I've got it. Truth is existence, and existence is everything humanity as a whole can comprehend, so therefore the smarter we are, the more truth there is, because in the end, if there is no one to hear a tree falling then it doesn't really make a sound.

It is implied therefore. Since there are rules of the universe, and since those are the rules of which the entirety of the mind is confined to, then the reason is asserted in principle of scientific truth, therefore the encompassing truth is entirely dependent on that and that of our existence. The truth I was describing was a more subjective way to view it. There is a realm beyond human comprehension that we can try to explore, but it will always cease to show itself to us. And so, at that marker, we must conclude that truth is the universe, and what reasoning can assert from its principles.

Right, and there's some merit to that. However, the use of government is entirely meant for keeping what the universe has granted to us, and finding certain highly impractical things, like killing, and outlawing them for the sake of our species continuation.

The reason censorship as a concept is belittling is because it restricts the mind to a subset of rules. The rules of the universe are already enough to constrain us, why need arbitrary conditions from a ruling government to do the same? In fact, we use censorship in our daily lives all the time on our own through social communication. If culture goes one way, we go along with it.

I absolutely agree with ovdtogt.

Truth is only true when certain set rules are in play, whatever those rules may be. The overarching set of rules would be the rules of observation and the laws the universe operates by.

Truth, to me, can be boiled down to two categories. The metaphorical truth, that is the abstraction of truth in pursuit for pragmatism, and the objective truth, the truth that is literal, observable, and can be proven time and time again. We have to, at some point, go as far as to stop at what we can see. Because the universe has given us the ability to see, hear, taste, touch, smell, then those must be a fairly good way of viewing it, or at least anything outside of said realm cannot be experienced, so therefore entirely useless to us. The way I think about it is that the universe is a game with a set of rules. Trying to prove truth beyond our comprehension isn't going to get anywhere, and, well, that's because it's literally beyond our comprehension. So, therefore, trying to find the rules of the universe will give us a better understanding of it, and that is where I find truth.

I am in total agreement. The anti color blindness routine comes from nowhere.

I'm only halfway into what you typed and I've gotta say, thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to criticize what I've done. And it's genuine criticism, it's hard to come by people like you nowadays. I just feel my mind isn't expanding because of that. So thank you for writing this out, I much appreciate it, you're a real one. One thing I've gotta work on is my insensitivity. I need to frame my arguments a little better when it comes to trying to get other people to understand. I've always been on the mindset of everyone is against me, for whatever reason it is. I will take your outline to heart. I've learned a great deal from that, thank you.

If you were a little confused about evolution and couldn't 100% tell if you agreed on it or not, would you want a quick and easy guide to access it? This is what I was trying to make, discrediting it makes no sense, I'm trying to make this for the stupid. Obviously you can look up x amount of facts online about what evolution is, and there are plenty of places to find such information, but if you'd like to argue to a simple minded person, a person who isn't necessarily going out of their way to find out what evolution is, this is the guide. Perhaps it would drive them further away. You can argue a point without being disrespectful, and can end up changing minds in the end. I encourage you to not give up on some people, I've found reasonable religious people before. I get the argument you're making, sometimes you just have to back off. Some people are wiling to explore the idea however, why not add to the conversation and make a kind of quick guide? From what I've read of you, you seem like a person who has lost hope in society. There's hope left. And also, I'd like to add that I wasn't making this as a guide for people LOOKING to start an argument, just because I made this does not entail me to such a title as being someone equipping the aggressor. I've never argued with someone who wasn't willing to argue, and I certainly don't start an argument, it's rude obviously.

Perhaps you have little interaction as well, since you seemingly know that all interactions with skeptics will end up sour. Skeptics who are reasonably minded can and will change their mind, this isn't meant for all obviously. You should assume that, it's not a hard conclusion to draw, perhaps you've just not seen someone as myself, someone who didn't believe in evolution until I dug deeper into it. It really irks me when people add absolutely nothing helpful to the conversation and instead end with a "it is what it is, people are ignorant" argument.

Thank you for your input, I agree and I understand the concept a little more than what I did. I like the way you described natural selection vs evolution, evolution is an absolute natural selection is a theory

Thanks, have any good links?

We must come up with some sort of moral absolutes. I understand your points a little clearer now. A moral absolute is one where you treat others as they treat you. It's in our biology, no denying it. They kill us, we kill them. Period.

They are different. Theories use testable explanations to show what the world's processes are, so there is a clear distinction.

I believe it to be an enlightened culture. We want the human race to succeed. The only argument in favor of culture as such to exist are religious arguments. We all should understand a tribe that reacts to a man coming to their homeland by killing him is not morally correct in any sense. They can't cooperate, so therefore we don't have a reason to care for them, we can murder them and nothing would happen.

From my perspective I look at a culture and discuss whether they add anything helpful to human society. If they do, then they should be allowed to coexist, if they do not, then what's the problem with wiping them out, or getting them to conform, etc. Are these people adding anything to help better the society of the rest of the world? They haven't even discovered fire. Perhaps what they're adding is a scientific place of observation for us to discover how we acted before technology. If that's the case, then they should be observed and tested. If not, then they add nothing other than being a nuisance to progress. Take religion, I believe most people on here aren't very religious because they believe it adds a roadblock to progress in intellectual honesty. So what is our goal as human species? To understand our surroundings and take control of it so we are free to live a happy life. Letting them coexist with us has no moral founding, and is more based on the feelings of us, which we developed over time through periods of enlightenment. They don't feel the same way as us, nor will the ever. They don't add anything to society, there's no moral implication if they were to suddenly vanish tomorrow, we'd still function normally and wouldn't be affected at all by them. So they are useless.

I agree, but I believe many people are misinformed. Many skeptics say evolution isn't proved because they use circular reasoning. I made this guide to kind of explain the reasoning for it existing, and kind of a dumbed down version of the evidence so that people of faith can look and see the evidence in favor.

Perhaps in your sense of the word freedom. I have not yet become addicted, therefore I smoke a pipe as a mild hobby.

But really I feel to truly be free one must first restrict his or her actions to things that they find better themselves

we had the example of a small child shooting another small child: clearly no crime involved — tim wood

That is a crime, a juvenile and unintentional one, but still a crime. In my mind a crime is an act that is directly stated as unlawful. And I see nothing wrong with the opening of options, and calling that openness of options "freedom". Many people in America are overweight, and I praise God everyday we have the freedom to do something like that. Many of my coworkers smoke cigarettes, and I and my father smoke pipes. Are any of these things good for you? No. Should these particular acts be celebrated? Not really. Should we be thankful that we're allowed to do all of the right things, and all of the wrong things as well? Yes absolutely, because then your destiny is more so determined by your own actions (ignore hard determinism for a minute.)

I agree, I just see no viable option as of now. Perhaps making a gun training course necessary would be practical.

Well, I do submit to the fact that my Iceland source was an unfair comparison. However, if you look at the rates of homicides per state in the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state . If you sort by gun murder rate, you can see that there's little correlation between gun ownership and gun murder rate. You'd expect there to be a larger gun murder rate in states with more relaxed gun laws, but there seems to be more at play here. So what is it exactly? It appears that some of the areas with the highest percent of gun ownership have the lowest gun murder rates. However, they also account for some of the highest gun murder rates. I find this very confusing.

Something to think about, however, is how guns could stop potential homicides. The Texas church shooting was stopped by a bystander in the NRA, not the police or other authorities.

I'm also all for more rigid background checks, however I disagree with most police officers being unarmed.

But again, gun murder rates over the past few decades have overall been declining, so I see no problem that should be fixed as of now.

Let me ask you a question, is more freedom worse than less freedom? If you answered no, then you must be able to protect yourself against threats to freedom. I can't understand the logic of the far-left to think that guns should be banned, and still think colored people are wrongfully being incarcerated. If you answered yes, then I think your previous argument is now concise. I'd also like to point out the fact that London's crime rate is now higher than New York's, even though guns and even knives are now banned. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/03/londons-murder-rate-higher-than-new-york-citys/480860002/

The left always brings up instances of countries where guns are banned and the crime rate is significantly lower than others. Well here's some conflicting evidence http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22288564

Take a look at this chart:

Homicide count in 2009

Brazil 43,909
Denmark 47
Iceland 1
UK 724
US 15,241

Iceland had ONE homicide. So there's clearly more at play here than banning firearms.

What kind of a right do you think it is, and how do you think that right works?

I don't really understand that question. I think it's a human right, as do most Americans. I think it works because of the standards of living in America.

Or, why aren't you on the road even as we speak protecting yourself, and presumably the rest of us, by using your gun on the folks who bring you these tyrannies. — tim wood

Because none of these atrocities have been realized.

Sure, but this is not a right for an individual to own a gun. — tim wood

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you think any right in the Constitution is absolute, then you don't fully understand the document (see video of Justice Souter speaking at Harvard). — tim wood

No right in the Constitution is absolute, this is why they are amendments instead of articles. However, no right in the Bill of Rights has ever been overturned, and it should stay that way.

I noticed the references provided for statistics referred mainly to crimes. A lot of gun violence is not the result of a crime. — tim wood

Um, yes it is. Gun violence is by definition a crime.

Anything about these numbers strike you as interesting? — tim wood

Not really. The American civilian population in the current day is considerably greater than the American military population during Vietnam. Overall the amount of gun violence is decreasing overtime, and I think that's a good sign. Even the amount of mass shootings have been decreasing over time. The news media over blows things out of proportion to make certain crimes seem more egregious than they really are, and even though they are very sad and devastating, it's our price for freedom.

I do not understand what I did to deserve getting my comments removed. However, if you do not understand the implication of a government with control of all firearms, then you are lost. A government that has control of all firearms could easily become a dictatorship, allowing majority rule on everything in the United States. We have checks and balances that make sure something like this doesn't happen, which is why the right to bear arms is written in the constitution, same with the right to free speech, right to assembly, the reason the electoral college exists, the reason there are three branches of government, the reason there is a state and federal government, etc.

A series of infinite numbers can have a finite solution if the numbers are all greater than zero and less than one, therefore we are able to cross the room.

You're telling me that you don't think freedom and protecting said freedom is a right? I don't understand. What sort of tyranny are you talking of? A foreign tyranny? The Constitution was designed to protect America and its people, and that's what I'm speaking of. An example of a tyranny I would rebel against would be one that redistributes my wealth to the poor, invades my right to privacy, and throws me in jail without habeas corpus. And please cite these statistics, I have many sources that state that gun violence has decreased, in spite of the fact that gun ownership has increased. (Take note, these sources I'm going to present you with are already left wing, therefore disproving any sort of agenda.)

Source 1, massive decline in gun violence: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e3cda9da3cbe

Source 2, amount of gun ownership: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/20/kevin-nicholson/which-higher-number-people-or-number-guns-america/

Source 3, more crimes committed with illegal guns than legally obtained: http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/

I will say again, that the nature of the right to own a gun is for checks and balances of the individual or state-built militia against the federal government, if such a tyranny were to arise. I don't see how it is a fantasy, it is a logical conclusion considering past mistakes. It is a right in the sense that we as individuals have right to freedom, and to protect that freedom.

I don't own a gun, however it is very easy to own a gun and keep it in storage, whether in a case or just in a closet.

I believe so. Guns are very important for fighting off tyrannical governments. Is it likely that a tyrannical government will arise soon? No, however I'm not going to take that chance, seeing as how all past democracies have failed and become tyrannical. Guns are also almost necessary for self defense, or fighting off home invasion. On top of that, many people rely on their guns for killing animals to eat.

The majority of crimes committed with guns use illegally obtained guns. More people in America have guns, about 1 per person, than in the last 20 years, and there has been a decrease in gun violence as a whole, despite what the media would have you believe.