OBI-WAN KANOBI
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2014, 08:34 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(23-11-2014 07:56 AM)doniston Wrote:  
(23-11-2014 06:41 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Electrostatic repulsion.

You do know that your beliefs a re a bunch of unsubstantiated woo, right?
S89r I have never claimed that my beliefs were fact, and I really dislike your tome, but it is your right to read or not read, attempt to understand, or not, and pay attention to what I am posting or not. believe or not. It is your choice, but it is my choice to post them. like may others, you just make general comment which don't amount to a hill of beans. If you want specific answers, ASK

That was my question.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 08:47 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
fine, if that's all you got.

"I don't Debate, I Discuss" I offer my opinions, and listen to yours, I will not require proof of opinions, but I may ask for clarification or state that I reject your position and why, & if asked, I will further clarify mine --- However, I reject any requirement that I PROVE my position is accurate and proper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 08:58 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(23-11-2014 07:39 AM)doniston Wrote:  
(22-11-2014 10:34 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So is the deist done circle jerking in public?
sir or madam, If you are referring to me, as I think you are, then your post is absolutely stupid. I am anything but a deist; If you had read my post you you would know that.

Replace 'Deist' with 'Woo-Peddler' if it makes your E-Peen feel better... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 09:16 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(23-11-2014 08:15 AM)doniston Wrote:  You seem to think they are two stories, Ok, so I will condense them into one, and in rotation Heavens and stars, sun and earth, moon and waters, plants animals (including Dino) then man.

Yes, if you ignore the text as written and merge the two distinct threads into your own single version and rea-arrange it so that the order match then voila, there is one story and the order matches. Amazing.

By that logic I can take any creation story ever written and make it match.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
23-11-2014, 09:18 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
Well I've got more but it's largely derogatory. And yeah, when one manufactures corellation between established scientific theory and their personal load of woo it comes across as evidence based reasoning, I know 'cause I speak from experience, I am the Living Word of Gwynite, after all. Sometimes I get lit up on my naïve conservation of entropy conjecture, and speak out my ass as if my anus had vocal cords.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
23-11-2014, 09:30 AM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2014 06:25 PM by Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue.)
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 12:22 PM)morondog Wrote:  I like the name Obi Wan Kenobi... I prefer to spell it Obi wanken Obi though...

The name Obi Wan Kenobi gave rise to my favorite pre-prequel fan theory about what went down:
Ben was one of the clones and the clones were an army of Jedi for the purpose of fighting something or other. He has two names (Obi Wan Kenobi and Ben Kenobi.) because one was the name he gave himself while the other was his batch number; OB-1 Ken OB.

This is gonna be a long one.
(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  To start at the beginning. When I was 13, and starting High school, I and the whole auditorium of kids were informed of the makeup of an atom by a guest lecturer, It was explained how the parts of the atom,--Nucleus, Electrons, and Positrons were comparable to our own solar system with comparatively speaking, as much space between the particles as there is between the sun and the planets, thus, if it wasn't for some presently unknown magnetic force, you could pass one thru the other without fear of colision.

How does an observation of how charges interact follow on from the size and relative position of the components of the atom? How are the thoughts related?

Do you realise that the method through which particles interact with each other is understood right? It's electrostatic repulsion. An entirely known quality.

Quote: Thus you could also pass one hand right thru the other.

Except you can't pass one hand through another. I'll perform an experiment right now if you do it as well for a second datapoint.

Even if we work out a different mechanism by which particles interact, we won't be able to do that unless we can manipulate it some how. We can't manipulate any of the other fundamental forces. Why would we be able to manipulate this one?

Quote:Further, Science has told us that solids, (matter) is simply energy which has become relatively stationary, thus the mini universes with all their relative space, because of some magnetic force become solid and perhaps a part of our bodies.as fingers, toes, and kidneys.

You're going to have to restate this. It's not coherent and I'm not sure what you mean. I think you're saying:
Matter is fundamentally energy. (True? I'm not sure.) Therefore in another universe with different physical laws, magnetism could be a part of our body in the same way an organ is.

