Topic: I was a strong atheist...
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #11,642
Hi Minichan. I am confused, I was a strong Atheist (I didn't promote or proactively talk about the lack of god but I wasn't taking no God mumbo jumbo).
The thing is, recently I have been thinking about creation and I think I understand religion. The theory Science has provided us is so foggy, relies on the existence of matter (just as religion relies on the existence of a being). Now when I hear people say what created God, I think well what created matter?
The more I think of it the more I realize that at our current level of comprehension and understanding of time both theories are impossible, yet the religious ideas accept this and tell us that God is beyond our comprehension and outside of time.
I realise religion has it's many fallacies (so has science actually, they are not so dissimilar) and I am not trying to say I believe in Christianity .etc because I don't, if there is some kind of designer I don't believe anyone has ever spoken to him.
While you may say the concept of God is impossible, and that to say he is beyond our comprehension is some kind of excuse. I now realise that when we talk about true creation science has no better answer, and according to itself it's current answer just isn't possible.
So now when I think how coincidentally we went from nothing to well constructed strands of DNA that cover everything about our lives to owning the greatest chemical electrical super computers in the world inside our very own heads I think that those who put down religion as complete mumbo jumbo now are just as blind as the religious nut jobs who devote their life to God, you are both being fed the same answers wrapped in different words.
The thing is, recently I have been thinking about creation and I think I understand religion. The theory Science has provided us is so foggy, relies on the existence of matter (just as religion relies on the existence of a being). Now when I hear people say what created God, I think well what created matter?
The more I think of it the more I realize that at our current level of comprehension and understanding of time both theories are impossible, yet the religious ideas accept this and tell us that God is beyond our comprehension and outside of time.
I realise religion has it's many fallacies (so has science actually, they are not so dissimilar) and I am not trying to say I believe in Christianity .etc because I don't, if there is some kind of designer I don't believe anyone has ever spoken to him.
While you may say the concept of God is impossible, and that to say he is beyond our comprehension is some kind of excuse. I now realise that when we talk about true creation science has no better answer, and according to itself it's current answer just isn't possible.
So now when I think how coincidentally we went from nothing to well constructed strands of DNA that cover everything about our lives to owning the greatest chemical electrical super computers in the world inside our very own heads I think that those who put down religion as complete mumbo jumbo now are just as blind as the religious nut jobs who devote their life to God, you are both being fed the same answers wrapped in different words.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #209,682
Just go find God so you can cum on his saggy tits already.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #209,683
Just because no one has the answers, it doesn't mean that every answer is as equally valid as all the rest. Also, painting science and religion as opposites is bad form. You don't have to reject one to accept the other.
If you think there's some grand purpose to it all, then good for you -- whatever gets you through your day, OP.
If you think there's some grand purpose to it all, then good for you -- whatever gets you through your day, OP.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #209,684
Science doesn't provide an answer for the creation of the universe. What science gives us is possible scenarios given our current VERY incomplete understanding of the universe. Yes, our understanding has gaps, but that's no reason to fill them with god.
This is a very tired and weak argument. You are basically admitting that there's no evidence for God, so here's an argument I'll make because you can't disprove it. Theists even consider it to he a poor argument.
I find it hard to believe you are sincere as this is probably the most criticized argument for god. Most theists see it as ingenuine.
This is a very tired and weak argument. You are basically admitting that there's no evidence for God, so here's an argument I'll make because you can't disprove it. Theists even consider it to he a poor argument.
I find it hard to believe you are sincere as this is probably the most criticized argument for god. Most theists see it as ingenuine.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #209,687
@209,683 (C)
I am not saying they are equal, but both at the end of the day require something to come from nothing.
@209,682 (B)
God definitely made you in his image.
@previous (sluggy)
I am not arguing Gods existence, neither am I know arguing against it. There is no evidence for God I am not saying you cannot disprove him, you are defaulting to that argument. Science has many answers for the creation of the universe, but like God they are theoretical they cannot be proved or disproved at this moment in time so are they not similar?
I am arguing more that creationism is not as crazy and impossible as I once thought, I do not believe God made the world in 7 days but I now realize it is just as possible as any other theory as any other theory that exists is still theoretically impossible due to the nature of time and matter. There are few cases where we have acknowledged energy or matter being created from nothing but they still require matter and energy to happen.
I am not saying they are equal, but both at the end of the day require something to come from nothing.
@209,682 (B)
God definitely made you in his image.
@previous (sluggy)
I am not arguing Gods existence, neither am I know arguing against it. There is no evidence for God I am not saying you cannot disprove him, you are defaulting to that argument. Science has many answers for the creation of the universe, but like God they are theoretical they cannot be proved or disproved at this moment in time so are they not similar?
I am arguing more that creationism is not as crazy and impossible as I once thought, I do not believe God made the world in 7 days but I now realize it is just as possible as any other theory as any other theory that exists is still theoretically impossible due to the nature of time and matter. There are few cases where we have acknowledged energy or matter being created from nothing but they still require matter and energy to happen.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,688
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,689
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,690
FatGreen joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,691
It's arrogant of humans to think of God as human form.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,692
@previous (FatGreen)
not really, it says right in the bible(near the beginning too) that god made humans in his image
not really, it says right in the bible(near the beginning too) that god made humans in his image
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 47 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,694
@209,687 (A)
> I am not saying they are equal, but both at the end of the day require something to come from nothing.
Sure, the problem of "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is a big question for which no one really has a satisfactory answer. The way I see it, some people feel that adding a little more mysterious and unknown something to one side of that equation helps them feel better about the problem.
> I do not believe God made the world in 7 days but I now realize it is just as possible as any other theory that exists
Really? You seem to be pulling a bit of a bait and switch here as you move from talking about how the universe began to talking about the world was created. You seem to be assuming that because observation and theory is not in a position to give us the answer to an endless string of "What came before that?" questions, that it means that any crazy theory about anything (including events we have pretty good guesses about) is suddenly valid. I think that is a bit of a logical leap.
> I am not saying they are equal, but both at the end of the day require something to come from nothing.
Sure, the problem of "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is a big question for which no one really has a satisfactory answer. The way I see it, some people feel that adding a little more mysterious and unknown something to one side of that equation helps them feel better about the problem.
> I do not believe God made the world in 7 days but I now realize it is just as possible as any other theory that exists
Really? You seem to be pulling a bit of a bait and switch here as you move from talking about how the universe began to talking about the world was created. You seem to be assuming that because observation and theory is not in a position to give us the answer to an endless string of "What came before that?" questions, that it means that any crazy theory about anything (including events we have pretty good guesses about) is suddenly valid. I think that is a bit of a logical leap.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 49 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,696
Yeah, fuck the side that has some evidence, the sky lord is far more plausible because we can't comprehend it anyway.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 47 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,698
d/c
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,701
@209,687 (A)
> I am not arguing Gods existence, neither am I know arguing against it. There is no evidence for God I am not saying you cannot disprove him, you are defaulting to that argument. Science has many answers for the creation of the universe, but like God they are theoretical they cannot be proved or disproved at this moment in time so are they not similar?
Not at all. A physicist can support their belief in the big bang with observable evidence. A theist can;t do the same concerning their belief in a c+retor.
Scientific theories can be dis-proven. When scientists comes up with an hypothesis, it must be testable. Maybe we aren't able to test it with our current knowledge and technology, but its kind of required. Thats why I put more stock in scientists than creationists.
> I am arguing more that creationism is not as crazy and impossible as I once thought, I do not believe God made the world in 7 days but I now realize it is just as possible as any other theory as any other theory that exists is still theoretically impossible due to the nature of time and matter. There are few cases where we have acknowledged energy or matter being created from nothing but they still require matter and energy to happen.
Basically, anything a person can think of is just as plausible to you as the scenarios suggested by educated physicists?
> I am not arguing Gods existence, neither am I know arguing against it. There is no evidence for God I am not saying you cannot disprove him, you are defaulting to that argument. Science has many answers for the creation of the universe, but like God they are theoretical they cannot be proved or disproved at this moment in time so are they not similar?
Not at all. A physicist can support their belief in the big bang with observable evidence. A theist can;t do the same concerning their belief in a c+retor.
Scientific theories can be dis-proven. When scientists comes up with an hypothesis, it must be testable. Maybe we aren't able to test it with our current knowledge and technology, but its kind of required. Thats why I put more stock in scientists than creationists.
> I am arguing more that creationism is not as crazy and impossible as I once thought, I do not believe God made the world in 7 days but I now realize it is just as possible as any other theory as any other theory that exists is still theoretically impossible due to the nature of time and matter. There are few cases where we have acknowledged energy or matter being created from nothing but they still require matter and energy to happen.
Basically, anything a person can think of is just as plausible to you as the scenarios suggested by educated physicists?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 46 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,709
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster and His glorious creation!
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,711
OP, join us in the Illuminati and worship our extraterrestrial Reptilian ancestors -- the real missing link in evolutionary theory.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,713
@209,687 (A)
> I do not believe God made the world in 7 days but I now realize it is just as possible as any other theory as any other theory that exists
> [...] God made the world in 7 days [...] just as possible as any other theory
One theory relies on observable evidence, one relies on the unsupported writings of a 2000 year old book.
> I do not believe God made the world in 7 days but I now realize it is just as possible as any other theory as any other theory that exists
> [...] God made the world in 7 days [...] just as possible as any other theory
One theory relies on observable evidence, one relies on the unsupported writings of a 2000 year old book.
Anonymous I double-posted this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,730
> we went from nothing to well constructed strands of DNA
You're just doing what humans have done throughout history - we can't explain something with our current understanding, so it must have been God that did it!
You're just doing what humans have done throughout history - we can't explain something with our current understanding, so it must have been God that did it!
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,735
Shut the fuck up and go to church, OP. You obviously don't have the brass for atheism. Here's a tip: there is no god. If you're confused by that statement you are, at best, agnostic. Go be wishy-washy in church.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,737
@previous (K)
This one time at band camp (no joke) I was performing in front of thousands of people at the end of the summer. We were just finishing our intro when I felt a sudden urge to release hot stream of brown lava in my pants as I was playing my tuba. It was our biggest performance so I couldn’t leave in the middle of it. We finished one song but the cramps were getting worse. Our instructor said I couldn’t go and I had to wait for the end of the performance. I told him to screw it because I couldn’t hold it any longer. Shit was already slowly coming out of my ass. There weren’t any bathrooms for about 15 minutes. All I could think of was to shit in the tuba. I ran behind the bleachers and I exploded inside the trusted tuba. I ruined my hot pink thong but that was the least of my worries. I didn’t know how to empty it so I tried to blow in it would come out but it didn’t. So I asked my instructor to check if he could get it to work and i lied and said it was stuck because i accidentally dropped my gum in it. He blew in it and the creamy shit flew all over the front row of the audience.
This one time at band camp (no joke) I was performing in front of thousands of people at the end of the summer. We were just finishing our intro when I felt a sudden urge to release hot stream of brown lava in my pants as I was playing my tuba. It was our biggest performance so I couldn’t leave in the middle of it. We finished one song but the cramps were getting worse. Our instructor said I couldn’t go and I had to wait for the end of the performance. I told him to screw it because I couldn’t hold it any longer. Shit was already slowly coming out of my ass. There weren’t any bathrooms for about 15 minutes. All I could think of was to shit in the tuba. I ran behind the bleachers and I exploded inside the trusted tuba. I ruined my hot pink thong but that was the least of my worries. I didn’t know how to empty it so I tried to blow in it would come out but it didn’t. So I asked my instructor to check if he could get it to work and i lied and said it was stuck because i accidentally dropped my gum in it. He blew in it and the creamy shit flew all over the front row of the audience.
Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,753
> coincidentally we went from nothing to well constructed strands of DNA
stopped reading there
stopped reading there
Triptych !LightPenis joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,764
To be fair, the...proto-scientific view came from religion. They're not mutually exclusive.
At this point in time, it's impossible to say for sure whether the universe came from a god or not.
People will have their differing beliefs. As long as they don't completely discredit other beliefs, it's all good, no?
At this point in time, it's impossible to say for sure whether the universe came from a god or not.
People will have their differing beliefs. As long as they don't completely discredit other beliefs, it's all good, no?
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,818
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
Its impossible to say the universe didn't come from a unicorn, or Santa Clause as well. Those arguments are so weak.
Its impossible to say the universe didn't come from a unicorn, or Santa Clause as well. Those arguments are so weak.
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,820
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I meant discredit as in to say that religion has no worth.
Those beliefs are ridiculous, but some people might actually believe that. The only difference is that the belief that the universe came from a unicorn or Santa Claus hasn't had much influence on society or the world.
I meant discredit as in to say that religion has no worth.
Those beliefs are ridiculous, but some people might actually believe that. The only difference is that the belief that the universe came from a unicorn or Santa Claus hasn't had much influence on society or the world.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,825
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
Religion has poisoned cultures and humanity as a whole, throughout history. I guess that's worth something. ;)
Religion has poisoned cultures and humanity as a whole, throughout history. I guess that's worth something. ;)
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,827
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,828
dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,833
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,834
@209,828 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Secularism existed then, too, it just wasn't formalized. People were nominally Christian, yes, but they went about their day-to-day lives without reference to Christianity.
What's true is the destruction of knowledge from before. Yes, that was due to religion, but think about it. Shit was just as much cultural then as it was religious. Without religion, people would have found other reasons to fight.
And without religion, people would have been lost. Sure, now we have some insight into the universe due to science. Not much, but some. This leaves people some scraps of knowledge, and they're not so lost. That's a clumsy way of saying it, but still. People have always wondered where everything came from, and fell back onto religion. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans were religious too. ;)
Also, much of what's regarded as science came from religion. Ironic that one of the founders of scientific thought, Renes Descartes, was inspired by a dream he had of angels. And, despite being largely regarded as the "father of reason", Socrates was inspired by some kind of weird experience he had with the Oracle at Delphi.
Secularism existed then, too, it just wasn't formalized. People were nominally Christian, yes, but they went about their day-to-day lives without reference to Christianity.
What's true is the destruction of knowledge from before. Yes, that was due to religion, but think about it. Shit was just as much cultural then as it was religious. Without religion, people would have found other reasons to fight.
And without religion, people would have been lost. Sure, now we have some insight into the universe due to science. Not much, but some. This leaves people some scraps of knowledge, and they're not so lost. That's a clumsy way of saying it, but still. People have always wondered where everything came from, and fell back onto religion. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans were religious too. ;)
Also, much of what's regarded as science came from religion. Ironic that one of the founders of scientific thought, Renes Descartes, was inspired by a dream he had of angels. And, despite being largely regarded as the "father of reason", Socrates was inspired by some kind of weird experience he had with the Oracle at Delphi.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 54 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,859
@209,833 (dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46)
?
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
There's no compelling evidence to say that humanity would have not been better off without religion, in fact there's more evidence to the contrary, but mostly the world would be better off without evil fucks, religious or not.
?
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
There's no compelling evidence to say that humanity would have not been better off without religion, in fact there's more evidence to the contrary, but mostly the world would be better off without evil fucks, religious or not.
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,860
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,864
dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46 replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,865
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,866
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,867
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,868
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,870
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Why's that? There are relatively innocuous sociopaths who aren't guilty of great crimes, but truly seem to lack the ability to actually empathize. And who seem not to give a shit about anyone.
Why's that? There are relatively innocuous sociopaths who aren't guilty of great crimes, but truly seem to lack the ability to actually empathize. And who seem not to give a shit about anyone.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,871
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,872
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,873
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,875
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Rather, nothing/nobody is inherently bad.
And, yes, bad is sometimes good. Stuff overlaps sometimes.
Rather, nothing/nobody is inherently bad.
And, yes, bad is sometimes good. Stuff overlaps sometimes.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,876
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
> Rather, nothing/nobody is inherently bad.
People are never bad???
> And, yes, bad is sometimes good. Stuff overlaps sometimes.
Any examples?
> Rather, nothing/nobody is inherently bad.
People are never bad???
> And, yes, bad is sometimes good. Stuff overlaps sometimes.
Any examples?
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,878
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> People are never bad???
Nah. Good and bad are subjective to every individual's morals. There's no absolute good or bad. People, things, and actions are only made good or bad by you thinking they are.
> Any examples?
Hmm. I couldn't give you any off the top of my head. But any action that would do good to one person and bad to another by your standards. What would that be?
> People are never bad???
Nah. Good and bad are subjective to every individual's morals. There's no absolute good or bad. People, things, and actions are only made good or bad by you thinking they are.
> Any examples?
Hmm. I couldn't give you any off the top of my head. But any action that would do good to one person and bad to another by your standards. What would that be?
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,879
everytime an atheist converts to christianty god kills two niggers. :)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,883
@209,878 (Triptych !LightPenis)
Nah, people know its bad, they just don't give a shit. With the exception of sociopaths who have no morals, so they can't say either way.
Nah, people know its bad, they just don't give a shit. With the exception of sociopaths who have no morals, so they can't say either way.
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,884
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Again, it's only bad if they think it is. It's only bad to you because you believe it is. It doesn't have to be bad at all.
Again, it's only bad if they think it is. It's only bad to you because you believe it is. It doesn't have to be bad at all.
dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,886
@209,866 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
There aren't any sources, and how would you even measure scientific advancement?
It was just by some guy who drew a whole
There aren't any sources, and how would you even measure scientific advancement?
It was just by some guy who drew a whole
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,887
@209,884 (Triptych !LightPenis)
You're seriously arguing that nothing is bad? Morals are an innate trait...
You're seriously arguing that nothing is bad? Morals are an innate trait...
Ks !KansasxqvM double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,889
@209,886 (dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46)
> and how would you even measure scientific advancement?
Historical evidence. No one really argues that the dark ages were a shitty time (for a lot of reasons), and development not only stopped, but a lot of technology was lost and not seen again until it was basically reinvented.
> and how would you even measure scientific advancement?
Historical evidence. No one really argues that the dark ages were a shitty time (for a lot of reasons), and development not only stopped, but a lot of technology was lost and not seen again until it was basically reinvented.
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,891
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,892
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
Everything is subjective... nothing is nothing by your definition. Red is not red, cold is not cold etc. That's far out.
Everything is subjective... nothing is nothing by your definition. Red is not red, cold is not cold etc. That's far out.
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,894
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Everything is perception, yes.
There was a little girl whose dad taught her the colors wrong. To her, red was...yellow, or something.
It is! It's fun to think about when I'm bored or high.
Everything is perception, yes.
There was a little girl whose dad taught her the colors wrong. To her, red was...yellow, or something.
It is! It's fun to think about when I'm bored or high.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,895
@209,891 (Triptych !LightPenis)
Your face when you realize you're a nihilist.
Your face when you realize you're a nihilist.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM double-posted this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,896
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,897
@209,895 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Nah, someone told me that a while ago. I guess that's right. I dunno.
If we're going for labels here, what are you?
Nah, someone told me that a while ago. I guess that's right. I dunno.
If we're going for labels here, what are you?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,898
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,899
@209,896 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Is it? Why would it be a rose, and not something else? Isn't the name "rose" really a part of it, to people?
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Lol. That works.
Is it? Why would it be a rose, and not something else? Isn't the name "rose" really a part of it, to people?
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Lol. That works.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,900
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
When people use another language to say 'rose', are they not still talking about a rose?
When people use another language to say 'rose', are they not still talking about a rose?
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,902
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
That is still an established name for it, though. If you went up to someone and starting talking about a rose, only calling it a skunk-cabbage instead, would they recognize what you were speaking of as a rose?
That is still an established name for it, though. If you went up to someone and starting talking about a rose, only calling it a skunk-cabbage instead, would they recognize what you were speaking of as a rose?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,903
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,904
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
But you were describing a rose, still. So the name is a part of something.
But you were describing a rose, still. So the name is a part of something.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,905
@209,902 (Triptych !LightPenis)
My point is, you could call a rose anything, it would still be a flower an it would still smell sweet. By any name, a rose is still a rose, the name does not define it.
My point is, you could call a rose anything, it would still be a flower an it would still smell sweet. By any name, a rose is still a rose, the name does not define it.
Ks !KansasxqvM double-posted this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,906
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,910
@209,905 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Partially it does. People are communicative creatures: language is important. The name may not change what it really is, the same way that if nobody hears a tree fall it still has. It's just that for people, the name is needed. The same way that if nobody hears a tree fall, it might as well not have.
Partially it does. People are communicative creatures: language is important. The name may not change what it really is, the same way that if nobody hears a tree fall it still has. It's just that for people, the name is needed. The same way that if nobody hears a tree fall, it might as well not have.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,913
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
> The same way that if nobody hears a tree fall, it might as well not have.
I can not see nor hear the atoms that make up my body, yet they exist. I could call them smotas, yet their function and existence would remain unchanged.
Nihilism is odd stuff.
> The same way that if nobody hears a tree fall, it might as well not have.
I can not see nor hear the atoms that make up my body, yet they exist. I could call them smotas, yet their function and existence would remain unchanged.
Nihilism is odd stuff.
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,917
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Ah, but the thing is that if you don't know they exist, they don't exist. Not to you. Reality is malleable.
Ah, but the thing is that if you don't know they exist, they don't exist. Not to you. Reality is malleable.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,922
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
Something can exist without anyone's knowledge. The acknowledgement of somethings existence (or lack of) doesn't change the facts, it either exists or it doesn't. I could believe space monkeys existed, that wouldn't make it true. Existence in the mind is not existence in the world.
Something can exist without anyone's knowledge. The acknowledgement of somethings existence (or lack of) doesn't change the facts, it either exists or it doesn't. I could believe space monkeys existed, that wouldn't make it true. Existence in the mind is not existence in the world.
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,929
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
But the world exists in your mind.
Your beliefs, morals, and prejudices twist the way you see things. Your perception of things is all that really matters.
Until halfway through ninth grade I thought all lights were really...fuzzy, because I badly needed glasses. That doesn't mean the lights were fuzzy in the objective reality, but they were in my own subjective one, which is the one that matters.
But the world exists in your mind.
Your beliefs, morals, and prejudices twist the way you see things. Your perception of things is all that really matters.
Until halfway through ninth grade I thought all lights were really...fuzzy, because I badly needed glasses. That doesn't mean the lights were fuzzy in the objective reality, but they were in my own subjective one, which is the one that matters.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,934
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
The world would exist whether I was here to acknowledge it or not. Stars exist beyond our visible range with our naked eyes. Something doesn't need to be touched, felt, or seen to exist, your perception does not effect its existence. Lights were fuzzy for you, yes, but your perception doesn't apply in the world, only to you. To think someone's perception is all that matters is a bit narrow-minded, precisely why nihilism is considered so far out.
The world would exist whether I was here to acknowledge it or not. Stars exist beyond our visible range with our naked eyes. Something doesn't need to be touched, felt, or seen to exist, your perception does not effect its existence. Lights were fuzzy for you, yes, but your perception doesn't apply in the world, only to you. To think someone's perception is all that matters is a bit narrow-minded, precisely why nihilism is considered so far out.
