You Started Existing 5 Seconds Ago

[GenesForLife]

Oh, the irony

[Bella Fortuna]

All completely intentional, you can be sure.

[Tails Turrosaki]

no Feck. dont be sly. fairies are falsifiable.

Fairies... ... Fair... Fairi... ... Fall... ... ... Falla... Fallah... ... ... ... Allah?

Allah is falsifiable? You're an atheist noww!?!

[jamest]

Why/how are fairies falsifiable?

I doubt very-much whether anything of a 'supernatural' nature is falsifiable. Even the Loch Ness Monster retains interest, for that very reason.

[jamest]

And the other pertinent question is: why is it that science should be the authority on what IS falsifiable? The point being that science isn't really about what actually exists... it's about the order/relations between experienced entities.
This all relates to the notion that science has naff all to do with metaphysics, as has been pointed-out on numerous occasions before.

[Surendra Darathy]

And the other pertinent question is: why is it that science should be the authority on what IS falsifiable? The point being that science isn't really about what actually exists... it's about the order/relations between experienced entities.
This all relates to the notion that science has naff all to do with metaphysics, as has been pointed-out on numerous occasions before.

Really. We should just be able to make up whatever the fucking shit arse-wipe bollocks we want. Amen to that.

[jamest]

And the other pertinent question is: why is it that science should be the authority on what IS falsifiable? The point being that science isn't really about what actually exists... it's about the order/relations between experienced entities.
This all relates to the notion that science has naff all to do with metaphysics, as has been pointed-out on numerous occasions before.

Really. We should just be able to make up whatever the fucking shit arse-wipe bollocks we want. Amen to that.

Actually SD, that's what most people do; though they'll tell you that their opinions are consequences of 'fact' or inspiration.

People need to abstain from the religious or scientific garden-paths, if they want their opinions to harbour even a semblance of credibility. Long live philosophy!

[Surendra Darathy]

And the other pertinent question is: why is it that science should be the authority on what IS falsifiable? The point being that science isn't really about what actually exists... it's about the order/relations between experienced entities.
This all relates to the notion that science has naff all to do with metaphysics, as has been pointed-out on numerous occasions before.

Really. We should just be able to make up whatever the fucking shit arse-wipe bollocks we want. Amen to that.

Actually SD, that's what most people do; though they'll tell you that their opinions are consequences of 'fact' or inspiration.

People need to abstain from the religious or scientific garden-paths, if they want their opinions to harbour even a semblance of credibility. Long live philosophy!

Well, James, look what you wrote over here:

Wtf is 'woo'? Made up nonsense? Well, you're certainly guilty of doing that in this thread. The world is within you; nowhere else can you find it. Discover that, then adjust your attitude accordingly.

The 'woo' term is a self-serving psychological insert/strategy, such as the one that people used to justify/enhance 'white superiority' when utilising the term 'black' or 'nigger'. It's fucking pathetic. The worse kind of ad-hom. And it reflects upon you BADLY.

I was about to ask you in the previous post when are you going to play the racist card, but I decided to wait, and now I'm glad I did.

Applying negative labels to people is merely a self-serving psychological strategy. You use the term 'woo' derisively, to put down others and make yourself feel superior. When, in fact, you should be relying solely upon reason/knowledge to establish that superiority. It really is pathetic.

In my brief reply to you there, I simply pointed out that you are deploying your stolen concept again, which is all you have going on in your "argument". You address other people as "you", and inform them that "the world is within you".

So what do I draw from that? Jamest is "within me"? Just a little wasp buzzing around inside my "head"? Is that it?