Message from @PineŦree

Discord ID: 549840732333146163


2019-02-26 06:19:06 UTC  

I've been banned and timed out

2019-02-26 06:19:22 UTC  

good clean fun

2019-02-26 06:20:18 UTC  

also what where you talking about @Colouhmz

2019-02-26 06:22:03 UTC  

What do you mean, what am I talking about? Am I not clear enough for you?

2019-02-26 06:22:25 UTC  

"Just going into twitch chat's typing TRUMP 2020
Targeting black people, wiggers
old guys with bald spots
and girls with "common sense"
streams that have rules for no discrimination with others"

2019-02-26 06:22:54 UTC  

I was asking what this was talking about

2019-02-26 06:22:59 UTC  

"CLEAR"

2019-02-26 06:23:08 UTC  

it's just what it says

2019-02-26 06:24:21 UTC  

just arbitrary things that happen?

2019-02-26 06:24:58 UTC  

What do you mean

2019-02-26 06:25:12 UTC  

how could that be arbitrary

2019-02-26 06:25:30 UTC  

this is the jesse lee peterson discord

2019-02-26 06:25:48 UTC  

ok

2019-02-26 06:26:10 UTC  

Right

2019-02-26 06:26:27 UTC  

but you are just saying random things to just say them?

2019-02-26 06:26:46 UTC  

because some of them i guess could be political?

2019-02-26 06:27:52 UTC  

No, I said "TRUMP 2020"

2019-02-26 06:28:15 UTC  

I got a trump emote too

2019-02-26 06:28:48 UTC  

um ok?

2019-02-26 06:30:28 UTC  

Most didn't like it, some didn't care, couple liked

2019-02-26 06:30:46 UTC  

ok

2019-02-26 18:24:15 UTC  

@PineŦree Scientific method is one of many tools for revealing truth but not the ultimate arbiter; secular science is scientism (i.e. a religion with an agenda)

2019-02-26 18:28:13 UTC  

If there's a court case where you have 3 witnesses who all saw someone they know murder someone else they know up close, and are all sure, is it true or not? Scientific method cannot address this question. It's a philosophical question, and to apply science in this domain would be a case of category error.

2019-02-26 18:29:13 UTC  

The real answer is based on whether these 3 witnesses are trustworthy. If yes, then we don't demand forensic evidence, do we?

2019-02-26 18:30:30 UTC  

If in court we use one set of standards of how to arrive at truth, and we consider eyewitness testimony credible (if character witnesses testify on the witness), based on common sense, why would we use an entirely different set of standards how to arrive at truth for subjects that are entirely agenda-driven?

2019-02-26 18:47:28 UTC  

I wasn't arguing the scientific method can address all questions

2019-02-26 19:24:12 UTC  

My main argument was for secular consensus

2019-02-26 19:24:34 UTC  

Specifically science

2019-02-26 19:55:22 UTC  
2019-02-26 23:31:00 UTC  

^<:LMAOXD:494348231434567698>

2019-02-27 08:11:03 UTC  

the earth is 6000 years old

2019-02-27 08:13:42 UTC  

@PineŦree great argument...an emojii

2019-02-27 08:13:54 UTC  

I m p r e s s i v e

2019-02-27 08:14:46 UTC  

favorite bible passages?

2019-02-27 08:15:06 UTC  

anyone care to share some

2019-02-27 08:48:21 UTC  

@Vergo 2 Chronicles 33:14



Now after this he built the outer Wall of the city of David on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entrance of the Fish Gate; and he encircled the Ophel with it and made it very high. Then he put army commanders in all the fortified cities of Judah.

2019-02-27 08:49:21 UTC  

in one verse theyre giving advice in another theyre describing history

2019-02-27 12:54:39 UTC  

@hamburgersareyummy1
It was expressing a feeling, not an argument but one was kinda implied with the stupidity that that guy was spewing