I believe there may be some truth to the Law of Attraction.
Everything in Science is a Model subject to change. By that very fact, once you understand the implications of everything in science being subject to an untold amount of change in the current perception of any scientifically complexioned fact, there may be no objective information at all. Everything may be subjective. 0 is, mathematically speaking, infinity - at least as far as Horizontal and Vertical Asymptotes are concerned anyway. So perhaps everything is true, religion is a conflict interests, science is a system that creates complexity to the world in which conflicting subjective realities can find more middle way.
Science is truly liberating in that regard, religion will cause death, the termination of individuality allows those like in nature to exist peacefully with only religion as our guide. Science can make the world large enough for everyone to fit in and more. The way the world is headed now it seems as though our will is to preserve life, and go for science as opposed to religion. It is complexity being more popular than simplicity.
Oh God, so much red...
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroWhat a magnificent response. Someone challenges your assertions so you close down the sandbox and take your toys home with you. I'd be upset, but you forgot to bring any toys with you in the first place. And the sandbox had no sand in it.
Ugh! Nevermind... I'd obvious I'm talking to children with little to no concept of thinking outside of the box.Closed mindedness is a little more than I can safely manage right now.
What on Earth made you want to play there in the first place? Was it all the irony in that last sentence of yours?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Oh God, so much red...What a magnificent response. Someone challenges your assertions so you close down the sandbox and take your toys home with you. I'd be upset, but you forgot to bring any toys with you in the first place. And the sandbox had no sand in it.
What on Earth made you want to play there in the first place? Was it all the irony in [b]that last sentence of yours?
[/B]
........What?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Oh God, so much red...What a magnificent response. Someone challenges your assertions so you close down the sandbox and take your toys home with you. I'd be upset, but you forgot to bring any toys with you in the first place. And the sandbox had no sand in it.
What on Earth made you want to play there in the first place? Was it all the irony in [b]that last sentence of yours?
[/B]
A valid point that Darkstorm Zero is still not able to grasp.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A valid point that Darkstorm Zero is still not able to grasp.
Right, because "Your theory isn't valid because I believe in absolutes! your a fool not to believe in what I believe!" is SUCH a stimulating and fascinating way to have a conversation with someone..... 🙄
Listen up, you guys didn't challenge my points, you simply went on the offensive and started trolling for... what, fun? Good on you, well done! You think you actually won something! You can play in that empty sandpit all you like. Me? I'm actually not looking for internet fights (surprised much?) I was genuinely hoping to have some solid discussion, but it appears I have expected too much intellectuality from you. Definitely way too much of the ignorance and arrogance overshadowing what intellect could have come through.
@Lord Lucien: The irony is that you think I've been closed minded, but the fact is, my statement does not denounce any of the interpretations, yours, in fact does, the very definition of a closed mind. You want to know why I closed down discussion with you? It is not because you disagree with me, but the WAY you disagreed. You went straight for the venom. Why?
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroNo, I didn't go straight for the venom. An unfortunate side-effect to text-based exchanges is that you can never accurately infer someone's emotional charge. Not without emoticons at least, and I try to avoid those as often as possible.
Right, because "Your theory isn't valid because I believe in absolutes! your a fool not to believe in what I believe!" is [b]SUCH a stimulating and fascinating way to have a conversation with someone..... 🙄Listen up, you guys didn't challenge my points, you simply went on the offensive and started trolling for... what, fun? Good on you, well done! You think you actually won something! You can play in that empty sandpit all you like. Me? I'm actually not looking for internet fights (surprised much?) I was genuinely hoping to have some solid discussion, but it appears I have expected too much intellectuality from you. Definitely way too much of the ignorance and arrogance overshadowing what intellect could have come through.
@Lord Lucien: The irony is that you think I've been closed minded, but the fact is, my statement does not denounce any of the interpretations, yours, in fact does, the very definition of a closed mind. You want to know why I closed down discussion with you? It is not because you disagree with me, but the WAY you disagreed. You went straight for the venom. Why? [/B]
The simple fact is that you wrote several lengthy paragraphs asserting some things to be so that were in fact not so. I pointed that out. If you read vitriol in my words then that's on you. But where you read scorn, I wrote admonition. Perhaps your unconscious mind was eager to inject condescension in to my words because your conscious mind was being told something that made it hesitate in it's certainty. Cognitive dissonance will do that; contradictions make the ego feel very uncomfortable so it will rationalize where it can in order to avoid any further... incidents. Coincidentally, you've just shut down said discussion, no doubt to distance yourself from any more words your ego considers damaging or embarrassing to its preconceived notions and biases.
So if you're stronger than that and have the constitution for it, or I somehow have it bass ackward, do please drop this victim act and address the points that were levied against you and your assertions.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, I didn't go straight for the venom. An unfortunate side-effect to text-based exchanges is that you can never accurately infer someone's emotional charge. Not without emoticons at least, and I try to avoid those as often as possible.The simple fact is that you wrote several lengthy paragraphs asserting some things to be so that were in fact not so. I pointed that out. If you read vitriol in my words then that's on you. But where you read scorn, I wrote admonition. Perhaps your unconscious mind was eager to inject condescension in to my words because your conscious mind was being told something that made it hesitate in it's certainty. Cognitive dissonance will do that; contradictions make the ego feel very uncomfortable so it will rationalize where it can in order to avoid any further... incidents. Coincidentally, you've just shut down said discussion, no doubt to distance yourself from any more words your ego considers damaging or embarrassing to its preconceived notions and biases.
So if you're stronger than that and have the constitution for it, or I somehow have it bass ackward, do please drop this victim act and address the points that were levied against you and your assertions.
Ok, Lucien, I want you to re-read your first reply to me in this topic.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Your post makes it clear that 1.) You don't appreciate the meaning of a "scientific theory" (it contains facts), 2.) You somehow confused 13.8 billion years with trillions, 3.) You think the genetic memory thing from Assassin's Creed is real, and 4.) You correlate the recording of historical events to the existence of a religious scripture without qualifying your stance on the religious aspect of same.In short... lolwut?
And I want you to tell me why you merely insulted me, my intelligence, and without ever addressing any point I actually made, decided to assume several things. You never even asked me a question, but you decided to stack the deck, and then you complain when I shut the conversation down? W T F?
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Ok, Lucien, I want you to re-read your first reply to me in this topic.And I want you to tell me why you merely insulted me, my intelligence, and without ever addressing any point I actually made, decided to assume several things. You never even asked me a question, but you decided to stack the deck, and then you complain when I shut the conversation down? W T F?
You must be a newbe.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Right, because "Your theory isn't valid because I believe in absolutes! your a fool not to believe in what I believe!" is [b]SUCH a stimulating and fascinating way to have a conversation with someone..... 🙄Listen up, you guys didn't challenge my points, you simply went on the offensive and started trolling for... what, fun? Good on you, well done! You think you actually won something! You can play in that empty sandpit all you like. Me? I'm actually not looking for internet fights (surprised much?) I was genuinely hoping to have some solid discussion, but it appears I have expected too much intellectuality from you. Definitely way too much of the ignorance and arrogance overshadowing what intellect could have come through.
@Lord Lucien: The irony is that you think I've been closed minded, but the fact is, my statement does not denounce any of the interpretations, yours, in fact does, the very definition of a closed mind. You want to know why I closed down discussion with you? It is not because you disagree with me, but the WAY you disagreed. You went straight for the venom. Why? [/B]
Hey Darkstorm long time no speak.. what's up bro? You should not even bother...seriously.
Originally posted by P-Geyser
Hey Darkstorm, long time no speak ... what's up bro?
You should not even bother...seriously.
Geyser, you've got it wrong.
You're thinking the point of engaging in a forum discussion is to convince the people you're directly debating against?
Largely it's not.
It is instead to let the numberless viewers of discussions like this know there is another side to things.
I still look at the poster JIA (JesusIsAlive), for an example, and marvel at the kind of numbers his threads garnered.
Numbers in the tens of tens of thousands.
It won't matter if a handful of regular posters here mock him for the next 5 years; he's almost certainly reached a respectable target audience through his time and efforts.
Were one-on-one exchanges on these threads ONLY one-on-one exchanges?
I might agree with you.
They're not.
If you truly think you have something important to say and share with people, you have to think larger than that.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Geyser, you've got it wrong.You're thinking the point of engaging in a forum discussion is to convince the people you're directly debating against?
Largely it's not.
It is instead to let the numberless [b]viewers
of discussions like this know there is another side to things.I still look at the poster JIA (JesusIsAlive), for an example, and marvel at the kind of numbers his threads garnered.
Numbers in the tens of tens of thousands.It won't matter if a handful of regular posters here mock him for the next 5 years; he's almost certainly reached a respectable target audience through his time and efforts.
Were one-on-one exchanges on these threads ONLY one-on-one exchanges?
I might agree with you.They're not.
If you truly think you have something important to say and share with people, you have to think larger than that. [/B]
I see what your getting at and I agree. It's that some people feel the need to mock other's for the heck of it which gets me. I was not that familiar with the poster JIA, though I have seen him talked about in a very unkindly manner. It seemed his post's did irk alot folks.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I still look at the poster JIA (JesusIsAlive), for an example, and marvel at the kind of numbers his threads garnered.
Numbers in the tens of tens of thousands.It won't matter if a handful of regular posters here mock him for the next 5 years; he's almost certainly reached a respectable target audience through his time and efforts.
Considering the amount of views that are solely from Google searchbots, you're giving him far too much credit. Also, JIA preached, but he did not discuss fairly and he did not debate. Throughout his long career of vehemently disbelieving in science and preaching narrow-scoped gospel he annoyed and alienated many, and here you are giving him credit because his borderline spam method garnered "lots of views".
Quite the judgment method you have there.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Considering the amount of views that are solely from Google searchbots, you're giving him far too much credit. Also, JIA preached, but he did not discuss fairly and he did not debate. Throughout his long career of vehemently disbelieving in science and preaching narrow-scoped gospel he annoyed and alienated many, and here you are giving him credit because his borderline spam method garnered "lots of views".Quite the judgment method you have there.
He was also very rude and mocking of science.
When I first started on the forum, I made a Buddhist thread, and JIA spammed my thread over and over.
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroAlright... either you skimmed past that last post of mine, or you genuinely couldn't comprehend its meaning. To reiterate:
Ok, Lucien, I want you to re-read your first reply to me in this topic.And I want you to tell me why you merely insulted me, my intelligence, and without ever addressing any point I actually made, decided to assume several things. You never even asked me a question, but you decided to stack the deck, and then you complain when I shut the conversation down? W T F?
If you read my initial response as one of insult, then that's on you. And for hearing an insult where none was levied, perhaps you need to re-evaluate what it is that gets offended when someone challenges your assertions. Good luck on the effort.
And you're not a newbie at KMC, you're a newbie at interactions.