why that was nice

Should i start using crystal meth?

  • Sure...its not that bad...

    Votes: 93 62.0%
  • Just say no!

    Votes: 57 38.0%

  • Total voters
    150
Bitch?
"yo bitch bring me my food"
see that's where the problem lies. If you say "hey bich bring me a cheese burger" it wouldnt be acceptable. They'd want to spit in your food if they even served you...

Its completely acceptable to say "ajumma gamjatang mul jusayoh" which basically means "hey you middle age lady with a perm and a crazy sun shade bring me some pork spine bone soup and water"

waiters only coming around when you yell at them is a nice touch too.. if you just yelled "hey you over there, you come here!" at a waitress here. they'd be pissed.

plus you dont tip.

 
So it basically means "badass old woman?"
i dont think that "bad ass is incorporated into definition really, its just that bad assness is so highly correlated with being an ajumma.

224055649_2ce80cea3e.jpg


 
Pascal's wager is complete poppycock. Here we have an individual who is feigning belief in god for the sake of reward, but surely an omniscient being would be able to see through that?
Also, Pascal's Wager presents another false dichotomy: either god exists and requires belief, or god does not exist. There are, however, more than these two options. It can just as easily be argued that god exists and rewards skepticism; either argument can be demonstrated as equally true.
You have completely missed the meaning behind pascal's wager. First of all it does not present a dichotomy or attempt to pose a provable solution but instead attempts to make the best "ignorant" (if you will) choice when no option truly outweighs another from the skeptic's perspective. Thats why it's call pascal's "WAGER" not theory or model. It is not a dichotomy because it poses no mutually exclusive possibilities. There are in fact infinite possible outcomes anyone with a brain can realize. But pascal's wager says that even though the possibilies are indeed endless, the human element is limited. There are choices we have and do not have.

Thus, When the problem in question is: whether or not you should take a course of action when failing is theorized to destroy you... Inaction or refusal for the sake of inaction or refusal is an unwise decision.

Then we have Michael Behe's mousetrap. It is simply a re-vamp of the telelogical argument, most famously put forth by Thomas Aquinas and then again by William Paley in his Watchmaker analogy. This is wrong on a number of levels.
The mousetrap is not merely a knockoff on a previous theory, And does not only mean complexity infers design, let me explain per your statements.

First, we again have an infinite regress built right in.
Infinite regress in built in to every statement, every action, every thought and every twinkle of existence that falls within the minute boundaries of the human perspective. Put simply there is doubtable fallacy in everything, because everything can be complicated to a level beyond human understanding. Literally, the only reason the mind can successfully function is by ignoring the impossibility of the universe around him. By arguing infinite regress you might as well be selectively choosing the theories you are choosing to ignore while accepting others just because you can.

Second, complexity does not necessarily infer design; evolution has shown that.
No but complexity in purpose does require design. Here is a poor example that attempts to explain the logic. I'm sure you've played the game sim city. Well if you start up the game and leave it running on your computer you have the possibility and vehicle of the growth of a city (evolution) but until the user inputs design, there is no method to facilitate development (Conscious input.) This is the point of Behe's mousetrap, not simply that the complexity of an item implies design, but that elements of the complexity of an item require design to function. And I'm curious as to the "evolution" that has proven complexity doesn't infer design.
Third, it ignores documented exaptation.
I'm unaware of any documented exaptation that is not purely theoretical and circumstantial. But this arguement has ties to the above. Specifically concerning extremely complex organisms, species must evolve complex structures gradually which is contradictory considering the process of evolution is to strengthen a population and the force endangering a species would very likely kill it off before the gradual change of evolution could facilitate saving a species. And furthermore, why and at what point does the functionality of a trait necessitate the removal of an appendage?
Fourth, it is another argument from ignorance.
Point of reference.

Fifth, at best it would imply that the development of the world has been guided, and says nothing about the degree of the designer's perfection nor if he is infinite nor that he has made matter from nothing
That's all it's meant to imply. The rest is still speculative and mostly the product of man made religion.

Sixth, there is completely broken logic in the idea of comparing a designed item against nature, which you are also claiming to be designed. If both the designed item and the natural item were designed, then there exists no distinction to be made between the designed artifact and the natural artifact.
It's just an example. But it implies that in fact there is no distinction between designed artifacts and natural. The distinction instead is in the designer. From that perspective, as you said above, perhaps if a creator exists, he is not the perfect god religion opines, but simply an existence above our own.
Have you read or seen Ken Miller's rebuttal of irreducible complexity?
eh i know the arguements




How did you possibly arrive at that conclusion? It is basically impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, so we never say "Because you can't prove it to be wrong, it must be true". You must put forth a logical argument as to why evolution only makes sense if it is controlled by a higher being.
Are you listening to what you just said? Give me any statement you would consider "true" and i'll show you something you only say is true because you cannot prove otherwise.




