Alien Beings [Archive]

Oh-Dae-Su

11th March 2006, 03:45

well to you maybe god is a human type of figure or something. But the Universe is bigger than god himself. Lets see, the Sun, without it, there would be no life in this planet. The Universe creates life, so it is god. God by defenition is a superior "life" form, and to me, the Universe is all around us, it is infinite, it is god.

TomRK1089 you probably believe that "god" created the earth we live in, yet i ask you this, and who created god? :) AHAAAAA

Actually, that's nihilism.

true, Lazar, athiest refers more to those who don't believe in a "god", it is used more when discribing the religious non-believers, but i dont consider myself this, because like i said, God to me is the Universe. I dont know really, actually when i come to think about it , i dont really know what i believe in. But i think it is necessary to believe in something, i think that we should believe in ourselves, since we are one and the same with the Universe.

although i am also a nihilist, because it is true, there is no meaning to life, what is the meaning of our existance? sometimes i try to think, and it just becomes a pointless spiral of unawserable questions. We are animals, just like a dog, or a cat, we just have a brain that makes us superior to these other animals and we ask questions, but in this world we serve the same purpouse as they do. We just procreate and thats it.

anyways, here is an interesting quote, one of my favorites, and it is what i refer to as the defenition of what i meant of us being one and the same with the universe.

"It is the creative potential itself in human beings that is the image of God."
Mary Daly

violencia.Proletariat

11th March 2006, 05:05

God by defenition is a superior "life" form, and to me, the Universe is all around us, it is infinite, it is god.

So the sun is alive? And those solar flares (that cause global warming according to the insane right stink tanks) is him lashing out at us for not being good sun worshipers. Maybe we should be making weekly fire pit sacrifices :rolleyes:

although i am also a nihilist, because it is true, there is no meaning to life

That thought doesnt make you a nihilist. Most people here realize we werent put here by anyone and that we are a product of nature.

Oh-Dae-Su

11th March 2006, 05:40

So the sun is alive? And those solar flares (that cause global warming according to the insane right stink tanks) is him lashing out at us for not being good sun worshipers. Maybe we should be making weekly fire pit sacrifices

umm alright , chill dude, take it easy now, i think that you believe im some kind of Soletary stars and planets and black holes worshiper lmao :lol: thats not what i meant, but if you can actually think beyond that, maybe you can understand. On another note, those insane right stink tanks have the scientific date to prove them correct, do you? yeah thats what i thought, since your such a normal left wing proletariat lmao

anyways, what makes you think that you are alive? what makes you so sure? because you can type into your keyboard and into these threads? the sun is just as alive as you and i are. The components of life are earth , wind , and fire, but i can add to that oxygen and waterl. Like i said, we as homosapiens are one and the same with the universe. We are made of molecules, our body is 90%?(correct me if im wrong) water. So whats the difference from us and a pond or a lake? Well just 10% of whatever other ingridients that makes up our body and thats it. Do you think a shark or a whale or an elephant, go around thinking, gee am i alive? do i exist? their brain doesn't have the capacity to even question these things, they are limitless, that doesnt make them not alive. Listen the universe is well, an universe of matter, and we, just like the Sun the stars and everything in the universe are made of matter, just different shapes, just different mixes, so it all goes back to what i said, we are one and the same with the universe. Maybe this can be to much for your Homoerechtus brain to analyze, but yeah, keep thinking that i worship the Sun and the Moon lmao... :lol:

Oh-Dae-Su

11th March 2006, 05:43

That thought doesnt make you a nihilist. Most people here realize we werent put here by anyone and that we are a product of nature.

i suggest you go look at what a nihilist means, because a nihilists would question just what i said.

TomRK1089

11th March 2006, 14:47

Although debating views without proof is likewading knee-deep in tar (you won't get anywhere but frustrated), I'd like to hear your rationale for "The universe is bigger than God," Oh-Dae-Su.

Oh-Dae-Su

11th March 2006, 18:20

Tom until you tell us all your RATIONALE and your PROOF that god exists than i won't even pay attention to you.

and by the way, try to imagine and think how big the universe is? if your brain can actually think you will see what i mean.

Forward Union

12th March 2006, 10:40

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 11 2006, 05:43 AM
The sun is just as alive as you and i are.
Can it reproduce? Respond to stimulie etc?

The suns alive? what fuckign bullshit. :lol:

It's just a load of gasses including,
Hydrogen 73.46 %
Helium 24.85 %
Oxygen 0.77 %
Carbon 0.29 %
Iron 0.16 %
Neon 0.12 %

Oh-Dae-Su

12th March 2006, 19:57

ÑóẊîöŉ

12th March 2006, 20:28

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 12 2006, 08:00 PM
you have to think of it in a broader sense my friend. These gases are elements right, we agree on that, and i suppose if you would actually know, the human body is made of elements as well, so what is the difference? like i said over and over again, everything in the universe is one and the same.
But "living" is a sharply defined set of characteristics, which is what the sun doesn't have.

Forward Union

12th March 2006, 21:46

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 12 2006, 08:00 PM
the human body is made of elements as well, so what is the difference?
One of them is alive. Unless your definition of alive is "being made of elements" in which case everything is alive, meaning there is no such thing as death, as I will always be made of elements in some way. So the term death means nothing to you. You refuse to accept that we will ever die.

like i said over and over again, everything in the universe is one and the same.

What? Matter is the same as Antimatter? all one in the same right :lol:

Oh-Dae-Su

13th March 2006, 02:40

But "living" is a sharply defined set of characteristics, which is what the sun doesn't have.

ohh yes absolutley, but like i said you have to look at it in a broader sense, look at things in the big picture, because you are defining this as only a human quality, so it is not a "defined" set of characteristics, why should it be? because "we" humans say so? who the hell are we? the masters of the universe? there are still many many many things that are to be understood about our surroundings, for god's sake we haven't even traveled 0.10 % of our own fucking galaxy!!!. Maybe alien life is nothing like us, maybe they are a gas ball that is able to think.

What? Matter is the same as Antimatter? all one in the same right

you are an idiot, did you know that antimatter is actually MATTER!! lmao it is just composed of particles that don't constitute the normal set of particles found in most matter. BUT ITS STILL MATTER DUMB ASS!!!

its like saying : "ohh you think humans are the same as those from planet X-4304?" umm NO SHIT! of course not, but they are both intelligent lifeforms.

it would be interesting to know what Additives Free thinks, i really want to know what is your whole theory? do you think after death we go into limbo? or we reincarnate in a rooster? i mean tell me i want to know whats your opinion in this whole purpouse/god/existance questions!

red team

13th March 2006, 06:00

ÑóẊîöŉ

13th March 2006, 11:59

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 13 2006, 02:43 AM

But "living" is a sharply defined set of characteristics, which is what the sun doesn't have.

ohh yes absolutley, but like i said you have to look at it in a broader sense, look at things in the big picture, because you are defining this as only a human quality, so it is not a "defined" set of characteristics, why should it be? because "we" humans say so? who the hell are we? the masters of the universe? there are still many many many things that are to be understood about our surroundings, for god's sake we haven't even traveled 0.10 % of our own fucking galaxy!!!. Maybe alien life is nothing like us, maybe they are a gas ball that is able to think.
Complete and utter bullshit sophistry, plus an argument from ignorance. The sun is not alive.

Oh-Dae-Su

13th March 2006, 20:25

You're a Nihilist so in other words you're a player.

"I believe in the universe as god" -- another meaningless statement. But coming from a player, not surprising.

The universe does not possess the property of self awareness and therefore cannot show intent in influencing the world of human affairs. Exhibiting belief for something like that is both irrelevant and meaningless. Debate with players is an exercise in futility

:lol: im a player! shit fo sho! lmao im a player gee lmao i get all the girls holla! lol

anyways, its ok for you to say "i believe in god" is meaningless, but why? tell me your reasoning? tell me what you think? and the universe doesn't influence the world of human affairs? lol so an earthquake or a volcano or a meteor coming straight towards the earth doesn't influence us at all right? :rolleyes:

Complete and utter bullshit sophistry, plus an argument from ignorance. The sun is not alive.

i love how the smart ones ( :lol: ) always have these great argumental comments which really convince you and portry what they try to say :rolleyes:

Publius

13th March 2006, 20:46

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 13 2006, 02:43 AM

ohh yes absolutley, but like i said you have to look at it in a broader sense, look at things in the big picture, because you are defining this as only a human quality, so it is not a "defined" set of characteristics, why should it be?

Because we said so.

That's how things work.

We utter a sound and apply a meaning to it; language.

because "we" humans say so?

Of course.

who the hell are we? the masters of the universe?

Relevent.

We, unlike anything else in the entire universe, are relevent. We make up terms for our own use.

there are still many many many things that are to be understood about our surroundings, for god's sake we haven't even traveled 0.10 % of our own fucking galaxy!!!. Maybe alien life is nothing like us, maybe they are a gas ball that is able to think.

Than it isn't 'life' in any yet meaningful sense.

A gas-ball, by it's very nature, can't be alive.

Oh-Dae-Su

13th March 2006, 23:13

We, unlike anything else in the entire universe, are relevent. We make up terms for our own use.

wow i surely would like to meet you Publius, i mean since you have traveled all around the universe in every galaxy , i mean thats the only explination as to why you speek so confident: "we UNLIKE anything else". :rolleyes:

A gas-ball, by it's very nature, can't be alive.

you keep refering to everything as having human qualities, but thats wrong thats why i said you have to look at things in a broader scale, it is true that alive would be something like us, but thats a paradigm created by our brains. Paradigms blind people, "alive" doesn't necessarily have to be something with human characteristics, you think humans would be alive in outer space without a spacesuit? yet there are lifeforms out there that are alive! and this im sure of it, im sure there is alien life, because our galaxy is just a grain of sand in an endless beach, it is only common sense that somewhere in space alien life exists, and unlike us they might not breathe oxygen, or they might not feed on minerals, maybe they feed on hydrogen? who knows!! So because they don't breathe oxygen they are not alive? because according to you guys alive has to be somewithing that breathes oxygen, has a heart that beats, has hair, has eyes, has a personality, and how can you guys prove so? ohh because Publius says WE SAY SO!!! ahahahahhahaa :lol: yeah man, you sure have the right anwser, i mean after all you have traveled to every corner of an infinite space right? ;) :rolleyes:

Publius

14th March 2006, 00:22

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 13 2006, 11:16 PM

wow i surely would like to meet you Publius, i mean since you have traveled all around the universe in every galaxy , i mean thats the only explination as to why you speek so confident: "we UNLIKE anything else". :rolleyes:

Try again.