Do you see why that doesn't make sense to me?

Quote:At that time it was taught that there were millions of stars in the universe, and many universes Now we know there are untold billions of stars in the universe, and billions of universes. And in the past few years they are finding a multitude of planets around these stars. This is where the first ofthree unanswerable questions come in.

Yeah. Ok. It's florid but not nessercerily inaccurate.

Quote:HOW FAR IS UP” & WHERE ARE WE?

"Up" is a coloquialism that describes the position of objects in relation to each other while under the effects of gravity. To ask it's relative position is non-sensical. I may as well ask what purple smells like.

I can't give you our exact spacial coordinates. If they have been codified I don't know what they are but we are on a particular planet in a solar system of eight planets, 4+ dwarf planets and two asteroid belts. Our sun is in the yellow stage of it's lifespan. That gives you some diagnostic traits with which to find our planet. Though you will find others that also fit that criteria exactly.

I can be more exact by describing our relative spacial relationship with other objects (So far from X and moving in Y,Z relative to it's position) but that doesn't further the point: We are on a planet. In a universe.

Quote:Einstein said that space is curved thus implying it is like a ball. I don't believe that.

Sorta. The way I understand it is that space is non-euclidian in a way that has no definate outside space. Saying that it's curved or a sphere isn't the best way to communicate the idea. It's not something I've got a great handle on but look at it this way:
There is nothing outside the universe. There can be nothing outside the universe and it has no definate outside area. When somebody says that the universe is curved it means that, should you somehow travel to the edge of the universe, you wouldn't leave the universe, you wouldn't change direction, you wouldn't change velocity. You'd end up "facing the other way" back into the universe.

And on top of that: What does the shape of the universe mean at all in relation to everything else you've said?

Edit: That's not what either reletivaty theory says. I'm dumb and this has nothing to do with anything.

Quote:As we know space, it is between this and that. Beween two walls, then two fields—two towns, , two countries, two planets, two stars, two galaxies. But what is on the other side of that last viewed galaxy ???
a stone wall? another series of galaxies?
Another series of galaxies. The universe we can observe is a fraction of the total universe.

You're conflating the space existing inside the universe with the space the universe occupies. That's a Problem. (Capital P.)

Quote:We simply don't know, and when we arrive at that point, what is on the other side of that?

We do know. It's been demonstrated mathmatically.

Quote:And where are we located? In a ball of matter of unimaginable size? And then,of course, where is that ball of mud???
I've answered this.

Quote:We have also learned that within these atoms (mini solar systems) in a much smaller scale are particles which could (repeat) COULD be be like “ mini micro” solar systems in turn, made up of even smaller particles but similar to our own?

An atom is in no way like a solar system except that is made up of things orbiting other things. Gravity pulls a solar system onto (more or less) a two dimensional plane. Electron's aren't effected by gravity and orbit in shells around the nuculus at all angles. Protons, neutrons and electrons are made up of smaller particles but not in the same way we are made up of atoms.

I can go on but it won't help further illustrate the point: An atom is not similar to a solar system in any of the ways that matter.

Quote:Is it possible that our present solar system is simply an atom in a gigantic organism so huge that we can't comprehend? WE JUST DON'T KNOW
Anything is POSSIBLE but that's not in any way indicated. It's POSSIBLE that my left nut houses a leprechaun. If you can't find evidence for it you shouldn't think it. Intuition isn't evidence.

Quote:Science has also informed us that in each of the galaxies there is a so-called black hole that is so dense that even light can't escape.( Thus,it is called a BLACK hole.) Contrary to my own belief, these holes swallow up all matter in it's vicinity to become even larger and denser, and if it
came close enough to this planet, it would eat us up. Hmm! Yet in billions of years we, and the milky way are still here.

