/pol/ how does it feel getting BTFO every single day?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-ugly-in-christianity_us_57588f08e4b053e219786f6b
.
(pic not related)
boo fucking hoo
>>76583229
Israel attacked the USA on 9/11
>>76583229
>Anecdotal evidence
>Christianity is so bad
>Completely ignores Islam's monopoly on terror
>>76583229
Why should we care about kikepapers written by satan's chosen scum? Just get lost.
P.S.: do not reply in such threads without "sage" in "options" field.
>>76583229
>huffingtonpost
hide and ignore this click-bait shit
>>76583229
I'll take what is small pox for $100
>>76583704
>bumping shill threads
>>76583783
>bumping shill threads
>>76583229
They forgot to mention the jihads in Europe, India-Pakistan, the Barbary slave trade and basically everything Muslims have touched throughout history.
>>76583229
>3,000 killed within a few hours (only happened 15 years ago)
>12 million (probably an overstatement) killed within the span of years, even DECADES (happened centuries ago) and wasn't even based on religion
>>76584731
What about the killing of 1 million Iraqi?
>>76583229
So who is right?
>>76583229
>I’m not typically one to get into social media arguments or spend hours discussing political and religious discourse on a Facebook strand, but recently, one woman drove me to the point of no return. Of course, it began with: Trump vs No Trump. As per any Trump supporter, her main argument was that she was a hard working American and she shouldn’t have to pay such high taxes for no-good illegal immigrants and poor people and their lobster-buying-food-stamps and that was that. Her argument always stopped there. Always: “I’m a hard working American.”
Well, who the heck cares? Be proud of your country. Be proud of your military. Be proud of your heritage. But don’t use nationalism as a mask for your racism and bigotry. How about instead of saying, “I’m a hardworking American,” why don’t you say, “I’m a hardworking human being.” I guarantee you the person on the other end of the conversation would say, “yeah, me too.”
yeah this is retarded
>>76585426
but I also see his picture at conservative merrymaking activities?
>not your shield
>not your mascot
>>76583229
>citation needed
>death toll of ONE terrorist attack vs death toll of several hundred years of colonization
Really make you think....
Never stop an enemy when he is committing a mistake
the end of Christianity and the subsequent of its Morality will allow whites to think out of the box
No longer you will have whites mentally trapped in fear of not loving their enemies hard enough to avoid Hell
No longer you will have whites obsessed with the Apocalypse to such extent that they become slaves of Israel
No longer you will have whites devoted to the idea that "the meek will inherit the Earth" and "the strong will fall"
>>76585817
>5 PEOPLE
>>76586038
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126802/Christians-likely-left-wing-liberal-views-immigration-equality.html
>>76583229
Where are HuffPo's servers located?
>>76583229
>protestants
>Christians
>>76583229
>>76585162
>>76585091
>>76420093
>>76253550
>>75825119
>>75307706
>>74476360
>>73511753
And that's looking up one single world in the subject line.
El em. Ay oh.
>>76586245
>cucklics
>>76586038
and very importantly:
no longer you will have whites demanding the end of the last eugenic measure still allowed in society: abortion
>>76583229
Protestants aren't Christians
>>76585817
>conservative merrymaking activities
>post people protesting a football logo
>>76586331
>>76585321
It literally is.
>>76583229
right, let's be like the native americans and get fucking exterminated, genius liberals
>>76586318
>implying I'm Catholic
Daily reminder that smarter leftists are realizing the terrible mistake they are doing
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/27/the-guardian-view-on-disappearing-christianity-suppose-its-gone-for-ever
A post-Christian Europe will of course have a morality but it won’t be Christian morality. It will likely be less universalist. The idea that people have some rights just because they are human, and entirely irrespective of merit, certainly isn’t derived from observation of the world. It arose out of Christianity, no matter how much Christians have in practice resisted it. Although human rights have become embedded in our institutions at the same time as religious observance has been in decline, they could become vulnerable in an entirely post-Christian environment where the collective memory slips from the old moorings inherited from Christian ethics.
>>76586318
Francis is a Protestant heretic, not a real Pope. He preaches Protestantism.
>>76586523
Orthocuck
>>76586523
Even better.
>>76586577
The cognitive dissonance is palpable.
Wait are you saying there were indians in these white lands? Go figure....geez i thought they were all killed by the last ice age...they barely had any clothes on em...and hanibal took up all the wooly mammoths from them...just to invade room...left the indians all out in the cold.
>>76586404
>>76586523
... and very importantly: if the left destroys christianity, it not only destroys its own morality, it also destroys a powerful force that has divided Europe for centuries over silly discussions over absurd jewish books
>>76586137
3 of whom are as white as cream cheese.
>>76586830
Not as absurd as your entire belief structure~
>>76583229
>Huffington post
Discarded
>>76586921
> It literally is illogical to expect that gravity will exist tomorrow!! Better anchor yourself to your bed or you will fly into space!
Why should anyone take you seriously?
A Revolution of Values Through Religion (Ben Klassen, 1991)
The Sermon on the Mount
The Cancerous Ulcer that Brought Down the Roman Empire
If there is one concise collective set of postulations that characterize and set Christianity apart from Judaism and other religions, it is certainly the much ballyhooed Beatitudes spelled out in the Sermon on the Mount. It is this suicidal collection of extremely bad advice that is the very heart of Christianity and it is, in fact, this very advice that has tragically set the White Race on a course that, if further pursued, will soon terminate in its demise on Planet Earth. Therefore, instead of blindly worshipping it from afar as an untouchable idol set high on a pedestal, let us look closely into this matter, let us examine just exactly what it says, and let us ask ourselves - is this really good advice, or is it absolutely insane? If it is good, for whom is it good - for us or our enemies? Furthermore, if such advice is taken literally, could its victims survive for long, or is it a poisonous recipe programmed for suicide.
The Sermon on the Mount is a long and unending menu of suicidal advice that is scattered in many part of the New Testament. We are going to try to bring these poisonous dishes altogether on one table, examine what each one of these recipes says, and we are then going to ask the fundamental question that is the Golden Rule of Creativity: is this good for the White Race? This is the bottom line of our philosophy - looking at it from the White Man's point of view, is it going to help or harm the White Race? As we go down the list I strongly urge the reader to repeatedly ask himself or herself the same question: is this really good for the White Race, or is it harmful and suicidal?
