all 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 36 points 1 year ago (1 child)

dude i posted this and the evangelical sister of my sil replied AMEM. Wtf. do they even read the bible?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Blessed are the double blinded, for they will see Truth.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Peer review in principle: 👍

    Peer review in practice: 🎲🎲

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Science based.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Empiricism doesn't work without reason, btw.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ironically, not a requirement.

    If you're purely empirical/empiricist, you need at least one person to walk into a pole to prove it's there.

    If you're a rationalist, you could rationalise where the poles are.

    If you use both, you're likely to hit yourself less than when utilising only one or the other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Until a Cartesian Solipsist points out that your senses are inherently fallible, it is impossible to prove that you are not a Boltzmann Brain, and the only thing it is possible to know with certainty is that you exist, in your present moment of experience. You have no valid proof that you didn't run into a pole, let alone that other people are running into them more than you are, nor that the pole even exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Imagine being such a fanatic that you behave like the fanatics you criticize.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You don't seem to understand the concept of "mockery"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments