Will Torbald

If you screwed up, it will keep coming back as long as you don't integrate the consequences of your mistake. What does that say about your character? Were you immoral, were you deceptive? Are you avoiding judging yourself? If you judge others, you can also judge yourself. If the other person seems to be doing just fine maybe it's because he didn't screw up, doesn't blame himself for it, and just leaves it behind. Personally I still have the consequences of screw ups I did years ago, not just months, in my memory. Why should I forget about them? They're what keeps me from repeating them.

An FDR exclusive convention sounds creepy. There are many libertarian festivals already available, and Stef has videos of him speaking at the them.

Your english is good, it's your reasoning that needs some work. Simply stating that a finite god is what can create the universe already kills the god.

Yes, that is a great way to call it, and I actually think I've heard it said before in explanations of light and relativity. Photons aren't the only particles that travel at th speed of light. All massless particles of the standard model travel at that speed, like gluons and W and Z bosons.

It's the opposite. Photons don't have rest mass. The whole point of special relativity is that light speed is absolute because it has no rest mass. Any object with rest mass trying to reach the speed of light would need infinite energy to do it.

Yes, but about you. You are the confused one.

And the only way you know it is the wrong answer is with logic.

Drop the re-wording of my arguments. You're treading into straw man territory when you mischaracterize what I say. Before bringing a lose "how do you know?" ask that to yourself before trying to defend a god. Like, dude, how do you know anything about this deity? Give me a break. This is grade school sophistry. Then you start throwing science terms as if to sound intelligent while discussing theology, as if that wasn't already ridiculous. Here's something that you didn't catch: I don't negate the possibility of a first cause for the beginning of the universe. But that first cause has to be empirical, rational, self consistent, and in accordance to the laws of physics. No gods have that. No woo woo deism has that. Finally, Krauss is a cosmologist, not a philosopher. Cosmology trumps theology when it comes to debating the cosmos. Second, no, the fluctuations of space time itself are not the nothing in the theory. It is literally no space and time. So be educated in your rebuttals, don't argue from hearsays, and learn something for once.

Some questions are simply the wrong kind of question. If your question isn't logical, your answer can't be logical. That doesn't mean logic, reason, and evidence are incapable of finding the truth. It means you are incapable of asking logical questions in the first place.

Time is necessary for causation. Without time, you can't say that at one moment you are not creating a universe, and at the next you are, because that would presuppose time itself. Therefore a being outside of time can't do anything. An infinite being cannot understand itself, because it will never finish knowing what it can do. Therefore an infinite god will never do anything because it doesn't even know what it can even do. A god that always existed negates causality since it never had a beginning. Thus arguing causality from a being without causality is self detonating. Also, a being that always existed wouldn't understand time, thus it goes back to the first counterargument. Also, assuming that something can always exist to argue against a universe that could have also always existed is self detonating, too. We have a theory for what happens the tiniest moment after the big bang, but not before that tiniest moment. The singularity itself is described as infinite time, zero space, and all that weird jazz. There's your always existed, infinite thingy argument. If you want scientific understanding of a universe from nothing, look up Laurence Krauss on youtube or his book about it. It's the latest theory on how "nothing" is unstable due to quantum mechanics, thus leading to the formation of the universe.

Think about it this way, at least how I see it, even though it also is objectively true. From the beginning of life on Earth, from dinosaurs, to you. It was always a continuum. You are the last in line of living creatures who survived and reproduced through cataclysm to disaster, meteors, mass extinctions, and everything in between for 3 billion years. 6 million years is only the last common ancestor with chimpanzees. What about before? The entire history of life. All your ancient ancestors fought this battle, and then you come in. If you don't reproduce, that line ends. It's another line in a large genealogic bush, sure, but it's yours. Sure, you can cecede the line voluntarily to others and say "carry on yours instead of mine". It ends there.

Photons don't have rest mass: http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/09/q-how-can-photons-have-energy-and-momentum-but-no-mass/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass Maybe you're confusing them with electrons, which do have mass.

Einstein demonstrated that light is indeed a particle, a photon, more than a hundred years ago. It's what he got his Noble Price for. Refer to Quantum Electro Dynamics and Richard Feynman when talking about the current understanding of the physics of electricity and light. The only test science needs is the test of experiment, not of logic.

That guy sounds like a douchebag, but I don't see how that relates to the NAP. It's not "immoral" to be bossy to mask laziness, even if it's wrong. Deal with him, is what I say.

One thing can have two different properties at the same time. The particle function and the wave function are not mutually exclusive. An electron is always an electron, not an electron and a positron at the same time, which would apply to your logical argument, but not with the wave.

I just don't see two broken people fixing each other. Not to imply that you're "broken", but it's the metaphor. It seems to me that you're good friends, but it also smells to me like that is as good as it's going to get. Whatever psychological abuse that's been inflicted in either of you will undoubtedly flare up exponentially under an emotionally committed relationship.

What if we called these little aggressions of people just talking to each other, say, "microaggressions"? It's a catchy name. Sorry, but I just can't see that as an aggression. Define it as physical intimidation, or physical harm, but the kind of mental and verbal games is just emotional baggage. Yes, people are authoritarian to others, but learn to deflect it and not take it as an offense.

To expand on this, it's also when something can't be itself and its opposite at the same time. Particles and waves are not opposite, just different. The opposite of a particle is its antimatter particle, not it's wave function.

It is one thing to agree intellectually with a theory, NAP, and another to integrate it with your mind. If you were truly integrated with this morality, the very thought of reproducing with those who are in direct opposition with it would be immediately and viscerally disgusting to you. But you're actually interested in this person, and like her. I say forget about babies, and ask yourself what is it that you are not integrating in yourself that still makes you go after crazy women.

Religion is bullshit, right? So the only reason someone would use religion is for bullshit purposes. She is using religion as a bullshit shield to avoid being honest about her own feelings. Instead of coming out with a real answer, she can just default to religion. So I wouldn't fall for the trap of thinking that it's her faith that is keeping you apart. Her faith is only a mirage she uses to continue not having to be a real person, and have real motives. In that sense, it still sucks. On the other hand, you're not missing much from her. It's not the faith that is keeping the relationship from being closer, it's her lack of commitment to reality.

Well, let's look at it from an analytical point of view. The refugees want welfare, and it's the only thing they want. How is that any different from them being parasites through the theft of the government? They are forcing their citizens to have a thousand leeches sucking their blood, and anyone who complains is a bad person. Having the conviction to call them for what they are is one thing, and fearing the backlash from others is another. So you either don't speak your mind, and lay low, or you prepare for fierce battle with bleeding hearts willing to self destruct and destroy you in the process for some supposed moral obligation.

Without the welfare state, refugees wouldn't want to go to those countries in the first place. I don't know why you need an anarchist answer to what the government should do. Like asking an atheist if we should allow refugees in purgatory, or something.

Then go get it. I am not your evolutionary biology proffessor. Go take courses, read the books, watch the documentaries, visit the museums. Learn. Then come back.

"My brother eats candy, but he is not diabetic. My uncle eats bacon, but he doesn't have heart disease. My father smokes, but he doesn't have lung cancer" I specifically said "extremism". The logic is that when taken to the extreme the results are destructive, as the examples I have above illustrate. There is no such thing as a religion without violence, only degrees of violence. And if you were to reply with Jainism or Buddhism, let me remind you that they believe in karma, which is the superstition that if they were to harm someone it would follow the same violence back to them. So their pacifism is nothing more than about form of fear of punishment and divine justice. Violent in fundamentals.

Incorrect. Asking for logic and evidence is an admission of ignorance of the subject from your part. It is equal to saying "I don't know therefore it is not true". It is your job to educate yourself before attempting to discredit any scientific theory. It is your job to know as much as the person you are arguing with in order to make a credible case. As you are, you are nothing more than an ignorant troll unwilling to listen, nor learn anything.