Of-course I am making it up. It's all from my individual mind. I'm not very predictable, but then I am when I have to be. Then at the most predictable moments I'm not. I even out predict myself sometimes
Last edited by a moderator:
Atheism = Farce!
- Thread starter Incocknito
- Start date
- Status
Of-course I am making it up. It's all from my individual mind. I'm not very predictable, but then I am when I have to be. Then at the most predictable moments I'm not. I even out predict myself sometimes
Okay you go tell your individual mind to have fun. Thanks for wasting my time. If you don't have the capacity to have a discussion, just don't. Why do I even bother...
He don't gotta tell you shit. You can very easily GOOGLE lightning and learn all about it. Just because you can't figure something out doesn't mean other people can't. If everyone was like you, nobody would ever bother to invent/discover anything anyway. Thank Zeus for actual scientists.
And then for you to go on and say he doesn't have the capacity for discussion. Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.
Discussion? You offered to the discourse, what? You had so many original ideas, now, what were they again? Ummm, ummm,ummmm, well you had nothing to offer to the discussion actually.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm wondering if he is going to play golf in the middle of a paddock during a thunderstorm
Kotchanski
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Posts
- 2,850
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 104
- Points
- 193
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Female
Oh dear something or other...
Is there really an argument going on about how two people have contributed nothing original to a thread? Here's a shocker for you... this "discussion" has been going on for fuck knows how long, there really is nothing original to add, on either side.
I'll boil the whole thing down for everyone, then we can all focus on how I think I have the right to speak for everyone else, and how I'm trying to shut down a discussion because I'm both a right wing religious nut job, and a tree hugging lefty pushing my anti-religious agenda!
Some people right, they believe in God. They sometimes call him by a different name, and some even have him divided into several Gods serving different purposes. They have many reasons for their belief, some because they have simply been told that is what they believe, others look at the world around them and simply can't attribute the many wonders to anything other than a higher power, some because they need someone to turn to, someone to comfort and give them hope, others, because they need someone to blame... There are many reasons, and they will never be understood by those without faith, because it takes faith in God to understand faith in God. They require no definitive proof, because their faith is definitive proof.
Then there are these other people, and they don't believe in God. They may have a set of other beliefs, they may be based on nature, evolution, they may even believe everything is just pure chance. They have many reasons for not believing in God, some see the pain and suffering around us and can't believe that any God would allow such things to happen, some simply can't reconcile the biblical tellings with what science has to say, some simply find the entire notion moronic and insulting. They don't need any definitive proof that no God exists, because their lack of faith is definitive proof.
Long story short:
People with faith, believe.
People without faith, don't.
One will never truly understand the other, and there is never anything new to add to this discussion.
Now, go bang ya heads on some brick walls... It'll be less painful!
Is there really an argument going on about how two people have contributed nothing original to a thread? Here's a shocker for you... this "discussion" has been going on for fuck knows how long, there really is nothing original to add, on either side.
I'll boil the whole thing down for everyone, then we can all focus on how I think I have the right to speak for everyone else, and how I'm trying to shut down a discussion because I'm both a right wing religious nut job, and a tree hugging lefty pushing my anti-religious agenda!
Some people right, they believe in God. They sometimes call him by a different name, and some even have him divided into several Gods serving different purposes. They have many reasons for their belief, some because they have simply been told that is what they believe, others look at the world around them and simply can't attribute the many wonders to anything other than a higher power, some because they need someone to turn to, someone to comfort and give them hope, others, because they need someone to blame... There are many reasons, and they will never be understood by those without faith, because it takes faith in God to understand faith in God. They require no definitive proof, because their faith is definitive proof.
Then there are these other people, and they don't believe in God. They may have a set of other beliefs, they may be based on nature, evolution, they may even believe everything is just pure chance. They have many reasons for not believing in God, some see the pain and suffering around us and can't believe that any God would allow such things to happen, some simply can't reconcile the biblical tellings with what science has to say, some simply find the entire notion moronic and insulting. They don't need any definitive proof that no God exists, because their lack of faith is definitive proof.
Long story short:
People with faith, believe.
People without faith, don't.
One will never truly understand the other, and there is never anything new to add to this discussion.
Now, go bang ya heads on some brick walls... It'll be less painful!
- bav4,
Stop snorting / smoking whatever you are on, your brain has quite obviously already been destroyed.
Last edited:
Funny you should mention bricks
That be my trade background, bricklayer, now lic Builder... So ya, I have tons upon tons of experience with brick walls Some other fella was supposed to be a carpenter. Pffffft, timber The pyramids and castles were around a long time before he rocked up. Shame they never wrote a book about how the pyramids were built, yet one a about a guy that built a big boat. Buggered if I know
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't agree with that, simply because I used to be a stout believer. I would defend religion against whatever you could think of, that is until I was 15 or so. I know very well the reasons I used to believe whatever I believed and the reasons for why I don't anymore.
Oh is that so? If you bother to read his first post about lightning, it's a complete mess and it doesn't make any sense. For the sake of argument I asked him to rephrase it and he did, not ask him how lightning worked.
This time, what he said was completely made up without a shred of scientific truth. Why should I even further a discussion with someone who just makes things up on the fly and presents it as a counter argument? I don't even understand how you just completely disregard what he said about lightning and electricity. Here:
If you actually said this in real life instead of on the internet, people will laugh at you, hysterically. Seriously, how does someone come up with this and then assert it as an argument? In this case, I can just refute it by saying:
No, all living things actually run on unicorn juice, get your facts straight. And even if you run out of unicorn juice, you just temporarily freeze until someone brings you some from the local unicorn store. It is also true that any planet with just a tiny amount of unicorn juice will eventually have living things on it.
I've heard people say that a man, one man, built a boat big enough to house 2 of every species of animal, and then was somehow capable of capturing said animals and keep them alive on said boat for 40 days. Have you heard that one? Did you laugh in the speaker's face when they said it? Most people respect that we don't all share the same beliefs. You don't seem to have much respect for anyone.
As far as what Vibes wrote, I do know that the human body produces electrical current. Ever heard of an EKG? Whether or not lightning has anything to do with charging our bodies or anything like that, I can't say. I can't really disprove it either. Your little story does nothing to disprove it. It does prove that further correspondence with you would be futile. Good day.
How is that even the same? One is a religious story and the other is completely, easily falsifiable and utterly incorrect blabbering. There is tons of evidence ready to easily show that he was making it up. Why are you trying to make me "respect" the words of someone who just makes things up? Respect must be earned, not given freely to anyone with an idea.
He said all living things, not humans. Why don't you read properly before running at the mouth like verbal diarrhea?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, it's easily falsifiable with tons of evidence to easily show... Yet rather than present any of this massive trove of evidence you make up a stupid story about unicorns. It's the same pattern Vibes spoke of earlier.
Well, since an EKG checks the electrical activity in a human heart, it's reasonable to assume that anything with a heart also produces electrical current. And since plants produce electrical currents, that covers pretty much all living things.
Read that last part again, "In fact, all biological cells are electrical". What was that you were saying earlier about people pushing scientific evidence aside because it's bullshit?
It's obvious you feel that he who insults the most wins. It's all you've done in this thread. Is that how you feel you "earn respect"?
Again, I did present evidence. You seriously need to read before posting.
Oh wow hahaha.
Stop dodging. You know what vibes said is wrong but you're still asking me to respect his idea?
Don't expect me to respect this.
- bav4,
You dont know anything at all about actual scientists if you think that anything written here by this vibes guy has anything to do with science.
Anyone that knows the slightest thing about science would be laughing at and dismissing any of the crap that he is writing.
Last edited:
Some crazy people on here. That thing suggesting we would all die if there was no more lightning is the craziest things I've ever read.
And supposedly that means there's a 'higher power'? Perhaps.
But to me and the majority of people, it just means someone is extremely ignorant and deluded.
And supposedly that means there's a 'higher power'? Perhaps.
But to me and the majority of people, it just means someone is extremely ignorant and deluded.
AquaEyes11010
Expert Member
Humans like to solve problems, answer questions, figure things out, understand the "why?" of things. One can say that there is a sort of agitation or tension when something is presented, and we can't figure it out. To quell that agitation or tension, we seek answers. But the answers don't necessarily have to be true -- only enough to satisfy the desire to have closure to our questions.
One method of transforming an unknown into a known is to anthropomorphize the unknown. Some cultures answered the question, for example, of what thunder and lightning were by saying they were the actions of a being which existed in the atmosphere somewhere. That satisfied the question of what the thunder and lightning were, but also started a journey of questions about the being which caused the thunder and lightning. Stories developed over time about this being, to answer those questions -- to satisfy our desire to know. Whether or not the explanations were accurate is irrelevant -- what mattered was that they were believable. Without other explanations available, they survived without competition. But as each was developed independently by different cultures, they varied. Thus began the religions of the world.
These cultural explanations were passed down via parents to their children, who are psychologically more amenable to trusting and accepting fully the ideas of adults around them. This is a side-effect of an evolutionary adaptation benefiting the children, as those who didn't adhere to their parents' warnings about natural dangers were more prone to succumbing to them. Without examining which admonishments and lessons were beneficial individually to their own survival, children grew up accepting them as a whole package, and passed them on to their own offspring. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
But if it wasn't for the small faction of enterprising independent thinkers who either stumbled upon or actively sought out other explanations or knowledge, cultural innovation and technology would not exist. There have always been some who are left scratching their heads and furrowing their brows at beliefs which are accepted by their peers. Sometimes their explorations into alternative solutions are met with failure, sometimes with success, but their basic desire for answering questions is the same as that found among basically all of us. It's just that for whatever reason, they aren't as amenable to accepting the answers offered to them at the time, and seek their own.
And thus begins the conflict. Those who have accepted the cultural answers to the nagging questions have found their peace, regardless of the accuracy of their beliefs. Those who did not accept those cultural answers still have that nagging pang to investigate further, and if those investigations uncover the inaccuracy of the culturally accepted answers, then the former group is thrown into the tension of "not knowing" because the accuracy of their beliefs is now in doubt.
And once again, seeking to quell that tension, they have two options -- to change the answers they believe, or to rally against the competing ideas. Sometimes, the alternative explanations are not as easily understood, or they are incomplete, or simply the fact that they invalidate the basis of an accepted belief makes them threatening. An alternative explanation might provide a more accurate answer for one question, but accepting that answer leaves many more as yet unanswered, and the agitation of all those things unanswered is too frightening to accept.
You'll see this often when theists and atheists debate. The theist will say "Oh, so you think this is how it happened? Well, then how did that happen, and how do you explain this, and what about that?" The atheist will respond "Well, I don't know for certain" or "Possibly it happened this way" but these answers are unacceptable to the theist because they leave too many agitating, uncomfortable unknowns. They still don't understand the answers to the questions they ask of the atheist, but are satisfied with ascribing them to the actions of a being -- the classic god-of-the-gaps response.
For "spiritual fulfillment" one often sees how a god is employed to fill other gaps. The idea that one is never truly alone during times of stress because a god is there with them is a comforting thought, accurate or not, and relieves the tension and agitation of those situations. If a loved one is injured or sick, the belief that "all is in god's hands" calms the tension and agitation of not knowing the outcome of the situation. When atheists debate these ideas, they are removing that relief of tension and agitation but provide no alternate replacement, and thus elicit defensive responses from the theists.
Atheists and theists both start from the same point -- seeking a source of answers to uncomfortable unknowns. Theists found a package which satisfies all regardless of accuracy or evidence, while atheists maintain tension and agitation over inaccuracy or lack of evidence. Atheists still have uncomfortable unknowns, but quell that tension and agitation with the pursuit of accurate evidence-based answers.
One method of transforming an unknown into a known is to anthropomorphize the unknown. Some cultures answered the question, for example, of what thunder and lightning were by saying they were the actions of a being which existed in the atmosphere somewhere. That satisfied the question of what the thunder and lightning were, but also started a journey of questions about the being which caused the thunder and lightning. Stories developed over time about this being, to answer those questions -- to satisfy our desire to know. Whether or not the explanations were accurate is irrelevant -- what mattered was that they were believable. Without other explanations available, they survived without competition. But as each was developed independently by different cultures, they varied. Thus began the religions of the world.
These cultural explanations were passed down via parents to their children, who are psychologically more amenable to trusting and accepting fully the ideas of adults around them. This is a side-effect of an evolutionary adaptation benefiting the children, as those who didn't adhere to their parents' warnings about natural dangers were more prone to succumbing to them. Without examining which admonishments and lessons were beneficial individually to their own survival, children grew up accepting them as a whole package, and passed them on to their own offspring. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
But if it wasn't for the small faction of enterprising independent thinkers who either stumbled upon or actively sought out other explanations or knowledge, cultural innovation and technology would not exist. There have always been some who are left scratching their heads and furrowing their brows at beliefs which are accepted by their peers. Sometimes their explorations into alternative solutions are met with failure, sometimes with success, but their basic desire for answering questions is the same as that found among basically all of us. It's just that for whatever reason, they aren't as amenable to accepting the answers offered to them at the time, and seek their own.
And thus begins the conflict. Those who have accepted the cultural answers to the nagging questions have found their peace, regardless of the accuracy of their beliefs. Those who did not accept those cultural answers still have that nagging pang to investigate further, and if those investigations uncover the inaccuracy of the culturally accepted answers, then the former group is thrown into the tension of "not knowing" because the accuracy of their beliefs is now in doubt.
And once again, seeking to quell that tension, they have two options -- to change the answers they believe, or to rally against the competing ideas. Sometimes, the alternative explanations are not as easily understood, or they are incomplete, or simply the fact that they invalidate the basis of an accepted belief makes them threatening. An alternative explanation might provide a more accurate answer for one question, but accepting that answer leaves many more as yet unanswered, and the agitation of all those things unanswered is too frightening to accept.
You'll see this often when theists and atheists debate. The theist will say "Oh, so you think this is how it happened? Well, then how did that happen, and how do you explain this, and what about that?" The atheist will respond "Well, I don't know for certain" or "Possibly it happened this way" but these answers are unacceptable to the theist because they leave too many agitating, uncomfortable unknowns. They still don't understand the answers to the questions they ask of the atheist, but are satisfied with ascribing them to the actions of a being -- the classic god-of-the-gaps response.
For "spiritual fulfillment" one often sees how a god is employed to fill other gaps. The idea that one is never truly alone during times of stress because a god is there with them is a comforting thought, accurate or not, and relieves the tension and agitation of those situations. If a loved one is injured or sick, the belief that "all is in god's hands" calms the tension and agitation of not knowing the outcome of the situation. When atheists debate these ideas, they are removing that relief of tension and agitation but provide no alternate replacement, and thus elicit defensive responses from the theists.
Atheists and theists both start from the same point -- seeking a source of answers to uncomfortable unknowns. Theists found a package which satisfies all regardless of accuracy or evidence, while atheists maintain tension and agitation over inaccuracy or lack of evidence. Atheists still have uncomfortable unknowns, but quell that tension and agitation with the pursuit of accurate evidence-based answers.
Last edited:
Another excellent post from you good sir.
Some of you might take note as to how he was able to convey his thoughts with reasoning and logic rather than simply calling someone an idiot for believing something they can't wrap their heads around.
So what's needed to impress you is a nice and long story. There's no need to write something as long as that to show that someone who says
and
is either high out of his mind or just completely ignorant. How do you expect me to take anything you or the author of these quotes say seriously?
AquaEyes11010
Expert Member
Thanks.
The short version is that the two camps will forever be divided by what makes them tense/agitated, and what relieves that tension/agitation.
Theists are tense/agitated at the idea that there are questions without answers, or things not known or controlled by something. They relieve that tension/agitation with the belief that there is an all-knowing, all-powerful being (or beings) which is/are in charge.
Atheists are tense/agitated at the idea that there are questions with answers that are inaccurate, or without evidence, yet accepted regardless. They relieve that tension/agitation with the pursuit of accurate evidence-based answers, believing that if we don't know now, we may in the future.
Last edited:
- Status