The Subatomic God

Oh dear.

"

Upandatem wrote:

Oh dear.

Dogmatic Atheism and ignorance ?

You are welcome to challenge all of these points:

. The teeth take the form of a seashell.

. The human body and the planet body both contain electromagnetic shields.

. The lungs are shaped like roots of a plant.

. The human skin is marked with symbols exactly like the rings you find on a tree.

. The hair and nails are made up of the same basic materials you find in the sea, like pearls.

. The oyster having what appears to be the first design of the "tongue".

. That the human body is affected by the moon, because it contains water.

. That water flows like our consciousness.

. That creatures can produce the basic forces that make up the world, such as water and electricity.

. That ocean life could not exist after land life, because ocean life contains all the agents needed to create land, let alone land life, like oxygen.

. That the human body resembles the form of a tree.

. That we all came from that "one" sperm, therefore our origin came from a seed which came from genitalia.

. Therefore genitalia is a part of our life's origin.

. As above, so below. All that can be known can be figured out from the surface, as long as we understand the subatomic level from the surface.

. The human skin contains pores like a rock.

. That blood is fed on by sharks and leeches, therefore blood came from water before land.

. That all that is "object" was once liquid, which took form into what appears solid.

. That the heart's chamber stages take the form of a fish, frog and turtle heart.

Go ahead. Try me. I at least put effort into figuring this world out. How about you?

Feel free to unleash your ego on me.

My perceived body is ready.

"

Deceptionist wrote:

Go ahead. Try me. I at least put effort into figuring this world out. How about you?

My gripe is not so much with the patterns you've recognized as it is the way you go about it. If you weren't so hellbent on dismissing well documented knowledge on the basis of it being "wisdom trapped in an immutable state" you wouldn't have to be reinventing the wheel. Most of the patterns you list can be attributed to the process of evolution by natural selection, with the starting point being the first self-replicating molecules (wich actually wasn't sperm) in the primordial soup (wich wasn't a bukkake pit either). As a mildly bizarre example of how wide it's branched out over time, we share about 1/4th of our genes with yeast of all things.

You claim to care about this world's inner workings. I'm suggesting there are better methods than merely thinking about it, methods wich have (as a side effect) resulted in an explosive rate of technological advances.

"

Feel free to unleash your ego on me.

My perceived body is ready.

My ego? I'm not the one saying I can do a good job at figuring the world out from the comfort of my couch.

"

VaultzInex wrote:

Dogmatic Atheism and ignorance ?

Spoiler

Yeap.

Requiring some form of evidence to accompany an extraordinary claim is not ignorance, nor is it in any way, shape or form dogmatic. You've got it confused with "not having the desire to get scammed".
All that aside, you and I actually have a lot in common. Think of all the (hundreds, if not thousands) of gods that both of us do not believe in. I only believe in one less than you do.

How I assume you think about the aztec god Tlaloc is pretty much how I think of your favoured deity.

"

Personality is life.
Personality is color.
Personality is form.
Personality is.

I'm Blind so those points are invalid. And thus I'm blind I couldn't read past that sentence.

"

Upandatem wrote:

My gripe is not so much with the patterns you've recognized as it is the way you go about it. If you weren't so hellbent on dismissing well documented knowledge on the basis of it being "wisdom trapped in an immutable state" you wouldn't have to be reinventing the wheel. Most of the patterns you list can be attributed to the process of evolution by natural selection, with the starting point being the first self-replicating molecules (wich actually wasn't sperm) in the primordial soup (wich wasn't a bukkake pit either). As a mildly bizarre example of how wide it's branched out over time, we share about 1/4th of our genes with yeast of all things.

You claim to care about this world's inner workings. I'm suggesting there are better methods than merely thinking about it, methods wich have (as a side effect) resulted in an explosive rate of technological advances.

In what way am I dismissing well-documented knowledge? The philosophy I work with knows nothing, but works with everything in spite of what cannot be known. For an example, the sperm isn't a "thing", it's the result of primordial ooze. ("oh but the sperm doesn't have anything to do with primordial ooze" - well, then explain why dinosaurs influenced the form of a dog/bird, or why humans wash their hands like a fly.) The faculty, of which is, can be taken as a replication, just in a different form. The same goes for hurricanes, dust devils, tornadoes and those electrical storms you see on Jupiter. They are made by the same faculty, but in a different form.

"

My ego? I'm not the one saying I can do a good job at figuring the world out from the comfort of my couch.

All that can be understood is right here, just in another form. As above, so below. All which is in the middle, is still what lies above and below. And by the way, when you think at the level I do, there's no comfort in any of this.

"

Upandatem wrote:

I'm not the one saying I can do a good job at figuring the world out from the comfort of my couch.

...on the other hand, I'm one to admit I can do a good job figuring out that my couch is comfortable

"

Avramovic wrote:

"

Upandatem wrote:

I'm not the one saying I can do a good job at figuring the world out from the comfort of my couch.

...on the other hand, I'm one to admit I can do a good job figuring out that my couch is comfortable

Lol
__
@Upandatem : please answer Deceptionist, i wanna see a debate.

@ Deceptionist : Your answer = too short )=> I need to read more.