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,936
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
But people are narrow-minded. Does it matter for you whether a tree fell in a forest and you didn't hear it?
The world would exist if you weren't there, but it wouldn't matter at all.
But people are narrow-minded. Does it matter for you whether a tree fell in a forest and you didn't hear it?
The world would exist if you weren't there, but it wouldn't matter at all.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,940
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
> Does it matter for you whether a tree fell in a forest and you didn't hear it?
Chaos theory, check it out.
> The world would exist if you weren't there, but it wouldn't matter at all.
It wouldn't matter to me, but I am not the world.
> Does it matter for you whether a tree fell in a forest and you didn't hear it?
Chaos theory, check it out.
> The world would exist if you weren't there, but it wouldn't matter at all.
It wouldn't matter to me, but I am not the world.
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,942
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> Chaos theory, check it out.
Interesting. I'm not sure what to say.
> It wouldn't matter to me, but I am not the world.
But you're all that matters.
> Chaos theory, check it out.
Interesting. I'm not sure what to say.
> It wouldn't matter to me, but I am not the world.
But you're all that matters.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,944
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
I'm all that matters to the world?? To the universe? That's kooky talk madame.
I'm all that matters to the world?? To the universe? That's kooky talk madame.
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,947
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Nah. You're all that matters to you. It's the same for every person. And when every person is dead, the universe will still exist. It just won't matter.
Nah. You're all that matters to you. It's the same for every person. And when every person is dead, the universe will still exist. It just won't matter.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,950
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
No it won't. With no observers the universe will blink out of existence.
No it won't. With no observers the universe will blink out of existence.
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,952
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,955
@209,947 (Triptych !LightPenis)
It won't matter to people, but we're not the only things that exist.
You should research nihilism objectively, and either embrace it or reject it. Its uh...
It won't matter to people, but we're not the only things that exist.
You should research nihilism objectively, and either embrace it or reject it. Its uh...
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,956
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I'm not sure where to stand on animals, insects, and such.
Lol. I've been doing a little research into the left-hand path. Actually I've been talking to someone who seems to follow it. Sounds more interesting.
I'm not sure where to stand on animals, insects, and such.
Lol. I've been doing a little research into the left-hand path. Actually I've been talking to someone who seems to follow it. Sounds more interesting.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,959
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)
Good luck with that. What can I say? I think you'll quickly outgrow it, you're young, have fun. ;)
Good luck with that. What can I say? I think you'll quickly outgrow it, you're young, have fun. ;)
Triptych !LightPenis replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,961
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Probably.
But it's better to cycle through a whole bunch of different beliefs and be non-committal than to stick to one for a long time, imo. :3
Probably.
But it's better to cycle through a whole bunch of different beliefs and be non-committal than to stick to one for a long time, imo. :3
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #209,962
@previous (Triptych !LightPenis)Its all a part of growing up, finding yourself etc. Have a nice journey!
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
orc !WBRXcNtpf. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #210,193
maybe god... was an alien.sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #210,295
@209,959 (Ks !KansasxqvM)Don't encourage witchcraft! we must burn the heathen! BURN! BURN! BURN! BURN! BURN!
sluggy double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #210,297
@210,193 (orc !WBRXcNtpf.)
Do you think that species is still in existence? Who made the fucking pyramids?!
Do you think that species is still in existence? Who made the fucking pyramids?!
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #210,371
@previous (sluggy)
Pyramid builders has access to amazing technologies. It's tempting to think their construction was influenced by extraterrestrial beings, but those theories all fail on motive.
Why the fuck would aliens travel light years to pile up rocks for a bunch of apes to look at?
Nope, truth is knowledge has been lost and suppressed.
Pyramid builders has access to amazing technologies. It's tempting to think their construction was influenced by extraterrestrial beings, but those theories all fail on motive.
Why the fuck would aliens travel light years to pile up rocks for a bunch of apes to look at?
Nope, truth is knowledge has been lost and suppressed.