a spot-on definition of an unenviable position!
    But hey, they've earned it.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,401
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Foz posted this

    To which I replied ^, speaking to the 100% trustworthy requirement

    Then Foz indicated he wanted digital content, so I posted a site where The Word was available, thus citing a site

    Then you proceeded to somehow conclude that I was citing the bible to prove the bible via this post string, when all I was doing is posting a site where The Word was available. In a different post I challenged you to prove that the bible contained any falsehood, which seems to be the current criteria for being a reliable source

    Perhaps if non-believers were not so quick to fall all over themselves in their desire to mock or discredit The Word they might seem better exemplars of that 'reason' that they claim to worship
    Were you drinking when you wrote this?
     

    oze

    Mow Ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 26, 2018
    3,362
    113
    Fort Wayne
    I can understand the Cronkite thing, he was a honest reporter who at least tried(and IMO mostly if not completely succeeded) to not to let his beliefs or opinions influence his reporting and verified and vetted what he was reporting on. And to the best of my knowledge that didn't change when he became a new anchor. Wish all news reporters would do the same and could be trusted to do so.

    But I will agree with you on the opinions part. Which to the best of my knowledge he didn't share at least publicly till he retired.


    I'm not saying I agree with his current actions, just that I don't have a problem with the "science guy" persona.
    In my mind, Cronkite was largely responsible for convincing the American public that the Tet Offensive was a huge military victory for the VC, and a corresponding defeat for American troops, when it was clearly the opposite. I will never forgive that admitted liberal for his contributions to the public relation victory he gave the Communists. I place him 3rd in line, behind Johnson and McNamara for the defeat and loss of thousands on American lives in Vietnam, when the war could have ended in '72, if Operation Linebacker II had been executed as planned, rather than being hamstrung by civilians. Ho-Ho-Ho Chi Minh was ready to throw in the towel, until he was made aware of American news and the public opinion it drove. Newsreels and the voice of Cronkite convinced him that, against all odds he could win.

    Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom