Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Nov 7, 2020 03:36 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Peterson wants to erect a new God. Similar to what Syne has been trying to do. He appeals to traditional values. Peterson thrives on the power that he receives to tell you how to live. His recipe for such, has made him quite wealthy.

You have it backwards. Peterson gets the attention (power) by merit, not intent. His success depends upon people wanting to hear what he has to say. You thinking he can sell books and speaking engagements without an audience is just silly. Either you think he's smart enough to fool people into wanting to hear him (what, hypnosis?), or you're just so blind with hate that you can't see the obvious.

And since he promotes the Christian God, I don't know what "new God" you're imagining. Nor even for me. I have my own ideas about god, but I'm not pushing them for others to believe. I seriously doubt most people are even capable of understanding my conception of god.

Quote:And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:

Nietzsche wanted to replace life-denying values with life affirming values.

Um, you do know that physical immortality isn't a thing, right? o_O
How is accepting that fact "life-denying"? Nietzsche seemed pretty cool with accepting scientific realities like that.

Quote:"What? You search? You would multiply yourself by ten, by a hundred? You seek followers? Seek zeros!"

Unlike Peterson, Nietzsche didn’t want followers. Nietzsche wants you to create your own values.

He doesn’t tell us how to live.

Yet Nietzsche had values he felt worth sharing. If he that did today, obviously you'd be a follower, whether he wanted them or not. You following would likely help fund his further work. It would be mutually beneficial. No?

So it seems you projecting presentism on Nietzsche is the only significant difference from Peterson. Demonizing his motives just illustrates your animus. Peterson tells people what statistics have shown, you know, the science Nietzsche touted. Peterson's simply saying, if you're having trouble, here's some things you can try and here's why they might work.

You just seem butt-hurt that so many people like him. Why do you care? Did he kick your puppy?

Quote:And truly, I love you for not knowing how to live today, you higher men. For thus you live – best! ~Nietzsche

Peterson believes that we don’t have capacity to create our own values. It might be a matter of rediscovering those values, he says. He thought that Nietzsche’s recommendation was profoundly wrong. Peterson’s answer to the problem of "God is dead" is to resurrect him. He said that Jung found a fatal flaw in Nietzsche’s theorizing. He said that Jung thought we couldn’t create our own values. Given the mutability of man and the fact that we are composed of multiple subpersonalities, given the fact that we aren’t even masters of our own house, and that we’re divided amongst ourselves, how in the world is it possible for us to develop our own values when we’re a mass of internal contradictions?

You know, for all you accuse me of being his sycophant, you seem way more conversant with what Peterson has said. Yes, many people think that morality is objectively discoverable/rediscoverable. And? You disliking that is just run-of-the-mill moral relativism, which is a feature of nihilism. Moral relativism presumes that nothing has any intrinsic value, including life. So any value of life, in such a world view, is pure whim, and as such, is highly mutable.

Quote:Nietzsche is exposing the Christian religion as nihilistic but he’s also more interested in exposing a more covert nihilism in their morality. For Christians, this world is bad and pitiable because of the original sin and can only be redeemed by Christ and an after-life. It's a rejection of this world for a fictitious world.

That is Nietzsche's and your own atheistic misapprehension of Christianity. This world, itself, is not bad or pitiable. It's just that humans are not naturally good. They are naturally, murderous and warlike. The notions of the "noble savage" and "blank slate" (tabula rasa) are myths, according to science. Humans can only overcome their nature by striving to be moral, and not just whatever they deem subjectively moral at any given moment.

There is no Christian rejection of this world, nor even the people in it. There is a rejection of our bad natural impulses, and reason is one of the ways we counter it. You know, the very reason that led many Christians to discover some of the earliest science.

You labor under the misguided notion that an afterlife is a substitute for life, when in fact, it's just a continuation of life. Like any temporary pain, discomfort, or hardship, it helps to know that it is not a permanent state. Even just in this mortal life. That's why some people with terminal illness of chronic pain become suicidal. What's so bad about simply not seeing hardship as permanent? The opposite of that is blatantly nihilistic. Hence my view of Nietzsche.

