religion/science
Collapse
X
-
-
Re: religion/science
I never said there wasn't a reason behind it
but it is simply illogical and irrelevant to think that you could calculate the electrical signals traveling through the brains of a group of people in order to describe the status of their mood.
my point is, you can't rationalize everything. some people like to dance, some people don't. some people like fast food, others don't. obviously there's some neural impulse stuff going on that makes this happen but does anyone care? no.
for example, if your friend is depressed, and you want to cheer him up... stop. first of all, why do you want to cheer him up? the more you rationalize this, the more complicated it becomes. all you really need to say is, "he's my friend" and that's that. now, HOW will you cheer him up? obviously, there are many ways to do so, but you find the best way that you determine is the most socially appropriate not by logic, but by your common sense. EQ vs. IQ(´・ω・`)Comment
-
Re: religion/science
Okay, my back up is every post you've made in this thread using personal insults as a way to prove your serious point.
That proves you're not very good at debating
Second, you're trying to make me back up my own sarcastic response, which proves you're not a good troll.
Third, you didn't even bring up the absurdity of me calling you not a good "atheist". Because somehow other atheists don't believe in god better than you?
Which proves you're not a good atheist.
HaHe who angers you conquers you. ~Elizabeth KennyComment
-
Re: religion/science
and that's the problem with most "intellectuals"
they think they're so smart, but in the big picture, they lose sight of what matters: how it all ends up affecting them as individuals, as society, and as mankind. stop debating about whether or not God exists and focus on respecting other religions for what they believe in
and that's why I respect people like blastamos and rubix. they understand that on top of all this intellectual business, there's something called common sense that falls on top of everything(´・ω・`)Comment
-
Re: religion/science
Right because EQ is what governs universal laws as opposed to cold hard science.I never said there wasn't a reason behind it
but it is simply illogical and irrelevant to think that you could calculate the electrical signals traveling through the brains of a group of people in order to describe the status of their mood.
my point is, you can't rationalize everything. some people like to dance, some people don't. some people like fast food, others don't. obviously there's some neural impulse stuff going on that makes this happen but does anyone care? no.
for example, if your friend is depressed, and you want to cheer him up... stop. first of all, why do you want to cheer him up? the more you rationalize this, the more complicated it becomes. all you really need to say is, "he's my friend" and that's that. now, HOW will you cheer him up? obviously, there are many ways to do so, but you find the best way that you determine is the most socially appropriate not by logic, but by your common sense. EQ vs. IQ
There is a reason behind anyone's emotion at any given point. As humans, we can't possibly be able to derive the reason why. We could say "This person is in this mood because they were brought up in this way which meant they went through these events which shaped the mind in this way and through a bunch of NON RANDOM DETERMINISTIC VARIABLES that have a direct influence on an outcome which is something that could be measured if we had the technology for keeping track of such things and their results with 100% explained variance holy **** long quote" and that would be a fully logical, deterministic outcome.
Again you're moving the goalposts -- the point of this isn't to discuss emotion or social impacts. If the earth were gone, the universe would continue as it was. Human existence is irrelevant when it comes to everything else. Our own interpretation of meaning and "morality" (which btw is strictly a stable utilitarian optima) is still a function of deterministic evolution.
tldr you're retardedComment
-
Re: religion/science
1. Correct argument + insult = correct argument + insult. Remove the insults, we still have a correct argument. Remove the argument, we have insult. They're separate. I'm joining them together because I can. Doesn't make me wrong. So your point here is void.Okay, my back up is every post you've made in this thread using personal insults as a way to prove your serious point.
That proves you're not very good at debating
Second, you're trying to make me back up my own sarcastic response, which proves you're not a good troll.
Third, you didn't even bring up the absurdity of me calling you not a good "atheist". Because somehow other atheists don't believe in god better than you?
Which proves you're not a good atheist.
Ha
2. I'm asking you to contribute more than the standard canned response, because you're too predictable
3. That point doesn't even make sense. The only way an atheist can be better at being atheist is if they have more proof to substantiate their beliefs, which is the foundation of atheistic belief.Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: religion/science
That entire post was a joke.
Really now.He who angers you conquers you. ~Elizabeth KennyComment
-
Re: religion/science
I mean I thought the whole contradicting "good atheist" thing would have immediately outed it as a joke.He who angers you conquers you. ~Elizabeth KennyComment

Comment