There's only really two kinds of people that suffer from religiosity; the hypocrites and the fearful.
To the former, all I'll say is that asking me to forsake my intellectual honesty by willingly embracing and calling truth thst which has no evidence or even reasonable supposition for truth while insisting thst you hold the objectively true and correct facts to existence will never convince anyone not already willing to delude themselves. You didn't reason yourselves into this, you won't reason others into it; all you can do is browbeat and berate, and once you get the power you so desperately crave, you force at the point of a sword, in violation of the tenets you swear are so true and absolute. You are the same as those whom you hate, because you do not hate what they do but rather who they do it to and how they disguise their trappings. You await eagerly your chance to revenge yourselves, but you do not see it thus. To you, you do not deliver vengeance, but justice, much as do the people currently revenging themselves upon you.
To the latter, all I can offer you is my pity. You are so afraid of basic truth, thst we are, all animals upon this earth, nothing more than the meat and blood equivalent of software running on a computer that you invent entire dimensions you'll somehow magically transmigrate to upon your cessation of being, as well as cruel, brutal, capricious, and distant kings and lords to rule you from these distant places. You so fear to grow to adulthood, to find that there in the world is naught and no one but what you and others make of it, that you retreat to ordered fantasy, reinforced with threats against those who might want a peak outside; eternal children hiding behind an invented father.
No, Pascal's wager never made sense, nor was it ever just or moral. Pascal's wager was, and remains, predicated on the idea that your god is so cruel, so vicious, and so petty that it desire naught but blind submission. That a life well lived, in service of justice and good, bringing joy and happiness to the innocent and firm but fair justice to the wicked, is nothing if you do not swear fealty to and prostrate yourself before your god first and foremost. That no amount of living within the tenets of a religion, even if you don't explicitly submit to or venerate its idols, is worthless if you do not prostitute your will and pride before the church. This is not a moral supposition; this is an ultimatum at gunpoint.
Pascal's wager is a fool's bet for the hypocrites and the fearful. I will choose to live a good life without gods or demons, and if, upon my death, I find myself before your god, or any other god, and am firmly rejected simply for failing to prostrate myself and swear fealty, then I shall know this was never a loving force of good to begin with; it was always merely another tyrant demanding slaves.
And if I die and simply cease to be, as I expect will happen, then at least I won't have wasted a good chunk of my very limited time on earth playing dice with Pascal.
While that's always a great idea, have you tried, as an in-the-meantime intermediary, putting down those slow-acting poison baits that kill them when they go back to the nest and linger in the corpse, so that the other roaches that cannibalize the dead ones also die?
That stuff, especially in quantity, can absolutely wreck even established nests.
Oh, look, niggerspeech.
"Thick". Say it with me. "Thick".
You absolutely can foolproof a modern reactor. A modern green rock powered tea kettle is always on the verge of shutting down, and keeping the fuel at criticality requires constant work. You can't accidentally trigger a runaway criticality incident through pure incompetence; you have to be knowingly and professionally actively sabotaging it.
We cannot allow the existence of retards to force the regression of society and technology.
It takes a certain special kind of retard to plead solipsism while using a Rossman clippy avatar.
Are you sure you're conscious?
Honestly, the more your type malds about the right and natural progression of technology that will allow us to abandon the weak flesh for the strength and certainty of steel, the harder I work every day in the lab to make it a reality.
You guys worship the flesh.
Ain't that just a kick in the fucking head, though.
The state taking steps to protect the violent criminal who pled insanity and lack of capacity to understand his actions from the cruel depravities of his victims.
This shit isn't even clown world. This is highly refined and purified clown universe extract.
I want to agree with you, and generally do, but that second one looks an awful lot like Rias Gremory from Highschool DxD, and that girl was one of my teen crushes, so I can't back you on this one specific comparison.
But in general, yeah, bring back athletic and lithe girls. Used to be the standard for attractive women was "could bounce a quarter off that ass", not "could lose a school bus in that ass".