The first salvo of the Sermon on the Mount is spelled out very close to the beginning of the New Testament, namely in Matthew 5, 6 and 7. The Jews wasted no time in coming out with their venomous bait. You will notice that in most of Christ's (a fictitious figure, of whom there is no historical record or evidence) arguments, the clincher always is an expansive promise that is cheap and easy to give, costs nothing, and is unverifiable. That promise is - your reward will be in the hereafter - heaven, supposedly, another fictitious concept that is unverifiable. Nobody has ever been there, nor has anybody even seen, heard, felt or smelt heaven. The gullible yokels are asked to just take the scriptwriters' word for it - don't ask for evidence. In fact, don't even ask for a logical explanation. Just be a gullible chump and believe - believe - believe. And whom are we supposed to believe? A passel of Jewish scribblers, now long dead, whose identity is never really historically established anymore than Santa Claus or Mother Goose. A pretty flimsy basis on which you are asked to stake the whole direction of your life, wouldn't you say? So let us now see what these Jewish scribblers have come up with and have prescribed for the goyim to follow.
>>76587001
Why should anyone take an illogical liar from Panapoor seriously?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/#ConNotInd
Matthew 5
At the beginning of Matthew 5 these Jewish scribblers claim (there are no known eyewitnesses) Verse 1. And seeing the multitudes, he (Christ) went up into a mountain: and when he was set his disciples came unto him: 2. And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, 3. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Let's hold it a minute right there. What he is saying (purportedly, since there is really no evidence that he ever said it, or even that he ever existed) is that the Christian teaching favors the "poor in spirit", namely the feeble-minded, the morons, the idiots, the lazy and the shiftless, and we automatically have a special reward for them - they automatically go to heaven! Isn't that great? What this world needs is more morons, idiots and shiftless galoots. This is the same idea as "our" Jewish government is pushing under the guise of "affirmative action" favoring the niggers. Certainly neither of these ideas is good for the White Race but are heavily stacked against us.
>>76583229
Did you pull that number out of your ass? The majority of native were wiped by the worst plague humanity had ever seen BEFORE we got here. We were just the final nail in the coffin.
I dont really give a shit though. A group of tribes who routinely conquered and killed each other got BTFO by another group of conquerors.
If muslims want to come here and try to conquer us fine...come the fuck on. If they want to do little sneak attacks that kill our civilians once again thats fine. Just dont bitch when we start dropping bombs in retaliation.
Let me ask you - would you like to see yourself surrounded by such scum and have the burden of feeding, clothing, housing and taking care of such useless garbage? Is this good for the White Race as a guiding principal, or would you rather see an increase of intelligent, productive, creative White people helping to build a Whiter and Brighter World as Creativity espouses?
We go on. "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth". Same idea. Whereas the idiots and the morons shall be guaranteed heaven, the meek, on the other hand, who are more or less of the same ilk, but probably just a cut above the idiots and the morons, to them Christ would generously bequeath the earth. This Jewish ploy is evidently tailored to make militant White Men meek and submissive so that the Jews, who don't cotton to such garbage, will have an easier time of taking over this planet, enslaving, exploiting and ravaging their victims. The meek inherit the earth? To which we Creators say - hell no! Not if we can help it!
Matthew 5 goes on in a similar vein "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." Really? Ask the Mennonites in Russia (my ancestors) who lost all in their benevolent, pacifist and merciful approach to the Jewish onslaught. "Blessed are" - the pure in heart, the peacemaker, the righteous and a whole plethora of other submissive sheep. These are the preferred, the "blessed" the Jews uphold as models into which mold they would like to convert and pervert the goyim so that they would have a compliant mass of pacifist patsies to deal with, patsies they can easily milk, exploit and enslave.
In Chapter 5 of Matthew there is a mixed bag of further odd assortment of dire threats, warnings and admonitions to becloud and confuse the superstitious and the gullible. In verse 22 it says "whosoever shall say to his brother Raca (Jewish for vain fellow) shall be in danger of the council (i.e.. Judgment): but whosoever shall say "Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." That's pretty drastic. If you have ever called your brother (and/or sister, I presume) a fool, why you are going straight to hell to fry, roast and sizzle forever and a day. At least that is what this little gem attributed to Christ says.
We go to Verse 28. "But I say to you. That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Poor President Jimmy Carter. He admitted in a Playboy interview that he had perhaps at one time or another "lusted" after women. Evidently poor Jimmy is relegated for hellfire, since he has committed adultery, and violated one of the sacrosanct ten commandments. However, he is not alone. Since all marriages and sexual unions that are necessary to bring in the next generation start with Nature's sexual attraction, which is what the Jewish bible calls lust, I guess all our ancestors have lusted and ended up in hell. So has practically everyone else who were not and are not our ancestors. They, too, are destined for hell. No matter how you look at it, verse 28 is a pretty stupid piece of nonsense.
Muslims kill thousands of innocent people a year in the name of their false prophet
>#NotAllMuslims
>they aren't real Muslims!
>that's not true Islam!
some old church lady cracks a joke about Ted Kennedy
>all Christians are racist and evil and must be annihilated!!!
We need a crusade against liberalism.
>>76583380
but I thought Israel was our ally
The next two verses are even sillier. In fact, completely insane. Verse 29 says "if thine right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee." Verse 30 says "if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee." The message is that if either your eyes or your hands are instrumental in leading you into sin, pluck them out, cut them off, and throw them to the dogs. Now since the eyes and the hands are practically always instrumental in just about everything we do, and since (according to the Jewish book) we are all a bunch of no good sinners who sin perpetually and repeatedly, therefore, just about everybody should pluck our their eyes and cut off their hands (right or left, or both). Yet somehow I don't seem to know any "devout" Christians who have followed this advice, and they would have to be completely insane to do so. Would following this kind of crazy suggestion be good for the White Race? (I have heard of some people who have actually been crazy enough to put out an eye or cut off their hand at the instigation of this idiotic counsel.)
>>76587373
>>76587348
>>76587326
>>76587292
>>76587246
>>76587220
>>76587192
>>76587171
L e l
>>76586318
>>76586245
If only there was another way
>>76583229
>>76587418
>strawman comic is a strawman
9/10 very ironic
>>76587446
Since Protestants aren't bound to the decree and doctrine of a single group of idiots, you've got an infinite number of "other ways" with Protestantism.
Oh, but keep in mind only one of them or else none of them are actually perfectly true.
Have fun~
>>76587567
>satire is strawmanning
10/10 truly bait-worthy
>>76587446
https://www.oikoumene.org/en/press-centre/news/organization-founded-by-greek-orthodox-priest-awarded-for-helping-refugees
http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/11/07/refugee-crisis-brings-greek-orthodox-and-muslims-together-in-prayer-video/
> inb4 "the orthodoxs are different"
>>76585817
Vikings are still around...they're called Scandinavians or whatever
>>76583229
I think you are confusing diseases with religion.
Although Muslims are a disease so I can see how you were confused.
test
>>76583229
Whites ended slavery
It would feel better if the op killed themselves
>>76587795
that is a weak argument tho
the strongest argument is "fuck off I conquered it and there is nothing wrong with defending my conquests"
>>76583229
>the-ugly-in-christianity
I'm not a Christian. Why should I care?
>>76587871
You don't have to
not being a christian means being free of delusional guilt-tripping
that is what cuckservatives dont get
>>76587854
Gaytheist "morality" at its finest.
>>76583229
Smallpox isn't christian. I don't think viruses have a religion or any kind of agenda besides spreading.
>>76587983
it is not morality tho. Morality is for faggots
it is called Might is Right
>>76588007
>I don't think viruses have a religion or any kind of agenda besides spreading
Tell that to muslims.
>>76587373
As Nietzsche said, it's not the eyes and the hands that are really being referred to -- which is why there actually was a sect in Russia back in the 1800s who cut their cocks off in order to save themselves from the risk of hellfire.
>>76587982
How can I filter you on mobile?
>>76588045
"Right" is a moral term, poverty-Paco.
You're fucking brilliant.
>>76583229
200 million native americans killed by native americans.
>>76587614
>>satire is strawmanning
>10/10 truly bait-worthy
Satire is strawmanning if it's supposed to be advancing a plausible counter-argument, but is relying on a caricature of the opposing position instead.
>>76583229
I wonder why this Jew run company is smearing Christians?
>>76588188
You can judge the intention of a satire piece? Can I have your crystal ball?
>>76587253
>Did you pull that number out of your ass?
Of course they pulled the number of Native American dead out of their ass, which is why it changes every time a new thread is created claming that the Natives were "genocided". These assholes are trying to make an emotional impact on gullible white people, not stating a historical fact that can backed up with actual evidence.
More like Indians carried out skirmished against Christians not realizing that they were dealing with an advanced people and not another primitive tribe and got decimated in retaliation.
>>76588132
not really
Animals don't need morality for might is right to apply to them
>>76588304
>I-I was only pretending to be retarded!!
Look, if you have a substantial and well-argued point to make, make it. Otherwise, stop hiding behind shitty graphics that you cravenly disavow the moment you post them.
There were at most 2 million American Indians in the USA during colonialism, by the way. They were sparsely population, with no urban developments. "millions and millions" of American Indians is fantasy.
>>76588165
literally this
>>76588188
Don't waste your time. He is an austistic christfag that does not understand very basic definitions of words
>>76583229
huffingpaint..
cmon dude.
>>76583660
ya know, this explains a whole lot. Especially how fucked up the talmud is. I need to think on this. Thanks anon.
>>76588452
So the sun = right? Underground pressure = right? Vaccums = right? Fucking hilarious - right is a moral term.
>>76588389
they didn't tho. Diseases did them.
That Indians were decimated by the evil pale face man is a meme. There were a few actual massacres but they were very often retaliatory as you pointed out
>diseases are Christian
>>76584731
They also killed each other for trade rights with the Europeans and they destroyed their own food source by over hunting. Also disease be racist now.
Fuck off shithufferpost, stop shilling your clickbait here.
>>76583229
>1 post by this ID
Reminder that this guy posts and walks away every time.
Sage.
>>76588705
>That Indians were decimated by the evil pale face man is a meme.
But a politically useful one when trying to advance the idea that it's OK to do to white North Americans what the Europeans (supposedly) did to the Native Americans. Also we don't mention the indigenous Europeans in Europe, because that would fuck up our entire argument, so we pretend that countries like Iceland and Portugal have always been "nations of immigrants".
>>76587359
Our greatest ally
>>76588493
Why don't you stop taking offense to intentions you're obviously incapable of discerning yourself?
Does it upset you when something/somebody you like is poked fun at?
Because you seem awfully committed to speaking up about it.
>>76587001
>Panama
>>76583229
SHINY
H
I
N
Y
BEADS
E
A
D
S
>>76583229
Really makes you think
#never4getthe12gorrillion
;_;7
F
>>76588929
> mfw I won't wake up beheaded tomorrow
>>76588870
>Does it upset you when something/somebody you like is poked fun at?
No, but it pisses me off when someone says something stupid and then, when called on his stupidity, tries to pass it off as having been a joke all along. That being said, if you have an intelligent and substantial point to make, make it now (in non-graphic and non-meme format) and we'll discuss it in a civilized manner.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ted_Kennedy
Ted Kennedy supported abortion. He was a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Even silently supporting abortion is a mortal sin in Roman Catholic canon law. Unless he suddenly changed his position on his death bed and repented of that view, he's burning in Hell right now according to the teachings of his own Church. Who cares if some old church lady from a Protestant denomination made a joke about his death?
>>76587619
Because rejecting religions that were created as political tools while still believing on a Creator and using his greatest gift to learn his lessons is just to much work, right?
>>76583660
Damn Germany! I knew in my heart I couldn't support the Jewish Zionist regime as a Christian- It seemed against Christianity's very principles. Thank you for showing this to me.
>>76589180
"Something stupid". So you think "something stupid" said in a satire piece is something you should be pissed off about.
That's fucking hilarious. I don't know how you manage to function in life being that thin-skinned.
I have the same point as Hume does in the Enquiry. Problem of induction. Overcome it or be illogical in your reasonings as a gaytheist.
>>76583229
>6 + 6 = 12
6 GORRILION
>>76588982
Puto ateíto imbécil, vete con tus daddy issues y tu complejo de inferioridad sudamericano a otra parte.
Si mañana te decapitan nadie lo sabrá porque en tu "país" no hay ni noticieros.
>>76589180
> we'll discuss it in a civilized manner.
Don't get your hopes high
he will "disprove" any argument you make by claiming that it is illogical to expect a system to be self-consistent, that it is illogical to expect that gravity will exist tomorrow
>>76586821
Yes, they did.
So religion thread I guess, can someone tell me what the fuck is up with the Pope?
![flat,800x800,075,t[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cVoHT6j.jpg "flat,800x800,075,t[1].jpg")
>>76589461
> mfw a mexican near me is butthurt because of his inferior HDI
kek
>>76589422
>I have the same point as Hume does in the Enquiry. Problem of induction. Overcome it or be illogical in your reasonings as a gaytheist.
Please state what the "problem of induction" is as you imagine it to be, and spare us the adolescent name-calling while you're at it (remember Matthew 5:22).
>>76589491
It literally is in your worldview.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/#ConNotInd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
https://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/induction.html
https://faculty.unlv.edu/beisecker/Courses/Phi-101/Induction.htm
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/Notes2.html
Your feels will never overcome logical reality, poverty-boy.
>>76589667
he is what happens when people take the gospel seriously
Only roleplaying "christians" think that when Jesus said "if they take your coat, let them have your shirt as well", "do not resist evil", "I have come to turn a man against his own household", "if you don't hate your self and your own family you can't follow me", "love your enemies, pray for your persecutors", "the meek will inherit the Earth", "those that wanna die will live", "blessed are those the persecuted, for they will be my Kingdom", "do not save treasures for tomorrow", "carry your cross so that you can receive eternal reward", "Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you'll have treasure in heaven", "it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for the rich to enter Heaven", "Woe to you who are well fed, Woe to you who laugh, for you will mourn and weep"... Jesus actually meant the OPPOSITE of all that, and that Jesus wanted them to defend their family and nation, that Jesus wanted them to KILL their enemies, to become prosperous, well-fed and rich in this world, and to avoid persecution and death
>>76589759
Banter isn't sinful in any reading of the Bible - being offended is though~
The original problem of induction can be simply put. It concerns the support or justification of inductive methods; methods that predict or infer, in Hume's words, that “instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience”. Such methods are clearly essential in scientific reasoning as well as in the conduct of our everyday affairs. The problem is how to support or justify them and it leads to a dilemma: the principle cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent, and only necessary truths can be proved deductively. Nor can it be supported inductively—by arguing that it has always or usually been reliable in the past—for that would beg the question by assuming just what is to be proved.
>>76583229
2.998 humans vs 12,000,000 animals
>>76585779
They're both heretics.
That's like writing a paper on the preferred toilet paper of alien's in the Andromeda galaxy. Doesn't matter and you might as well be pissing in the wind.
>>76589759
> inb4 "I am not here to educate you gaytheist XD just read what i posted and dont question it xDDD"
>>76583229
Some "Christians" are scottsman and use people for evils
>>76589898
I actually agree with you, poverty-boy. Christians should all be good-willed pacifists.
>>76585779
They are both retards that believe in jewish fairy tales
>>76589737
No, retrasado; no me interesa tu irrelevante país de indios y negros reggaetoneros que emigran a México para limpiar zapatos y vender dulces. Me molesta tu actitud de niño edgy que odia a Dios porque no lo hizo blanco y porque su madre lo obligaba a ir a Misa.
>>76583229
how does it feel to know the day of the rope approches
>>76590105
I see.... I can then assume that you are trying to compliment me then when you call me poverty-boy?
Insofar blessed are the poor, for they will be my kingdom
lol
>>76586318
>taking quotes out of context
>not atleast reading lumin Gentium in Latin or English if you're a lazy fuck
The Pope's tone and views on secular issues do get to me at times but he has yet to proclaim any dogma contrary to his predecessors.
>>76586821
Haha what? Of course they did. International meetings were held for te Congo all time. The problem was that Belgium didnt give a fuck. There was money to be made
>>76583229
>something that happened in our lifetime
>something that happened 400-200 years ago
>>76589938
You're using the arch-empiricist and agnostic Hume to advance a Christian worldview? Have I understood that correctly?
>the principle cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent,
Any scientific principle can be as good as proven pragmatically through its reliability in everyday life. Is that the same as saying that there can never be a possible exception to the principle? No. But who cares?
>>76583229
Muslims have been raiding pillaging and murdering longer than christians due to the fact that christians stopped a long fucking time ago and muslims are still at it.
>Christians did something bad so it makes it okay for muslims to do bad things
>>76583229
>huffpo
saged
reported
pic unrelated
>>76590194
Nah, I'm just saying words - no intent behind them at all~
Poor people can be just as sinful as anyone else though. Christ made it a point to talk about the poor because people often treated them badly just for being so, which was counter to God's Will.
>>76590234
Put it in context for us then~
>>76590194
I thought you didn't believe in the Bible
>>76590112
> Panameños
> emigrando a tu basura de país con HDI inferior
lol. No es sorpresa que la wikipedia solo cubre el reverso
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexicans_in_Panama
Quien rayos se muda a un país inferior?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_Mexico
Capitulos enteros de la mierda de tu pais mudandose a otros lugares por que tu pais no sirve
Que pereza
>>76590313
I'm not advancing anything. I'm attacking your view~
You can appeal to pragmatism - it's still illogical. I thought you valued logic? Or is that only insofar as it supports what you want to believe? Isn't that what you bash Christians for?
>>76590458
He's an edgy atheist spic
>>76590581
Well the Bible is wisdom for Christians, but is folly to those that are perishing
>>76590458
he is implying that he agrees with my interpretation of the Bible as an inversion of all values
>>76590429
> Christ made it a point to talk about the poor because people often treated them badly just for being so, which was counter to God's Will.
It was far from limited to that. The Rich is a very bad position from the POV of the Gospel, even deserving a woe for themselves.
>>76583229
It takes balls to talk shit about christianity after all it did for Europe after the fall of the Roman empire.
Also the only real christian wars we ever really had were the crusades, and those were mostly defensive wars against the mudshits not wanting to leave us the fuck alone.
But then again this is
>huffingtonpost
How many Casino-Americans were killed since 2001 and how many people killed by Muslims?
>>76583229
>>76590670
Non believers will never understand the scriptures
Cool, but not nearly as bad as Hitler, the Nazi's, and the 6 Billion
>>76590745
U mean gorrilion
>>76590551
>You can appeal to pragmatism - it's still illogical. I thought you valued logic?
Why not both? But on the rare occasions when one conflicts with the other, it's only natural to go with whatever is most helpful or explanatory in a real-world context.
And who said I "bash Christians"? Christians are among my nearest and dearest. That doesn't mean I am necessarily obliged to believe every fantastic claim put forward by the adherents of Christianity.
>>76590539
¿No tienes unos memes irónicos que publicar en Facebook, cagada subhumana?
Mira, tu gente.
El HDI no significa mucho, simio inmundo. Ustedes no han tenido relevancia a nivel mundial. So un montón de negros esclavizados. Niño acomplejado.
>>76590670
That's because the rich were attached to their material shit as if it were important. They were materialistic. You might imagine why poor people in *those* times in particular wouldn't have so much of a materialistic worldview.
When *God Himself* asked a rich man to follow Him, the rich man went away from Him because he valued his stupid shit over God Himself. And attachment to the material is what stops *many* people from coming to God.
>>76590722
> It takes balls to talk shit about christianity after all it did for Europe after the fall of the Roman empire.
While I disagree with the concept that Christianity helped Europe, I gotta point out that the people that wrote those articles are jews that European Civilization
Christianity helping Europe is not exactly an argument against their position, if anything they would see that as proof of the evil of christianity
>>76590744
I was a believer
>>76583229
I'm sure muslim invaders would give them casino's and scholarships right????....
>>76590955
So you had a personal relationship with God?
>>76590881
> El HDI no significa mucho
Siguete repitiendo eso mientras te saltas el muro para vivir en un país mejor
Acuerdate que nada más tienes hasta Noviembre!
>>76590929
UN PANAMEÑOS HABLANDO DE EUROPA. Pobre pendejo.
Sin el cristianismo en tu país todavía estarían practicando el canibalismo.
>>76590886
I see materialism as good tho.
It is obvious that we agree for the same reasons when it comes to the nature of Christian Morality, but disagree on its usefulness
>>76590846
You obviously end up valuing pragmatism more, since you entirely reject logic when it's inconvenient for empiricism.
I don't think there's *anything* explanatory about a logical contradiction - if anything it's indicative *you're doing something wrong*.
You're not obligated to believe anything at all.
I think anyone who rejects logic is worth treating seriously - their reasoning is fundamentally fucked up. Confirmation bias at its most extreme.
>>76591064
Cristianos o no, los salvajes de tu país siguen cortando cabezas, así que no parece haber diferencia
>>76591024
Jajaja te crees blanco. Sigue mamando verga gringa,ellos te consideran "el otro México más pobre y negro".
Y no, no eres blanco.
>>76591097
You can see it that way. I don't expect you'll always see it that way.
I don't think anything is more useful than that which coincides with the Will of God, Creator of everything.
Wiping out the natives was the best thing we ever did. Can you fucking imagine if the US spent the last 200 years looking like Brazil? Yeah, that's the future if the border isn't sealed. Spaniards and Portuguese don't know how to fucking colonize.
>>76591190
En el tuyo también, negro asqueroso
>>76591137
isn't worth*, obviously.
you mean defended themselves against savage. just like they should be doing now.
>>76591137
>>>76590846 (You)
>You obviously end up valuing pragmatism more, since you entirely reject logic when it's inconvenient for empiricism.
Could you give me a concrete example of that, please?
>I don't think there's *anything* explanatory about a logical contradiction - if anything it's indicative *you're doing something wrong*.
I agree. But I'm not talking about logical contradictions, I'm talking about those areas of experience lying outside the domain of pure logic, which is something quite different.
>You're not obligated to believe anything at all.
Gosh, thanks. That's not what it says in the Bible though, is it?
>>76587359
Good goy, yes israel is your best friend :^)
>>76591213
Lo que otros piensen no me importa
Me basta saber que vivo mejor que tú, y que mañana te vas a tener que saltar el muro para poder comer
>>76591250
thinking that you know the Will of God because of what is written in some old jewish fairy tales that you had to use your senses to process does not seem too reasonable to me, insofar you don't see your senses as a valid inductive tool
>>76583688
Seriously, can the Marxist panderers at Huffpost be any more obvious?
It's such a pathetic rag at this point. The Weekly World News is far more sane and reliable. Huffpo is just so...shrill. Neurotic, angry and shrill.
>>76591276
> implying
kek, que delusión
>>76591268
>Wiping out the natives was the best thing we ever did.
Except that's not what happened: there are still plenty of Natives around, and the vast majority of the ones who did die were killed by inadvertently introduced disease.
>Can you fucking imagine if the US spent the last 200 years looking like Brazil?
The average Brazilian has a roughly equal admixture of European, Amerindian, and African ancestry, so the US would never have ended up like Brazil if the segregation between blacks and whites had been preserved.
>>76591343
>Could you give me a concrete example of that, please?
>>76590313
>Any scientific principle can be as good as proven pragmatically through its reliability in everyday life. Is that the same as saying that there can never be a possible exception to the principle? No. But who cares?
You're willing to accept reasoning that is viciously circular in the form of "I can believe the future will be like the past, because in the past the future has tended to be so".
That's a complete rejection of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_on_the_Indian_subcontinent
>According to historian Will Durant, "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history". By the estimate of Koenraad Elst the population of Indian subcontinent reduced by almost 80 million between 1000 and 1525.
>>76583229
Catholics and disease killed more Native Americans than Christians did.
>>76583229
>I don't believe in God even though I want to because some of His followers are mean
Literally children
>>76586318
There's no way the pope said this. It's explicitly clear that good works cannot get you into heaven, you must faithfully honor God.
>>76591343
>I'm talking about those areas of experience lying outside the domain of pure logic, which is something quite different
Really? Tell me in what world you've seen a logical contradiction manifest. Because you are heavily implying that there are things ("areas of experience") that logic doesn't apply to.
>Gosh, thanks. That's not what it says in the Bible though, is it?
You're not obligated to believe, no. There are things that happen if you believe and things that happen if you don't. There are moral commandments - do not steal, do not murder, etc - that *ARE* universal obligations, but not belief.
>>76585337
Done by the other Iraqis? Yes.
>>76591411
>>76591453
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afropaname%C3%B1o
Ya acepta tus raíces. Te crees blanco porque eres el único en tu colonia con internet.
No tengo por qué irme a EUA. Y tengo visa.
Sigue soñando con mi país, as como la gente pobre del mío sueña con EUA.
Sigue con tu página de memes en Facebook, negro autista.
>>76583229
Contrary to popular belief, the native people's of North America were wiped out not through genocide but through assimilation. When the douche claims to be 1/16 Cherokee, it ain't bs.
>>76591512
>"I can believe the future will be like the past, because in the past the future has tended to be so"
That is not circular reasoning
That is empirical proof
Your argument is the equivalent of saying that the following statement is illogical:
> Every time we hit Uranium atoms with neutrons, Xenon is produced... We can thus conclude that hitting Uranium with neutrons creates Xenon
you still don't understand what circular reasoning is
>>76591411
I can trust my senses because God assures me I can - His Truthfulness would be incompatible with a world in which I am fooled in everything I experience. You can read that in Descartes' Meditations.
I take God as an axiom, so God doesn't come after any of my reasoning - He's assumed before it. And there's nothing illogical about assuming something so long as that something isn't logically contradictory or viciously circular in nature.
>>76585816
How is not wanting to support a bunch of people who don't work on your dime being racist? What a crock of bullshit. I don't care if they're Irish, Indonesian, Muslim or even a bunch of Limey faggots, I DID NOT VOTE TO SUPPORT THEM AND I SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO DO SO. Legit disabled people, old folks, foster children with no families, poor mentally ill fuckers who can't get their shit together--no problem. They are a part of society, they can't help their situations, and I could end up in their shoes--I get that. So I am more than okay with helping them. We're all in this together.
But a bunch of foreign fuckers who just wanted to come here for free shit and a higher standard of living and then expect me to feed and care for them and give them a stipend so they can sit on their asses indefinitely and won't even learn the language of the land--while I go to work every day to make ends meet--hell no.
It's such a weird thing to even have to have this discussion. I swear, nowadays, if a liberal stubs his toe, he starts hopping around screaming "RACISM!! RACISM!! THAT CHAIR IS RACIST AND IT ATTACKED ME!!"
Y'all are fucking nuts, you really are. You see racism under every rock and really, many to most people aren't functionally racist at all. You have zero connection with actual reality and worst of all, you never shut up.
>>76591677
He did. Google it.
I had to Google it when I first saw that image too.
>>76591512
>You're willing to accept reasoning that is viciously circular in the form of "I can believe the future will be like the past, because in the past the future has tended to be so".
There's nothing "circular" about that at all. But to descend from the abstract to the particular, the above principle can be either more reliable or less reliable depending on what it is applied to. "Our village wasn't raided today, therefore our village won't be raided tomorrow or any other day" is an unreliable conclusion (even if any actual raid might take years or decades to arrive), whereas "the earth continued to rotate around the sun today, therefore it will continue to rotate around the sun tomorrow and for a long time to come" is a much more well-grounded principle (though not absolutely infallible, of course; billions of years from now it might be proven incorrect). In other words, not all forms of inductive reasoning are equal in their validity or invalidity, though for some reason you are pretending that they must be.
>That's a complete rejection of logic.
I don't think anyone whose worldview is fundamentally dependent on religious faith is in any position to lecture anybody else about "logic". Prove me wrong.
>>76591875
En tu país no hay ni educación pública, chango acomplejado con ínfulas de "blanco".
Im an atheist, and i am convinced, christian moderates like this are as bad as muslim terrorists
They accept muslim terrorists into their communities with open arms and tell anyone who disagrees to fuck off
Unfortunately this is most modern christians.
Because only someone pathetic enough to feel they have to believe in god would also go and throw out an arbitrary half of their religious beliefs just to fit in with all their peers, and not even let their minds grasp for a second, an idea that has no practical use and will only make their lives harder.
That is the very reason they are religious.
>>76591597
>Atheist Student Murdered by Islamists in Bangladesh
Surely you mean "gaytheist"?
>>76591755
> Sigue soñando con mi país, as como la gente pobre del mío sueña con EUA.
¿Por que yo haria tal cosa? ¡Pensar en un país con HDI inferior! ¿Para qué?
Mierxico no paso por mi mente en ningún momento del día. No tengo tiempo para salvajes como tú
Considérate filtrado, anormal inferior
>>76592057
Sigue masturbándote con el HDI. Es lo único relevante en tu tierra de simios.
Anormal el panameño "ario".
>>76591920
I can trust my senses because I assure me I can, insofar I define reality through my senses
Man is the measure of the World. I take myself as an axiom
You don't need God to actually trust your senses
>>76592036
You've to go back, Ahmed.
>>76591691
>Really? Tell me in what world you've seen a logical contradiction manifest.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend what I am saying. I never said that a logical contradiction could manifest itself in reality; I said that some areas of experienced reality lie outside the bounds of the most rigorous logical analysis. If you can't understand the difference between these two things, I am wasting my time in talking with you.
>There are things that happen if you believe and things that happen if you don't.
Since you're a big fan of logic, please logically prove the truth of the above statement.
>>76591875
>That is not circular reasoning
..............................................
You are *assuming the conclusion* - that one can believe the future will be like the past - as *part of your argument for the conclusion*. That is the *definition* of circular reasoning. It's begging the question. It's a nigh *paradigmatic* example of *VICIOUSLY* circular reasoning.
>>76592233
Chango pseudointelectual
12 million, thats about as real as the 6 million in the holocaust.
besides, almost all death caused by whites in america happened because the natives had shitty immune systems.
it is undeniable fact that the lives of the aboriginals is a thousandfold better because of the arrival of white people. and only very rarely were whites the instigators of violence between the races.
Fuck Huff'nPuff
I've known plenty of Injuns. We all know other Injuns treated different tribes worse than Europeans. And we know the horse facilitated the rapid transfer of disease among trading partners.
This nonsense envy, resentment race baiting must end. Today is today. Tomorrow is tomorrow.
>>76591959
>There's nothing "circular" about that at all
Holy shit. See
>>76592311
This isn't a terribly hard thing to grasp. I know it makes you feel bad, but it does *NOT* take that much intelligence to understand this basic propositional logic.
>>76591959
>I don't think anyone whose worldview is fundamentally dependent on religious faith is in any position to lecture anybody else about "logic"
Tell me how "faith in religion", taken generally, is necessarily illogical in any way.
>>76592311
That the future becomes the past is NOT part of the argument
It is part of the empirical observation!
You are trying to define X leads to Y as a circular argument by bizarrely defining as "X leads to Y thus X leads to Y", when "X leads to Y" into itself is already a definition of an empirical observation
>>76589984
>They're both heretics.
I know, I was just pointing out how they both come up with totally opposite justification as to why a christian denomination is wrong. It really gives an insight into the obliviousness of protestant understanding and theology
>>76592505
Un simio como tú no puede entender al Creador
>>76583229
False equivalency, 9/11 was a single day while the oppression of the Native Americans has been going on for years upon years upon years.
If you compare the death toll of every religion on the planet since it's inception, you'd see Islam has by far and away the highest body count.
>>76592233
It takes a very humble and "special" kind of mind to put itself at the top of the totem pole. I hope I don't see you in the news, Paco. Your country has enough problems.
You have a religious belief in yourself as The-Definer-of-All-Reality(tm), so you've as yet to have provided an example in which some kind of divinity isn't necessary to trust one's senses~
>>76583229
>Compares the events of one day with the results of several hundred years
>Compares comtemporary history with several hundred year old history, but does not include older history in regard to muslims.
OP I hope you didnt make this image macro. If so, kys. If not, kys.
>>76583229
You mean disease?
>>76583229
uh they weren't real christians that's why they left to america
idiot
its especially funny to me since my ancestors fought and died for the freedom of the aboriginals, the abos arent super bright, but they used to be good people. now theyre a bunch of liberal sjw whiners leaching off the government and blaming white people for their own massive incompetence
>>76592405
>>There's nothing "circular" about that at all
>Holy shit. See
Let's sum up the discussion so far, shall we?
You believe, with (the agnostic) Hume, that inductive reasoning is invalid, so that if I flip a light switch I have no logical reason to believe that the light will come on (i.e., even if the electricity supply is reliable and the bulb is working). You even consider the common sense idea that flipping a light switch will produce light to be an example of "circular reasoning", and therefore invalid.
On the other hand, you are arguing in favour of a religion whose basis is entirely irrational and not based on any logic at all, and yet at the same time you present yourself as a champion of the very logic your religion makes no use of.
Why exactly are we supposed to take you seriously?
>>76592264
>I said that some areas of experienced reality lie outside the bounds of the most rigorous logical analysis
And my question is the same; such as?
>please logically prove the truth of the above statement
Logic doesn't let me prove that proposition. There's nothing illogical about it, but it's not provable since it's a contingent proposition.
>>76592505
>That the future becomes the past is NOT part of the argument
>becomes
YOU'RE RIGHT! Since *NOBODY* ever said that!
>>76583229
Saged for Kebab apologist
>>76592931
I don't agree - I'm using it against you.
*You're* the one who has to reject induction to be consistent with logic, or reject logic to be consistent with empiricism. *I* don't.
>whose basis is entirely irrational and not based on any logic at all
Yeah? Like...?
>>76592990
Ignore that monkey
>>76583229
So....it's wrong when white men do it to brown people, but I'm supposed to be tolerant when brown people (muslims in this case) invade white countries? K
>>76592472
>Tell me how "faith in religion", taken generally, is necessarily illogical in any way.
Faith is not grounded in logic. Whether that's the same as saying that faith is illogical is a matter of interpretation -- as I said before, not all things lying outside the domain of formal logic are actually illogical -- but certainly classical logical syllogisms with premises such as "all men are mortal" would not admit the suggestion that some men, such as Jesus (or Elijah or Lazarus), are actually immortal.
>>76592780
The "totem pole" is not some sort of standarized reality, for I am not an isolated individual. i am a Man.
I am the product of endless evolutionary cycles, which would have not provided me with senses if they were not useful for analysing the World
A human is nothing but the Universe looking at itself. I am part of the Universe, i don't need some sort of third-party mystical creature with magical power to be aware of that.
My senses are part of the Universe so they interact with it.
I interact, thus I exist, and the Universe exists
it is the same problem with the creation of the Universe that you christians have: You seem to believe that the Universe needs to have a creator, but that the creator does not need to have one, instead of directly assuming that the Universe does not need a creator
All you are doing is adding a needless step.
>>76593173
No belief "is grounded in logic" that isn't a tautology, dipshit-san~
Logic doesn't give you a basis for belief in most things - it's a tool to process inputs as being logically valid or not.
>>76593203
>>76592780
get btfo by a kid from panama, must feel bad...
>>76593203
Te crees dios, chango inmundo? jajaja
>>76592939
>>I said that some areas of experienced reality lie outside the bounds of the most rigorous logical analysis
>And my question is the same; such as?
Love? I love my children, but I can't logically prove it.
>>please logically prove the truth of the above statement
>Logic doesn't let me prove that proposition.
Then why should I believe it?
At best, your argument seems to be "I am picking a hole in your logic to deflect attention from the fact that none of my beliefs are based on logic at all." How is this supposed to command our respect?
>>76593203
I thought you hated baseless assumptions? Why make so many?
>>76592990
become / will be are logical equivalent
It does not change the fact that you are confusing an empirical observation with a circular argument
>>76593320
t. panama edgy atheist using proxy
>>76593320
This thread will be in the archives. It's not going away, dipshit-san~
>>76593394
That I exist, that I have senses, and that the Universe exists insofar I exist and i have senses are not baseless assumptions
>>76593364
You can asses "love" via logic by expressing qualities as tokens in a formal language and presenting it as a proposition. So no - try again~
You believe your hand is attached to your arm, but that isn't a logically proven proposition. Why do you believe *that*?
>>76593437
>will be
Will be *WHAT* Paco? There was another word I used. What was it Paco?
How many tens of millions of people were killed by authoritarian atheists?
>>76593140
>*You're* the one who has to reject induction to be consistent with logic,
Who says? Why? And what does any of this have to do with the truth or untruth of the core doctrines of Christianity?
>or reject logic to be consistent with empiricism. *I* don't.
You're the one claiming that the Christian revelation, with the talking snake and cursed fruit and original sin and invisible beings populating the firmament and the death and resurrection of Jesus, are all true. You can't prove that any of it is true, and logic would certainly suggest that at least some of it is not true, so your tactic is to try to pick holes in what you imagine to be the logic of unbelievers in the latter's most ordinary interactions, such as switching on a lightbulb. But this is merely deflecting attention away from yourself towards others in the hope that your own beliefs will be thereby shielded from scrutiny.
>>76583229
>12 million killed by Christians
Would like to see a single valid source for that claim.
Also;
>Open Borders killed the Native Americans
>So Let's Open Them Wider
gg liberals.
>>76583229
If you hate living surrounded by us christians so much, go live in the middle east
>>76592780
Bro you got blown the everloving FUCK out by this guy >>76593203
Call it a night, pack your shit and leave immediately
>>76585779
We can see similarities between Islam and Christianity because they're both dirty sand nigger religions.
The only difference is that Christianity got mostly neutered a few hundred years ago and we don't have to worry about them running around ooga booga-ing out like we do with Mudslimes.
>>76593666
>You believe your hand is attached to your arm, but that isn't a logically proven proposition
> 666
that is just semantics Satan
I dont "believe"
My senses are telling me that I have a hand attached to me, which interacts with some sort of environment which I shall call "reality" from now on
Reality is the environment in which my hand exists
I can prove and disprove things in this environment according to the empirical method
The problem of induction does not exist insofar "real" can't be defined.
Any solution can't ignore the possibility of reality being a creation of a brain in a vat, so it will have to be defined in those terms
>>76586038
>>76586162
This.
In both the U.K. and Australia it's the fucking Christians (Anglicans) pushing for MASS third world migration.
I don't know for sure, but given the current Pope's attitudes and P.R., I suspect Catholics are just as bad.
>>76593545
Oh yes they. You have no reason to believe "you" exist - you only have reason to believe thoughts do. There's no base for equivocating those "thoughts" with "you" (or "I").
You don't necessarily sense anything at all - thoughts could be holistic and simultaneous, such that you don't actually sense anything at all, but are instead simply subjected to a projected memory - there being nothing to sense. And obviously "the universe" is more ambitious than "thoughts", so that's baseless too~
Try try struggle struggle~
You'll never establish jack diddly shit ;)
>>76593394
You're embarrassing yourself now
>>76593288
>No belief "is grounded in logic" that isn't a tautology, dipshit-san~
A syllogism is grounded in logic but isn't a tautology, you dumb fuck. Just throwing around philosophical terms you've plucked out of a book you barely comprehend, and accompanying them with weak taunts and anime images, does not make your irrational belief-system any more true or respectable in the eyes of the rest of the world. I'm honestly sorry I've wasted this much time on arguing with you so far, but I sincerely hope that when you grow up and mature you will acquire the most valuable contribution of Christianity to mankind -- a sense of humility about the limits of your own understanding.
>>76593844
Logic itself. Unless you can give a non-circular reason to believe the future will be like the past. Since no one has been able to do that for millenia in philosophy - *GOOD LUCK BRO LAMO*!
I don't claim they're all true. Strawman much!
>>76586821
>Did anyone said StopChristianity
Yes. Which is why they stopped.
Should also be noted it was CHRISTIANS who essentially ended slavery, at great expense to themselves.
Should also be noted that it was Christians who stopped the effective genocide of natives globally, especially in places like Australia and New Zealand where the freed convict Irish would have been happy to breed and shoot them out existence.
>>76594057
Don't you have an "it really makes you think, huh?" thread to frequent, Timmy?
>>76593796
Go right to the point. You have still not explained why do you assume that empirical observations are a circular argument
"hurr durr noticing that uranium splits into xenon and neon is circular reasoning because you assume it will happen again xD"
>>76594120
Nothing guarantees your senses are right. Or that they even exist.
There's no escape Paco.
>>76594256
A syllogism *ISN'T* grounded in logic - a syllogism pulls propositions from without and is *tested for validity* via logic. Holy shit senpai. You're degenerating even faster now. You aight?
>>76583229
most injuns died of disease. The only time 3000 died in one day were during major battles that the indians had a right to be afraid of
>>76594175
If the thoughts exist, then i exist, insofar I am my thoughts
> There's no base for equivocating those "thoughts" with "you" (or "I").
Why the fuck no?
> You don't necessarily sense anything at all
I do sense, sense being defined as my direct experience
There is literally no other possible definition for sense
> And obviously "the universe" is more ambitious than "thoughts", so that's baseless too~
The Universe is whatever environment that contains those thoughts
>>76594400
>You have still not explained why do you assume that empirical observations are a circular argument
The original problem of induction can be simply put. It concerns the support or justification of inductive methods; methods that predict or infer, in Hume's words, that “instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience” (THN, 89). Such methods are clearly essential in scientific reasoning as well as in the conduct of our everyday affairs. The problem is how to support or justify them and it leads to a dilemma: the principle cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent, and only necessary truths can be proved deductively. Nor can it be supported inductively—by arguing that it has always or usually been reliable in the past—for that would beg the question by assuming just what is to be proved.
The original problem of induction can be simply put. It concerns the support or justification of inductive methods; methods that predict or infer, in Hume's words, that “instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience” (THN, 89). Such methods are clearly essential in scientific reasoning as well as in the conduct of our everyday affairs. The problem is how to support or justify them and it leads to a dilemma: the principle cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent, and only necessary truths can be proved deductively. Nor can it be supported inductively—by arguing that it has always or usually been reliable in the past—for that would beg the question by assuming just what is to be proved.
Which isn't addressing "empirical observations are circular", it addresses the *JUSTIFICATION* for use of *INDUCTIVE REASONING* Paco. Do you know what that is? Inductive reasoning?
