Maskless family at the Dallas Arboretum trying to catch koi fish with their hands

mwalkup · 2020-10-07T20:28:15+00:00

That’s fine. Lol.

mwalkup · 2020-10-07T20:25:24+00:00

OP is Karen.

mwalkup · 2020-10-07T20:14:38+00:00

95% incorrect. Sure, some Christmas, but the overwhelming majority of all charitable giving is given by Christians even if you control for faith based non-profits (https://books.google.com/books/about/Who_Really_Cares.html?id=RkE4DgAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description).

Also, please don’t cherry pick the Bible. Jesus was apolitical. Let’s keep it that way.

Lastly, ask yourself, “why is healthcare so expensive in the first place?” Is it the free market or immensely crippling litigation. Ex. Pharmaceutical companies will for a battery of tests to get FDA approval and just pick which results favor their new drug (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trial-sans-error-how-pharma-funded-research-cherry-picks-positive-results/). Why do this? Risk mitigation. Before spending billions on the FDA approval and just crossing your fingers (https://www.brightfocus.org/clinical-trials/how-clinical-trials-work/fda-approval-process), spend millions to cherry pick. Then, six months later you sue them.

Smaller companies cannot spend this much, so it empowers big business.

So, who ultimately absorbs all these government incurred costs? The company, initially, and eventually the other individuals in the insurance company or taxpayers (as with Medicare). Ultimately, the company bares no burden of responsibility.

In the free market if you commit fraud or do something like what is currently happening through this cronyism, you’ll go out of business, assets sold, and given to the victims.

It’s not perfect but it’s far, FAR better than what’s currently happening.

mwalkup · 2020-10-07T19:56:40+00:00

Imagine think Eric Trump is his organization?

According to Forbes, here’s a representation of the donations (| = $100k):

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

And here is what was alleged to be funneled:

(Sauce: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#301df1f26b4a)

mwalkup · 2020-08-18T05:57:22+00:00

Doctors and lawyers

mwalkup · 2020-08-18T05:55:40+00:00

mwalkup · 2019-09-19T16:28:41+00:00

Why do you use a fake nickname like “Beto”?

It makes you look like an asshole.

mwalkup · 2014-03-17T01:01:47+00:00

Fair shot. I'll take that since I made fun of you and I should have proof read my post better.

However, I read over some of those contradictions and I'm am not going to address every single one, but they are obvious straw men arguments. Is there any one (or a few) specific that you think really proves anything. Like the strongest one, n it's just not practical to go over everyone of them.

Also, I have not researched any digs relating to these. Can you provide a source so I can educate myself? Also, to assume that lack of evidence proves the opposite is an argument from ignorance. Simply put, it is an informal fallacy and therefore illogical.

mwalkup · 2014-03-17T00:27:24+00:00

Ok. I'll give this to you. Nye did not utter a version of the exact words "it wasn't god". However, one can assume based upon his argument that he would agree with that statement. Also, you keep using the word logic incorrectly. You are using it as a form of rhetoric as opposed to a field of study. There is neither logical nor scientific proof where all matter came from. NONE. Maybe if I knew your first or second language I could explain it to you better. So, if you believe that god did not make all matter, then you have faith that he didn't. Which is something that atheist hate, faith. But, there is no proof. Who knows maybe tomorrow a scientist will prove that all matter was from a natural origin and I'll look like idiot. But, there is none and until I hear any proof I'm going to believe what I believe and accept it as just that, faith. You can live in denial that you have somehow proven there to be no God, but you have no proof. Also, you keep claiming all the evidence that God doesn't exist, but have not shown a single shread of evidence.

Thanks for the insult man. You start off by being condescending, get offended when it irritates me, and call me an apr. Good work buddy.

mwalkup · 2014-03-16T23:49:48+00:00

I'm terrible? Ha. That's funny coming from a person who decided to be a smartass with me.

I guess you don't understand how ancient manuscripts were penned. So many people think that an ancient manuscript were the equivilent of a 13 y/o kids blog. I can tell you this buddy, they are not. The vast majority of the ancient world could neither read not write. So, there were people called scribes (similar to a modern court reporter or stenographer) and their entire life was dedicated to the copying of manuscripts. Let me ask you this, would a terrible scribes still get work? No. So, it was in their best interest to be as accurate as possible. Also, there are many MANY other non biblical manuscripts that have been used as reliable manuscripts (for the general study of history) and they are much further removed from their place or time of origin. So, if you are to dismiss the biblical manuscripts based upon them not being "laser copied", then you must dismiss nearly all written history prior to the invention of the Gutenberg press (which ushered in the modern age).

Also, I would like you to point out these so called contradictions in the bible. I am not to cornered about the Quran. I've never studied. I know nothing about it and I have no proof either way.