You are engaging in a lot of hyperbole and appeal to emotion. It seems you are arguing that consciousness is the only thing that gives anything in life a reason to live. If so, I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.
Perhaps nothing at all "drove" the first living organism to eat. Again, please understand that being unable to understand how life began (or any particular idea) does not equate to demonstrating that evolution (or life) is driven by a god.

On what basis did you arrive at the position that it is an existence that shouldn't happen? That is the nature of perception. Certainly we are infants in our understanding of the universe, and absolutely there are many things which can and should be doubted (yet here you are certain of god's existence). We can, however, acquire a degree of operative certainty. Again, you are completely engaging in hyperbole (we shouldn't a conscious being exist?).
We shouldn't exist because every observable force in the universe opposes life. There are none that support it. Please don't respond with a statement referring to the fact that the earth supports life. things on earth die and everything is damaging to health. Every breath you take causes your body to decay. The earth is not a healthy cradling place but simply a less hostile place than others.

 
You have completely missed the meaning behind pascal's wager. First of all it does not present a dichotomy or attempt to pose a provable solution but instead attempts to make the best "ignorant" (if you will) choice when no option truly outweighs another from the skeptic's perspective. Thats why it's call pascal's "WAGER" not theory or model. It is not a dichotomy because it poses no mutually exclusive possibilities. There are in fact infinite possible outcomes anyone with a brain can realize. But pascal's wager says that even though the possibilies are indeed endless, the human element is limited. There are choices we have and do not have.
Thus, When the problem in question is: whether or not you should take a course of action when failing is theorized to destroy you... Inaction or refusal for the sake of inaction or refusal is an unwise decision.

The mousetrap is not merely a knockoff on a previous theory, And does not only mean complexity infers design, let me explain per your statements.

Infinite regress in built in to every statement, every action, every thought and every twinkle of existence that falls within the minute boundaries of the human perspective. Put simply there is doubtable fallacy in everything, because everything can be complicated to a level beyond human understanding. Literally, the only reason the mind can successfully function is by ignoring the impossibility of the universe around him. By arguing infinite regress you might as well be selectively choosing the theories you are choosing to ignore while accepting others just because you can.

No but complexity in purpose does require design. Here is a poor example that attempts to explain the logic. I'm sure you've played the game sim city. Well if you start up the game and leave it running on your computer you have the possibility and vehicle of the growth of a city (evolution) but until the user inputs design, there is no method to facilitate development (Conscious input.) This is the point of Behe's mousetrap, not simply that the complexity of an item implies design, but that elements of the complexity of an item require design to function. And I'm curious as to the "evolution" that has proven complexity doesn't infer design.

I'm unaware of any documented exaptation that is not purely theoretical and circumstantial. But this arguement has ties to the above. Specifically concerning extremely complex organisms, species must evolve complex structures gradually which is contradictory considering the process of evolution is to strengthen a population and the force endangering a species would very likely kill it off before the gradual change of evolution could facilitate saving a species. And furthermore, why and at what point does the functionality of a trait necessitate the removal of an appendage?

Point of reference.

That's all it's meant to imply. The rest is still speculative and mostly the product of man made religion.

It's just an example. But it implies that in fact there is no distinction between designed artifacts and natural. The distinction instead is in the designer. From that perspective, as you said above, perhaps if a creator exists, he is not the perfect god religion opines, but simply an existence above our own.

eh i know the arguements

Are you listening to what you just said? Give me any statement you would consider "true" and i'll show you something you only say is true because you cannot prove otherwise.

We shouldn't exist because every observable force in the universe opposes life. There are none that support it. Please don't respond with a statement referring to the fact that the earth supports life. things on earth die and everything is damaging to health. Every breath you take causes your body to decay. The earth is not a healthy cradling place but simply a less hostile place than others.
u must be mad fo dat answer.

 
Ota_Benga_1904.jpg


He was first displayed at the 1904 St Louis World's Fair, and was exhibited with other pygmies as 'emblematic savages' along with other 'strange people' in the anthropology wing.
Ota Benga later ended up at the Bronx Zoo, where he was put on display in the monkey house. For the first time in any American zoo, a human being was displayed in a cage. Benga was given cage-mates to keep him company in his captivity—a parrot and an Orangutan named Dohong'.

Public outcry eventually led to Benga's removal from the zoo, and he was released into the custody of African American clergy. He lived in a local orphanage until he was relocated in 1910 to Lynchburg, Virginia. There he was groomed for the American way of life, dressing in Western-style clothing and attending primary school. When the outbreak of World War I made a return to the Congo impossible, Benga became depressed. In 1916, he committed suicide with a stolen revolver.

He was probably so heartbroken when they took him off display he killed himself.

 
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

About this thread

faulkton

5,000+ posts
CarAudio.com Veteran
Thread starter
faulkton
Joined
Location
neverland
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
31,921
Views
518,574
Last reply date
Last reply from
natisfynest
561786595_18427607485102160_7010259965928918509_n.jpg

just call me KeV

    Oct 9, 2025
  • 0
  • 0
561583216_18427455586102160_8141545757991593433_n.jpg

just call me KeV

    Oct 9, 2025
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top