Thorongil

Supposed* https://media.giphy.com/media/jsCnmU8EJDuow/giphy.gif

Yes, he's right about this.

I don't understand the grammar of the question. Are you asking for a worldview that accepts the existence of the soul but does not think the soul has ...

However, these figures are all still socially conservative, as far as I know, which to me is a primary line of demarcation between a leftist and a non...

I agree with you that it was. In fact, the opposite of what he suggested is true, I would argue. The Enlightenment was the birth of liberal Christiani...

The concept of the soul is not found in all religions. And it's likely that what you're thinking of by "the concept of the soul" is not what religions...

Yes, there are almost as many definitions as there are scholars of religion. It's certainly the largest, most protracted dispute in the field. Finding...

Dude, it's FAFSA.

True.

Psychoanalysis is fun, ain't it? Two can play at that game, but I'll be the better man and refuse.

Yes, please let's.

Nothing of the kind occurs with you and your buddies. It's a waste of time. And now I'm telling you that I'm going to stop doing that. So you would li...

Speak for yourself, bigot.

The last few pages haven't been surprising at all. People don't have straight what I said or what I was responding to at all. I'm glad I didn't descen...

If you haven't seen this script before, you're either playing dumb (most likely) or incredibly naive. I'm not wrong, but there's no use in trying to s...

You're only proving my point, yet again. I would post statistics, you would post yours. I would dispute yours, and you would disagree with that and we...

Now I'm an alt-right goon. Got it.

Yes you are baiting me into what you already know would be an utterly fruitless debate about several large politicized topics. You are never going to ...

Now you're a broken record. If the first bait didn't work, why try it again? Are you bored over there in Thailand?

You're such a transparent liar.

Stop baiting. You're just proving my point.

You would say that.

No. If you really cared you would look them up yourself. If Erik is curious, I will strike up a convo via PM. You aren't worth my time, and I think yo...

Going by anecdotal experience cuts both ways, as many blacks are racist against whites. My only contention is that the feelings you spoke of are not s...

All false or misleading at best.

Key word there. Reality is another story.

No, the point isn't about raising and nurturing, but creating a life.

Yes, only Baden and Maw are allowed to be sarcastic. When they do it, it's apparently not sarcasm, but thuper therious points being made. Right. I wil...

Wait don't tell me: they just wanted to plant flowers in Israel and sing kumbaya, of course!

Imagine the border was open and the advance of these protesters was met with no resistance. What, exactly, do you think would happen?

I find that when pressed on the alleged "nothing" out of which these particle originate, it is not nothing after all.

One reason would be that the principle is a priori. If you can establish that something has occurred for no reason at all, then be my guest. I don't t...

Right, so you were incorrect.

The reason no proof is required is that you employ the principle in trying to refute it. It is thus axiomatic.

They weren't.

Okay. Seems you're a utilitarian, then. That wasn't my argument. I'm not an antinatalist, remember. But this logic cuts both ways, so the procreator i...

No más.

No one reads.

In Kant, it's found in the CPR at the very end of the Remark on the Amphiboly of Concepts of Reflection. Schopenhauer discusses it in WWR Vol. 1, pg. ...

I think they use Latin terms, which may obscure the concepts. I can try looking it up.

This surprises me. It's a distinction found in Kant and Schopenhauer. It's crucial for Schopenhauer's soteriology in particular.

That's not atheism. That's simple non-theism. It's meant to obviate the need to argue for atheism. Your typical nu atheist who spouts this nonsense is...

No, the negation is to the obverse of the original claim, which is that scientific claims are falsifiable. So I am negating that claim by saying that ...

Is it? I seem to recall a poll on that, but I've forgotten the results. It wouldn't surprise me, as materialism is the default metaphysical position o...

I found this work to be obscurantist drivel the first time I tried reading it. Maybe I will understand it better if I have something to look for in it...

This describes relative nothing, which is similar to, as you say, the hyper-thingness of God in Aquinas. God is not a thing, and so "nothing," but not...

Yes, this eloquently describes the trap I spoke of. When we speak of absolute nothing, we're not talking about "something" to which these words refer,...

Nothing. Language is playing tricks on you. Absolute nothing cannot strictly be thought or even spoken of. Do you accept the principle of sufficient r...

I don't, that's the point. And not only don't I know it, I can't know it. I don't know. Maybe. I'd have to know more about what you mean by these term...

To know what is not is a contradiction in terms.