Modern airburst munitions have a radioactivity profile that's intended to dissipate in a few weeks.
Because, you know, you generally want to be able to claim the territory you've flattened.
A loving father is a human, with all the flaws that implies.
Your church and religion makes the claim that your god is perfect and almighty. Thus, by your own doctrinal logic, evil is either an error in the great work, and thus your god is neither perfect nor almighty, or entirely intentional and necessary to the great work, and thus your god intentionally created evil and misery and inflicted it upon people while calling itself perfectly good and righteous, which meets your own criteria of evil in every respect except the "doesn't listen to god" requirement, which itself becomes hard to consider tenable when the god under consideration cannot be considered an impartial and righteous moral arbitrator, on account of willingly creating the perpetrating evil.
And please don't answer this with the standard "whatever my god says is good is obviously good, it makes the rules" response; excusing evil because the one committing the evil holds overwhelming power isn't acceptable even in your own moral framework.
Mate, what you are is an actual retard.
The military has a min and max height, apparently being 58 to 80 inches, with some small variation.
I imagine it's so you can actually fit in standardized equipment sizes?
Honestly, the height requirement seems like a weird thing to even highlight, since I imagine 99.9% of the fitness non-quals will be weight related. I don't think we have any midgets or sasquatches with flag ranks.
A stick of dynamite taped to every speaker wouldn't be that expensive, but I'm not sure what it would sccomplish. The mudslimes will just replace them.
Honestly, the only thing to do that would actually work, long term, would have me accused of being a neon-bright glowie fedposting were I to say it. But there isn't another solution that can be implemented at this stage.
At this point, my patience, which I have extended for far too long as it is, is at an end. It's quite obvious to see we're going to continue taking past one another, as you remain steadfastly determined to find evidence for your chosen conclusion instead of taking in what evidence there is and arriving at a conclusion from there, and it should be obvious to you that you aren't going to convince me of the validity of the anthropic universe hypothesis.
Have a nice day.
What maintains the patterns?
That's a meaningless question. The wave interactions form the patterns. The properties of the waves form the interactions. There is no outside influence maintaining wave interactions.
Which goes back to what I said before -- Quantum Field Theory should then apply to all forms of matter and energy macrocosmically.
On a subatomic level, observed energy may change in ways that is discordant when changing the properties of observation, but on a macrocosmic scale they do not do that.
Quantum field theory does apply to all forms of energy. That's the point of it. You forget how obscenely large the number of molecules are in a mol of any substance, and how thin potential wells have to be for effects like tunneling to occur. Standard matter clusters DO experience quantum effects, but the percentage of the matter affected is so low that it is unable to disrupt the total structure to any degree noticeable without advanced equipment. The numbers you deal with in macroscopic structures is so absurdly huge that the only way to reasonably describe it is using statistics of large numbers.
What you've just described is a rule -- any observable pattern is a combination of elements that repeat within a defined set of actions. Anything that repeats is following a rule of systemic repetition -- otherwise, it would not repeat if it were not a rule.
And since you don't seem to understand what the definition of a rule is, here it is: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
I am greatly amused by the fact that you chose to present a definition of rule that explicitly disagrees with your assertion and supports mine. Notice the key words: "explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere."
Nature doesn't have regulations or government principles, nor does it engage in conduct or activities. Nature simply is. It exists, and its fundamental properties interact with one another with no rhyme, reason, or guidance. Water does not flow because gravity makes it; water shares spacetime coordinates with gravitic fields, and does what local conditions allow. The universe does not think nor desire; it simply is, and does what is its nature.
This is why the universe has patterns, not rules. Rules require thought, organization, and intent. There is no intent, and all organization is emergent.
Energy interactions as a set of defined patterns is a rule of scientific law.
That is most certainly not the definition. A scientific law is a theory with enough experimental evidence that the scientific community has agreed that the theory should be considered and presented as generally correct in 99.99...9% of cases. It is descriptive, not proscriptive. There are not rules, only predictions that are either accurate or inaccurate in predicting the behavior of nature under specific conditions.
A good example of this is gravity -- our planets follow orbital rules, without them, the planets would drift apart. Our known universe follows the observed patterns and rules of relativity, without it, everything would fall apart. What keeps the rules of gravity in place? What prevents the orbits from changing? What determines how gravity maintains consistency?
This again is where you're attempting to proscribe the behavior of nature. There is nothing maintaining uniformity amongst natural concepts. Hell, I've read theories that the speed of light was slightly higher back near the start of the universe, and may become slightly lower in the far, far distant future. Heres a link so you can see I'm not talking out of my ass here:
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.101301
You also keep forgetting to address the point that negantropy prevents everything from operating under the constant rule of entropy.
Biological organisms use energy from external sources to do work on themselves, decreasing their own entropy at the cost of increasing entropy outside themselves. This is entirely consistent with the standard thermodynamic model. We get our energy from the sun, or from organisms that get their energy from the sun. Were the sun to go out, this process would cease. Come back when you've found something that violates entropic patterns, please.
Or are you trying to imply that the ability of complex organisms to engage in self-repair is somehow too complex to be an emergent function, and thus obviously evidence of god, like so many others like to insist?
Right, I see you're retarded.
Ah, yes, Ma'at, the famous egyptian goddess of the golden rule, whose command, trappings, and rituals have been discovered independently time and again throughout human history.
Most certainly not Maat, the egyptian goddess of, amongst other things, truth and law, who issued a great many commands and proscriptions, and one of them, one time, happened to be similar to the golden rule.
Most certainly not.
Sir, you have no standing to insult the intelligence of a child with a head injury, let alone myself.
And I say again, the philosophical musing of "don't do things to people you don't want done to you" is not a religion. It has no gods, no rituals, no trappings, no priests, and no structure. You may as well quote that "don't steal or murder" have always found their way into our legal systems as well, and thus god.
So, kindly, fuck off, faggot. You have no leg to stand on calling anyone a hypocrite.
Simple. Field interactions are the patterns that emerge when energetic waveforms with certain frequencies intersect. These are not rules nor limitations; there is nothing intentionslly keeping these things acting the way they do, merely the probabilistic outcome of countless numbers of waves intersecting.
Thats the key difference. You desperately need there to be intentional element to reality; some will or force keeping things either apart or together on purpose, and you call the interactions you see the "rules" of reality, like the "rules" of the road or a criminal code. But there isn't any intentional force or effect. Its just plain, boring, inpersonal energy interactions, and the things we call "laws" are simply the patterns to interactions that we've observed so commonly and prevailingly that we have declared that this is how they almost always, 99.99...9% of the time, interact.
You cannot be such a faggot that you pull out philosophical musings and try to pass them off as religious commandments.
Show me the religion whose names and trappings have reemerged time and again throughout history, seperated by space, in the same way math has been independently discovered and agreed upon by every developed peoples in human history, and you'll convince me on the spot.
And fuck off with trying to "ERM akshually" the name. I SAID the name is different but the concept and trappings of the triangle remain the same. Read the fucking reply, you daft cunt.
Sir, you will retract that absolute gang rape of quantum theory, or I shall see you on the dueling field in the morning. This level of misunderstanding is so complete as to become intentional and malicious lie.
There are no "rules" to reality, I will restate, only field interactions. And we do see quantum effects macroscopically; they are the underpinnings of reality. That you think that there is some intentional restriction keeping this organized, and that you fail to understand that the uncertainty observation refers to an inability to humans to measure quantum scale interactions past a certain level of precision, and rather imply that there is inherently some level where reality stops working, are all evidence of a deep and permeating confusion on the matter that you attempt to pass off as fact. Just because we are limited, at the quantum level, to attempting to guage the true nature of cats by throwing other cats at them at speed and seeing what happens, does not mean information theory suddenly stops applying, that just because we cannot tell electrons apart doesn't mean their spacetime coordinates are not wholly unique.