What I said was that we, humans, and our definitions are the only ones that matter, which is true.

Maybe if someday we meet another lifeform (Highly unlikely, statistically, call it impossible) this will change, but as of now, we are all that matters.

No other sentient lifeform is even known to exist, let alone be relevent to our discussion.

you keep refering to everything as having human qualities, but thats wrong thats why i said you have to look at things in a broader scale, it is true that alive would be something like us, but thats a paradigm created by our brains.

Well no shit.

Just like your perception of 'alive' is a pardigm created by your brain.

The real question is, is it a good paradigm?

THe answer, in this case, is yes.

Carbon based, cell based things are alive. THings that aren't carbon and cell based aren't alive.

That's the definition. Period.

Paradigms blind people, "alive" doesn't necessarily have to be something with human characteristics, you think humans would be alive in outer space without a spacesuit?

What kind of stupid question is that?

yet there are lifeforms out there that are alive!

All 'lifeform's are, by definition, alive.

Tautology.

and this im sure of it,

Tautology.

im sure there is alien life, because our galaxy is just a grain of sand in an endless beach,

Your sure of it because of a shitty metaphor?

Try again.

it is only common sense that somewhere in space alien life exists, and unlike us they might not breathe oxygen, or they might not feed on minerals, maybe they feed on hydrogen? who knows!!

I do.

Anaerobic living things exist, so your point there isn't one.

Minerals are necessary in construction of a corporeal body.

'Feed on hydrogen'? Physically impossible. What do they do, engage in fusion?

This is non-sensical bullshit.

'Maybe'? Maybe not.

So because they don't breathe oxygen they are not alive?

No.

If you had at least a high school class in biology you'd know this to be untrue.

because according to you guys alive has to be somewithing that breathes oxygen, has a heart that beats, has hair, has eyes, has a personality, and how can you guys prove so?

None of that matters.

I don't think you even know what the definition of alive is.

Give me your definition, I'd love to hear it.

ohh because Publius says WE SAY SO!!! ahahahahhahaa :lol: yeah man, you sure have the right anwser, i mean after all you have traveled to every corner of an infinite space right? ;) :rolleyes:

I would venture to say that I've traveled to more parts of space than you've traveled to pages in a grammar textbook.

Oh-Dae-Su

14th March 2006, 01:22

Try again.

What I said was that we, humans, and our definitions are the only ones that matter, which is true.

Maybe if someday we meet another lifeform (Highly unlikely, statistically, call it impossible) this will change, but as of now, we are all that matters.

No other sentient lifeform is even known to exist, let alone be relevent to our discussion.

well that didn't disprove what i said than, you just replyed with selfish opinion. Which is , of course, human nature. :)

Well no shit.

Just like your perception of 'alive' is a pardigm created by your brain.

The real question is, is it a good paradigm?

THe answer, in this case, is yes.

Carbon based, cell based things are alive. THings that aren't carbon and cell based aren't alive.

That's the definition. Period.

which is the good paradigm? the one created by me?(then everything in the world is a damn paradigm) or the one created by you? ;)

What kind of stupid question is that?

what kind of reply is this? ^, dont play Socrates, because its not working.

Your sure of it because of a shitty metaphor?

Try again

WTF? lmao, ohh ok Mr.Shakespear, sorry i didn't use old english with you, nevertheless, your "comeback" is irrelevant, because you and everyone here knows that my metaphore is correct.

I do.

Anaerobic living things exist, so your point there isn't one.

Minerals are necessary in construction of a corporeal body.

'Feed on hydrogen'? Physically impossible. What do they do, engage in fusion?

This is non-sensical bullshit.

'Maybe'? Maybe not.

You do what? and yes, anaerobic organisms do exists so that proves my point, because they don't breathe oxygen doesn't mean they are not "alive", and corporeal bodies can be a rock or a planet, anything that can be touched, so whats your point?

'Feed on hydrogen'? Physically impossible. What do they do, engage in fusion?

yet again, your thinking of humans, jesus, how many times do i have to tell you, GET OUT OF YOUR DAMN PARADIGM!! NO FUCKIN SHIT! of course it is physically impossible for a damn human to feed on hydrogen, even a mentaly disabled 3 year old knows this, what i meant is that there could be an organism who feeds on hydrogen and it is physically not impossible for it.

^^ plus what you said is just exactly what the Sun does.

No.

If you had at least a high school class in biology you'd know this to be untrue.

again, you talk so confident, as if bioligy was the anwser to all organisms and bodies of the universe, dude its planet earth!! EARTH!! our knowledge of things can't be applied everywhere else, except for mathematical and some sicentific data. GET OUT OF YOUR PARADIGM!!!!

None of that matters.

I don't think you even know what the definition of alive is.

Give me your definition, I'd love to hear it.

alive, in earthly organisms and bodies, is just what you agree on, but this belief shouldn't be applied to things outside our planet. You can call me crazy, and be all hostile towards me for my theory, but im sure that there are things out there beyond our wildest imagination, and certainly beyond our comprehension.

I would venture to say that I've traveled to more parts of space than you've traveled to pages in a grammar textbook.

stop talking like our writing a novel, and you have traveled to more parts of space than iv traveled in pages of a grammar book? oooK :blink: ?

so who am i talking to? an alien, wow nice to meet you im glad we have made contact, i hope you come in peace, and well technically i can't travel in pages of a grammar book , or any book for that matter, and thirdly what does a grammar book have to do with anything? if my spelling is what is bothering you than too bad, at least my theory is not ;)

i guess like you said, try again :lol:

Publius

14th March 2006, 01:59

well that didn't disprove what i said than, you just replyed with selfish opinion. Which is , of course, human nature. :)

It disproved everything you said. Follow along.

which is the good paradigm?

Whatever I say it is.

the one created by me?

No.

Your paradigm sucks.

(then everything in the world is a damn paradigm) or the one created by you? ;)

Bingo.

My paradigm is awesome.

what kind of reply is this? ^, dont play Socrates, because its not working.

Don't write, because it's not working either.

WTF? lmao, ohh ok Mr.Shakespear, sorry i didn't use old english with you, nevertheless, your "comeback" is irrelevant, because you and everyone here knows that my metaphore is correct.

Your metaphor is also pointless.

You do what? and yes, anaerobic organisms do exists so that proves my point, because they don't breathe oxygen doesn't mean they are not "alive", and corporeal bodies can be a rock or a planet, anything that can be touched, so whats your point?

That you don't have the slighest clue what you're talking about.

I never once said that to be alive something needed to breathe oxygen; that was a strawman of your own invention.

A corporeal body is anything that can be touched? Yet another tautology.

[quote]
yet again, your thinking of humans, jesus, how many times do i have to tell you, GET OUT OF YOUR DAMN PARADIGM!! NO FUCKIN SHIT! of course it is physically impossible for a damn human to feed on hydrogen, even a mentaly disabled 3 year old knows this, what i meant is that there could be an organism who feeds on hydrogen and it is physically not impossible for it.

Of course it is.

What property of hydrogen allows one to feed off of it, draw energy from it? Fusion.

An organism cannot produce hydrogen fusion for a number of reasons.

And if it did, it would be a be a star, that is, not an organism.

^^ plus what you said is just exactly what the Sun does.

Glad you figured that out. I know my reference to hydrogen fusion was a bit obtuse. Maybe next time I'll be more obvious.

I'm glad you managed to piece that together, Sherlock.

again, you talk so confident, as if bioligy was the anwser to all organisms and bodies of the universe, dude its planet earth!! EARTH!! our knowledge of things can't be applied everywhere else, except for mathematical and some sicentific data. GET OUT OF YOUR PARADIGM!!!!

Get out of my planet.

Where do they dig you morons up? Is there a mine or something? Business must be good.

alive, in earthly organisms and bodies, is just what you agree on, but this belief shouldn't be applied to things outside our planet.

Of course it should.

The definition doesn't have the stipulation 'except for on another planet'.

Something that is alive, by definition, is made up of cells.

If it isn't made up of cells, it isn't alive.

You can call me crazy,

You're crazy.

and be all hostile towards me for my theory, but im sure that there are things out there beyond our wildest imagination, and certainly beyond our comprehension.

And I'm sure there aren't.

stop talking like our writing a novel, and you have traveled to more parts of space than iv traveled in pages of a grammar book? oooK :blink: ?

I thought you were big on metaphors.

so who am i talking to? an alien, wow nice to meet you im glad we have made contact, i hope you come in peace, and well technically i can't travel in pages of a grammar book ,

Of course you can.

Travel: To advance or proceed

or any book for that matter, and thirdly what does a grammar book have to do with anything? if my spelling is what is bothering you than too bad, at least my theory is not ;)

Your grammar sucks.

Incidently, your capitalization, spelling and usage suck.

i guess like you said, try again :lol:

I guess...

Oh-Dae-Su

14th March 2006, 03:25

Oh-Dae-Su

14th March 2006, 03:27

next time try to learn how to use the QUOTE buttong on the top.

anyways, im going to reply like Publius, ie.

Your grammar sucks.

NO YOU SUCK!

No.

Your paradigm sucks

NO ITS NOT! ITS BETTER THAN YOURS!

Your metaphor is also pointless.

NO ITS NOT!! YOUR POINTLESS!

Of course it should.

The definition doesn't have the stipulation 'except for on another planet'.

NO! YOU SUCK! you dont know what your saying MORON!

and so on and so on.... :rolleyes:
lmao :lol: :lol:

at least you made me laugh and then again not take you serious in any way possible.

this conversation is over, you talk sense to a fool, and hell call you foolish ;)

Oh-Dae-Su

14th March 2006, 03:29

oops sorry, just realized i posted 2 times, one of them 3/4 incomplete, my bad OG

Publius

14th March 2006, 03:31

I'm glad to see you've finally caught on.

A little slow on the uptake...

Oh-Dae-Su

14th March 2006, 03:35

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight (like Dr.Evil in Austin Powers)

Dream Brother

14th March 2006, 09:48

Actually the belief in the universe as a potential god was ushered in with the post enlightenment era.. its known as pantheism.

If you look at alot of the work of Plato he said all truth.. all that must exist stems from a one truth a source, argueably this could a god.. the universe (creator of all things?.. physical.. eternal life in the sense that we're made purely of energy.. break down when we die to become one with the universe and used in the continuation of other life).

The common misconception with christianity (thanks to the RC church) is they've given over human attributes to the existance of god.. arguably since all they knew back then was the physical.. now we have knowledge of the universe.. to a extent and what else goes on in afterthought we can look back on things and critique some aspects.

The word God didn't come about until.. more or less 500-700 A.D when it was grouped with a series of words passing for god.. deus.. theo.. along with some eastern european words for pagan gods to bring together a unified understand of god. The fact they anthropomorphised god in the first place is becuase they didn't know otherwise.. as we progress towards a post-modern/post-enlightenment state of awareness though we see more evidence for the existance of something bigger than otherselves. The one source, truth, the be alpha and omega etc.

This guy however was not the first Atheist. Socrates and Plato were not considered to believe in a god as of such.. which is in part which got them into so much trouble with the greeks originally. Despite this fact that more and more people instead of practicising simple atheism instead are turning to some form of spiritual awareness. The experiance of a recission during the age of enlightenement is argueably going to recess on itself in a wake of new beliefs systems. Which 2000 years ago was exactly what christianity was viewed as by the rest of the world.

ÑóẊîöŉ

14th March 2006, 11:46

Oh Dae Sue, I am giving you a warning point for spamming instead of engaging in proper debate with Publius. If you can't abide by the rules of a proper debate and insist on posting fallacies, you get warning points.

And now to take out the trash...

Actually the belief in the universe as a potential god was ushered in with the post enlightenment era.. its known as pantheism.

And like a lot of things thought up in the backlash against the Enlightenment, it's utter crap.

If you look at alot of the work of Plato he said all truth.. all that must exist stems from a one truth a source, argueably this could a god.. the universe (creator of all things?.. physical.. eternal life in the sense that we're made purely of energy.. break down when we die to become one with the universe and used in the continuation of other life).

Meaningless babble. There is no "one truth" just material reality.

The common misconception with christianity (thanks to the RC church) is they've given over human attributes to the existance of god.. arguably since all they knew back then was the physical.. now we have knowledge of the universe.. to a extent and what else goes on in afterthought we can look back on things and critique some aspects.

Look at the Old Testament, arguably older than the Catholic Church. In it you will see the character "God" exhibiting human emotions such as anger. This is because "god" is a human concept.

The word God didn't come about until.. more or less 500-700 A.D when it was grouped with a series of words passing for god.. deus.. theo.. along with some eastern european words for pagan gods to bring together a unified understand of god. The fact they anthropomorphised god in the first place is becuase they didn't know otherwise.. as we progress towards a post-modern/post-enlightenment state of awareness though we see more evidence for the existance of something bigger than otherselves. The one source, truth, the be alpha and omega etc.

Show me this evidence.

Despite this fact that more and more people instead of practicising simple atheism instead are turning to some form of spiritual awareness.

In other words, they are still deluding themselves, just without the help of organised religion. I suggest you consider setting up a shop selling healing crystals, sounds like you'll get good business diddling the suckers.

Oh-Dae-Su

14th March 2006, 17:26

Oh Dae Sue, I am giving you a warning point for spamming instead of engaging in proper debate with Publius. If you can't abide by the rules of a proper debate and insist on posting fallacies, you get warning points.

yeah NoXion i see that you have used your powers over me, you had nothing else to get me with so your excuse is simple "spam", i bet if i was licking your shoes over the subjects discussed in this thread and i was a leftist just like you and i made the mistake i made you would not have given me a warning. Thanks for showing me and everybody how pointless you are, i mean it's only obvious i made a damn mistake posting twice, cant you even read?

oops sorry, just realized i posted 2 times, one of them 3/4 incomplete, my bad OG

i hope other superior mods talk to you about this, good use of your powers man, giving out unnecessary warnings. I hope you feel better about yourself.

anyways, i love the way this idiot says to me how i should be engaging in proper debate, yet lets look at his responses to Dream Brother:

And like a lot of things thought up in the backlash against the Enlightenment, it's utter crap.

:lol: good one , lets see are you buds with Publius, because you both have the pathetic response method, yeah thats what ill call it from now on, "the pathetic response" method. Even better since you love to say "PROVE IT", why don't you prove to us that its "crap" lmao

Meaningless babble. There is no "one truth" just material reality.

yeah meaningless babble, because im NOXION! and i know what im saying , PLATO WAS SHIT! im smarter than him, take mines more seriously!! :rolleyes:

NoXion, did Publius bribe you to warn me? :lol:

anyways i hope you had your fun you masochist psycho, i know i sure did have a laugh :lol:

Forward Union

14th March 2006, 17:38

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 13 2006, 02:43 AM
Maybe alien life is nothing like us, maybe they are a gas ball that is able to think.

No because if alien life was a gas ball, we'd just call it a gas ball. In which case we have already found "life"

Anyway your theory is based on a logical fallacy. You argue that we're alive, we're made of elements, the sun is made of elements, the sun is alive.

That's like saying all men have bollocks, all men talk, therefor all men talk bollocks. It's not logical.

you are an idiot, did you know that antimatter is actually MATTER!! lmao it is just composed of particles that don't constitute the normal set of particles found in most matter. BUT ITS STILL MATTER DUMB ASS!!!

yes I did know that actually. It's still not "one in the same" as matter that makes up this keyboard, the table etc. DUMB ASS!!!

its like saying : "ohh you think humans are the same as those from planet X-4304?" umm NO SHIT! of course not, but they are both intelligent lifeforms.

Your the one saying the sun is alive. in some new definitions you've invented for "life" in which you alive if your made of matter because it's all the same .

it would be interesting to know what Additives Free thinks, i really want to know what is your whole theory? do you think after death we go into limbo? or we reincarnate in a rooster? i mean tell me i want to know what's your opinion in this whole purpouse/god/existance questions!

If think after you die you decompose. I even have evidence to prove it.

I really tried not to post this but it's so funny

Chris: alan, what do you think happens after you die?
Alan: Urm, well, Certainly, Buried. Or I imagine in the old furnace, isn't it.
Chris: I suppose. What if your buried at sea?
Alan: You'd, well you don't drown because .... You'd sink, sink.
Chris: Do you think you go up and down in the water? Or just down?
Alan: Well I imagine with the gasses in your body, you'd probably rise and fall a few... [gets cut off]
Chris: How many times?
Alan: [Sharply] Half a dozen
Chris: Where are you getting this from Alan? what, half a dozen times up and down in the water, your a bit of an expert on this.
Alan: [nervously] No, It's just that, when you die. I mean I don't want to go into detail, but your body sort of ferments ... you know you have a carton of orange, urm, you leave it for a while in a sort of a warm place it expands with the gasses, and its, urm, sort of a bit like that.
Chris: [aggressively] How much Orange is there in a dead body?
Alan: Half a cup
Chris: Half a cup of orange in a dead body
Alan: [Mutters] Yea
Chris: You sure?
Alan: ugh, yes
Chris: Ok alan, carry on I just want you to think about that.

Oh-Dae-Su

14th March 2006, 18:40

If think after you die you decompose. I even have evidence to prove it.

ohh i totally agree with you, yes, sadly death is the end, but we will become something else, or a part of us will be transformed into something else in this earth. So death is the first step into inmortality. Life is a cycle.

ÑóẊîöŉ

14th March 2006, 20:37

yeah NoXion i see that you have used your powers over me, you had nothing else to get me with so your excuse is simple "spam", i bet if i was licking your shoes over the subjects discussed in this thread and i was a leftist just like you and i made the mistake i made you would not have given me a warning.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "NO! YOU'RE WRONG" is spam, pure and simple. If you don't like a logical debate, fuck off.

And for your information, Publius is a restricted member. Unlike you, however, he uses his brain and debates logically.

Thanks for showing me and everybody how pointless you are, i mean it's only obvious i made a damn mistake posting twice, cant you even read?

Did you even read my post before you decided to fly off the handle? I warned you for spamming, not double posting.

i hope other superior mods talk to you about this, good use of your powers man, giving out unnecessary warnings. I hope you feel better about yourself.

The warning points system is for your benefit, not mine. I suppose I could have given you an unofficial warning off the record, but your overreaction means it was a good idea I didn't bother.

Even better since you love to say "PROVE IT", why don't you prove to us that its "crap" lmao

Because it's unprovable and therefore worthless.

anyways i hope you had your fun you masochist psycho, i know i sure did have a laugh

Your delusions of being persecuted by me are groundless.

ohh i totally agree with you, yes, sadly death is the end, but we will become something else, or a part of us will be transformed into something else in this earth. So death is the first step into inmortality. Life is a cycle.

No it's not. Just because when one dies that their atoms become part of something else, does not necessarily make that something else alive.

Forward Union

14th March 2006, 22:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:40 PM
No it's not. Just because when one dies that their atoms become part of something else, does not necessarily make that something else alive.
Well, that and any energy in your body. But yea, that dosn't make things alive.

Oh-Dae-Su

15th March 2006, 00:18

ÑóẊîöŉ

15th March 2006, 00:35

OMG!! dude i was merely awnsering back in the same stupid "spaming" way that Publius awnsered ME!! in that case you should warn Publius too, or should i quote his reply to me? examples:

I'm not interested in excuses.

admit it, you warned me because you felt like it, because of the simple fact that you don't like me because we differ in our opinions, and as i showed to you above, Publius's quotes, they should be considered as spamming too, he used them in not just 1 but various of his posts. It was very low and unfair of you NoXio thats why i can't respect you right now.

Please, drop the persecution complex.

and i know your going to come back and say, ^^ OHH THOSE AREN'T SPAMMING!!
suuuure, keep acting like a lowlife worm than.

Look, if you aren't going to either concede or quietly withdraw when beaten in a debate, don't debate at all.

Oh-Dae-Su

15th March 2006, 01:21

when have i been beaten in a debate? show me how i was beaten? please? indulge me!!! i beg you!! :lol: and i will concede, there is nothing wrong with loosing an argument, its a fact of life, something you obviously don't understand. If anything i wouldn't be loosing at all, i would be learning something new, something that like i said is a fact of life, you learn something new every day, im ignorant of many things, but of course you aren't lmao; and trust me if im ignorant of something than i wouldn't talk about it, the thing is the arguments between Publius and Additives Free have been of opinion and theories.

anyways, the looser has spoken:

I'm not interested in excuses.

Please, drop the persecution complex.

ÑóẊîöŉ

15th March 2006, 01:29

when have i been beaten in a debate? show me how i was beaten? please? indulge me!!! i beg you!!

The thread isn't going anywhere soon, you can look it over yourself and see what went wrong. I'm a moderator, not your nanny.

After you've looked at your previous exchanges in this thread, read THIS (http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm) and then come back to us.

Oh-Dae-Su

15th March 2006, 01:45

i dont have to look at anything, dont give me any bullshit sites, the fact of the matter is you acted incorrectly towards me, you should have said something to me if that was considered as "spaming", and i like i proved to you im not the only one who should be accused of spaming under your supposed guidelines.

listen its over, i dont want to talk about it, the most pointless things is trying to explain common sense to somebody and make them see it, yet how ironic the world is you talk stupidity and suddenly you can move the masses.

Publius

15th March 2006, 03:22

Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "NO! YOU'RE WRONG" is spam, pure and simple

:o OMG!! dude i was merely awnsering back in the same stupid "spaming" way that Publius awnsered ME!! in that case you should warn Publius too, or should i quote his reply to me? examples:

Of course.

What kind of stupid question is that?

Your sure of it because of a shitty metaphor?

Try again.

No.

If you had at least a high school class in biology you'd know this to be untrue.

It disproved everything you said. Follow along.

No.

Your paradigm sucks.

Bingo.

My paradigm is awesome.

Your metaphor is also pointless.

Get out of my planet.

Where do they dig you morons up? Is there a mine or something? Business must be good.

You're crazy.

Your grammar sucks.

Incidently, your capitalization, spelling and usage suck.

My non-replies were written in response the patent absurdity and illogic of your post.

If you had written "ONE PLUS ONE EQUALS TADPOLES" I would hardly be required to go through a step by step analysis of why, in fact, one and one didn't make 'tadpoles'; it's a clear absurdity and non-sequitir.

The fact is, you were either: Bullshitting, making shit up, commiting egregious logical fallacies or being a general dumbass and either purposefully ignoring, or being blissfully unaware of, my actual points.

You constantly brought up 'paradigms', as if saying 'that's a paradigm' did anything to make your point better or my point worse.

I was merely following along, that is, illustrating how stupid that style of debate really is.

But I've already wasted too much and time and thought on you.

It's clear you cannot debate logically, or even at all.

admit it, you warned me because you felt like it, because of the simple fact that you don't like me because we differ in our opinions, and as i showed to you above, Publius's quotes, they should be considered as spamming too, he used them in not just 1 but various of his posts. It was very low and unfair of you NoXio thats why i can't respect you right now. :angry:

Also, my posts were, dare I say, riotiously funny.

I'm sure my ardent, caustic wit and razor sharp prose earn me brownie points among my 'Comrades'.

15th March 2006, 04:29

you have to think of it in a broader sense my friend. These gases are elements right, we agree on that, and i suppose if you would actually know, the human body is made of elements as well, so what is the difference? like i said over and over again, everything in the universe is one and the same.

Your point that everything in the universe is made up of matter is true.

ohh yes absolutley, but like i said you have to look at it in a broader sense, look at things in the big picture, because you are defining this as only a human quality, so it is not a "defined" set of characteristics, why should it be?

We have a conventional definition for what is alive:

Originally posted by Wikipedia
1. Organization - Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. Plants also respond to stimuli, but usually in ways very different from animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

because "we" humans say so?

Well, we are categroizing things, so yes, if we create a definition for what "alive" is, then we can look at various entities throughout the universe and determine what categories these entities fit into (alive or not alive).

Maybe alien life is nothing like us, maybe they are a gas ball that is able to think.

Gas balls are unable to think. Regardless of where in the universe we travel, the laws of physics and chemistry still apply.

and the universe doesn't influence the world of human affairs? lol so an earthquake or a volcano or a meteor coming straight towards the earth doesn't influence us at all right? rolleyes.gif

He is speaking of the universe as a sentient being, not of things within the universe. Since you are claiming that the universe is a sentient being (by saying it is god), he is refuting your claim, and rather successfully, I might add.

you keep refering to everything as having human qualities, but thats wrong thats why i said you have to look at things in a broader scale, it is true that alive would be something like us, but thats a paradigm created by our brains. Paradigms blind people, "alive" doesn't necessarily have to be something with human characteristics, you think humans would be alive in outer space without a spacesuit? yet there are lifeforms out there that are alive! and this im sure of it, im sure there is alien life, because our galaxy is just a grain of sand in an endless beach, it is only common sense that somewhere in space alien life exists, and unlike us they might not breathe oxygen, or they might not feed on minerals, maybe they feed on hydrogen? who knows!! So because they don't breathe oxygen they are not alive? because according to you guys alive has to be somewithing that breathes oxygen, has a heart that beats, has hair, has eyes, has a personality, and how can you guys prove so? ohh because Publius says WE SAY SO!!! ahahahahhahaa laugh.gif yeah man, you sure have the right anwser, i mean after all you have traveled to every corner of an infinite space right? wink.gif rolleyes.gif

He didn't define alive as having human characteristics at all, and you claiming that he did and refuting that argument is known as the straw man logical fallacy. Again, alive is defined above, and I'm sure Publius would agree with me on that definition.

which is the good paradigm? the one created by me?(then everything in the world is a damn paradigm) or the one created by you? wink.gif

Well, to argue about what is alive and what isn't, usually you would use the conventional definition for alive, which is supplied above. Of course, you could make up your own definition for what alive means, but then you're arguing something else entirely.

For example, I could define the word alive to mean everything that is brown. Well, by that definition dirt, rocks, and even shit are alive. Now, according to my definition I'm right, but according to conventional definition I'm wrong. Of course, if I went around saying "shit's alive!!" people would think I'm a fucking idiot (much like what people think of you on this forum, and probably in real life as well, if you go around talking like this).

Also, if we all created our own definition for words, then language would be completely meaningless; that is why we use conventional definitions to explain things. That is why we are able to communicate. Basically what you're doing is arguing semantics, which really is pointless. Is everything in the universe composed of elements? Yes. Is the sun alive in the sense of the word defined above? Hell no.

again, you talk so confident, as if bioligy was the anwser to all organisms and bodies of the universe, dude its planet earth!! EARTH!! our knowledge of things can't be applied everywhere else, except for mathematical and some sicentific data. GET OUT OF YOUR PARADIGM!!!!

STOP ARGUING SEMANTICS!!!!

alive, in earthly organisms and bodies, is just what you agree on, but this belief shouldn't be applied to things outside our planet. You can call me crazy, and be all hostile towards me for my theory, but im sure that there are things out there beyond our wildest imagination, and certainly beyond our comprehension.

Look, the laws of science still apply to things outside of our solar system; they don't just fall apart. Therefore, things "beyond our wildest imagination, and certainly beyond our comprehension" aren't out there. They all obey the laws of science; therefore, our definition of what is alive and what isn't applies to the entire universe.

ohh i totally agree with you, yes, sadly death is the end, but we will become something else, or a part of us will be transformed into something else in this earth. So death is the first step into inmortality. Life is a cycle.

So you define immortality as your body decomposing into dirt and eventually oil? And this is somehow a cycle? Unless you mean by "life is a cycle" that the dead provide life for the living in the form of dirt and oil, which still is a really stupid thing to say.

when have i been beaten in a debate? show me how i was beaten? please? indulge me!!! i beg you!!

Well, you were pretty much beaten when you claimed that Publius's definition of "alive" was something that had human characteristics. That is known as the straw man fallacy, and once you start pulling logical fallacies out of your ass, you're pretty much done.

i dont have to look at anything, dont give me any bullshit sites

You really should check the site out. As you have committed numerous logical fallacies, and as the site is informative of logical fallacies, it would greatly help your debate skills.

I'm sure my ardent, caustic wit and razor sharp prose earn me brownie points among my 'Comrades'.

Yep. 100 to be exact. 400 more and you get a cookie, comrade!

Don't Change Your Name

15th March 2006, 05:56

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 14 2006, 02:29 PM
yeah NoXion i see that you have used your powers over me, you had nothing else to get me with so your excuse is simple "spam", i bet if i was licking your shoes over the subjects discussed in this thread and i was a leftist just like you and i made the mistake i made you would not have given me a warning.
Even assuming that NoXion wouldn't have done that himself, there are many other individuals here with the power to do so, and might not necessarilly agree with NoXion.

:lol: good one , lets see are you buds with Publius, because you both have the pathetic response method, yeah thats what ill call it from now on, "the pathetic response" method.

At least it's better than the "immature ignorant teenager pretending to be a brilliant philosopher who has The Truth and thinks he can defeat any of those evil rational scientists although he's out of touch with reality and can't debate" response method which you've ripped off from, well, a bunch of ignorant kids we've had before you, I suppose (others who use it include every single creationist who comes around the "Evolution vs Creation" forum at the Internet Infidels forum (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php), that dissapear after 2 posts when all their pathetic arguments get destroyed by actual scientists - one of the most interesting phenomenons in the whole internet).

Even better since you love to say "PROVE IT", why don't you prove to us that its "crap" lmao

You say "X", you must "prove" "X". Until you do that, "X" can be considered crap because you have no evidence supporting your crappy idea.

So death is the first step into inmortality. Life is a cycle.

Evidence?

Iroquois Xavier

15th March 2006, 09:52

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 13 2006, 02:43 AM
you are an idiot...

Man this dude should be a comedian! :rolleyes:

Vladislav

15th March 2006, 10:30

anyways, the looser has spoken:

Loser is spelt with one o. Unless you mean "looser" which actually means: Not fastened, restrained, or contained: loose bricks.

If you had meant 'looser' then it wouldn't have fit into the sentence that you said, therefore I conclude that you must have meant loser.

Thank You Very Much for your precious time.

Oh-Dae-Su

15th March 2006, 14:46

well im not going to go one by one, like i said i want this talk to be over, its pointless, you guys have your theories i have mines, doesn't mean your wrong doesn't mean im right, because i at least admit the the anwser to this meaningless life is uncomprehensible and i don't have it, i have just explained a theory of what i believe, hello it's a THEORY! look up what that means.. by the way the only science that can be applied in every corner of the universe is that of mathematics and the atoms /elemts/ etc. If you try to think to find the anwser as to how? or what? created the universe, it is really uncomprehensible to us, but just like we comprehend things that our apelike ancestors couldn't comprehend, maybe there are lifeforms out there that know the anwsers to the questions that trouble us and that lead us to a downward spiral of unanwsered questions.

by the way, yes Vladislav your correct on "looser", but this is where we see the factor which pisses me off most about the english language, there are no rules to words, for example the word "book" , if loser is spelled as such, how come it's not spelled "bok" as well, most words you have to remember in the english language.

Forward Union

15th March 2006, 15:42

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 15 2006, 02:49 PM
your theories i have mines, doesn't mean your wrong doesn't mean im right,
Well you think the sun is alive. And it's not. That's not a theory, it's just wrong.

Dyst

15th March 2006, 16:38

Originally posted by red [email protected] 13 2006, 12:03 PM
You're a Nihilist so in other words you're a player.

"I believe in the universe as god" -- another meaningless statement. But coming from a player, not surprising.

The universe does not possess the property of self awareness and therefore cannot show intent in influencing the world of human affairs. Exhibiting belief for something like that is both irrelevant and meaningless. Debate with players is an exercise in futility.
Stupiddd...

It is not a meaningless statement, if you choose to think into it, instead of pulling some lame trick which makes you feel good/look like an idiot.

Think about it. The philosophical concept of the (laws of the) universe (or god) doesn't include it having self awareness, nor intent, nor having direct influence or ability to interact with humans (or anything else.)

I have stopped calling it God now, I just say "I believe in the laws of the universe". Why? Well it stops brainless people from saying meaningless shit without any relevance to the subject, a subject which is philosophical. Plus, there's no difference, other than when you think of the concept of god, you think of morons.

Well you think the sun is alive. And it's not. That's not a theory, it's just wrong.

Well. We are all, including the sun, originated from the same source.

Doesn't mean that it is a living creature, but I don't think that was what he meant either.

15th March 2006, 16:39

well im not going to go one by one, like i said i want this talk to be over, its pointless

I'm going to see this as a concession, as your points were ripped to fucking shreds by both me and Publius.

by the way the only science that can be applied in every corner of the universe is that of mathematics and the atoms /elemts/ etc.

Physics, chemistry, biology, geology. All the hard sciences. Yes that's right all of them.

If you try to think to find the anwser as to how? or what? created the universe, it is really uncomprehensible to us

If you try to think to find the answer as to why? that shit even matters, it is really pointless to us.

by the way, yes Vladislav your correct on "looser", but this is where we see the factor which pisses me off most about the english language, there are no rules to words, for example the word "book" , if loser is spelled as such, how come it's not spelled "bok" as well, most words you have to remember in the english language.

Deal with it.

Dyst

15th March 2006, 16:43

Deal with it.

Don't be a smartass. Lame americans.

Meaningless babble. There is no "one truth" just material reality.
And why do you fail to see if they could be the same?

For example, what if the laws of the universe could be summarised or redefined down to one system or one equation? Surely, that could be called the "one truth", then. Because it would be all.

Oh-Dae-Su

15th March 2006, 17:25

thank you Keiza for at least coming to my help :lol:

nah, listen what im trying to say is that "alive" is not , i repeat IS NOT! solely a human characteristic, even in our own earth, plants are considered alive, and other micro organisms like say a virus, they don't "think", which was one of the reasons why some idiot i can't recall who it was said why nothing else could be alive.

Physics, chemistry, biology, geology. All the hard sciences. Yes that's right all of them.

yeah physics chemistry yes the elements and atoms stop repeating what i said, and biology? :lol: you think every organism in space is the same as in earth? and geology? lol yeah the hard sciences lol

If you try to think to find the answer as to why? that shit even matters, it is really pointless to us.

ohh ok it is pointless to ask how the universe was formed? ok thanks again for your educated responses.

Deal with it.

yeah i know deal with the fact that its stupid not to have rules in a major language.

Don't Change Your Name

15th March 2006, 18:12

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 15 2006, 11:49 AM
well im not going to go one by one, like i said i want this talk to be over, its pointless,
Too embarrasing, eh? :lol:

you guys have your theories i have mines, doesn't mean your wrong doesn't mean im right, because i at least admit the the anwser to this meaningless life is uncomprehensible and i don't have it,

:lol:

All the ignorant trolls say the same, to hide their ignorance and ridiculousness.

i have just explained a theory of what i believe, hello it's a THEORY! look up what that means..

Yeah, a "theory"...in the "layman" sense...

Not in a scientific one.

Look up what that means.

by the way the only science that can be applied in every corner of the universe is that of mathematics and the atoms /elemts/ etc.

Nonsense

If you try to think to find the anwser as to how? or what? created the universe, it is really uncomprehensible to us, but just like we comprehend things that our apelike ancestors couldn't comprehend, maybe there are lifeforms out there that know the anwsers to the questions that trouble us and that lead us to a downward spiral of unanwsered questions.

This would be a nice way to finish some episode of a program about "unsolved mysteries"/aliens/religion/nonsense :lol:

by the way, yes Vladislav your correct on "looser", but this is where we see the factor which pisses me off most about the english language, there are no rules to words, for example the word "book" , if loser is spelled as such, how come it's not spelled "bok" as well, most words you have to remember in the english language.

Amazingly, I usually speak english better than many "Americans" :D

nah, listen what im trying to say is that "alive" is not , i repeat IS NOT! solely a human characteristic, even in our own earth, plants are considered alive, and other micro organisms like say a virus, they don't "think", which was one of the reasons why some idiot i can't recall who it was said why nothing else could be alive.

We know, dumbass. Humans are not the only thing that can live.

And viruses are not considered to "live", as far as I know.

15th March 2006, 19:53

nah, listen what im trying to say is that "alive" is not , i repeat IS NOT! solely a human characteristic, even in our own earth, plants are considered alive, and other micro organisms like say a virus, they don't "think", which was one of the reasons why some idiot i can't recall who it was said why nothing else could be alive.

I already defined what "alive" means in my earlier post.

yeah physics chemistry yes the elements and atoms stop repeating what i said, and biology? laugh.gif you think every organism in space is the same as in earth? and geology? lol yeah the hard sciences lol

What is biology? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology)

Nevertheless, the biological sciences are characterized and unified by several major underlying principles and concepts: universality, evolution, diversity, continuity, genetics, homeostasis, and interactions.

There is more info on these principles at the link above. I suggest you read it.

Geology of Mercury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Mercury)
Geology of Venus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Venus)
Geology of the Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon)
Geology of Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_%28planet%29#Geology)
etc...

ohh ok it is pointless to ask how the universe was formed? ok thanks again for your educated responses.

It pretty much is. Perhaps for purposes that scientists can somehow use, but saying "god created the universe" or any of that shit like that certainly wouldn't be helpful to science. How the universe was created certainly won't help me or you out in any way.

yeah i know deal with the fact that its stupid not to have rules in a major language.

Yep.

I suggest you read my earlier post.

Oh-Dae-Su

15th March 2006, 20:09

Too embarrasing, eh?

what's embarrasing? that a bunch of hippy leftitsts gang up on me? give me a brake , you guys can't comprehend why im trying to say, the only one who at least can use his homosapien brain to actually understand my concepts is Keiza.

All the ignorant trolls say the same, to hide their ignorance and ridiculousness.

so im the ignorant troll because you say i am, is that believable? you moronic asshole, the fact of the matter is the concept of the universe is too advanced for you and your buddies conventional view of life and the universe.

Yeah, a "theory"...in the "layman" sense...

Not in a scientific one.

Look up what that means.

the layman sense? :blink: yeah what else? :lol: in the "not my view" sense?

Nonsense

prove to me how every science can be applied to everything in the universe. INCLUDING BLACK HOLES! AHA! ;)

This would be a nice way to finish some episode of a program about "unsolved mysteries"/aliens/religion/nonsense

seems to me like your watching to much X-Files, and i bet your another who believes its "pointless" to ask how the universe was formed. :rolleyes:

Amazingly, I usually speak english better than many "Americans"

REALLY! i didn't know english was limited to Americans? :D

We know, dumbass. Humans are not the only thing that can live.

And viruses are not considered to "live", as far as I know.

to settle this ongoing argument once and for all, i think both parties would be satisfied, here it is:

Defining the concept of life
How can one tell when an entity is alive? It would be relatively straightforward to offer a practical set of guidelines if one's only concern were life on Earth as we know it (see biosphere), but as soon as one considers questions about life's origins on Earth, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life, or the concept of artificial life, it becomes clear that the question is fundamentally difficult and comparable in many respects to the problem of defining intelligence.

you can read more on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

what Keiza said, was what i meant to say about the Sun, and as you read this article ^ you can maybe understand some of the things i tryed to say. Im just basing my argument on the fact that matter makes up everything in the universe, so we are one and the same, thats all im trying to say, of course this is hypothetically speaking.

Oh-Dae-Su

15th March 2006, 20:34

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us "universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Albert Einstein

^ this sums up what i believe, we are one and the same with the universe, and Publius this is the paradigm, our prision.

"Like a gazelle from the hands of the hunter, like a bird from the snare of the fowler, FREE YOURSELF!"

Oh Dae Su

ÑóẊîöŉ

15th March 2006, 23:19

Had you read that website I gave you the address to, you would realise that quoting Albert Einstein instead of actually arguing your point constitutes a logical fallacy known as an "Appeal to Authority"

Don't Change Your Name

16th March 2006, 18:02

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-Su+Mar 15 2006, 05:12 PM--> (Oh-Dae-Su @ Mar 15 2006, 05:12 PM) what's embarrasing? that a bunch of hippy leftitsts gang up on me? give me a brake , you guys can't comprehend why im trying to say, the only one who at least can use his homosapien brain to actually understand my concepts is Keiza. [/b]
Fortunately, I'm not a hippie. And I know NoXion, and he's FAR from being a hippie, and I doubt Publius has anything in common with "hippie leftists". Not sure about Lazar though, but he doesn't seem to.

And nobody can "comprehend" you because what your views are nonsensical.

so im the ignorant troll because you say i am, is that believable?

Yes.

Your idiocy and behaviour is consistent with my previous experience with ignorant kids who have their own wacky nonsensical "beliefs", and can only resort to bullshit like asking us to keep "an open mind" and other crap.

you moronic asshole, the fact of the matter is the concept of the universe is too advanced for you and your buddies conventional view of life and the universe.

Good to know that all the years you've spent in university studying chemistry, biology and quantum physics are allowing you to defeat our "conventional view" (?!) of "life and the universe" :rolleyes:

ComradeRed, where are you when we need you?

the layman sense? :blink: yeah what else? :lol: in the "not my view" sense?

Aaargh...I shouldn't be wasting my time with ignorant people like you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

prove to me how every science can be applied to everything in the universe. INCLUDING BLACK HOLES! AHA! ;)

THe "laws" in the universe apply to all of it. Black holes are irrelevant in this discussion.

seems to me like your watching to much X-Files,

I don't see what gave you that idea.

and i bet your another who believes its "pointless" to ask how the universe was formed. :rolleyes:

No, I just think it's pointless to wonder how "it was created" and to claim that "it is god and alive".

REALLY! i didn't know english was limited to Americans? :D

No, but being a moronic ignorant teenager living in the biggest superpower that can't even type well in his language, even though it's pretty much his mother language, and in fact does it worse than someone who doesn't have english as his first language seems to be.

to settle this ongoing argument once and for all, i think both parties would be satisfied, here it is:

Defining the concept of life
How can one tell when an entity is alive? It would be relatively straightforward to offer a practical set of guidelines if one's only concern were life on Earth as we know it (see biosphere), but as soon as one considers questions about life's origins on Earth, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life, or the concept of artificial life, it becomes clear that the question is fundamentally difficult and comparable in many respects to the problem of defining intelligence.

you can read more on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

what Keiza said, was what i meant to say about the Sun, and as you read this article ^ you can maybe understand some of the things i tryed to say.

Originally posted by Wikipedia's article on [email protected]
Although there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, the generally accepted biological manifestations are that life exhibits the following phenomena:

1. Organization - Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. Plants also respond to stimuli, but usually in ways very different from animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

part of the Wiktionary's definition of "life"
2. In biology, a status given to an entity including animals, plants, fungi,bacteria and sometimes viruses, etc, with the properties of replication and metabolism.

Therefore, I doubt the Sun "lives"...at least from a scientific point of view.

Im just basing my argument on the fact that matter makes up everything in the universe, so we are one and the same, thats all im trying to say, of course this is hypothetically speaking.

Some matter is "living", and other isn't (or isn't anymore) and never was and it will surely never be. I don't care about your "you have to look at it in a broader sense" "alternative" bullshit.

Oh-Dae-Su

16th March 2006, 19:49

THe "laws" in the universe apply to all of it. Black holes are irrelevant in this discussion.

dude not every science thats nonsense, and black holes are irrelevant? why because nobody can understand them? doesn't mean they are not part of the universe.

No, I just think it's pointless to wonder how "it was created" and to claim that "it is god and alive".

well you think everything that is pointless to you will be pointless to everybody? ahh communist leftists what can i say. Listen it's pointless because we can't find the anwser, but its not pointeless in the context of the question. The universe is expanding every minute, more and more, without signs of stoping, and also it is believe that there are various universe , also called multiverse, so in essance it's believed our universe can be finite, at least it has been measured in light years, but it just keeps expanding, its an interesting subject , but of course im the kid your the "adult" :lol: and if its pointless to you that's how it goes :rolleyes:

No, but being a moronic ignorant teenager living in the biggest superpower that can't even type well in his language, even though it's pretty much his mother language, and in fact does it worse than someone who doesn't have english as his first language seems to be.

you know, if there is one thing that i hate about people, is when they talk without even knowing me, first of all how are you sure english is my 1st language? in fact it isnt, it's my second, and if your only resource to insulting me is by mispelling a word, than wow talk about who is being childish.

Therefore, I doubt the Sun "lives"...at least from a scientific point of view.

you see this is where you guys misunderstand me, what i mean is that the Sun is constantly creating energy, i know its not alive in the sense that it can't reproduce or grow or some shit, but for example how do you think life in this earth came to be? the anwser! out of nothing! out of in-organic material, how come? because like i said we are one and the same with the universe. In the universe the "essense" of life is everywhere, the birth and death occurs in a daily basis, stars, planets, and organic material or organisms, we are all linked by a common law. Listen i believe in what Einstein said, and it would be really nice if you can show some respect for my beliefs thats all i ask. If you dont believe that we are one and the same with the universe than fine, but don't fucking gang up on me and then call me the child of the whole story.

16th March 2006, 19:58

you see this is where you guys misunderstand me, what i mean is that the Sun is constantly creating energy, i know its not alive in the sense that it can't reproduce or grow or some shit

So if you don't mean "alive" don't use the word "alive". If you said it's creating energy, then there wouldn't've been this huge debate about it.

how come? because like i said we are one and the same with the universe. In the universe the "essense" of life is everywhere, the birth and death occurs in a daily basis, stars, planets, and organic material or organisms, we are all linked by a common law.

Yes, you are right when you say that everything is made up of elements. So in that sense we are "one and the same with the universe".

Listen i believe in what Einstein said, and it would be really nice if you can show some respect for my beliefs thats all i ask. If you dont believe that we are one and the same with the universe than fine, but don't fucking gang up on me and then call me the child of the whole story.

Well, what do you mean by "one and the same"? That we are made up of elements, as is everything else in the universe, so therefore we are made up of the same things that everything in the universe is? Nobody would deny that; however, I fail to see how this is religious in any way, and I don't know why you would want to put a religious spin on something as common-sensical as this.

Oh-Dae-Su

16th March 2006, 20:07

Well, what do you mean by "one and the same"? That we are made up of elements, as is everything else in the universe, so therefore we are made up of the same things that everything in the universe is? Nobody would deny that; however, I fail to see how this is religious in any way, and I don't know why you would want to put a religious spin on something as common-sensical as this

im not religious at all, its not like i pray to the universe hahahaa or have a santuary with candles in front of a picture of a nebula :lol: , but religion is an interesting word, religion can be anything you believe on strongly, or that fallow. For example im sure your a hard leftist believer, it can be said that you follow the leftists ideology "religiously" , or that leftism is your religion get what i mean?

but im not religious about this at all, its just something i believe on, just like i believe the sky is blue. It's not something im thinking about 24/7 or that i follow "religiously", its just what i believe when your going to talk about "religion" in the terms of god and deities or something. Although i believe the universe is god, its not like the universe does things in porpuse or because he wants to punish us or something, when i use the word god to signify the universe i dont mean the personification that is used in all of our human religious concepts. Its just that god is a word, and if im going to apply it to something its going to be the universe, which is certainly something omnipotent which is out of our reach more powerful than us etc...

i hope you understand what im trying to say. :)

ÑóẊîöŉ

16th March 2006, 21:27

The sun doesn't "create" energy, since it can neither be created nor destroyed, merely moved around. It merely emits energy as a side-effect of the fusion process.

Oh-Dae-Su

17th March 2006, 00:36

it's a "source" for energy, does that satisfy you nowr? :rolleyes:

17th March 2006, 01:04

im not religious at all, its not like i pray to the universe hahahaa or have a santuary with candles in front of a picture of a nebula laugh.gif , but religion is an interesting word, religion can be anything you believe on strongly, or that fallow. For example im sure your a hard leftist believer, it can be said that you follow the leftists ideology "religiously" , or that leftism is your religion get what i mean?

Well, you can't really do that, as you are using two different definitions of "religious" here:

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

The first definition is the one we are debating. The second one is the one you claim you can use to describe me. The problem arises in the world scrupulous, and it's double meaning:

Scrupulous:
1. Conscientious and exact; painstaking.
2. Having scruples; principled.

Now, if you use the second definition of "scrupulous" in the second definition of "religious", then yes, you could use it to explain me and my political theory. Of course, then the word "religious" somewhat loses it's meaning, as you're basically just telling me that I'm a man of principles.

but im not religious about this at all

The word "God" is religious and by injecting that into all of this shit you are making it religious.

Although i believe the universe is god, its not like the universe does things in porpuse or because he wants to punish us or something, when i use the word god to signify the universe i dont mean the personification that is used in all of our human religious concepts. Its just that god is a word, and if im going to apply it to something its going to be the universe

So why even call the universe god? Why not just call it the universe? You're obviously a struggling atheist.

which is certainly something omnipotent

The universe has unlimited power? What the fuck does that mean? :blink:

which is out of our reach

How is it out of our reach? We're living inside of it. Hell, by your theory we're part of it.

more powerful than us

What do you mean by this? How would you even determine this? What the hell definition of power are you even using?

i hope you understand what im trying to say.

Most of us do and it's pretty much crap.

Oh-Dae-Su

17th March 2006, 02:18

Well, you can't really do that, as you are using two different definitions of "religious" here:

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

The first definition is the one we are debating. The second one is the one you claim you can use to describe me. The problem arises in the world scrupulous, and it's double meaning:

Scrupulous:
1. Conscientious and exact; painstaking.
2. Having scruples; principled.

Now, if you use the second definition of "scrupulous" in the second definition of "religious", then yes, you could use it to explain me and my political theory. Of course, then the word "religious" somewhat loses it's meaning, as you're basically just telling me that I'm a man of principles.

Lazar stop being a dick man, why are you and some others here so apathetical to me, giving me all this bunch of defenitions for religious when you know the context that im putting it on, stop trying to act like an idiot or you really are one, or in the other hand you just love trying to make life miserable for me and everyone else you don't like...i mean a man of "principles" wtf are you talking about? and that god has to be a word only used to signify a "religious" christian type of belief or something.

and NO! what i mean by the universe when i use those words , its to say that its something that we can't even grasp , its something that we have no control over which is bigger than us , thats how i use these terms, jesus you take evertything so literally, do you have any brain cells that work out of your bracketed way of thinking?

Most of us do and it's pretty much crap.

yeah just keep being a dick! i just wonder is this how you get off? trying to insult people through cyberspace!? :lol:

Don't Change Your Name

18th March 2006, 19:19

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 16 2006, 04:52 PM
dude not every science thats nonsense,
I didn't say "science".

and black holes are irrelevant? why because nobody can understand them? doesn't mean they are not part of the universe.

No, because we're not talking about black holes. And as far as I know, we have a rather good "understanding" of them.

Listen it's pointless because we can't find the anwser, but its not pointeless in the context of the question.

If you're talking about "how the universe was created" (which I just mentioned), it is a pointless question because you're assuming it has some creator or some kind of "meaning". You can attribute anything to any fictitious entity you make up as an "explanation" because you "can't imagine it being formed by chance" or whatever you like to "believe".

you know, if there is one thing that i hate about people, is when they talk without even knowing me, first of all how are you sure english is my 1st language? in fact it isnt, it's my second,

Ok. Good to know that.

and if your only resource to insulting me is by mispelling a word, than wow talk about who is being childish.

Actually 1) I wasn't insulting you but rather thinking about what seems to be a country with pathetic education and teeangers which usually behave like idiots in the internet, and 2) it's not my "only resource"

what i mean is that the Sun is constantly creating energy,

No.

18th March 2006, 19:32

what i mean by the universe when i use those words , its to say that its something that we can't even grasp , its something that we have no control over which is bigger than us , thats how i use these terms, jesus you take evertything so literally, do you have any brain cells that work out of your bracketed way of thinking?

Well we can obviously grasp it, if we can determine the shape of it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a5/WMAP.jpg/800px-WMAP.jpg

yeah just keep being a dick! i just wonder is this how you get off? trying to insult people through cyberspace!?

I'm not insulting you. I'm attacking your ideas. There's a difference. If you can't seperate your ideas from yourself then you have a problem.

Oh-Dae-Su

19th March 2006, 00:20

I didn't say "science".

than what did you say? because as far as im concerned biology, chemistry, phsysics etc. all these are considered sciences.

No, because we're not talking about black holes. And as far as I know, we have a rather good "understanding" of them.

are you dumb? we don't have to be talking about Nebula's for example , but when we talk about the universe all of these things are included!!! and we have a good understanding of them? tell me what happens if you are swallowed into a black hole? yeah thats what i thought

If you're talking about "how the universe was created" (which I just mentioned), it is a pointless question because you're assuming it has some creator or some kind of "meaning". You can attribute anything to any fictitious entity you make up as an "explanation" because you "can't imagine it being formed by chance" or whatever you like to "believe".

why do you keep assuming that i believe it has some "creator" as if with human characteristics, you keep personifying the word. Obviously even a 90 year old with alzheimer can infer that the universe was created, it didn't just pop out of your ass. It could be the Big Bang Theory among others. So it is important to prove a theory for our understanding of how things work, although of course this is not a present imminent issue like a meteor coming to our planet, but nevertheless it is interesting and defenitaly not pointless to find out how the universe was really created.

Actually 1) I wasn't insulting you but rather thinking about what seems to be a country with pathetic education and teeangers which usually behave like idiots in the internet, and 2) it's not my "only resource"

so how old are you? since you are sooo old and your not a teenager anymore? and you have already graduated from the University with a Physics degree (ironically i bet it was in an American university ;) ) what county are you or that you are from that has suuuuch better education than us? i guess Harvard, Yale, Princeton, hahaha these are shitty universities, our education sucks, that is why we have the best space agency in the world, that is why we have the most advance military technology in the world, ohh gosh americans how pathetic their education! lmao

as a matter of fact, i speak enlgish and spanish fluently, and i also speak french and italian which i studied for 2 years in high school; and you have other resources? like what ? instead of insulting me for mispelling the word, you insult a whole country's educational system for me mispelling the word? ahahhaa god you must be a living dictionary, as well as your countryman!! :lol:

Ok. Good to know that.

No.

^^ i thought spamming was punishable with a warning? ohh thats right your a mod; and " NO! " , yeah great response, thanks for proving me wrong with another well documented educated awnser :rolleyes:

Well we can obviously grasp it, if we can determine the shape of it:
yes the universe is measurable in light years like i mentioned before, but it's irrelevant since it keeps growing at an even faster pace each day, funny how you didn't refute what i said that we have no control over it.

19th March 2006, 00:58

funny how you didn't refute what i said that we have no control over it.

:lol: Why would I refute that? We don't have control over the path of orbit of the earth either, or the speed at which it spins, or the weather. I agree with you that we don't have any control over the universe, but what's the point of saying that?

Oh-Dae-Su

19th March 2006, 01:34

thats why if in any context of the word, "god" can be used to refer the universe as such. Why did humans invent the word "god"? to assign it to something we have no control over, amongst other things which are frankly ridiculous. So that is why i would refer to the universe as god, don't confuse it with anything else, dont confuse me with meaning the universe is this supernatural "being" that will punish us, or that it creates things because it wants to etc, since god can be use to literally signify something we have no understanding of (although it doesnt apply to the universe , well not completly) and since its something we have no "control" over than IN MY OPINION, i think the universe and nature are the only true things that can be labled as "god".

19th March 2006, 05:43

But what's the point in using the word "god" then? Then couldn't you call the weather "god" by your definition? Couldn't a whole lot of things be called "god" by your definition? In that case, or any case, what's the point in using the word "god"?

Oh-Dae-Su

19th March 2006, 06:49

umm yeah last time i checked the weather is part of nature, and NO, like i said:

i think the universe and nature are the only true things that can be labled as "god".

so NO, a whole lot of things wouldn't or shouldn't be called "god".

19th March 2006, 07:29

Here's your definition of god:

use[d] to literally signify something we have no understanding of...and... its something we have no "control" over

Of course, you're going to have to explain how "we have no understanding of" nature or the universe for that matter.

Oh-Dae-Su

19th March 2006, 08:06

well it's more the part of "we have no control over", and the understanding, well i doubt we understand "everything" of nature and specially the universe. We discover new things everyday, and one of the ironic things is we probably have studied and traveled more around space than in the deep of our oceans. The deep ocean is actually still an alien place to us, i believe there are still many organisms and animals to be found for example, and other information to our understanding of the ocean itself.

19th March 2006, 08:36

well it's more the part of "we have no control over", and the understanding, well i doubt we understand "everything" of nature and specially the universe.

Not understanding everything about something (which means understanding most of something) is completely different than not understanding anything about something. If you changed your definition to "everything that we don't completely understand..." then pretty much everything could fit that definition.

Oh-Dae-Su

19th March 2006, 08:45

say what? lmao ok i understood this part:

Not understanding everything about something (which means understanding most of something) is completely different than not understanding anything about something

except this:

If you changed your definition to "everything that we don't completely understand..." then pretty much everything could fit that definition.

if you can clear that out for me it would be great ;)

thanks.

anyway, lets not complicate things, my conclusion is, that god, is a word that will always exist, and i believe, that the true defenition of god is just merely nature, or the universe, because it is something out of our control. Instead of personifying god as some supernatural being, or using it in the religious context that it has always been used to signify "THE LORD", know what i mean?

anyways, peace out im sleepy

bye

19th March 2006, 08:55

if you can clear that out for me it would be great wink.gif

What I meant was that if you changed your definition of god from "use[d] to literally signify something we have no understanding of...and... its something we have no "control" to "use[d] to literally signify something we don't have understanding of...and... its something we have no "control" then pretty much everything could fit that definition.

anyway, lets not complicate things, my conclusion is, that god, is a word that will always exist, and i believe, that the true defenition of god is just merely nature, or the universe, because it is something out of our control. Instead of personifying god as some supernatural being, or using it in the religious context that it has always been used to signify "THE LORD", know what i mean?

Then there's no point in using the word "god" at all.

Oh-Dae-Su

19th March 2006, 19:41

so god should be abolished from the english language? :blink: or any language for tha matter lol

19th March 2006, 20:25

so god should be abolished from the english language? blink.gif or any language for tha matter lol

Did I claim that anywhere? I'm saying that the way you use it it's pointless to use it.

Ol' Dirty

19th March 2006, 21:10

I am an Agnostic Atheist, and I strongly believe in Alien Life on other worlds than our own. It is not blind faith, but simple logic. In fact, if aliens were to be discovered, human religions would be useless, because humans would not be the "chosen of God" any longer.

Please, stop spreading your "all Agnostics and Atheists are Nihilists" bullshit. It's not true.

Ol' Dirty

19th March 2006, 21:13

Seriously.

Oh-Dae-Su

19th March 2006, 22:05

Did I claim that anywhere? I'm saying that the way you use it it's pointless to use it.

ohh really, so tell me Lazar, in your little Neanderthal brain tell me in what situation would you use the word god. If i were to ask you do you believe in god? what would you say? what would you apply the word to?

because me, personally, like iv fucking said over and over again in this thread, if someone was to ask me, do you believe in god, i would say yes, god is simply nature and the universe, things that are out of our control and understanding, nothing more nothing less, GOD is not the father of Jesus, God is not the guy who comes and judge us, God is not the guy who created this planet in 7 days :lol: , dont fucking personify the word, its nothing nore than nature like i said. The only thing is that god was given this humanlike supernatural being status that has brainwashed society for thousands of years.

anywa, Flux, yeah seriously, tell me how do i disagree with what you said above at all?

and I strongly believe in Alien Life on other worlds than our own.

wow, no shit, like you said its logical, anyone in their right mind would acknowledge this.

Please, stop spreading your "all Agnostics and Atheists are Nihilists" bullshit. It's not true.

wtf? i dont consider myself any denomination, if you want to label me, than go ahead, thats you, not me!

19th March 2006, 22:36

If i were to ask you do you believe in god? what would you say?

I would say no.

what would you apply the word to?

Nothing. I don't have a definition for the word "god". I don't believe in god. I attack others' definitions of the word. I have no use for a definition.

because me, personally, like iv fucking said over and over again in this thread, if someone was to ask me, do you believe in god, i would say yes, god is simply nature and the universe, things that are out of our control and understanding, nothing more nothing less, GOD is not the father of Jesus, God is not the guy who comes and judge us, God is not the guy who created this planet in 7 days laugh.gif , dont fucking personify the word, its nothing nore than nature like i said. The only thing is that god was given this humanlike supernatural being status that has brainwashed society for thousands of years.

Again, then there's no point in using the word "god" as you're just talking about nature and the universe and you can just use the words "nature" and "universe". Get it through your "little Neanderthal" skull into your "little Neanderthal brain".

