Page 46 of 55
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:12 am
by Liquid Len
I'm not surprised at all.
Not even a teeny-weeny, little-bittle bit surprised?
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:29 am
by braincell
Animals can imagine but my point is that they can not imagine absurd things and god is the most absurd hallucination.
valis wrote:braincell wrote:
If I say imagine a purple elephant with red stripes and bird wings, you can easily do that. Animals can not. This imagination however is not always good. We imagine a god or that we need guns for protection and it sometimes seems so real with a little help from society reinforcing these misconceptions. Minds can be manipulated. That is the bad part about imagination.
They (or you) were able to ask the animals to do this and the animals related that they could not do this how? I've seen plenty of instances where my pets have 'imagined' things that were not there myself...
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:07 am
by Liquid Len
"Animals can imagine but my point is that they can not imagine absurd things"
Can you define the difference (between normal imagination and absurd imagination) ?
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:20 am
by garyb
skwawks wrote:
Well I guess the bottom line is do you believe in magic?
The alternative is just too horrible to think about
Like a Soviet movie about the noble workers if you get the drift !
exactly why i keep bringing up eugenics....
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:21 am
by garyb
braincell wrote:Animals can imagine but my point is that they can not imagine absurd things and god is the most absurd hallucination.
young man!
backpedalling already?
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:43 am
by braincell
I think I gave one example which was an elephant with wings. Here is another one:
A man waves his arms and parts a river. If you want more absurd examples, go to the bible.
Liquid Len wrote:"Animals can imagine but my point is that they can not imagine absurd things"
Can you define the difference (between normal imagination and absurd imagination) ?
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:57 am
by BingoTheClowno
You're just being hateful braincell, stop disagreeing and accept the "truth".
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:13 am
by Liquid Len
What about this one : man enters a metal construction, which then rises into the air and comes down somewheres else. A few hundred years ago, this was not conceivable. Now we call it flying in an airplane. I've never seen an elephant with wings - if you could show it was physically and physiologically possible, I would admit the *possibility* of one existing.
This started out because you were trying to say humans can imagine and animals cannot. When that was proved wrong, and even you admitted it was wrong (or rather, acknowledged indirectly it was wrong) you retreat to "Imagining a God is absurd, because it is absurd to imagine a God". Awesome circular reasoning!
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:25 am
by Neil B
braincell wrote:
A man waves his arms and parts a river. If you want more absurd examples, go to the bible.
Oh, wrong yet again Miss Inga:
Raise your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea to divide the water so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground.
Can't see anything here about "waving" arms, or a river.
(10 translations checked)
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:38 am
by BingoTheClowno
Are you saying that moses really parted the sea?
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:49 am
by Liquid Len
BingoTheClowno wrote:Are you saying that moses really parted the sea?
Are you saying that this entire thread of yours has demonstrated anything but your profound lack of knowledge in the fields of science, history, logic, politics, literature (not to mention your ability to get along with, learn from, and respect other points of view)?
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:52 am
by BingoTheClowno
Nope, I'm saying that you are delusional and irrational. Your behaviour in this thread proves my point.
Now why did you dodge my previous question? You can't rationalize it? You can't find a way to squeeze it into your reality?
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:05 pm
by braincell
Oh right the magic scepter. WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???
Neil B wrote:braincell wrote:
A man waves his arms and parts a river. If you want more absurd examples, go to the bible.
Oh, wrong yet again Miss Inga:
Raise your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea to divide the water so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground.
Can't see anything here about "waving" arms, or a river.
(10 translations checked)
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:14 pm
by Liquid Len
Your previous question was "what is my bullshit moron" and I'm guessing you're trying to ask what was wrong with your version of the Big Bang theory but you were too incoherent with rage to form the question.
The thing that is wrong with your version of the Big Bang is the same thing wrong with your understanding of religious thought. You know nothing about it except for a few catchphrases, you would NEVER be able to discuss it with serious scientists. You actually think science can prove/disprove God, nudge nudge wink wink, say no more, say no more. Stardust already outlined real science to you TWICE and both times you just ignored it, though it was pretty basic high-school stuff.
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:32 pm
by BingoTheClowno
You are too delusional to make judgments about other people's posts.
If you cannot produce a quote of what you think I was wrong about the Big Bang I am forced to conclude that you are lying through your teeth, not a pretty trait for devout such as yourself.
And science did prove the non-existence of god whether you deny this proof or not.
Again can you quote me were I was wrong? Why can't you quote what I said? Are you afraid you'd make a fool of yourself again?
And again, are you saying that moses really parted the sea?
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:59 pm
by garyb
reed sea.
and you wouldn't be able to talk with a real scientist because you don't know what you're talking about, bingo. you are parroting pbs....
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:14 pm
by BingoTheClowno
garyb wrote:BingoTheClowno wrote:That is true, (and forgive me for being brief I didn't know you'd be interested to learn anything about the Universe in addition to what you learned in the church) however in the initial state, superdense ball of particles, there was no resemblance of the Universe as we know it today, and what is being refered to in the bible. I hope you don't want to say that god created the superdense ball of particles now? That would be quite cowardly from your side.
ok, this is funny.
some questions come up...
first-have you ever seen a superdense ball of particles as you claim? and..
second-have you even studied the math involved which claims to prove such a mass, and if so, would you please explain it?
third-what made the mass "bang"?
fourth-where did the ball of particles come from and what principles founded it's formation?
fifth-what makes you think that parroting(yes, parroting, there's no personal knowledge involved in your regurgitation, no real study, i'm betting) a pbs documentary proves any real understanding of anything at all if you can't answer each of those questions and the others that will follow concisely and clearly?
a comment-
actually, depending on the translation, the creation story in the 104th psalm is very like the scientific one, speaking of a world that was ocean and then the mountians rose(volcanoes and along fault lines in the earth's crust) and the waters moved into their channels. still, the water is taken to the top of the mountains and makes life for all the intertwined creatures and their food which grows. it could even be seen as sight that there is an evolution of experience in the universe.
Well, again to ask for evidence of the initial state of the Universe denotes a state of ignorance that is hard to refute and argue with. To have then the insolence to claim that I don't know what I talk about is moronic to the core. And I hope you're not suggesting that you're a real scientist, because if you do I'd pisseth my pants...
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:40 pm
by garyb
start pissething.
but really, the whole story of this bang is conjecture. it's based on the evidence we can see and the math supports the idea, but not completely. as a model, the big bang works pretty well. as a certainty and reality, not so well, as from a scientific point of veiw, it's unobservable.
true or not, it has nothing to do with the existance or non-existance of god, however...
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:01 pm
by BingoTheClowno
garyb wrote:
but really, the whole story of this bang is conjecture.
You wish it be so?
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:12 pm
by Liquid Len
BingoTheClowno wrote:You are too delusional to make judgments about other people's posts.
Oh, don't say such mean things. That is so unlike you.
not a pretty trait for devout such as yourself.
You need another number for your list
8 Constantly repeating that ANYONE who disagreed with you must be a fundamentalist christian, no two ways about it.
Probably at this point we should add
9 Accusing other people of being Stardust
Just in case we need it in the future, that's all.
And science did prove the non-existence of god whether you deny this proof or not.
ROFLMAO! You CAN'T be serious.
Again can you quote me were I was wrong? Why can't you quote what I said? Are you afraid you'd make a fool of yourself again?
Well, ok, you put the fear in me with that one.
First, we know that god did not create the Universe. The Universe was created with the Big Bang.
Again, are you for real?
And again, are you saying that moses really parted the sea?
Not unless I'm Neil B.
Uh-oh.