Metæ joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later[^][v]#578,006
I'll believe anything, as long as I can see it.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#578,007
@OP
This post looks like it was made by someone who believes in UFOs, ancient astronauts, bigfoot, the bermuda triangle, nibiru, the Christ-God myth, and the occult, and is attempting to get a rise from atheists. Thanks for playing!
RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^][v]#578,008
No, not really.
I do enjoy reading about that stuff sometimes, but I think of them more as entertaining works of fiction.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 39 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^][v]#578,009
One of my guilty pleasures is reading conspiracy theories and listening to late night talk radio. I love conspiracy theories and silly apocalypse ideas. I don't believe any of them, but it's fun listening to the strange shit that people come up with. So, I love listening to these ideas, but I also love taking them apart.
So... no. I don't believe in anything paranormal unless I see it. It's fun hearing about what other people believe though.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#578,010
@578,008 (RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx) @previous (E)
Actually, so do I. The silliness is honestly quite addictive. Does it ever amaze you how the "apocalypsians" continue to cling to their beliefs no matter how many times their doomsday dates are proven wrong?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#578,011
@578,006 (Metæ)
So, you don't believe in strings or D-branes, because there is no way to "see" them or otherwise demonstrate their existence?
TTEH !FFSTTEHV7. joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#578,021
@578,008 (RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx)
This. The majority of conspiracy theories at least make for entertaining reading.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#578,022
DasSheeple joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 52 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,025
I believe in the universe, and it's magic ability to balance itself out nicely...
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 57 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,026
I believe many do without realizing it, maybe everyone does. Its very difficult to explain.
Mental illness can show itself in many ways, everyone knows this of course but did you know that this is especially true between cultures? In a very religious society, a person with OCD might try to cleanse themselves with constant prayers. But then the discovery of germs came along, now some OCD people try to cleanse themselves by constantly washing their hands. So you see it can keep
changing over time, changing how it manifests itself.
Like i heard this story about a strange delusion happening among mentally ill mothers in a certain culture which i have forgotten the name of. The mother becomes sure that the devil is trying to kill
their newborn. She starts to think that her neighbors are actually the devil. How this delusion is solved is by a custom or tradition, the mother sells her newborn/infant to close friends or family for
a little money (coins) and so this will fool the devil and confuse him because no longer is he looking for the right child since the child is no longer the child of the mother but to the buyer.
This mother/devil madness is just the norm in that culture. Belief in things like that may be the norm in our culture as well, we just can't see it clearly because we have been raised to see it as the norm.
Green !BEERiVqJJw joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,028
Your mum.
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,029
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,057
@578,022 (G)
no but ive seen other (late) people their brains so logically i can infer that i have one as well
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,058
@previous (L)
You said you only believe things you can see. You have never seen your brain. Therefore, you should not believe that you have a brain. Simple syllogism.
Anonymous L replied with this 11 years ago, 46 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,059
@previous (G)
No I didn't say that, but you appear to be functionally retarded if you cannot grasp the process of inferring information.
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,060
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,070
@578,056 (G) > obnoxiously large font size > .gif background image > see "bible" and "evil"
not reading that shit site
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 11 years ago, 45 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,072
@578,010 (A)
I like the rationalizations for being wrong this time but right the next time. Maybe it's the psych student in me.
@578,055 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
I used to regularly read magazines Fortean Times, Skeptic, and Skeptical Inquirer, so this looks interesting. Thanks. (it would be nicer if he would cite some sources though)
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,091
@578,011 (A)
well, right now, but that's what they used to say about individual atoms until electron microscopy. But you're right, they exist as a mathematical model. Probably there are some physicists who really believe that strings and branes are as described in the model, but mostly it's seen as a model. Even relativity, which is arguably the very best model for understanding large scale phenomenon, is still just a part of the Standard Model. no one is going around saying any of it is indisputable, in fact all of it is in dispute. There are some very closely held personal beliefs that certain parts of it are immutable, but anyone who believes that would instantly change their opinions based on evidence provided to the contrary.
it's closer to philosophy than the paranormal, physics is, but mostly it's because the paranormal is the unexplainable left unexplained, it's just been described.
physics is the opposite of that. it's the unexplainable explained to fit what is described. and that's merely empiricism.
kook !!mCVqftDha joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 35 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,098
I believe in the Illuminati and shadow people
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,104
@578,070 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Time Cube is all four of our truths. You shall accept it and know it.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,105
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,115
also it would be worth noting that String theory has given us some interesting and correct predictions that have been proven to be true either by cosmology or high energy physics, but, loop quantum gravity has made some very interesting and correct predictions and is a theory that looks to answer the same problems but with a different model. you can actually compare string theory to Newtonian physics because both are background dependent, but loop quantum gravity is more similar to the background independent model of relativity. both make similar predictions, but the models couldn't be more different. string theory gives rise to an 11 dimensional universe (as well as other redundancies) but loop quantum gravity gives rise to just 4 (but makes use of a few holographic principles.) In fact the whole idea of supersymmetry is still unproven in string theory, and so far all tests have failed to find them. It's looking more and more like M-theory and string theory are, once again, dead in the water and unsupported in actual nature. however, new experiments involving gravity wave detectors may provide evidence for a holographic principle at work in nature!
My point, really, is that the difference between a belief in "science" and belief in the paranormal is one of confirmation bias. science is always looking to disprove classically held beliefs so that truth can be uncovered. nothing is sacred. the paranormal "sciences" (like religion) just look for evidence that supports their narrative and reject anything that disproves it as wrong. they are seeking to present a narrative and dispute the opposition. they are not looking for truth, they are looking for belief. and anything that challenges their belief is rejected, which is not how you go about uncovering truth.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,128
Squeegee knows his shit.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,129
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,143
@578,091 (squeegee)
I'm not denying the validity of either String Theory or Brane Theory, I'm simply questioning Metæ's criteria for belief. Most of us don't have to literally see something to believe it exists or occurs. For example, nobody has ever seen the (dwarf) planet Pluto complete one orbit of the sun, but we still accept that it takes 247.7 Earth years to complete its circuit. We don't always need to see to believe.
Metæ replied with this 11 years ago, 43 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,147
@previous (A)
I don't have to, with my own eyes, directly see something to believe in it. Like, I understand that radiation exists, even though I can't directly feel it. We can observe its effects on other things (like photographic film or living organisms) and we can build apparatus like Geiger counters to detect it. If you took a piece of uranium ore and said "look Metæ, this rock emits an imperceptible form of energy, and I can prove it by exposing a piece of film wrapped in opaque paper with it" I would accept that as pretty convincing proof even though I couldn't feel or see it.
Or like infrared light. I can't see it myself but I accept that it exists because we can build cameras to see it (most digital cameras can - try it with your cell phone and a remote control) and we can observe its effects on things like TVs and night vision.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,149
@previous (Metæ)
Naieve realism? Come on Meta you're better than that!
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,179
how about a dude letting a horse fuck 'im
that's pretty extra nornal
hater !JGlOo5d1iU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,204
I don't believe in anything that's basis is delusional. I believe in things that can be demonstrated to be true. I enjoy reading about paranormal stuff, but I don't believe in ghosts or anything.
RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#578,211
@578,129 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
That just sounds like human nature, to me. Of course you'll get some scientists that get stuck into one form of thinking.
But, generally, I think that science has the mentality that squeegee described. As long as it's all testable and replicable. There have been plenty of shake-ups to the status quo to indicate that.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 12 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,327
@578,204 (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
I think aliens probably do exist, somewhere out there. It seems unlikely to me that our particular galaxy is the only one capable of spawning life. However, I don't think we've ever been contacted by them.
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,333
Anonymous X joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,425
I don't believe in ghosts.
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,464
@578,339 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
I thought I did. They're likely to breed first, and you would need to be strong to fight off parents if you want to fuck their kids. I think you just didn't see my reply, as I recall saying that.
I was possibly also joking.
hater !JGlOo5d1iU double-posted this 11 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,466
@578,380 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
A little. I was indoctrinated into a homophobic culture, but I don't care about gays. I don't want to stop them from adopting or getting married.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,468
@578,464 (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
lol But gay pedos just kind of sneak in?
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,470
@previous (kook !!mCVqftDha)
What do you mean? I thought I specific heterosexuals, not homosexuals.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,472
@previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
Yes. You said that the hetero pedos had to ight off parents. I asked if the gay pedos just snuck. I'm joking
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,474
@previous (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Oh, yea. They would offer to take the kids fishing and stuff; and no one suspected they were actually going to fuck them in the ass. Or, if they were really smart they instilled pedophilic homosexual acts as part of the culture, like those savages who have the boys suck the dick of the older men because they believe that's how you get semen. Lol.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,484
@previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
That is pretty funny. Its also a very ballsy lie.
Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,491
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,493
@578,484 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Ya know the dude who came up with it, whne he was alone in his mudhut grinned and thought "I can believe they bought that bullshit."
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,503
@578,472 (kook !!mCVqftDha) @578,474 (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
If we're talking about our prehistoric ancestors, the definitions probably weren't as distinct as they are nowadays. Cro-magnon hunters could be on the trail for days at a time, they usually took a couple of boys along for training. Cold nights, everybody huddles together for warmth, no women around, so if a man wants to have sex, one of the younger males would be sufficient. From the modern perspective, we assume that the boys' relatives might object, but we don't really know how ancient peoples would have viewed the act. There might've been certain advantages to consider, such as boys not being able to get pregnant. Certain parallels existed in more modern times, as noted in certain native American tribes that allowed uninitiated males to take on female roles instead of undergoing trial by ordeal.
@578,464 (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
I understand that you were joking, but there is one major flaw in your argument: the majority of children are molested by close family members, such as fathers, uncles or older brothers, ie people who already have (more or less) unrestricted access to them.
BTW: before the SJWs fly into a rage: yes, women are also known to molest children, but until recent times, this kind of behavior was generally overlooked, due to physical intimacy between women and children (stroking, fondling, breast-feeding etc) being considered unexceptional.
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,506
@previous (A)
That's true, but only because of access. Our ancestors didn't live as we do. So, it's possible non-relative males had just as much access as related males.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,507
@578,493 (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
I'm picturing Joseph Smith doing the same thing.
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,510
@previous (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Haha. Golden tablets. I have no respect for Mormons. I mean, I don't respect religious beliefs because none warrant it based on their merits, but I really don't respect Mormons. More ridiculous than Scientology cause its so easily disproved.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,513
@578,506 (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
Most anthropologists believe that hunter-gatherer societies lived in homogenous clans where almost everybody was related. In addition, they didn't have our notions of the nuclear family or fidelity. Judging by the few remaining indigenous cultures left in the world, the tribal elders had the last say in who got to have (heteronormative) sex - if you wanted to couple with someone's daughter, you wouldn't have to just fight off her (supposed) parents, you'd be up against the rest of your clan, who'd be prepared to flay the skin off your back for defying the elders.
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,519
@previous (A)
So they would have to be really tough, gotcha.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,524
@previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
No, I'd say he'd be really dead, and therefore unable to pass his genes along. On the other hand, as young girls were usually given away as soon as they reached puberty, he mightn't need to risk death. If he was sly and cunning, he could get on the elders' good side and just bide his time. He wouldn't need to be physically powerful - he'd need to be smarter and have more sophisticated social skills than his rivals. That's how it works in human society; not survival of the fittest - survival of the smartest.
Anonymous T replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#578,528
@578,474 (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
One fella offered to take me fishing for bass, but he was fishing forb ass.