Oh-Dae-Su

20th March 2006, 01:16

Nothing. I don't have a definition for the word "god". I don't believe in god. I attack others' definitions of the word. I have no use for a definition.

than that's why i say to you, might as well banish if from language? hahaha, since thats impossible , you might as well apply it to something, do you realize what your saying, i mean it's one of the most important words in any language, and your suggesting it should have no meaning, thats pointless. The way i apply it should be the defenition tought to children so that they don't get brainwashed later on and believe that GOD IS THE FATHER OF JESUS!! or ALLAH!! or w/e bullcrap. I have the same beliefs as you Lazar regarding god, but i think that its a fucking word, you can't just take it out of the system, instead educate people.

Ol' Dirty

20th March 2006, 01:27

[A]nywa[y], Flux, yeah, seriously, tell me[,] how do [I] disagree with what you said above at all?

You said that Atheists don't believe in anything, and I strongly disagree with that. I'll show you the (almost) exact quote by you that states that Nihilism and Atheism are the same.

well an athiest, is someone who not only doesn't believe in religion, but in nothing really.

That's Nihilism, not Atheism. Atheism is the belief that a supreme being doesn't exist due to lack of material evidence of its existence, and nothing more. Nihilism is the belief that life has no meaning, all morals are false, and that truth is an empty concept. You confused the two, and I disagree with what you said.

god to me is the universe.

Now I know why you're restricted.

Please, stop spreading your "all Agnostics and Atheists are Nihilists" bullshit. It's not true.

wtf?

That's along the lines of what I thought when I read this part of your post.

i dont consider myself any denomination, if you want to label me, than go ahead, thats you, not me!

:lol: Who the fuck said anything about you? :lol: Is this how you defend yourself? You try to look oppressed? That must be how you defend your fucking pitifull arguments. By the way, your English sucks.

20th March 2006, 01:56

than that's why i say to you, might as well banish if from language? hahaha, since thats impossible , you might as well apply it to something

Well, since I don't believe in god the word has no use to me, so why the fuck should I use it? It defines something that I don't believe in, which I find to be complete shit. Why on earth would I want to use the word?

The way i apply it should be the defenition tought to children so that they don't get brainwashed later on and believe that GOD IS THE FATHER OF JESUS!! or ALLAH!! or w/e bullcrap.

Or they could be raised secular/atheist. I think that would have a much more profound effect than changing the definition of a word and teaching it to kids.

I have the same beliefs as you Lazar regarding god, but i think that its a fucking word, you can't just take it out of the system

I'm not arguing about a word. Arguing about words is completely idiotic. I am arguing about an idea. A specific, reactionary, one that's complete and utter shit. The word is meaningless without the idea behind it.

instead educate people.

That would be a great idea, hey? Instead of changing the definition of a word? I'm glad you're starting to see it my way.

Don't Change Your Name

20th March 2006, 02:52

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 18 2006, 09:23 PM
than what did you say? because as far as im concerned biology, chemistry, phsysics etc. all these are considered sciences.
I said "laws", not "science(s)".

are you dumb? we don't have to be talking about Nebula's for example , but when we talk about the universe all of these things are included!!!

I know. I just pointed out that you were not talking about black holes but rather about other "things". Such as life (and it's "characteristics"). Different "fields".

and we have a good understanding of them? tell me what happens if you are swallowed into a black hole? yeah thats what i thought

As far as I know, I wouldn't be "swallowed" but I'd be deformed by the gravity and cease to exist as a person, and become part of the "singularity".

why do you keep assuming that i believe it has some "creator" as if with human characteristics,

I'm not...you are trying to consider the universe to be some kind of "deity".

And I don't see why such a "creator" would have "human characteristics".

Obviously even a 90 year old with alzheimer can infer that the universe was created,

That didn't stop scientists from considering the possibility that it could have, in some way, always existed.

So it is important to prove a theory

Scientific theories are not "proven", as far as I know.

for our understanding of how things work, although of course this is not a present imminent issue like a meteor coming to our planet, but nevertheless it is interesting and defenitaly not pointless to find out how the universe was really created.

My point was that you suggested "the wrong question".

so how old are you? since you are sooo old and your not a teenager anymore?

I'm about your age, actually.

and you have already graduated from the University with a Physics degree (ironically i bet it was in an American university ;) )

(Un)fortunately no.

what county are you or that you are from that has suuuuch better education than us?

Argentina, and no, it doesn't have a better education.

But it seems to have a better "education to economical situation" ratio than Yankeeland, at least amongst those who can access the internet.

i guess Harvard, Yale, Princeton, hahaha these are shitty universities, our education sucks,

Only a small part of the population goes to those universities.

that is why we have the best space agency in the world,

Again, only a minority is related to it.

that is why we have the most advance military technology in the world,

Exactly: only a minority gets is educated to develop them, and your government has nukes as a priority, and not educating most of the population.

and you have other resources? like what ?

See my previous posts.

instead of insulting me for mispelling the word, you insult a whole country's educational system for me mispelling the word?

Actually no, I'm just suprised of how ignorant many young American citizens use the internet. It's seems being a stupid teenager is the "rule" there.

^^ i thought spamming was punishable with a warning?

That's not spamming since it's only a part of my post and in the first case there was nothing else I should say...

ohh thats right your a mod; and " NO! " , yeah great response, thanks for proving me wrong with another well documented educated awnser :rolleyes:

...and in the second case Publius already mentioned what you said is dumb: the sun doesn't "create" energy, it turns matter into energy.

And yes, you found out our secret! It's all a Big Mod Conspiracy! :o The mods are conspiring so that a short answer out of six in a post which has a decent size and in which there's no need to mention anything else (as in the other case) is not considered spam! :rolleyes:

Oh-Dae-Su

20th March 2006, 03:31

You said that Atheists don't believe in anything, and I strongly disagree with that. I'll show you the (almost) exact quote by you that states that Nihilism and Atheism are the same.

yes, your right, atheist are the people who dont believe in the idea of god's, but to me that refers to our own creation of "gods", im an atheist, but i also consider myself a nihilist to a certain extent. If you can tell me what the fuck is our purpouse for existing in this planet than you might well be anwsering the ultimate question of human history. ;)

Now I know why you're restricted

lmao, think again, its obvious im not a communist, DUH!!

Is this how you defend yourself? You try to look oppressed? That must be how you defend your fucking pitifull arguments. By the way, your English sucks

why should i feel a need to defend myself?why do i have to look oppressed? you think i will be depressed and go and cry to my mommy because some guy called me an idiot or something in a cyberspace thread? hahaha and well it does look like you really do take things seriously and actually do try to "defend" or should i say "attack" me:
your English sucks

hahahahaa, how does it suck? because i mispelled a few words? or because i have runon sentances? what is this Writing 1101? :lol: what an idiot, well i wonder if you can speak and write a second language as well as i do english. ;)

Lazar you and me are going over the same things over and over again, i think we know were we both stand , thank you very much, funny thing is we believe in the same things except for certain details.

El Infiltrado

As far as I know, I wouldn't be "swallowed" but I'd be deformed by the gravity and cease to exist as a person, and become part of the "singularity".

wtf? maybe you will be teleported to a different dimension? ;) well yeah you will not be deformed you will be broken down into the particles which become part of the "singularity", but what is the "singularity", the universe? again it comes back to what i have always said, we are one and the same with the universe.

you are trying to consider the universe to be some kind of "deity".
WHAT! :blink: , consider the universe as a diety!! NO!!!, jesus you see, thats why you don't understand me, you keep personifying the word and characterizing it with our concepts made by our religion paradigm. Like i said (maybe Lazar knows what im talking about), when i refer to the universe as god, im only saying its something out of our control, not personifying it as a diety!! or Zeus!! or whatever the fuck else!! nothing to do with religion!

That didn't stop scientists from considering the possibility that it could have, in some way, always existed.

yeah, considered it, i can consider myself to be Superman, until i find out its not true. BIG BAN theory? ever heard of it? does everyone else here agree with me that the universe was created? im not saying by some "god" like being or figure, im just saying by some of the scientific theories like the Big Bang , etc. i mean its obvious, hello , our universe is actually finite, in fact it is presumed there are more universes, making what it is called a multiverse.

Scientific theories are not "proven", as far as I know.

WHAT! :blink: hahahaha, and you say teenagers in America surprise you of how little they know? well you obviously have never done a science project in whatever school you went to, because its one of the steps to a scientific experiment, you first create your hypothesis, your theory of the outcome of the experiment, and then you test it, and prove if you were correct or not, this is one of the basic principles of science. Lmao, i knew that since elementary.

Argentina, and no, it doesn't have a better education.

But it seems to have a better "education to economical situation" ratio than Yankeeland, at least amongst those who can access the internet.

so your Argentinian, que bien, un hermano latino, you tengo parientes argentinos, yo soy Cubano/Americano. What do you mean by, "education to economic situation" ratio?? because here in America you have free schooling, and in fact it is mandatory until the age of 16, soooo, i dont know what your talking about, and access to internet is probably the highest in the world. I can tell you sincerely that i don't know anybody who doesnt have a personal computer.

Only a small part of the population goes to those universities.

wow, no shit, i only mentioned 3 of the most presitigious universities of not only America but the whole world. I go to FIU, Florida International University.

Again, only a minority is related to it.

what? minority? umm yeah, you think there are going to be thousands upon thousands of Nasa workers? :blink: this is only obvious, i mean are you trying to say that the European Space Agency has lots and lots more workers than Nasa does? dont get what your trying to say.

Exactly: only a minority gets is educated to develop them, and your government has nukes as a priority, and not educating most of the population.

what are you talking about man? you think everyone wants to become a military engineer? or a nuclear biologist? or whatever the hell? you make no sense? thats total bullshit about not everyone getting the education to developing it. That is so not true, if you would actually know a little more about us, state and government spnosored jobs are the most active recruiters of any job recruiter.

Actually no, I'm just suprised of how ignorant many young American citizens use the internet. It's seems being a stupid teenager is the "rule" there.

well in the first place since when does ignorance incapacitate you to type in words and look at porn in the internet for example? :blink: you would have to be mentally incapacitated, ignorance is not stupidity, there is a difference for your information. You are a prime example of ignorance, which can be seen by the way you express yourself:

It's seems being a stupid teenager is the "rule" there.

your not only saying American teenagers are stupid (instead of ignorant), but your also using derogatory language and generalizing a whole countries young adult population. If that is not ignorance , i really don't know what it is.