Of course. The reason leftists claim they cannot yet produce the missing evidence to back up their conspiracy theory lies is because the evidence is locked up in an interminable leftist investigation where all the real truth can remain hidden for as long as the investigation continues. Something else that continues are Mueller's salary and perks. He seems to lack any motivations to work himself out of a job while simultaneously letting millions of leftist dogs down for lacking the evidence they had hoped he was keeping locked up safe for them.
They'll get a face-to-face with one when they die.
I’m not really scared of the results if Anubis weighs my heart. How about you?
And how does "philosophy" do that? Is philosophy a sentient being that declares the one, true definition of everything?
They'll get a face-to-face with one when they die.
I’m not really scared of the results if Anubis weighs my heart. How about you?
What evidence has anyone provided that Putin helped Trump? None. Just regurgitated leftist democrat unsupported crap. Will these democrats ever stop repeating suspect rumors until they can provide substantial evidence? Not likely.
There is evidence that Assange claims he was given DNC emails by a DNC insider and that those DNC emails derailed Hillary in 2016, not because Assange was bad, but because the emails exposed how bad Hillary really is.
Really? Why not present the irrefutable facts along with the bold claim that thus far lacks irrefutable factual support? Nevertheless, people from all over the world may have chimed in on Facebook in 2016 on one side or the other. So what? Is that illegal? Why worry about rumors that some Russians helped Trump without also worrying that some Russians helped Hillary as well, or that participants from many different of national backgrounds helped either one or the other in 2016?
Muslims gave Hillary money. Russians gave Hillary money. Who gave Trump money? What is the real crime here?
You must clearly have been ignoring the evidence uncovered by the Mueller investigation, the FBI, the intelligence community, etc. etc. etc.
And no, they will not stop repeating the truth.
Still ignoring reality because it reflects negatively on bully boy Trump I see.
According to the "bumbling bobsy twins": "Philosophy speaks for itself". "Science speaks for itself." "History speaks for itself".
This is just a childish lazy way for them to try to avoid having to explain anything or cite any sources to support their nonsense assertions.
It's basically them saying: "Because I said so, neener neener, you dummy head"
When I ask for solid evidence all I get is "there is plenty of it." If so, let's see it.
Then why do I keep hearing arguments from them?No, atheists don't do that. They make no argument at all.
There are many examples of atheistic arguments scattered throughout this particular thread, let alone this particular sub-forum, let alone this forum, let alone elsewhere...It is you claiming they make an argument, with no evidence of any actual atheist making the argument.
So, they reject the existence claim. Do they also reject the non-existence claim?Atheists don't believe in gods.
They both believe. They both make use of faith.When it comes to gods, theists believe and atheists don't believe.
They both make arguments.Neither of them make an argument.
Exactly... Theists believe that god(s) exist. Atheists believe that god(s) don't exist.They either believe in gods or they don't.
They do.According to the "bumbling bobsy twins": "Philosophy speaks for itself". "Science speaks for itself." "History speaks for itself".
Explanations have been given...This is just a childish lazy way for them to try to avoid having to explain anything
Sources have been cited... Also, Philosophy doesn't make use of outside sources.or cite any sources to support their nonsense assertions.
Inversion Fallacy; that's what YOU are doing.It's basically them saying: "Because I said so, neener neener, you dummy head"
Well, except the authorities telling us so and the Mueller indictments/guilty verdicts, there is evidence that is not yet made public. But the interference is well documented, or did you not believe facebook when it admitted to the misuses of it's pages?
Well, except the authorities telling us so and the Mueller indictments/guilty verdicts, there is evidence that is not yet made public. But the interference is well documented, or did you not believe facebook when it admitted to the misuses of it's pages?
What guilty verdicts prove the Russians gave Assange the dirty secret DNC emails and not Seth Rich? And how exactly do the guilty verdicts prove Trump had anything at all to do with the fortuitous transaction?
You clearly have no capacity to read now do you. I HAVE stated ON SEVERAL occasions IN THIS THREAD that I have not accused Trump himself of anything due to innocent until proven guilty.
That does not change the fact that the intelligence community and investigations into this have concluded that Russia interfered in the election. They might have done it just to not get a president Clinton. There is clear evidence/suspicions that they did it with members of the Trump campaign and as STATED, I DID NOT ACCUSE TRUMP HIMSELF, merely people who worked for his campaign.
Then why do I keep hearing arguments from them?
There are many examples of atheistic arguments scattered throughout this particular thread, let alone this particular sub-forum, let alone this forum, let alone elsewhere...
So, they reject the existence claim. Do they also reject the non-existence claim?
They both believe. They both make use of faith.
They both make arguments.
Exactly... Theists believe that god(s) exist. Atheists believe that god(s) don't exist.
They do.
Explanations have been given...
Sources have been cited... Also, Philosophy doesn't make use of outside sources.
Inversion Fallacy; that's what YOU are doing.
Where do you find what philosophy says?
What irrefutable proof is there that Russia gave Assange the dirty DNC emails and not Seth Rich?
Correct. Believing something is ACCEPTING an argument as true.Believing something is not making an argument.
Correct. Not believing something is REJECTING an argument as true.Neither is not believing something.
Where do you find what philosophy says?
It is YOU that is denying science, dude. It is YOU that denies the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.There was a another person called IBDaMann in their little cult of science denial
Of course they are the same phrases. These laws have not changed.who used exactly the same phrases like they were prayers.
gfm7175 is not my 'little parrot buddy'. He happens to understand the same philosophy that do. Nothing changes because of who we are.He seemed to disappear some months before gfm7175 became Into the Night's little parrot buddy.
I don't control IBDaMann or gfm. They simply understand the same concepts.I suspect he fell off his perch and ITN replaced him with gfm.
Nope. From philosophy.Your post is complete and utter bollocks. Did you get these ideas from the back of a cereal box?
Yes it is. That is all it is.Science is NOT just "a set of falsifiable theories"
Science does not disprove or prove ideas. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.*MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.
You are now denying philosophy. His reasoning for his definition was and is sound.CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses
Science does not search for evidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. People search for evidence.— that science cannot find evidence
No. A theory is not multiple arguments.that supports one idea over others.
No, it is a complete picture. Science isn't knowledge. It is a set of falsifiable theories.Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built.
They can be proven false. this happens when conflicting evidence is found.In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved.
Science does not use supporting evidence at all. It is only interested in conflicting evidence.Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence,
Nope. Once a theory is falsified, it is utterly destroyed.and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.
Berkeley does not define science. What they teach for 'science' stems from the philosophies of a man that was actually trying to show Christianity is science....deleted Holy Link...
It only uses conflicting evidence. Supporting evidence is not used in science. Literally mountains of supporting evidence mean nothing in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.Of COURSE science uses evidence. It's utterly absurd to claim it doesn't.
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' idea. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested
True. They are looking for conflicting evidence.Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas
A theory is only about one thing. It is not about multiple ideas.Performing such tests is so important to science because in science, the acceptance or rejection of a scientific idea depends upon the evidence relevant to it
Parardox. Which is it, dude?— not upon dogma, popular opinion, or tradition.
If a theory requires supporting evidence before it can exist, what is the evidence supporting??In science, ideas that are not supported by evidence are ultimately rejected."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?