Pick up the vaccum cleaner in your closet, turn it on and take a step away. The force exerted by the vaccum doesn't reach that far. It's the same way with the black hole. It's gravitational pull is *arbitrarily large" but limited in it's area of effect.

Quote:Further knowledge of the present beliefs concerning black holes lead me to believe that at some point the Black hole becomes unstable, and emits a stream of energy known as a “quazar” It is believed that the stream of energy later slows down and become matter ---which in turn becomes stars and ultimately, with planets.

Yes our local supermassive black hole is surrounded by a quasar. What makes you think that one becomes the other? Where are your figures?

Can you demonstrate any of this?

Quote:The big bang theory suggests that this all started with an exclamation point of nothingless and exploded to become the universe.

The big bang theory states that the universe began. Every other thing you've said there is inaccurate.

Quote: I do beieive that what might really have happenedwas that there was a multitude of miniature big bangs called quazars, which in our own case created the milky way.

A quasar is the energetic reaction of extant matter. I can say that the universe was created by a series of gunpowder explosions and it would be exactly as accurate.

Quote:To me, that is my original “CREATOR” except that before that there had to be other Galaxies which had black holes which emitted quarzars, etc. thus the 2nd unanswerable question

“ WHO or WHAT BEGAT THE BEGATOR”

You need to demonstrate the existence of a begator before you can ask that.

Quote:(and it continues to who or what begat it. I simple don't believe it was a grey haired man looking down on us from above.
Some weeks ago I was watching the beginning of a 12 part miniseries led by a preacher who promised an insight into the disparages between Creationism, and Evolution. I am always trying to learn, so I tuned in, The first introduction was interesting enough that I tuned into the 2nd. However when he started explaining that Tyrantisourus Rex roamed the earth in the past several thousand years, and god had somehow sped up time to cause those bones to petrify, and be buried far below the surface, I ceased tuning in.

That's good. I have nothing else to add; this paragraph, frankly, isn't particularly informative.

Quote: I realize that many religous people still believe that God created earth several thousand years ago, but I believe there is an abundance of evidence that it simply isn't true.

There is some irony in that statement.

Quote:There are Ruins of structures scientifically dated back as much as twelve thousand years, and many of those ruins and structures are built with such precision that primative man could not have accomplished --such as stonework carving which appear to have been cut by lasers They are so intricly and precisely carved it could only have been done with
something like a laser. (But supposedly there was no lasers back then)

And they are? Can you demonstrate that? Do you have any evidence that a laser was used apart from: This is smooth? Any direct archeological evidence? Can you show what the aliens want? Do you have any actual insight as to how any of this is possible?

Quote:Throughout the world, there are structures similar in nature to have been planned and designed by the same persons in places of the world so distant and
remote as to be literally impossible for our primativesto have raveled there,

They don't need to have traveled there (and I'd love to see how you can say they didn't when they evidently did) and they can teach others their design, trade tools and techniques and interact with each other.

Quote:For instance,some 12 years ago, the remains of a fourth pyramid was discovered, and is now being excavated. One which would have been larger than
the so-called Tower of Gisa, and not only was it constructed, it was also destroyed,and most of the massive blocks of stone with which it was constructed have somehow disappeared. ----WHERE?? and HOW??

That area has been inhabited constantly since before the pyramids were built. Do you honestly think that people wouldn't go: That's a large piece of high quality stone; that is valueable; I am going to take it and make use of it.

Quote:PAUSE!!!!

Terry Pratchet: Windle Poons Wrote:Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'

Quote:I'm going to change my approach to this issue to an installment process because I see it is going to be much longer and complicated than I thought. Therefore, I will indicate a future set of related issues for later instalment with some preliminary incite as to their content,

BUT BEWARE, I will likely upset some of your most cherished Religious beliefs with my future offering such as:

You originally wrote this for an entirely different audience, didn't you?

Quote: Proof that the world wide flood could not have happened ( to a -more localized area,like the Black sea area, one is likely)

Well. Yes.

Quote: That Alien lifeforms are likely here and have been almost forever, and have played agreat role in our development and culture





Quote: Most specifically, that the story of Jesus is a near duplicate of the story of a simila rperson and circumstances, referenced in ancient Hebrew texts at least two thousand years before Christ.

Again: Know your audience.

Quote: And that tho the Bible is a greatsource of history, There is scientific proof of, and reasons for many of the Bible stories.

No. No it isn't a good source of history. No there isn't scientific proof of its contents. No there isn't adequate reason described within it.

You're just wrong.

Quote: In the meantime I will go back to the start of this thread, and attempt to answer all of my soon to be detractor's present questions.

I'LL BE BAAAAACK!!

I think the other people here are a lot more jaded regarding this stuff. I'm half-way flabergasted which is why I'm responding.

(22-11-2014 03:24 PM)doniston Wrote:  When posting tis onother forums the first comment likely made is that all aliens are from central America. so I added that phrase. to keep the stupidity out.

I think you can apreciate the irony of that statement.

Quote:In my beliefs, when a person passes on, it is only the life force that moves (perhaps called the soul) and if undestroyed by his or her own doubts, (be like a child to enter into the kingdom of God)“The force”, which according to my belief, is a secondary area of existence wherein these life forces co- mingle yet because they are an intelligence, can perceive any manner of comfort or privilege of which they can conceive ( heaven) In your dreams, or nightmares you can conceive almost anything) Scientifically this might be what is considered alternate existences (string theory).
,

So death is only the soul leaving the body? How about traumatic injury? If death is caused by the soul leaving how is that tied to our biochemistry? How is the soul destroyed in by our doubts? Does my soul regenerate if I become certain about something that isn't "The Force?" If doubts destroy the soul doesn't that mean that somebody with doubts is walking around without a soul and should, by your estimation be dead?

How do you demonstrate that the soul exists? How are we not already a part of the force? How does any soul interact with the body? What does it even mean when a soul leaves a body? Does it interact with space and matter? Is the soul connection 1:1? So is there a soul leg attached to my leg? If not; does a soul interact with only the matter associated with my brain?

At what point is a soul brain not a soul brain? Do dolphins have souls? (They're at least as intelegent.) How about porposes? (They're only slightly dumber.) Wolves? Dogs? Where is the line drawn? Do they need an understanding of "The Force?"

How did you find out about this? How did they find out about this? Is

Quote: me, do you believe in nature? I'm sure you realize I was speaking of believing in a natural force rather than a person. so I will ignore that.

Natural just means "able to be understood by science" supernatural just means "not able to be understood by science." I'm just bringing that up because if it's natural: You can demonstrate it.

Quote: for your benefit, perhaps I should have said "let Natural forces be with you". would that have suited you better?

Not really. You haven't thus far shown that any of this exists or is natural.

(22-11-2014 06:39 PM)doniston Wrote:  Since you folks are having so much fun with the first two, I guess it's time to add the third

Were you expecting a livelier discussion around this?


Quote:Thanks to all who have participated in this discussion thus far, After I have posted this section I will tend to all newer posts which appear to require response. I have decide that this installment should be dedicated to my specific religious beliefs and disbeliefs, and will consist of the basis of my reasoning followed by my position regarding specific Bible stories,
It should be noted that while I am not a true believer, I do think that by and large the Bible is a relatively true historical account of AD events and further:
While I am a feverant believer in these things, I am not (repeat) AM NOT trying to convert anyone, I am just explaining my position If some of you agree, fine, if not, then retain your own views.

Yeah. OK. Good.

Quote:I am also not insisting or even claiming that my opinions are fact. no one will really know until they pass on the next level(if there truly is one)

Again: How did you come to this conclusion? From where did you get this information? Because if your answer is "my intuition say's so" then that's not convincing and why do you think it?

Quote:“Old wood” likened my position as a loosely based religion --I agree with him. For all intents and purposes, this IS my religion, and I call it “Scientific Christian Spiritualism”

A) If you are using a flawed understanding of scientific research, not applying rigor to your ideas and not attempting to demonstrate or experiment with it's conclusions then you can't call it science.