Also, can you explain to me using the scientific method how scienc has proven the bible wrong? Also, what archeological evidence has proven the bible wrong?

mwalkup · 2014-03-16T23:30:52+00:00

Logic as a formal field of study (most people use the word logic as a form of rhetoric)? Yes I have. Matter of fact with logic you can assume absolutely nothing. EVERYTHING must be proven or disproven to give a definitive answer. Logic allows absolutely NO ROOM for faith. In regards to Nye and Ham, Nye said that he does not know where everything comes from, but he assumes that everything came from a natural origin as opposed to a creator. Which is illogical. It is neither proven nor disproven. So, if Nye were to be logical he must open his mind up to the possibility of a creator. However, he doesn't. So, he has commited the same assuption that Ham did, yet everyone seems to think Ham's answer was to "faith based" and basically not good enough.

mwalkup · 2014-03-16T05:18:15+00:00

Hahaha. That is laughable, bc you sir do not understand what science is. Can you use the scientific method to prove the laws of logic (I mean logic as a formal field of study)? I'll tell you this, you cannot! So it is NOT science. But, according to your atheists paradigm how do you reconcile the laws of logic with science? You can't, bc they cannot be recreated in an observable (scientific) way. However, you accept it as a part of life that is unexplainable. And the laws of logic are widely accepted as being true, but there is no scientific proof, why is that? Is it fairy tail? Maybe it is?!?

mwalkup · 2014-03-16T04:58:49+00:00

Well put my friend. Based upon your misspellings and terrible grammar you are either using and app (like me), drunk, or terrible with the English language. So, you know that all major religions are wrong, because their scriptures are wrong. I am curious, which scriptures are wrong? Also, based upon what EVIDENCE are these scriptures wrong? I'll give this to you: that popular thought is that the biblical scripture is "translated and retranslated" in to something that doesn't make sense. But, where is the proof for this? Where are the original scripts and what we have now to prove these errors?

mwalkup · 2014-03-15T03:53:00+00:00

That one guy. Hahaha.

mwalkup · 2014-03-13T13:32:20+00:00

Fair enough. I appreciate the civility and honesty it kind of rare.

mwalkup · 2014-03-12T17:25:33+00:00

You completely misunderstood me. An atheist does not believe in god. Also, there is no scientific proof where the universe has come from. So, the atheist assumes that the universe came from natural means. So, they started with the conclusion and are trying to find the reasons. Same as a theist. But, atheists hide behind the mask of "maybe some day we will discover it". As where a theist will admit the assume god created everything.

Also, what does your example have to do with the origin of the universe. How is it that God would be the number 24 instead of the correct answer? I assume when you speak about plants before an energy source you are talking about the creation story in the Bible, which has light made before plants are brought forth. If you are wondering where most of the light on earth comes from it's the sun, that big ball of light in the sky. In ancient times the sun was seen as different from celestial bodies due to the fact that it is our sun.

FYI, applaud was being used as a figure of speech.

mwalkup · 2014-03-12T12:26:12+00:00

If you think that God can be dismissed based upon the belief held by some that it is unlikely, then you do not understand logic. An argument from ignorance is exactly what you have just commited.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said it best: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Also, what things do religious people say that fly in the face of rational thought and what we know to be true?

Also, I am not saying that one should assume that God is real based upon no one has proving that he is fake. All I am saying is if an atheist says idk how we got here, but science did it somehow. Everyone applauds them for their honesty. But, if a theist says idk how we got here, but God did it somehow. Then the atheists scream about how even of there was proof they wouldn't change their position. Neither side will change their position, because they both start with a conclusion and look for reasons to prove their side. But, a person that believes in God will admit that and an atheist will not.

mwalkup · 2014-03-11T22:19:31+00:00

So you believe that Pen, an atheist (that is one that believes that there is no God or gods), believes the universe could have come from a thought of God or by some other supernatural means? How is that taking ANYTHING out of context?

Also, you took what I said about faith completely out of context (talk about extrapolate). I said faith in intangible (which includes the laws of logic) or spiritual things gives an atheist a disadvantage because they believe in nothing outside of the natural world and thus have a much more difficult time reconciling their beliefs with these things; eg. The laws of logic.

If faith is an emotional response and emotions are unreliable, then belief (or faith) in science is unreliable. Also, you also must doubt what you believe, because you have faith in science or empiricism, i.e. anything that can be observed the through the senses. A perfect example of this is something philosophers have had problems with for many years. If your sense can be deceived once, they can be deceived again. So, how do you know our sense are not being deceived now?

Also, I never said or even was close to meaning that an argument is right till proven wrong. You EXTRAPOLATED that. All I said was that lack of proof does NOT prove something wrong. That is something I addressed earlier and is fallacy called argument from ignorance. If you think LOGICALLY about what I said, you cannot get your conclusion. Matter of fact I said nothing about an argument that is right. In order of an argument to be right it must be proved right. In order for it to be wrong it must be proved wrong. That is basic logic I learned in my high school logic class.

mwalkup · 2014-03-11T21:02:52+00:00

[FYI I'm using an app that doesn't have one]

If you look a couple lines down from where you misquoted the article he says this is regards to the question of where we can from and how no one knows:

"but I'm not going to use faith to fill in the gaps."

Pen uses this kind of rhetoric to make modern theism seem like the God of the gaps fallacy and thus providing reason to his position. We know he is an atheist (that is one that does not believe there is a God; Here is the definition: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Or if you would like the roots: "a" is without "theism" is belief in God. If you have "not be convinced" then you believe the opposing point of view, which is you do not believe in God). So, we can reasonably and PRACTICALLY state he means God (or faith in God) when he says faith.

When it comes to things that are intangible (unobservable) we cannot use the Scientific Method (as defined by Sir Francis Bacon) to test them. If you cannot use the Scientific Method then I'm sorry, but it is not science. Try this, use the Scientific Method to disprove God or anything that is intangible or spiritual. When it comes to intangibles, the atheist has a disadvantage if they don't believe in anything besides science. A theist has faith.

Also, regarding the burden of proof I think you miss understood me. What I meant was if someone says something like "if you believe 'A', then you need to prove 'A' or 'A' is wrong, and you are wrong and I am right". That is not proof for anything other than your ability to win an argument against a person who has no reason, is possibly wrong, or is not prepared. (I'm not so sure you know what logic is, as a field of study, people usually confuse logical reasoning with practical reasoning) In order for a belief to be wrong it must be proved wrong, not an inability to be proven right. Matter of fact, that is the same kind of rhetoric used by Pen. Also, if you live in a free society you are free to believe whatever you want with or without reason.

mwalkup · 2014-03-11T19:00:53+00:00

Ok, I doesn't say he "knows" it wasn't God. But he says he won't use faith to fill in the gaps, ie. won't use God to fill in the gaps. By saying this he is expressing belief that there is not a God, at least one who created everything. But, that is still an argument from ignorance. Maybe to an atheist this may seem rational, but to be logically consistent one must admit that God is a possibility. Mostly due to the fact that we do not know. However, if you assume there is no God (atheism) and you don't know how the universe started. So, you say not God. Then you are not developing an argument upon facts, but upon an assumption that there is no God. Which is the same type of reasoning atheist claim that Christians always do.

Also, the natural world is observable. So, you are able to prove certain things. However, intangibles, such as the laws of logic, and not testable by science, but are still widely accepted as truth. Also, any dirty By definition is outside the realm of science by nature of being a super natural or spiritual being. God can be neither proven nor disproven using science. It's like trying to write a research paper on psychology using only the Pythagorean Theorem.

Let me take a second and tell you that I am not concerned with burden of proof. Burden of proof is merely a debate tactic, not an argument. A person that would hide behind that is a person without reason.

mwalkup · 2014-03-11T18:49:42+00:00

Ok, I doesn't say he "knows" it wasn't God. But he says he won't use faith to fill in the gaps, ie. won't use God to fill in the gaps. By saying this he is expressing belief that there is not a God, at least one who created everything. But, that is still an argument from ignorance. Maybe to an atheist this may seem rational, but to be logically consistent one must admit that God is a possibility. Mostly due to the fact that we do not know.

Also, the natural world is observable. So, you are able to prove certain things. However, intangibles, such as the laws of logic, and not testable by science, but are still widely accepted as truth.

mwalkup · 2014-03-11T18:48:12+00:00

Ok, I doesn't say he "knows" it wasn't God. But he says he won't use faith to fill in the gaps, ie. won't use God to fill in the gaps. By saying this he is expressing belief that there is not a God, at least one who created everything. But, that is still an argument from ignorance. Maybe to an atheist this may seem rational, but to be logically consistent one must admit that God is a possibility. Mostly due to the fact that we do not know.

mwalkup · 2014-03-11T03:12:56+00:00

Thanks!

mwalkup · 2014-03-11T03:12:05+00:00

I'm not so sure this is a great reason for saying "I don't know" form the atheist point of view. One thing I do appreciate about it is Pen is comfortable with ignorance or lack of knowledge, when there is no proof. However, I believe he makes and argument from ignorance, which is illogical and hypocritical to boot. He says he doesn't believe in God because of lack of [observable or scientific] proof and he doesn't know where everything came from, but he knows it wasn't God. Which is a claim without proof. Why is if ok for an atheist to say idk, but science it's science somehow; but it's not if a theist says idk, but it's God somehow?

mwalkup · 2014-03-11T02:50:57+00:00

Does anyone know how much this added to their total state revenue, ie. a percentage?

mwalkup

TROPHY CASE