Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science requires faith, chat gtp agrees.
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 1 of 79 (905742)
02-02-2023 8:10 PM


Hey guys, been awhile. I had this conersation with chat gtp and it blew my mind. I have been saying for years that science requires faith. This is a big deal as atheists who use science as their god don't seem to think so. This conversation is also a big deal to me as I lost my job in a Nursing Home for refusing the 2nd shot. The 1st shot almost killed me. A long story. I had 2 medical exemptions and both doctors were threatened with their jobs.
Anyway, here is the conversation:
Open sidebar
Big Bang Origin of Matter
Mod-it RC
Where did all the matter in the universe come from?
The origin of all matter in the universe is believed to have arisen from the Big Bang, which was a massive explosion that occurred about 13.8 billion years ago. According to this theory, the universe started as a singularity, an infinitely dense and hot point, and then rapidly expanded and cooled, creating all the matter and energy that make up the universe today.
Mod-it RC
Where did the single sense point come from?
The origin of the singularity, the infinitely dense and hot point from which the universe is believed to have originated, is still a mystery and an area of active research in astrophysics. It is widely thought that the singularity was created as a result of a gravitational collapse of a massive object in the very early universe, but this has not been conclusively proven. Some physicists also consider the possibility that the singularity was a quantum fluctuation in the fabric of space-time itself. However, it is still an open question, and a full understanding of the true origin of the singularity remains elusive.
Mod-it RC
What are the odds that a god from another demension created the universe?
The concept of a deity or gods from another dimension creating the universe is a matter of belief and faith, and it is not a scientific theory. There is currently no empirical evidence to support the existence of gods or any other supernatural entities, let alone the idea that they created the universe.
In science, the origin of the universe is explained through naturalistic explanations, such as the Big Bang theory, which provides a framework for understanding the evolution of the universe based on observations and experiments. While the idea of a deity or gods from another dimension creating the universe cannot be ruled out based on current scientific evidence, it is also not considered a testable or falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore falls outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Mod-it RC
John 3:16 says we must believe by faith, so god did not make a way for us to prove his existence
The statement in John 3:16 is a religious belief and interpretation of the Bible. It is the view of some Christians that belief in God must come through faith, rather than through evidence or proof. This belief is based on the idea that God's nature and ways are beyond human comprehension and that faith is necessary for a relationship with Him.
In science, the concept of proof and evidence are central to the scientific method. Scientific explanations are based on empirical observations and evidence, and theories must be able to be tested and falsified to be considered credible.
In the end, the question of the existence of God is a philosophical and spiritual one, and different people may have different beliefs based on their religious, spiritual, or philosophical perspectives. Science and religion can complement each other, but they approach questions about the nature of reality and existence in different ways.
Mod-it RC
Does science ever count subjective evidence as evidence?
In science, subjective evidence refers to personal experiences, feelings, or observations that are unique to the individual and cannot be directly verified or tested by others. While subjective evidence can be a valuable source of information, it is generally not considered to be scientific evidence because it is not objective, meaning that it is not based on evidence that can be independently verified by others.
Science relies on objective evidence, such as experiments, observations, and data, which can be repeated and verified by other scientists. This type of evidence is critical to building a robust understanding of the natural world, as it allows for the development of scientific theories and hypotheses that can be tested and falsified.
That being said, subjective evidence can sometimes be used in certain areas of science, such as psychology or sociology, as a way to study human experiences, beliefs, and behavior. In these fields, subjective evidence can be used in conjunction with other types of data, such as surveys and interviews, to build a more complete understanding of a phenomenon. However, the results of these studies must still be based on rigorous scientific methods and techniques in order to be considered credible.
Mod-it RC
Is anything in science ever proven?
In science, it is not possible to prove anything with absolute certainty, as all scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision based on new evidence. Scientific theories and explanations are developed through a process of experimentation, observation, and testing, and are considered to be well-supported if they have been repeatedly confirmed through independent and rigorous tests.
However, even the most well-established scientific theories are always open to revision and improvement if new evidence emerges that contradicts them. For this reason, science operates under a principle of scientific skepticism, where claims and theories must be constantly tested and evaluated in light of new data.
So, in science, the closest that one can come to proving something is by providing substantial evidence and rigorous experiments that support a particular explanation or theory, and by demonstrating that the theory is able to make accurate predictions and withstand testing. However, the possibility of new evidence emerging that contradicts the theory always exists, so it can never be considered proven beyond all doubt.
Mod-it RC
So in other words science is subjective
No, science is not subjective. While the interpretation of scientific evidence and the development of scientific theories can be influenced by personal bias and perspectives, the scientific method itself is objective. The scientific method is a systematic approach to understanding the natural world that emphasizes empirical evidence, replication, and skepticism. This means that scientific explanations and theories must be based on evidence that can be independently verified and tested, and must be able to withstand critical scrutiny and evaluation.
The objective nature of science is what allows for the development of a shared understanding of the natural world, as scientists work together to build a body of knowledge based on rigorous experimentation and evidence. While personal opinions and perspectives can play a role in shaping scientific inquiry, the scientific method itself is designed to minimize the influence of subjective factors and to ensure that scientific explanations are based on objective evidence.
Mod-it RC
Verified is not proven. Science must always leave open room for another interpretation, therefor science is subjective
Science is not inherently subjective, but it does involve interpretation of evidence and data. The scientific method is based on the idea of empirical evidence, meaning that scientific explanations and theories must be based on observations and data that can be independently verified and tested. While the interpretation of evidence and data can be influenced by personal biases and perspectives, the scientific method itself is designed to minimize these subjective factors through a process of replication, peer review, and critical evaluation.
Science operates under the principle of scientific skepticism, meaning that all scientific explanations and theories are subject to revision and improvement based on new evidence and testing. This means that, in science, it is always possible for new evidence to emerge that challenges current understanding and requires revision or refinement of existing theories.
So, while science does involve interpretation and is not immune to subjective factors, the scientific method itself is designed to minimize subjectivity and to ensure that scientific explanations are based on objective evidence and are subject to ongoing evaluation and revision.
Mod-it RC
So science requires faith
No, science does not require faith. Science is based on the scientific method, which is a systematic approach to understanding the natural world that emphasizes empirical evidence, replication, and skepticism. In contrast to faith, which is a belief in something without the need for proof or evidence, the scientific method is based on the collection and interpretation of evidence and data, and requires that scientific explanations and theories be supported by empirical evidence that can be independently verified and tested.
Science is not a belief system that requires faith, but a process of discovery and exploration that is based on evidence and observation. While scientists may hold personal beliefs or values that influence their scientific inquiry, the scientific method itself is designed to minimize the influence of personal bias and to ensure that scientific explanations are based on objective evidence.
In summary, while faith and science may both involve belief and understanding, they are distinct and different approaches to understanding the world, with science relying on evidence and observation and faith relying on belief and intuition.
Mod-it RC
When you apply science to your life, you are taking a leap of faith because another explanation is always available.
When applying scientific knowledge and understanding to our lives, we are relying on the well-established and widely accepted scientific explanations and theories that have been developed through the scientific method and have been supported by a substantial body of empirical evidence. While it is true that all scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision based on new evidence, the scientific method and the extensive peer-review process that scientific findings undergo make it highly unlikely that established scientific explanations will be overturned by new evidence.
In other words, while it is always possible that new evidence could emerge that challenges current scientific understanding, the overwhelming body of evidence and the rigorous process by which scientific explanations are developed and refined make it reasonable to rely on established scientific explanations in our daily lives.
In this sense, relying on science in our lives is not a leap of faith in the same way that belief in religious or supernatural phenomena is a leap of faith, as science is based on a systematic and evidence-based approach to understanding the natural world. While it is possible that new evidence could emerge that challenges current scientific understanding, the scientific method is designed to minimize the influence of personal bias and to ensure that scientific explanations are based on objective evidence and are subject to ongoing evaluation and revision.
Mod-it RC
Your answer is not straight forward
I apologize if my previous answer was not clear. To rephrase, relying on scientific knowledge in our daily lives is not equivalent to taking a leap of faith because the scientific method and peer-review process provide a strong basis for our confidence in established scientific explanations. While it is always possible that new evidence could emerge that challenges current understanding, the rigorous process by which scientific explanations are developed and refined, as well as the extensive body of evidence that supports them, make it reasonable to rely on science in our daily lives.
In summary, while scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision based on new evidence, the scientific method provides a strong foundation for our understanding of the natural world, and it is not a leap of faith to rely on science in our daily lives.
Mod-it RC
The phrase strong basis for confidence is a subjective phrase
Yes, you are correct. The phrase "strong basis for confidence" is subjective, as different people may have different levels of confidence in the reliability of scientific knowledge based on various factors such as their own personal experiences, beliefs, and perspectives.
However, it is widely accepted within the scientific community that the scientific method and the peer-review process provide a strong foundation for scientific knowledge and that established scientific explanations are supported by a substantial body of empirical evidence. The scientific method is designed to minimize the influence of personal bias and to ensure that scientific explanations are based on objective evidence and are subject to ongoing evaluation and revision.