B) If you don't believe in Jesus as a divine figure and don't believe in a god similar to the one he described then you're not any variation of christian.

C) Anything defined as "spiritualism" is a religion by default. There's no "for all intents and purposes" about it. (All intents and purposes meaning something that isn't a particular thing but serves the same purpose. So using a bundle of cold pea's to reduce swelling is FAIAP an icepack.)

Quote: Perhaps after reading this you will agree the name is fitting. It is based on my knowledge of ,experience with, and interpretations of scientific developments, Christian principles, and partial recognition of Ghosts and spirits.

You've misused basically every term thus far, soof course it's not a fitting name and this sentence would probably fit better as a recap.

Quote:Genesis: As I read it, Genesis and evolutionary science coincide, except for the definition of time, I believe the word day in the Bible could well mean era or age.

If I amas charitable as possible and say that "day" doesn't mean "day," then you're still wrong:
The bible describes the origin of the phenomina described in the wrong order, it claims specific intervention at points when we know there was no intervention, it describes a completely impossible senario (the impossibly small genepool amongst others), and make mention of phenomina that we know can't happen. (Talking snake anybody?)

And even then you're directly contradicting yourself: You said you don't believe in active god figure. The genisis account describes an active god figure.

Quote: As examples, in my younger years I knew a Church in Christ Minister who believed that they all meant days, (except the first which was millions of years long.)

That's retarded forexactly the same reason.

Quote: “Sled dog “insists that because the bible says it, that each day was precisely 24 hours long.

See above.

Quote: With thanks to “Dos Equis” for introducing me to Dr Schroeder (tho I have not yet been able to digest the whole report) I have found someone who views that timeline, much as I do. By considering those days as ages, the stories fit, and dino then has a place in the story.

The story doesn't fit and the dino's don't either. Especially given that genisis describes Adam interacting with ALL the animals.

Quote:In my beliefs, when a person passes on, it is only the life force that moves (perhaps called the soul) and if undestroyed by his or her own doubts, Can (be like a child to enter into the kingdom of God) “The force”, which according to my belief, is a secondary area of existence wherein these life forces co- mingle yet because they are an intelligence, can perceive any manner of comfort or privilege of which they can conceive ( heaven) In your dreams, or nightmares you can conceive almost anything)

I addressed all of this already.

Quote: Scientifically this might be what is considered alternate existences (string theory).

String theory has nothing to do with multi-verse theory and even then: You said a soul has a spacial relationship to the human body and it can apparently interact with "The Force" in another universe? Another universe that cannot have a spacial relationship to our universe? How?

Quote:At any rate, this is my Heaven, and I spoke of spiritualism, I believe in spirits and apparitions, and have experienced such visitations (from my Great uncle, my Brother, and my daughter). And I have been informed by a now deceased friend of matters which cannot be explained by coincidence.

Can you demonstrate any of that?

Quote:Do I deserve such a place? You be the Judge, My main claim thereof is to try very hard to “ Do nothing Hurtful, Harmful, mean or unfair to any individual or animal”.

You are willfully spreading disinformation and possibly decieving yourself. That's harm.

Quote: I am not perfect, I try very hard to live up to those standards. And yes, Tho it is sometimes hard to admit, we all judge people every day( perhaps under our breath)

II don't see how this or the previous quote is relevant. Moving along:

Quote:TO Young earth believers and devotees, a question:, if the world is only several thousand years old, How do you explain Dino bones, artifacts and ruins of buildings and civilizations which are Scientifically dated to be 12 to 14 thousand years old, and construction techniques that even now, we can't duplicate,??

Find a single construction technique or acchievement can't equal or beat.

Quote:As to Christ. He is not the first to be credited with his attributes and/or lifestyle. Ancient Hebrew Texts relate a similar character some two thousand years BC. While I believe he existed ,and had the attributed followers, I believe he was a martyr and avid believer of his cause, but I don't believe he was God, or a god, any more than you or I are gods. I think we are all of part of the so-called God(the force) and the Force, in turn is the natural force which regulates what happens everywhere. I can't describe it otherwise and It is something humans will never be able to learn it;s true beginning.

If we can gain insight to the nature of "The Force" after death and relay that information back to "the land of the living" and "The Force" is describable by science; "natural," then why wouldn't we be able to work that out?

Quote:A common question between the theories “Which came first, the Chicken or the egg”. Creationists say the Chicken because god created all animals. The evolutionists, like me believe it was the egg, because the fist egg that became a chicken was the result of the breeding of tho dissimilar creatures, neither of which could be considered a true chicken.

Please stay on topic. This is completely irrelevant.

Quote:there are other arguments, but lastly:

The flood. To make a long story short without precise mathematical details, consider the following. The Ocean at the lowest is approx 7 miles deep and covers 3/5 of the world therefor averaging about 4.25 miles deep world wide. The land is between sea level, and 7 miles above, and cover 2/5 of the world. That is therefore averaging 2,8 mile on the land mass (tho I believe it is much less) and world wide 1.6 the difference necessary to cover the world (al but the highest peak, as defined in the bible), it would take an, ADDITIONAL 5.3 Miles of water world wide to make up the difference, MORE THAN ALL< where did it go. Evaporation???? My believe, based on scientific principles and examination ,is that the flood was localized perhaps an extension or expansion of the Black sea due to natural upheavals, depressions and THE EXISTING WATER ON EARTH Two questions, where did that extra water come from, and then disappear from the earth and it's surface?.

Also irrelevant. It's as though copy and pasting entire sections of text for a different audience in a different context isn't a very good way to communicate.

(23-11-2014 08:15 AM)doniston Wrote:  
(23-11-2014 07:38 AM)unfogged Wrote:  The order of creation in genesis 1 is heaven& earth, light, firmament, grasses, trees, sun, moon, stars, ocean life, land animals, man and woman. In that story the creator is referred to as 'god'.

In genesis 2 the story starts over but uses a different order: earth & heavens, plants, man, trees, land animals, woman. In that section the creator is called 'lord god' reflecting, even in the KJV, different terminology in the original language.

It is not a big jump to see that two different creation stories have been merged into the book of genesis. Neither order matches the order science shows and the second has woman being created as an afterthought after man wasn't happy with any of the other animals.

Even if you allow day to mean some undetermined period of time (despite it specifically equating it to "the evening and the morning" and being translated from terms that typically meant a normal 24-day), the sequence doesn't work.

How do you reconcile the different order of events in genesis 1 and 2? How do you match that to what science would say the sequence was?
You seem to think they are two stories, Ok, so I will condense them into one, and in rotation Heavens and stars, sun and earth, moon and waters, plants animals (including Dino) then man. that is also what evolution says. but just with different time elements. I am constructing a different type of senerio, which will be more in keeping with my beliefs but it will take time I dasn't make any errors, even minor ones, as some here will pounce on them immediately. That's a givin'

Is changing your story on the fly, cherry picking evidence that supports your claims and round it out with no need to be internally consistent fun? It seems fun.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
23-11-2014, 12:32 PM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(23-11-2014 07:34 AM)doniston Wrote:  
(23-11-2014 02:46 AM)Miss Suzanne Wrote:  *raises hand* Darlin', may I ask a curious sort of question? No, not on a particular aspect of your belief. I don't know much science and we got plenty of people here that can explain it better anyhow. Guess its more of your beliefs as a whole sort of question.

