DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump and Republicans Making America Great Again

Moving on. Moving past. Disengaging.
Next.

Until MGH brings up religion when I'm talking about politics, right? Go back and look. I was talking about ONTOLOGY in response to a statement about science denying. MGH brought up religion. In the other thread, I was talking about POLITICS, MGH brought up religion. I try to talk about politics and invariably someone brings up religion. Interesting.

And I'm the one who keeps getting accused of bringing up religion

You brought up God when I wasn't talking about religion. GO back and find the last time in this thread I mentioned religion. Ontology is not a religion. So why did you bring up religion?

You're the culprit who brought up religion again, not me.



I went back in history to February 18. I can find no mention by myself of God or religion in this thread UNTIL MGH brought it up, I think yesterday, when I was talking about the philosophical branch of ONTOLOGY

j/c:

'US and Taliban sign peace deal that will send ALL American troops home in 14 months and pave way to end of 18-year Afghanistan war'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...al-Taliban.html

I hope this happens but I won't believe we are bring our troops home until they are home.

So we never have got a chance to meet up and drink some of this yet

I believe you are mistaken again. It's okay - I do it quite a bit too. But on this issue - which is the last I'll write, I'll correct you one more time.

In the other thread - Religion and jesus was introduced before I ever engaged. And my initial post was to comment on how I think you mis-represented a quote from the bible about throwing stones and whether it can only mean using objects to cause harm.

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/1728797/19

A few pages later YOU were the first person to mention MORALS in any way shape or form.

On THIS thread you brought up Ontological Naturalism.... and while you did not specifically tie that to religion or God - your insistance in crushing the concept of Ontological Naturalism as a circular argument seems to me tied directly to there being something else (like religion or God) .... and if you think that's a step too far I disagree.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ligion_Relation

It's a pretty straightforward link.

Go ahead an have the last word - because that's clearly what you do. Please go ahead and change the narrative or re-frame the discussion points. So far every time i spend time spelling out something you ignore 90% of my post and change the narrative.

I did not bring up religion IN THIS THREAD that I know of, and I went back almost two weeks

Ontology is a philosophical branch, not a religious topic

Prepare yourself for a good ole fashion thumping! Lol

No Mas !

Thanks

Why did I bring up Ontological Naturalism.

a. Ontological Naturalism is a philosophical WORLDVIEW, and worldview is deeply connected to politics

b Worldviews are connected to our presuppositions

c. Presuppositions have an effect on how we interpret data.

d. How we interpret data has an effect on how we think about and feel about issues.

e. How we think and feel about issues has an effect on how we vote.

You vote based on on how you view the issues, and that is largely determined on how you interpret data, and how you interpret data is based on your presuppositions, and your presuppositions are connected to your philosophical worldview, whatever that may be

And you and I and everyone else has one ULTIMATE presupposition that underlies all the rest of those presuppositions. For many, that ultimate presupposition is "nature is all that exists". For others, it is empiricism. But these cannot be verified or falsified any more than any other presupposition. So we're basically all in the same boat.

Except I have something else that you don't know about. Something that can be falsified and verified. and it has been verified. But I can't bring it up, because it is a subject that is not allowed here. But it is something you are not aware of, and it can be falsified, and it has been verified. And it is not allowed to be discussed. And it has nothing to do with religion

Nice talking to you all

It sounds like you plan on voting for evil again.

You need to build yourself a church. You won't be converting parishioners here.

Hey Pit, I'm not talking about religion...stop bringing up religion. Another guy bringing up religion so someone else can accuse me of talking about religion. LOL

That's Mr. George to you.

Not trying to build a parish. Philosophical Worldviews are not religions

Wby should I think any of the Dem candidates will do better than Trump has done? Convince me.

On a scale of 1-10, I give Bernie a minus 5, based on his history, his Socialistic platform, and his association with anti semite, which is strange, seeing he is Jewish.

I could do better than Trump has done. Convince me I'm wrong.

Lay out your credentials and your qualifications, and we can debate it.

There’s a lot of people on thus board that can do a better job.

One example is that 100% of us wouldn’t waste our time starting beefs with SNL on Twitter.

That alone makes more qualified than trump.

As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.

Lay out Trump's.

A business man running a family business with no oversight? Or would compulsive liar be a better item on his resume'?

And since he refuses to show his tax returns you can avoid the "theory" of billionaire.

OHHH MY...BIG DEAL

You have to do better than that, Pit.

Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!

I guess you must have missed that it wasn't me who posted this. It was Swish.

We can add that to the long list of things you are missing.

Is there a law stating he must release his tax returns?

Oh, I'm sorry. I wonder on what basis Swish thinks Trump is wrong for not releasing his tax returns.

At what cost? Have they figured that out yet?

Ok

I dont have 6 bankruptcies on my record. I have 8 years in the military, 4 deployments, compared to the guy who dodged the draft.

I’ve been married 12 years to one woman (score one for the family values crowd), don’t golf, don’t tweet, and am smart enough to surround myself with people smarter than me, not loyalist yes men.

On what basis do you think that Trump should release his tax returns?

At that point in a race against Trump you have an unassailable lead.

I appreciate your service. But what does this have to do with the job he's done as president.

On what basis is one marriage better than numerous marriages in a naturalistic worldview?

Would you rather have a president who once supported a candidate that once said "soldiers should turn their weapons on their officers"? Or do you support someone other than Sanders? If so, who?

Yep all that qualifies Swish to be a president. Sure.

Would you be in-favor of bringing back slavery? Our nation allowed such things in the beginning, and our nation was built on the backs of slaves.

well arent we talking about qualifications?

my qualifications to run are certainly better than Trump's were in 15-16. you havent listed ANY qualifications he had to run.

why cant you do what Pit asked and list his qualifications to run for office? youre arguing in favor for him, so it should be EASY.

I bet that your net worth is also more than any money given to you. As opposed to Trump whose net worth would be higher if he'd simply taken his inheritance and let Edward Jones invest it for him.

UMMMM...no

and thats a big on for me when it comes to businessmen.

if you're not a self made man, but instead a 1% kid with a 200 million dollar inheritance, then the only way you qualify based on money is if you made more than what you wouldve if you just sat it in the stock market for the last 30-40 years.

which he didnt.

None of the things you listed qualify you for presidency.

And I'm actually not arguing in favor of him. I merely asked "why should I believe any of the Dem candidates would do better". I have not received a rational answer yet.

I do think Bernie Sanders history is far more damaging to his ability to be a president. The stuff he was involved in when he was younger is way worse and more damaging to his ability to be a president, IMO

All irrelevant.

Think about your party's frontrunner and wbat his political history is and then you will know why his history is far more damaging than Trump's is.