Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Ukpoohbear

Ukpoohbear

Well-known member
AppLeo said:
You weren't joking though. You were being dead serious
Click to expand...

Lol so this says something about your opinion of me you think I’m being serious, perhaps goes back to the lack of trust because I find that people who don’t laugh at your jokes don’t like you. But I am also quite good at coming across serious when I’m joking but being serious for a second, I believe in true love. However, I would love to stay in a mansion and so that’s why I pull your leg. You got to understand that you don’t get mansions here like you do in America. Not even in Cheshire or London, the mansions in America are amazing.
 
AppLeo

AppLeo

Well-known member
Ukpoohbear said:
Lol so this says something about your opinion of me you think I’m being serious, perhaps goes back to the lack of trust because I find that people who don’t laugh at your jokes don’t like you. But I am also quite good at coming across serious when I’m joking but being serious for a second, I believe in true love. However, I would love to stay in a mansion and so that’s why I pull your leg. You got to understand that you don’t get mansions here like you do in America. Not even in Cheshire or London, the mansions in America are amazing.
Click to expand...

I don’t live in a mansion I was joking.
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
AppLeo said:
Pffffffffffft

You don't need to read the Lord of the Rings to know that it's not true. The bible is filled with a bunch of stories and commandments that should be accepted as truth without any logical reasons. Reading the bible is useless.

And also, I said this before but you fools don't seem to understand. Religion takes things on faith. In fact, it's a religious virtue to be faithful. Having faith is accepting knowledge with the absence of evidence. Not only that, but religious people take one of the most important aspects of life, morality and spirituality, on faith. Accepting something so important on faith is dangerous and destructive because you're acting on information that you don't know is true. And on top of it, it's false. You're acting on false information. How are you supposed to live properly and fulfilled when you can't even get fundamental metaphysical and epistemological facts under control. But of course, you don't respond to that argument. You just say, "quick pit and pathy" or whatever nonsense. Complete evasion.

Reading the bible won't change the fact that religion is based on faith. And frankly, I don't want to read about why homosexuality is wrong, and why eating a strangled animal is wrong when God provides no reasons for why they're wrong. He just appeals to violence by sending you to hell instead of having a rational discussion. Can I at least read a religious book with some scientific fact and logic?
Click to expand...

Just because a belief is based on faith doesn't make it unreasonable. Every single hypothesis ever developed, and those yet unproven but still defended are based on a presumed explanation of events for which emipircal truth has yet not been found, or at best has not been conclusive in providing proof for the validity of the model. To give some examples:

-String theory has never been proven (aside from the creation of an incomplete mathematical model) but it is still held in regard as a valid possibility.

-The possibility of finding life outside earth, for which there is no evidence rather than the presumed model that the conditions which allowed life to develop on earth can be replicated across the universe. And we still have not been able to solve what can lead to the creation of life. This one has no spec of truth, and it is entirely operated under the assumption that our model for the possibility of life on earth is 100% correct, and then jumping to the assumption that it can be replicated some place else.

Neither theory holds to the standards you have described.
But they are still considered, talked about and so on, is because they are found to be reasonable within the parameters of whats expected. Just because, for example, we have no evidence that there is life outside earth or that our understanding of what conditions can lead to the existance of life, doesn't mean there won't be, and reason seems to imply there is. Thus why we believe it.

In the case of religion, some people find it reasonable that there has to be an explanation as to why we exist in the first place, and a purpose for the universe existing. To them it sounds reasonable the idea of an ordered cosmos created by a grand designer, considering there is no other explanation yet aside from a random event that somehow developed into a set of unchangable laws under which the universe operates, lacking any other thing. Its not unreasonable to presume such a thing.

AppLeo said:
And it's funny because Rand actually provides reasons and arguments for everything she says. And objectivism is living philosophy, so it will change and adapt as we learn more about the world. But no, you just say something like, "Oh you're a follower of Ayn Rand, so I win the argument." But you provide no arguments yourself. You've argued nothing against her ideas. Absolutely nothing. And you're criticizing about me not reading the bible, yet you haven't read Atlas Shrugged or anything else by Miss Rand, so you're a hypocrite really.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I do like Rand and her work, and I'm in agreement with you that people tend to dismiss her for no reason at all.
 
Last edited:
conspiracy theorist

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
Ukpoohbear said:
I used to think you were a charming dude and now I am aware it is Tom Riddle who I converse with, so my perception is clearer now.

I used to live within a time
Of days long gone
Where the present was always summer
And winter always too long
I would see you dressed in yarns of gold
When really you dressed in black
Now winter is here and summer is gone
There is no turning back.
Click to expand...

At least your vitriol is poetic. Its much more aesthetically pleasing than to be called an irrational retard.
 
Ukpoohbear

Ukpoohbear

Well-known member
And I would change the 2nd dressed to wore. But yeah I am poetic. If Leo’s are beautiful, which they are, then I am astrology weekly’s laureate, which I am.
 
AppLeo

AppLeo

Well-known member
Dirius said:
Just because a belief is based on faith doesn't make it unreasonable.
Click to expand...

If you're a reasonable person, you have LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS and EVIDENCE for why you believe in something. Faith is assuming you know something without evidence. There's nothing reasonable about it. It's anti-thinking. And as I said before, those who rely on faith will have to resort violence because they can't prove to others the validity of their beliefs.

You know the islam extremists? They have faith in whatever nonsense they believe. That by blowing themselves along with other people they think they'll be rewarded in the afterlife. That's faith at its worse. evil evil evil

Dirius said:
Every single hypothesis ever developed, and those yet unproven but still defended are based on a presumed explanation of events for which emipircal truth has yet not been found, or at best has not been conclusive in providing proof for the validity of the model. To give some examples:

-String theory has never been proven (aside from the creation of an incomplete mathematical model) but it is still held in regard as a valid possibility.

-The possibility of finding life outside earth, for which there is no evidence rather than the presumed model that the conditions which allowed life to develop on earth can be replicated across the universe. And we still have not been able to solve what can lead to the creation of life. This one has no spec of truth, and it is entirely operated under the assumption that our model for the possibility of life on earth is 100% correct, and then jumping to the assumption that it can be replicated some place else.

Neither theory holds to the standards you have described.
But they are still considered, talked about and so on, is because they are found to be reasonable within the parameters of whats expected. Just because, for example, we have no evidence that there is life outside the earth or that our understanding of what conditions can lead to the existence of life, doesn't mean there won't be, and the reason seems to imply there is. Thus why we believe it.
Click to expand...

Having faith in a God that has you believe to have so much power that you can't even prove to yourself is very different from a conviction regarding a scientific theory. To believe that an invisible man will either send you to heaven or hell for not following his 10 commandments that you cannot argue against or find any rational reasons for why you should follow them is just dumb. String theory actually proposes some good reasons for why it could possibly be true.

Dirius said:
In the case of religion, some people find it reasonable that there has to be an explanation as to why we exist in the first place, and a purpose for the universe existing. To them it sounds reasonable the idea of an ordered cosmos created by a grand designer, considering there is no other explanation yet aside from a random event that somehow developed into a set of unchangable laws under which the universe operates, lacking any other thing. Its not unreasonable to presume such a thing.
Click to expand...

No, it actually is unreasonable, illogical, and just stupid.

If you are a man of reason, you dispense with religion. People of reason are not divided on subjects like this because all of them look at the evidence and don't turn to faith when they can't explain something.

To believe that something that didn't exist, that something outside of existence, literally nothing, created something. How does something come from nothing? That's illogical.

And on top of it, Gods that the Christians or Muslims describe is a God that makes no sense if he actually did create the universe. Homosexuality is wrong, and these God's provide no good reasons for why it's wrong.

The cosmos created by a grand designer? What would a cosmos be like with a bad design? There is no such thing. A cosmos that didn't make logical sense and contradicted itself couldn't exist. Our sense of order comes from observing reality for what it is.

Dirius said:
Just to be clear, I do like Rand and her work, and I'm in agreement with you that people tend to dismiss her for no reason at all.
Click to expand...

It's really hard to argue against someone who's perfectly logical when you hold an illogical position. You have no choice but to dismiss her if you want to survive.
 
Last edited:
Top