Quote:When you start to understand, you’ll be disturbed, but you’ll have a clean canvas to create your own values, meaning and purpose. And Nietzsche was right, life will be dearer to you and you’ll understand why you can’t resurrect a new God, nor will you want to. Nietzsche tries to get us to look at the roots of our values. They are the values of men and each man has his own ideas on how to build a good life.

Now you sound like the preaching sycophant you project. But you, like Nietzsche, are just trying to justify your own moral relativism. You don't understand that finding intrinsic value is freeing, not stifling. And you contradict yourself by claiming I will have a value (dearer life) while also claiming only I can create my values.

Quote:Values, like we’ve discussed before, are aids for survival and growth, but let us not forget who creates them. They are not absolutes. They have and will continue to change over time whenever we find that they are no longer in the service of life. All values, meaning and purpose are things in which we construct. They are relative. They are not absolutes.

That's a lot of assertions with zero argument.
You're conflating not only the development of our modern sensibilities with morality but also values with meaning and purpose. Too bad you haven't stumbled across a dictionary.

Quote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDGobqibDc

And it's a shame you still haven't learned to respect the time of others. But then, proselytizers rarely do.
Notice how I find very pointed videos that only take up 5 or so minutes to watch. Or would you be willing to watch hours long videos on Christian theology? I doubt it, which is how I know you don't understand the basics of morality.


Thanks for proving my point about Nietzsche. ;D

Leigha Wrote:Sorry, not meaning to derail your thread, but noticed the after life being brought up, and thought I'd chime in with my two cents.

No need to apologize. It’s not my thread or my forum and your two cents is what we’re after. Without it, we wouldn’t have a discussion forum.

All of our values, emotions, and beliefs are all responses to the needs of our bodies. The overman has nothing left to worship including himself. He’s able to take things more lightly and even laugh at his own self contradictions. The overman is about growth where a new-self continually overcomes an old one.

(Nov 6, 2020 09:59 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I think there's a lot of misleading information out there when it comes to Nietzsche's views on nihilism, and it could be due to the fact that we all approach the idea of it, from a slightly different view.

Quote:A Primer on Friedrich Nietzsche: His Life and Philosophical Style

While Nietzsche attacks Christianity, he has only praise for Jesus Christ himself, positing that "there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."

Nietzsche argued that, contrary to his misguided followers who had corrupted Christ’s original teachings, Jesus had taught and embodied a life-affirming philosophy, exhorting his disciples to understand that the Kingdom of God is not some yet-to-be-after-this-life goal, but within each of us — that eternity is now.

(…)He wants you to work for your knowledge. When you first read Nietzsche, it will make your brain hurt; this is especially true of his later works, which serve as definite cranium crushers. Nietzsche deliberately wrote in a style that made it hard for readers to comprehend him. Because he experimented with aphorisms, irony, sarcasm, and paradoxes, it’s easy to misunderstand what Nietzsche was trying to get at.

(…)Nietzsche in fact took pride in the fact that not everyone “got” him, saying: “It is not by any means necessarily an objection to a book when anyone finds it impossible to understand: perhaps that was part of the author’s intention — he did not want to be understood by just ‘anybody.’”

One of the most difficult aspects of reading his work is that most of his allegories are soaked in our own biases. If you can’t get pass them, you’ll never understand him. Just think of how most of his readers thought he was a misogynist, when in fact, he was using "WOMAN" as a metaphor for life, wisdom, truth, etc.

(Nov 7, 2020 07:17 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]You have it backwards. Peterson gets the attention (power) by merit, not intent. His success depends upon people wanting to hear what he has to say. You thinking he can sell books and speaking engagements without an audience is just silly. Either you think he's smart enough to fool people into wanting to hear him (what, hypnosis?), or you're just so blind with hate that you can't see the obvious.

Mm-hmm, same with Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn.

Syne Wrote:And since he promotes the Christian God, I don't know what "new God" you're imagining. Nor even for me. I have my own ideas about god, but I'm not pushing them for others to believe.

You mean his interpretation of the Christian God.

Syne Wrote:I seriously doubt most people are even capable of understanding my conception of god.

Maybe we should revisit that topic when we have more time.

Syne Wrote:Um, you do know that physical immortality isn't a thing, right? o_O

How is accepting that fact "life-denying"? Nietzsche seemed pretty cool with accepting scientific realities like that.

Um, you do know that immortality isn't a thing, right? Even our sun will run out of hydrogen.

Syne Wrote:Yet Nietzsche had values he felt worth sharing. If he that did today, obviously you'd be a follower, whether he wanted them or not. You following would likely help fund his further work. It would be mutually beneficial. No?

Follow? No. F***? Quite possibly, if he were alive, and that might be mutually beneficial.

Syne Wrote:You just seem butt-hurt that so many people like him. Why do you care? Did he kick your puppy?

Merely, recreation through constructive criticism, but unlike you, I'm just sharpening my skills, not my claws. 

Syne Wrote:You know, for all you accuse me of being his sycophant, you seem way more conversant with what Peterson has said. Yes, many people think that morality is objectively discoverable/rediscoverable. And? You disliking that is just run-of-the-mill moral relativism, which is a feature of nihilism. Moral relativism presumes that nothing has any intrinsic value, including life. So any value of life, in such a world view, is pure whim, and as such, is highly mutable.

I know, and that's why a member, which you probably view as weaker, is actually more challenging than you.

I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

Syne Wrote:That is Nietzsche's and your own atheistic misapprehension of Christianity. This world, itself, is not bad or pitiable. It's just that humans are not naturally good. They are naturally, murderous and warlike. The notions of the "noble savage" and "blank slate" (tabula rasa) are myths, according to science. Humans can only overcome their nature by striving to be moral, and not just whatever they deem subjectively moral at any given moment.

Humans are not naturally bad either.

A real man wants two things: danger and play. Therefore he wants woman[life] as the most dangerous plaything. Man shall be educated for war[survivial], and woman[life] for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.

Wisdom is a woman and she never loves anyone but a warrior.

Everything in woman[life] is a riddle, and everything in woman[life] hath one solution —it is called pregnancy.

Man is for woman[life] a means: the purpose is always the child.

But what is woman for man?
Two different things wanted the true man: danger and
diversion. Therefore wanted he woman, as the most dangerous plaything.
Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.

Too sweet fruits—these the warrior like not. Therefore like he woman;—bitter is even the sweetest woman.

At heart I am a warrior. So live your life of obedience and of war!

Life is what we serve.

Syne Wrote:You labor under the misguided notion that an afterlife is a substitute for life, when in fact, it's just a continuation of life.

An afterlife to my mind is the high probablity that life will continue on earth when I no longer exist. That's not the belief that Christians hold.

Syne Wrote:Like any temporary pain, discomfort, or hardship, it helps to know that it is not a permanent state. Even just in this mortal life. That's why some people with terminal illness of chronic pain become suicidal. What's so bad about simply not seeing hardship as permanent? The opposite of that is blatantly nihilistic. Hence my view of Nietzsche.

I see no envidence for nothing other than "this mortal life" and there are many states of suffering that are permanent. 

Your belief that Nietzsche was nihilistic leads me to believe that you haven't read his work.

Syne Wrote:Now you sound like the preaching sycophant you project. But you, like Nietzsche, are just trying to justify your own moral relativism. You don't understand that finding intrinsic value is freeing, not stifling. And you contradict yourself by claiming I will have a value (dearer life) while also claiming only I can create my values.

Hence...my question: Could you command a perspective—without forgetting that it’s just a perspective?

Syne Wrote:You're conflating not only the development of our modern sensibilities with morality but also values with meaning and purpose. Too bad you haven't stumbled across a dictionary.

Maybe you should take the time to watch that video. Sorry, I couldn't find a podcast.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDGobqibDc

Syne Wrote:And it's a shame you still haven't learned to respect the time of others. But then, proselytizers rarely do.
Notice how I find very pointed videos that only take up 5 or so minutes to watch. Or would you be willing to watch hours long videos on Christian theology? I doubt it, which is how I know you don't understand the basics of morality.

I was a Christian and I have taken the time to study theology. 

Thank you, thank you very much.

(Nov 7, 2020 01:49 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]He’s able to take things more lightly and even laugh at his own self contradictions.

Well, that's one way to quell cognitive dissonance. Again, by avoidance. Oh, pish posh, 'tis but a trifle.
Intellectually honest people understand that contradiction is an error in logic. But then, Nietzsche didn't really care about science, did he? He believed in his own truth...emblematic of moral relativism.

Quote:Nietzsche argued that, contrary to his misguided followers who had corrupted Christ’s original teachings, Jesus had taught and embodied a life-affirming philosophy, exhorting his disciples to understand that the Kingdom of God is not some yet-to-be-after-this-life goal, but within each of us — that eternity is now.

Then Nietzsche only had the shallowest possible understanding of Christianity. You know, only what's taught to children. Most Christians understand the kingdom of God is a part of everyday life.

When we pray and seek the Kingdom of God, we are also praying for the rule and reign of the kingdom of God in our lives. This is when Jesus is in charge. On one occasion Jesus said, “For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21), where He was speaking of himself. When you are under His lordship, and when He is in control of your life, that is the kingdom of God. It is not rules and regulations, but “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17).
https://www.christianity.com/god/what-is...aning.html

(Nov 7, 2020 04:20 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 7, 2020 07:17 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]You have it backwards. Peterson gets the attention (power) by merit, not intent. His success depends upon people wanting to hear what he has to say. You thinking he can sell books and speaking engagements without an audience is just silly. Either you think he's smart enough to fool people into wanting to hear him (what, hypnosis?), or you're just so blind with hate that you can't see the obvious.

Mm-hmm, same with Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn.

So no one nowadays, in your estimation, can be a successful speaker, author, and academic without wholly selfish intent?
Funny how you only deem Nietzsche virtuous in his intellectual pursuits. But nihilism, contradiction, and hypocrisy do seem to be bedfellows.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And since he promotes the Christian God, I don't know what "new God" you're imagining. Nor even for me. I have my own ideas about god, but I'm not pushing them for others to believe.

You mean his interpretation of the Christian God.

And? Everyone's conception of god is their own interpretation. That's why it's called a "personal god". Everyone has their own relation with it.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:I seriously doubt most people are even capable of understanding my conception of god.

Maybe we should revisit that topic when we have more time.

Nah. With your misapprehension of basic Christianity, we've already proven you incapable of more nuanced notions. Stick with Nietzsche. It's less challenging to be a nihilist.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Um, you do know that physical immortality isn't a thing, right? o_O

How is accepting that fact "life-denying"? Nietzsche seemed pretty cool with accepting scientific realities like that.

Um, you do know that immortality isn't a thing, right? Even our sun will run out of hydrogen.

Guess what, the sun is "physical". Hence "physical immortality isn't a thing". Not sure what you imagine you've refuted there.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Yet Nietzsche had values he felt worth sharing. If he that did today, obviously you'd be a follower, whether he wanted them or not. You following would likely help fund his further work. It would be mutually beneficial. No?

Follow? No. F***? Quite possibly, if he were alive, and that might be mutually beneficial.

Yeah, we all know how unfulfilled you feel.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:You just seem butt-hurt that so many people like him. Why do you care? Did he kick your puppy?

Merely, recreation through constructive criticism, but unlike you, I'm just sharpening my skills, not my claws. 

Well, we're still waiting to see these supposed "skills".

Quote:

Syne Wrote:You know, for all you accuse me of being his sycophant, you seem way more conversant with what Peterson has said. Yes, many people think that morality is objectively discoverable/rediscoverable. And? You disliking that is just run-of-the-mill moral relativism, which is a feature of nihilism. Moral relativism presumes that nothing has any intrinsic value, including life. So any value of life, in such a world view, is pure whim, and as such, is highly mutable.

I know, and that's why a member, which you probably view as weaker, is actually more challenging than you.

I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

I'm not here to challenge you, deary.

Love of fate and what is necessary is literally nihilistic.

The philosophical, ethical, and intellectual crisis of nihilism that has tormented modern philosophers for over a century has given way to mild annoyance or, more interestingly, an upbeat acceptance of meaninglessness.
https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/


Optimistic nihilism views the belief that there is no underlying meaning to life from a perspective of hope. It’s not that we’re doomed to live in a meaningless universe–it’s that we get the chance to experience ourselves and the universe we share. The optimistic nihilist looks at a world lacking meaning and purpose and sees the opportunity to create their own.
https://www.louislaves-webb.com/optimistic-nihilism/

That last one could be right out of Nietzsche, had he only accepted his own nihilism.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:That is Nietzsche's and your own atheistic misapprehension of Christianity. This world, itself, is not bad or pitiable. It's just that humans are not naturally good. They are naturally, murderous and warlike. The notions of the "noble savage" and "blank slate" (tabula rasa) are myths, according to science. Humans can only overcome their nature by striving to be moral, and not just whatever they deem subjectively moral at any given moment.

Humans are not naturally bad either.

[i]A real man wants two things: danger and play. Therefore he wants woman[life] as the most dangerous plaything. Man shall be educated for war[survivial], and woman[life] for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.

You keep making assertions that you don't even bother to argue or support. You just keep citing Nietzsche and Wheelis as appeals to authority. Notice how you can't even manage to address the notions of "noble savage" and tabula rasa your belief is predicated upon. Yawn.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:You labor under the misguided notion that an afterlife is a substitute for life, when in fact, it's just a continuation of life.

An afterlife to my mind is the high probablity that life will continue on earth when I no longer exist. That's not the belief that Christians hold.

And? What does that have to do with you obviously arguing against a straw man of pretty basic Christian beliefs? Nothing. You're just railing against your own misconception, and having to deflect when it's pointed out. That's not growth; that's protecting your own preexisting beliefs.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Like any temporary pain, discomfort, or hardship, it helps to know that it is not a permanent state. Even just in this mortal life. That's why some people with terminal illness of or chronic pain become suicidal. What's so bad about simply not seeing hardship as permanent? The opposite of that is blatantly nihilistic. Hence my view of Nietzsche.

I see no envidence for nothing other than "this mortal life" and there are many states of suffering that are permanent. 

Your belief that Nietzsche was nihilistic leads me to believe that you haven't read his work.

If there is no physical immorality then it follows that there is no suffering that is permanent, as the latter presupposes the former.

You're just in denial about your own, and by extension Nietzsche's, nihilism.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Now you sound like the preaching sycophant you project. But you, like Nietzsche, are just trying to justify your own moral relativism. You don't understand that finding intrinsic value is freeing, not stifling. And you contradict yourself by claiming I will have a value (dearer life) while also claiming only I can create my values.

Hence...my question: Could you command a perspective—without forgetting that it’s just a perspective?

Of course I can. It's called playing devil's advocate.

So again, how can you claim I will have a certain value (dearer life) if I create my own? Just going to avoid that contradiction again?

Quote:

Syne Wrote:You're conflating not only the development of our modern sensibilities with morality but also values with meaning and purpose. Too bad you haven't stumbled across a dictionary.

Maybe you should take the time to watch that video. Sorry, I couldn't find a podcast.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDGobqibDc

No wasting time on something you clearly cannot articulate yourself. Hell, you can't even manage to refute that it's a conflation. Just "go watch this proselytizing" appeal to authority.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And it's a shame you still haven't learned to respect the time of others. But then, proselytizers rarely do.
Notice how I find very pointed videos that only take up 5 or so minutes to watch. Or would you be willing to watch hours long videos on Christian theology? I doubt it, which is how I know you don't understand the basics of morality.

I was a Christian and I have taken the time to study theology. 

Yet you obviously don't understand anything about Christianity beyond what is taught to children. Hence all your straw men and incomprehension.

(Nov 7, 2020 07:57 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Well, that's one way to quell cognitive dissonance. Again, by avoidance. Oh, pish posh, 'tis but a trifle.
Intellectually honest people understand that contradiction is an error in logic. But then, Nietzsche didn't really care about science, did he? He believed in his own truth...emblematic of moral relativism.

Intellectually honest people can admit when they've made a mistake. Christians, on the otherhand, try to justify it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_c..._the_Bible

Syne Wrote:Then Nietzsche only had the shallowest possible understanding of Christianity. You know, only what's taught to children. Most Christians understand the kingdom of God is a part of everyday life.

They didn't have podcasts back then. He knew his shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of..._Nietzsche

No worries. It's probably one of the most difficult things that I've done. I really don't expect anyone to go there, but if you ever find yourself looking into the abyss, that video might help you.

Good day to you, Syne.

(Nov 7, 2020 08:43 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 7, 2020 07:57 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Well, that's one way to quell cognitive dissonance. Again, by avoidance. Oh, pish posh, 'tis but a trifle.
Intellectually honest people understand that contradiction is an error in logic. But then, Nietzsche didn't really care about science, did he? He believed in his own truth...emblematic of moral relativism.

Intellectually honest people can admit when they've made a mistake.

...and correct them. Intellectually honest people do not just "laugh at [their] own self contradictions".

Quote:Christians, on the otherhand, try to justify it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_c..._the_Bible

You have proven you don't understand enough about Christianity to know anything about Biblical consistency.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Then Nietzsche only had the shallowest possible understanding of Christianity. You know, only what's taught to children. Most Christians understand the kingdom of God is a part of everyday life.

They didn't have podcasts back then. He knew his shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of..._Nietzsche

That's one hell of a non sequitur, as no one ever claimed Nietzsche didn't know a lot. But he certainly had a naive view of Christianity, as Leigha and I readily pointed out.

Quote:No worries. It's probably one of the most difficult things that I've done. I really don't expect anyone to go there, but if you ever find yourself looking into the abyss, that video might help you.

Yeah, projecting your own efforts to justify your own preexisting beliefs on Christians can be rough. Lots of cognitive dissonance to quell, lots of point you can't delve into too deeply (all the points you routinely avoid in my posts), lest you realize they are hollow.

I know the abyss, intimately. But where you derive nihilism from it, I derive ultimate meaning. When you stare into the abyss, it stares back. What they usually don't tell you is that it is a reflection. The only reason it's staring is because you are. I wonder if you have any clue what that tells us about our own existence.

(Nov 7, 2020 11:39 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I know the abyss, intimately. But where you derive nihilism from it, I derive ultimate meaning. When you stare into the abyss, it stares back. What they usually don't tell you is that it is a reflection. The only reason it's staring is because you are. I wonder if you have any clue what that tells us about our own existence.

I've said that before.

I've read the bible all the way through. Not many people can truthfully say that. I know it well. Think what you want. Like you said, only a fool would try to convince someone online in a science forum.

Ciao

(Nov 8, 2020 12:01 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 7, 2020 11:39 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I know the abyss, intimately. But where you derive nihilism from it, I derive ultimate meaning. When you stare into the abyss, it stares back. What they usually don't tell you is that it is a reflection. The only reason it's staring is because you are. I wonder if you have any clue what that tells us about our own existence.

I've said that before.

I've read the bible all the way through. Not many people can truthfully say that. I know it well. Think what you want. Like you said, only a fool would try to convince someone online in a science forum.

Like you reading the Bible, if you've said anything like that, you've equally failed to comprehend it. I've even cited the relevant parts of the Bible for you, to no avail.

I said, only a fool would think they could convince anyone on a science forum, not for arguing their case. But you've made it abundantly clear that you can't/won't be taught.

(Nov 8, 2020 12:31 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I said, only a fool would think they could convince anyone on a science forum, not for arguing their case. But you've made it abundantly clear that you can't/won't be taught.

I'm good. Cherries give you the shits. 

Thanks though.

(Nov 8, 2020 12:45 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 8, 2020 12:31 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I said, only a fool would think they could convince anyone on a science forum, not for arguing their case. But you've made it abundantly clear that you can't/won't be taught.

I'm good. Cherries give you the shits. 

Thanks though.

Says the girl who hypocritically cherry-picks all the time and then just blithely ignores any and all refutes of her complete ignorance. Well, they do say it is bliss.

I know you're butt-hurt that all you can do is make appeals to authority. It's okay. That's just some people's speed.