| Board List | Page List: 1 |
|---|
| Topic | At this point can we all agree that Romney is our 2012 US President? |
gearofages
01/06/12 11:49:00 AM
#27 |
From: User728 | #014
Obama in 2008 was an astronomically stronger candidate than Obama is currently. Romney is a mild decrease from 2008 McCain. 2012 Obama is an enormous decrease from 2008 Obama. He dominated the minority vote in 2008; there is no reason to think that he won't do that again, this time against whatever candidate staggers out of the Republican primary. No one is going to be able to compete with $750,000,000 and 90+% of the black vote. The people at Fox News are the only ones that honestly think that Obama has a chance of losing.
--
PSN:SeaOfRage
|
| Topic | At this point can we all agree that Romney is our 2012 US President? |
gearofages
01/06/12 11:41:00 AM
#10 |
Mccain in 2008 was a much stronger candidate than Romney is now, and Obama won that election in a landslide. I can't see any practical situation for a Republican to take the white house this year.
--
PSN:SeaOfRage
|
| Topic | Can eternity exist by itself? |
gearofages
12/12/11 8:33:00 AM
#1 |
Assuming space, recordable time, and matter all vanished away, would there still be such a thing as eternity?
--
PSN:SeaOfRage
|
| Topic | LOL I think this Rick Perry ad is the most disliked video in YouTube history |
gearofages
12/12/11 8:14:00 AM
#13 |
I get tired of hearing about how the U.S. is strong because of religious influence. This is a secular country, and it has been from the start. The founding fathers went out of their way to prevent dogmatism (religious and otherwise) from taking over the government. If Christians want another theocracy, they should go colonize the Arctic Circle. Maybe God will keep them warm.
--
PSN:SeaOfRage
|
| Topic | The match pictures are misleading |
gearofages
12/11/11 8:54:00 PM
#1 |
The FFVII characters should look like Lego-blocks, as they do in the game. Nothing in FFVII looks nearly as dramatic as what is depicted in those pictures.
--
PSN:SeaOfRage
|
| Topic | A question to the atheists of this board |
gearofages
10/22/11 9:58:00 PM
#102 |
From: BoshStrikesBack | #089
Out of curiosity, how do you define truth and how do you go about attempting to attain it?
Reality is entirely subjective; the world of appearances, where we connect "facts" (i.e. human impressions of the world, be they inductive, deductive, poetic, or religious) into a potentially infinite number of interpretations. Science is one of these interpretations, and only one of these interpretations. A subjective reality is a contradiction. Either there is an objective reality, or there isn't any reality at all. Reality exists independent of human thought. While interpretations of reality may differ, things are that are. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold. There is no situation where an ounce of gold is not an ounce of gold, even if languages and cognitive skills impose a barrier. We cannot live, as you seem to perpetuate, as if we had no knowledge of anything. I don't think you can live this way either. There is no other way for us to know, understand, or exist outside of our five senses. If you can conceive of another way, then please elaborate for our benefit. But, as it is, any notion of super-empiricism, even if it has substance, is completely meaningless to a human being because human beings have no access to that realm of thought.
--
PSN:SeaOfRage
|
| Topic | A question to the atheists of this board |
gearofages
10/22/11 8:32:00 PM
#83 |
From: Liquid Wind | #079
Even if souls and the afterlife do exist, we cannot have any knowledge about them
people have died and come back, it's not as if no one has ever experienced death before. the only problem is that their reports are conflicting, some report not having any memory of that time, some people have out of body experiences, others have hallucinations that may make them think of heaven or hell or outer space... People haven't died and come back. Brain death is death. No one comes out of brain death. Anything short of that (cardiac arrest) is merely a deep comatose state.
--
PSN:SeaOfRage
|
| Topic | A question to the atheists of this board |
gearofages
10/22/11 8:06:00 PM
#78 |
From: JeffreyRaze | #077
I'll not be here long, but here's my philosophy.
Anything not within the realm of the empirical cannot by definition affect my life. To be metaphysical precludes interaction with physical processes, as any such interaction would in effect, have to be physical itself. Concepts, ideas, philosophies, those are all just manifestations of chemical processes within our brains. As anything metaphysical cannot under any circumstances effect me, belief in them is meaningless at best. Therefore, if you want to understand that which can effect you, science is the only method that could be used.
I have absolutely no way of proving anything around me exists, as everything around me is at best a representation created by the most powerful simulation device known to man, also known as the brain. However, I see no reason why acting as though reality as is perceived through the brain is false would be beneficial in the slightest, and as such I don't dwell on it.
Even if souls and the afterlife do exist, we cannot have any knowledge about them, and as such any particular belief system on the subject is equal to any other, and this once again renders it all meaningless in my mind.
Anyways, I have to go. I might respond when I return, but probably not. Agreed
--
PSN:SeaOfRage
|
| Topic | A question to the atheists of this board |
gearofages
10/22/11 6:34:00 PM
#62 |
From: BoshStrikesBack | #060
Question: if there is no God, then what compels the entirety of existence to abide by uniform, rigid natural laws? Because some guy in a wheelchair said so? Please.
Scientists talk all the time about how "arrogant" and "anthropomorphic" it is to conceive of man as the center of the universe and made in the image of divinity, yet they immediately proceed to talk as though the crude handiwork of laughably fallible human minds constitutes the essence of existence. It's a disgusting double standard. Science deals with tangible concepts. It doesn't claim an intimate relationship with a being that is universally considered to be unknowable and incomprehensible. And calling the work of Newton, Einstein, and Hawking "crude" is foolish, at best.
--
PSN:SeaOfRage
|
| Topic | A question to the atheists of this board |
gearofages
10/22/11 5:46:00 PM
#59 |
I think the proof already exists.
Theists claim existence of the supernatural. Either our world is natural (i.e. perfectly consistent) or it is not. If I stick my hand over a fire 1,000 times, I will get burned each and every time. The theists who claim that god has control over the "laws" of physics would inherently believe that the possibility exists that I could eventually stick my hand in the fire and not get burned.
Either the world is what it is, or it is an inconsistent blob that is under the perpetual control of a supernatural force. Again - our world cannot be natural and supernatural at the same time.
You can't part a river with a stick. It is chemically impossible to turn water into wine. Rotting corpses cannot (within the limits of biology) come back from the dead. These notions are common sense ... outside of the context of theistic belief.
--
PSN:SeaOfRage
|
| Board List | Page List: 1 |
|---|