Retract your nonsense, and return once you have understood the difference between a rule and a tendency.
Treat others as you’d like to be treated - you might have heard about this before, “the golden rule”, independently reached by basically every religion on every continent in human history.
This is the tenet of modern secularism philosophy, you absolute ham sandwich. The first primitive religion was most likely "obey chief spirit totem, listen to shaman". We didn't invent this equality doctrine until very recently. Most old religions explicitly told people to convert or kill heathens.
Don't make up bullshit to try to support your argument.
Creation, the natural world, the universe itself, with various degrees of anthropomorphization, just like today
And they were all different. That's the key point. There are a thousand sky and rain gods, but a triangle has three points across the globe. The gods are made up to try to explain the world, and the triangle is a mathematical reference marker independently discovered by every culture that discovered mathematics. Notice that triangles are the same except for the name in every country, but the gods vary in every way.
Are you really this dumb? By your logic nothing in human society exists - we invented capitalism, if it died out today it would never come back exactly the same, does “capitalism” not exist?
You are in no position to call anyone dumb, sir. But to tackle your last point, again a fundamental misunderstanding of reality. Capitalism is the NAME we have given to the method of exchange where we have arbitrarily defined certain objects to be empowered with worth, and we trade labor or goods for those objects in order to overcome the limitation of traditional barter, which requires the coincidence of wants before trade can happen.
If our entire culture were to magically vanish overnight, others would still rediscover the concept of money and how useful it is as a medium of trade. They would not independently rediscover jesus and the cross or buddha and the lotus flower, or izanagi and the border of yomi, or anything else. Again, because money and trade has a basis in reality, and religion doesn't.
Begging the question here. No religion states that God hyper-focuses on humans.
Nonsense. Every religion insists their god hyperfocuses on humans, either directly, like the abrahamic faiths that insist their god created the world for humans, or indirectly, like the pantheons of the greeks, japanese, or hindus, whose gods have entire universes to run and yet insist on getting involved in human affairs. And then there are the religions that aren't just hyperfocused, but who directly appoint "divine rulers" of the earth, like the chinese mandate of heaven.
Then you'd have to accept that it, once again, has rules. And there is no such thing as a system with rules without having those rules defined.
That's like claiming software programs exist simply because, while denying the fact that software engineering dictates the rules upon which those programs exist. No program exists in a vacuum without being written.
Ergo, every rule is part of a system and every system is designed.
False equivalency coupled with a fundamental misunderstanding of reality. Reality doesn't have rules, reality has interactions. There is nothing telling like charges to repel or heat to flow from hot to cold, there are only the interactions of energy fields.
And the systems, such as they are, emerge from the equilibrium points of the interactions of these energy fields. Reality isn't software, created by someone with a purpose. Reality is instead the gorges, ravines, and overhangs created by wind and water. Sure, a stream can be used by us for water, clay, and silt, but it came into being by a simple interaction of earth and water, not by any plan or intelligence. Stars do not fuse hydrogen and helium because that was the best way to warm planets; they simply are, the direct and natural consequence of their makeup.
Reality was not designed.
False dilemma. Where was it stated that those in H.P. Lovecraft's works don't exist?
Your religion, and every other religion. Also, yes, his books exist, you muppet. But nyarlahotep and al azoz and azatoth do not.
People MADE UP the first religion. And the second. And the third.
If it were so real and objective, what were the tenets and who were the god or gods of the first religion?
You don't know this, because that religion died. All traces of it were destroyed or subsumed into descendant religions.
Because the first religion, like every other, was made up by people, and when those people died and there was no one left tomorrow pretend, the game was forgotten and replaced.
Can't imagine why tolerance for the small hat tribe is at critically low levels lately...