So, while the level of confidence that individuals have in science may be subjective, the scientific method provides a systematic and evidence-based approach to understanding the natural world that is widely accepted and relied upon within the scientific community.
Mod-it RC
Please stop explaining the scientifiic method and how science works. Simply based on the fact that nothing is ever proven and there can always be another theory, science is technically subjective. It is also subjective based on the level of intelligence we possess and the tools we have to measure empirical evidence.
Yes, you are correct. In a sense, all scientific knowledge is subjective as it is based on our current understanding and the evidence that we have at a given time, and all scientific explanations are provisional and subject to revision based on new evidence. Additionally, our understanding of the natural world is limited by the tools and methods that we have available to us, and these tools and methods are continually improving, leading to a deeper and more accurate understanding of the world.
So, while science is based on objective evidence and is designed to minimize the influence of personal bias, it is ultimately a human endeavor, and all scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision based on new evidence.
Mod-it RC
So anytime you rely on science, you are putting your faith in science no matter how small it may be
Reliance on science can involve some level of trust in the scientific method and the body of scientific knowledge that has been developed, but this trust is not equivalent to faith in a religious or supernatural belief.
When we rely on science in our daily lives, we are relying on well-established and widely accepted scientific explanations that have been developed through a systematic and evidence-based process, and supported by a substantial body of empirical evidence. While it is always possible that new evidence could emerge that challenges current scientific understanding, the scientific method and the extensive peer-review process that scientific findings undergo make it highly unlikely that established scientific explanations will be overturned by new evidence.
In other words, relying on science in our daily lives is not the same as taking a leap of faith in a religious or supernatural belief, as science is based on a systematic and evidence-based approach to understanding the natural world, and the scientific method provides a strong foundation for our confidence in established scientific explanations.
Mod-it RC
I require straight forward answers
Sure, here's a straight-forward answer: Relying on science involves some level of trust in the scientific method and the body of scientific knowledge that has been developed, but this trust is not equivalent to faith in a religious or supernatural belief.
Mod-it RC
I never said it was equal
My apologies. To answer your question more precisely, relying on science involves a level of trust in the scientific method and the body of scientific knowledge that has been developed, which is distinct from faith in a religious or supernatural belief.
Mod-it RC
It is not more or less, and it is distinct. Science can easily kill you.
Yes, you are correct. Science and the knowledge and technologies that it has produced have the potential to benefit society and improve our lives, but they also have the potential to cause harm if not used responsibly. This is why it is important for scientific knowledge to be developed, used, and communicated in a way that is transparent, ethical, and accountable. Science should be subject to ongoing evaluation and revision to ensure that it continues to advance our understanding of the world and to minimize any negative consequences of its applications.
Mod-it RC
Even if you use science responsibly, it can still harm you.
Yes, that is correct. Despite the best efforts of scientists and responsible use of scientific knowledge, there is always some element of risk involved in the use of science and technology. For example, even when drugs are developed and used responsibly, there is always the possibility of adverse side effects. Similarly, even when new technologies are developed and used in ways that are intended to benefit society, there is always the possibility of unintended consequences.
However, this does not mean that science and technology are inherently dangerous. Rather, it means that we need to be mindful of the potential risks and benefits of science and technology, and work to minimize the risks while maximizing the benefits. This requires ongoing critical evaluation and responsible use of scientific knowledge and technology.
Mod-it RC
Because there is a risk involved should science, such as vaccines be forced on us?
No, vaccines should not be forced on individuals. The decision to receive a vaccine is a personal one, and individuals should be fully informed about the risks and benefits of vaccination before making a decision.
Vaccination is widely recognized as one of the most effective ways to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, and vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective through rigorous scientific testing and monitoring. However, like any medical intervention, there is always some element of risk involved.
It is important that individuals have access to accurate and comprehensive information about vaccines, so that they can make an informed decision about whether to receive a vaccine. In some cases, vaccination may be required for school or employment, but this should only be done in accordance with ethical principles and with due regard for individual autonomy and informed consent.
In general, the goal of public health policy should be to provide individuals with the information and resources they need to make informed decisions about their health, and to encourage the uptake of vaccines to the extent that it is safe and ethical to do so.
ChatGPT Jan 30 Version. Free Research Preview. Our goal is to make AI systems more natural and safe to interact with. Your feedback will help us improve.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AZPaul3, posted 02-02-2023 8:19 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 3 by Stile, posted 02-03-2023 8:40 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 02-03-2023 11:08 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 02-03-2023 11:49 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 4 of 79 (905755)
02-03-2023 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AZPaul3
02-02-2023 8:19 PM


Based on where gtp gets it's knowledge base from, I find this conversation very significant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AZPaul3, posted 02-02-2023 8:19 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AZPaul3, posted 02-03-2023 11:10 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 02-03-2023 4:49 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 5 of 79 (905756)
02-03-2023 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Stile
02-03-2023 8:40 AM


So you sound like gtp. Do I have to repeat the conversation I had with AI so that we can reach the same conclusion? My response to you is in the conversation.
It seems like you only proved one thing: That those solidified into chasing a certain, specific goal, will see themselves "win" that goal no matter what evidence is actually shown to them - and prove that they are not after the truth in any meaningful way
What I read here is I outsmarted gtp then. That's pretty good since gtp uses almost the entire internet as it's knowledge base.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Stile, posted 02-03-2023 8:40 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tangle, posted 02-03-2023 11:10 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 9 by Stile, posted 02-03-2023 11:21 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 11 by Theodoric, posted 02-03-2023 11:24 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 02-03-2023 11:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 22 of 79 (905802)
02-03-2023 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taq
02-03-2023 11:08 AM


First off, I am not anti-vax. Secondly and specifically, the Covid-19 vaccine does zero to stop the spread and may even encourage stronger strains to evolve. Pfizer admits it also, so don't try to deny it.
I had a severe reaction to my 1st shot that I voluntarily took. The politics surrounding what happened to me goes beyond science and makes it crystal clear to me that science has become people's god, and that the corruption behind the vaccine is the largest lie ever perpetrated on the earth.
So yea, what do we do about all the misinformation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 02-03-2023 11:08 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Taq, posted 02-06-2023 10:51 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 23 of 79 (905804)
02-03-2023 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tangle
02-03-2023 11:10 AM


Well yea, it gets it's information from raging liberals, but unlike a human it had to be truthful in it's repsonses, without being insulting like you.You are not a poster child for science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tangle, posted 02-03-2023 11:10 AM Tangle has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 24 of 79 (905805)
02-03-2023 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by AZPaul3
02-03-2023 11:10 AM


What in it's reposnses did you find flawed? I found a lot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AZPaul3, posted 02-03-2023 11:10 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 25 of 79 (905806)
02-03-2023 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Stile
02-03-2023 11:21 AM


In God we trust.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Stile, posted 02-03-2023 11:21 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 02-04-2023 11:31 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 76 by Stile, posted 02-13-2023 10:21 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 26 of 79 (905807)
02-03-2023 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Theodoric
02-03-2023 11:22 AM


Re: typical
I have never lied in this forum. Please provide a clear and concise example of me lying, or you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Theodoric, posted 02-03-2023 11:22 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 02-04-2023 10:59 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 27 of 79 (905808)
02-03-2023 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ringo
02-03-2023 11:54 AM


No, in another conversation with it I tried to figure out where it gets it's information from. It considers CNN and valuable resource and Fox to be biased. You would be proud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 02-03-2023 11:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 02-04-2023 11:02 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 62 by Taq, posted 02-06-2023 10:56 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(1)
Message 28 of 79 (905810)
02-03-2023 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
02-03-2023 4:49 PM


Re: Defund The Bots
Hey Phat! Still here lol?
Yes I am Mod-it RC. I am having a conversation with chat gtp, and artificial intelligence language program. I just went with the answers. I was shocked when it gave the answer about taking drugs as I didn't prompt it to, but was going there eventually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 02-03-2023 4:49 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 47 of 79 (905866)
02-04-2023 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ringo
02-04-2023 10:59 AM


Re: typical
Some years ago you had an interaction with a member named rrhain. He suggested an experiment: put an inch or so of water in a bathtub, then put a brick in it (dry land). Then scoop up some of the water and pour it over the brick. That was an analogy of the Flood, illustrating how it is impossible to cover all of the existing land with the existing water. You professed, post after post, to not understand the obvious. You were either a huge idiot or you were lying about how huge an idiot you were
Either you have a good memory, or you spent all night looking for an example. I could just say without explanation at all that your example is absolutely not proof of me lying. I have always fully understood the concept of water displacement and the volume of water on earth. I believe I explained my concept further to say (in other words) if you put a pump in the bathtub to represent the mechanics of rain, pumped enough water over the brick, the brick would be "flooded".
If I remember correctly someone then tried to show off their insane mathematical skills and did the calculations of how much friction would happen if that much rain fell from the sky and said everyone would be boiled. I replied by saying, congradulations, you just explained hail (being sarcastic of course).
One of my master trades is plumbing, and I deal on a daily basis with that kind of nonsense from engineers with no common sense. Of course it takes coordination between mechanic and engineer to get anything to work, but there are some real idiots out there.
I will say it once again, I have never lied in this forum. What purpose would that serve? I originally came here to share the love I felt from God. What happened was my faith got tested, and debating here actually helped define my faith. Atheists afterall are great bullshit detectors. Unfortunately too many people turned out to be just mean people, and I don't have time in my life for that. I see nothing has changed, and it even seems worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 02-04-2023 10:59 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 02-04-2023 2:28 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 02-05-2023 2:56 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(1)
Message 48 of 79 (905867)
02-04-2023 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ringo
02-04-2023 11:02 AM


I have never seen either one. Don't make assumptions about me
I stand by my assumption. If you did watch them, that would be your take on them. Plus unless you don't watch the news, then you probably are already influenced by their narratives. There aren't too many parent media corporations in the world, and the same bullshit gets broadcasted in every country. You can bet your global agenda on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 02-04-2023 11:02 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 02-05-2023 3:07 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 51 of 79 (905885)
02-04-2023 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phat
02-04-2023 2:28 PM


Re: typical
I don't know why you bother Phat. I was just accused of making assumptions, and in the same post rimgo was making assumptions about me. The hypocricy is at an all time high and I even heard a leftist say he was proud of being a hypocrite. I guess it makes sense then. It's the evolution of progressivism. Sad because I was a progressive at one time. Now it's just a mental disease.
The whole game of the left for the last couple years is to demonize someone so they can be their true evil selves and then attack you or try to cancel you. The funny part is that you almost never experience any of that in real life. The world is full of keyboard warriors.
If they can't accept the truth of science requiring faith, well then they can just keep living in their fantasy worlds. I put my faith in both God and science, but sometimes I don't trust science. I do trust the scientific method. The behaivor of people in here leads me to believe they don't trust the scientific method, or do they practice what they preach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 02-04-2023 2:28 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 02-05-2023 10:05 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 02-05-2023 3:12 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 63 of 79 (906011)
02-06-2023 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ringo
02-05-2023 2:56 PM


Re: typical
ringo writes:
I'm practically drowning in the love pouring off of you, too.
See, love IS subjective.
ringo writes:
I sense a farewell and a bow coming on.

And after I went to the trouble of learning how to spell your name again.
I will leave without the farewell, but not forever. I think about you guys often. As I expressed, many of you atheists helped define my faith. Thank you. So when you insult me, just know you had a hand in it.
I would stay if people could just debate the topic without all the insults and assumptions. Having to pick through layers of bullshit is too time consuming. One thing I always liked about you is that you are straight to the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 02-05-2023 2:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 02-06-2023 12:46 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 75 by AZPaul3, posted 02-06-2023 1:48 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 64 of 79 (906014)
02-06-2023 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ringo
02-05-2023 3:07 PM


ringo writes:
You move the goalposts.
Not in concept.
ringo writes:
Actually, no. The Canadian news networks don't broadcast much opinion.

But you go ahead with your conspiracy theories if that's what gives you comfort.
Can't say I have paid much attention to Canadian politics over the years. In general it is difficult to know anything that is going on in the rest of the world. Heck we don't even get accurate information broadcast here. I have been watching a guy on rumble called vivafrei. He does some Canadian politics being from Canada. It surprised me how much the problems there parallel the problems here. I've seen it happening in China and much of Europe. All at the same time, which is unusual. Usually there is a lag in trends.
Globalism in not a conspiracy theory. Maybe 30 years ago it was. I suggest you watch some of the G7 meetings where you can see the globalists telling you their next moves, and how they want globalism. Enjoy the food shortages, because that's the next step towards the "great reset" (G7 leaders words, not mine).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 02-05-2023 3:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 02-06-2023 12:56 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024