[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.9402706 [View]
File: 421 KB, 359x371, 1492436889917.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9402706

>>9402563
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The God you are refuting is the God of five years olds. No theologian or philosopher ever interpretated God as an old man in the clouds. Back to /reddit/

>> No.9400080 [View]
File: 421 KB, 359x371, 1478637466966.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9400080

>>9400063
>A PRIORI, A PRIORI, A PRIORI, SEE ME SMART!
Probably the tenth time you have used that term.
>If you know, a priori, through rational deduction, that Penrose triangles can't exist
Right, because they are illusions.
>and then you walk into a room and on a table sits a Penrose triangle
You keep setting up these loaded scenarios. Penrose triangles don't exist so you are willing them into existence for the sake of your premise. It's bullshit.
>A) Realize you are hallucinating and that your senses are not accurately informing you of truths/facts about reality
>B) Remain consistent and purport that empirical evidence is objective truth thusly discarding logic to claim that, in fact, Penrose triangles can exist
C) realize that it's a visual trick and not a tangible object.

Your logic is so fucking backwards it hurts. All you do is lead and beg questions. You seriously can't see that, can you?

Also:
>Realize you are hallucinating and that your senses are not accurately informing you of truths/facts about reality
This happening doesn't mean that the world around me ceases to exist or function consistently. It just means that I am impaired in some way. The fact that you hallucinate doesn't disprove that objective reality exists.
>still using the term "objective truth" without defining it.
Are you going to put any work or just parrot what you get off of some blog or wiki article?


Fuck you are stupid.

>> No.9392014 [View]
File: 421 KB, 359x371, 1491489393227.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9392014

Name 1 writer or philosopher who didn't have a tough life.

>> No.9102485 [View]
File: 421 KB, 359x371, 1478637466966.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9102485

>>9102475
>7% of Journalists are Republican
Source?
>"45 percent, nearly half the adult population. Even a plurality of Democrats now say the press is liberal".
Source? What is this from?
>It gets even more absurd when you start going into hard-line conservative opinions like only <4% or journalists are pro-life.
Again, source? Where are you getting these percentages from?
>You shouldn't bother with Bernie supporters, they know less about their candidate than you.
Who did you vote for? If you are a Trumpfag, I guarantee you had no fucking concept of his first 100 day plan.

Where are you getting all this information from? Let's talk about ratings. Fox is still the most watched news outlet next to CNN...

Your bullshit makes no sense, the largest and most watched news outlets are conservative. Stop pushing this victim complex /pol/ narrative like your message is some sort of fringe underdog horseshit.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]