So here's my question: would you say you are Jediism spiked with Christianity? And by spiked, I might mean someone dropped an open Christian bottle in the Jediism punch bowl and said, "if I pretend I didn't see it, it did't happen," before whistling and walking away. To be honest, It don't know everything about Jediim to even know if it is usually intertwined with other beliefs. Haven't met anyone that practices it and only heard about it through my Star Wars obsessed cousin (he's Mormon but I figure he'd be part of the Jedi Church if he wasn't). I just thought Jediism because you mentioned the force and titled your thread "Obi Wan Kanobi." It's alright if you don't know or whatnot. Like I said, I'm just curious.

Also...did Han Solo shoot first? * loud booing* I'm sorry! I couldn't help it!

Anyone glancing this post by, yep, Jediism is a legit religion. Link to the Jedi Church for anyone curious. http://www.jedichurch.org/webapps/site/4.../page.html
The only thing jedyish is the title. Let the force be with you seemed appropriate, and Obi Wan was the one who said it. My opinions aren't Star wars. even tho you seem to think that is where I am going.

Alrighty....so then your force is....what then? Energy? Seeing that you kept talking about space stuff (black holes, galaxies) thats party why I'd think you go that direction. So lemme ask you this: if your force is not the Star Wars force and since Obi Wan or star wars have no real connection to your beliefs, why the hell would you give your thread a title like that? It's like naming a movie "The Little Puppy" when its about a paranoid guy that thinks the CIA is after him and does shenanigans to avoid them before attacking them head on with the only mention of a dog being, "oh look an animal," and not showing said animal on screen. I mean, really, why? Why was he so fitting when he basically relates jack shit to your topic all things considered? If you really plan on a Phase, uh, Part Two thread, at least title it better. :/

and like I said, sheesh, the content of your thread but I'm letting other people handle that. They're doing pretty well with that. I'm proud of your intelligence, my peeps! So yeah, expect more of scepticism for your next glorious thread. Oh what fun will be had, I'm sure.

[Image: notagain.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Miss Suzanne's post
23-11-2014, 04:28 PM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(23-11-2014 08:15 AM)doniston Wrote:  You seem to think they are two stories,

There are two stories and they differ. So there's that.

Quote:Ok, so I will condense them into one, and in rotation Heavens and stars, sun and earth, moon and waters, plants animals (including Dino) then man. that is also what evolution says.

And, no, that's not what evolution says.

Quote:but just with different time elements. I am constructing a different type of senerio, which will be more in keeping with my beliefs but it will take time I dasn't make any errors, even minor ones, as some here will pounce on them immediately. That's a givin'

Well, I can't hardly wait. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 06:16 PM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2014 06:57 PM by Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue.)
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 10:34 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So is the deist done circle jerking in public?

I looked it up: Deism requires the generic god figure to fuck off after creating the universe; as "The Force" aparently doesn't do anything the term is accurate. So yes. Deism fits in all respects so i'm not sure why Doniston doesn't think the term applies. Though he's also, apparently, a Panentheist. Which is nice I guess?

Also: This can't be a circle jerk; there's only on Doniston. This is closer to somebody propping up their lower body so they can jizz on their face. (I'm certain that has a name but I'm in public so I'm not game to look it up.)

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
23-11-2014, 08:02 PM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 03:06 PM)doniston Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 11:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The way I think about the term "believe" is that it denotes two things.
1. Acknowledgement of multiple plausible "possibilities"
2. Close mindedness to all but the one possibility you choose to believe in.


If 1. is true then why choose to close your mind to the other possibilities? Why not keep the door open. Sure you can state your preference, but why not acknowledge that you are open to the other possibilities too?
Because I don't believe anything but the first choice is logical under the circumstances.
Hey doniston

I'm quite interested in how you have come about your belief.
Do you think it is acceptable to merely come up with a thought and then believe it to be Truth?

It seems to me you have this belief, then have looked towards science just enough for you to confirm your belief, in your own mind. And then you have shifted away from science feeling that you have done "enough" with regards to applying science to your belief.

I think this is a clear case of confirmation bias. I get the feeling that you have no interest in exploring where science and your belief significantly diverge.

Oh, by the way,

Is it just a coincidence that your handle is an anagram of "Do not sin"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: