| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 2:32 AM
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| emo samurai wrote: | | After all, if there were a creator, wouldn't this kind of solar system, and life in general, be more common? |
From a slightly different angle we could also ask why create billions upon billions of other star systems if they serve no real purpose. Until just recently well over 99.9999999 percent of the now observable universe was hidden to us, so it can't even be said they were created for our visual pleasure. The more likely conclusion is all these stars are result of natural mechanisms, just as we are.
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 4:32 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: |
I never worry about not comprehending the simple opinion of morons like you... |
The simplicity of an opinion does not establish the intelligence of the person who holds the opinion. It's comparable to stating that Onement 1 by Newman is a horrid piece of art because its simply one line of a colour dividing a plane of another colour in half, too simple to be classified as a true aesthetic experience and artistic endeavor. It's an idiotic statement which pans the value, colour selection, aesthetic/artistic value and philosophical views based on the simplicity of the object that is held to be art despite simplicity (rather reductionism) being an pivotal part of the work. Its ignoring the goals of Abstract Expressionists or Colour Field painters then pissing on the works Rothko or Louis for example.
Secondly, if my opinion was so moronic perhaps you should invalidate it instead of resulting to your weak exchange of insults to make believe that your opinion is greater or "more correct" than mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 4:32 AM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: |
I never worry about not comprehending the simple opinion of morons like you... |
The simplicity of an opinion does not establish the intelligence of the person who holds the opinion. It's comparable to stating that Onement 1 by Newman is a horrid piece of art because its simply one line of a colour dividing a plane of another colour in half, too simple to be classified as a true aesthetic experience and artistic endeavor. It's an idiotic statement which pans the value, colour selection, aesthetic/artistic value and philosophical views based on the simplicity of the object that is held to be art despite simplicity (rather reductionism) being an pivotal part of the work. Its ignoring the goals of Abstract Expressionists or Colour Field painters then pissing on the works Rothko or Louis for example.
Secondly, if my opinion was so moronic perhaps you should invalidate it instead of resulting to your weak exchange of insults to make believe that your opinion is greater or "more correct" than mine. |
If you had comprehended my post, you wouldn't have bothered to reply. That you did reply confirms once more time that you are a fucking moron. And yes, my opinion is greater or more correct than yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 4:32 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: |
I never worry about not comprehending the simple opinion of morons like you... |
The simplicity of an opinion does not establish the intelligence of the person who holds the opinion. It's comparable to stating that Onement 1 by Newman is a horrid piece of art because its simply one line of a colour dividing a plane of another colour in half, too simple to be classified as a true aesthetic experience and artistic endeavor. It's an idiotic statement which pans the value, colour selection, aesthetic/artistic value and philosophical views based on the simplicity of the object that is held to be art despite simplicity (rather reductionism) being an pivotal part of the work. Its ignoring the goals of Abstract Expressionists or Colour Field painters then pissing on the works Rothko or Louis for example.
Secondly, if my opinion was so moronic perhaps you should invalidate it instead of resulting to your weak exchange of insults to make believe that your opinion is greater or "more correct" than mine. |
If you had comprehended my post, you wouldn't have bothered to reply. That you did reply confirms once more time that you are a fucking moron. And yes, my opinion is greater or more correct than yours. |
I don't often hold faith in the opinions of self deluded people, so I'm afraid, I can't expand that faith toward yours. (of course, you offered no opinion to me other than your opinion of my opinion.) The comprehension of you post isn't the standard of which one decides to or not to reply. Your reply only consisted of "Well IF the study is correct, then it wouldn't be a coincidence" to paraphrase and a quoted segment. However, I never stated it was a coincidence in the first place and simply pointed out that a coincidence would be more interesting than happenstance. I restated that in my second reply since you strongly implied to believe that I thought it was a coincidence or a fluke.
It was nothing more than that but like any reply of mine it seems you must blow the content out of proportions, despite the opinion being a very valid one to consider and then pretend that your opinion is somehow greater and more correct despite never actually present that opinion for critique, only insulting others. Its what you mostly do, and it's hardly interesting anymore.
This game of yours with me is old, think of something new. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 4:32 AM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: |
I never worry about not comprehending the simple opinion of morons like you... |
The simplicity of an opinion does not establish the intelligence of the person who holds the opinion. It's comparable to stating that Onement 1 by Newman is a horrid piece of art because its simply one line of a colour dividing a plane of another colour in half, too simple to be classified as a true aesthetic experience and artistic endeavor. It's an idiotic statement which pans the value, colour selection, aesthetic/artistic value and philosophical views based on the simplicity of the object that is held to be art despite simplicity (rather reductionism) being an pivotal part of the work. Its ignoring the goals of Abstract Expressionists or Colour Field painters then pissing on the works Rothko or Louis for example.
Secondly, if my opinion was so moronic perhaps you should invalidate it instead of resulting to your weak exchange of insults to make believe that your opinion is greater or "more correct" than mine. |
If you had comprehended my post, you wouldn't have bothered to reply. That you did reply confirms once more time that you are a fucking moron. And yes, my opinion is greater or more correct than yours. |
I don't often hold faith in the opinions of self deluded people, so I'm afraid, I can't expand that faith toward yours. (of course, you offered no opinion to me other than your opinion of my opinion.) The comprehension of you post isn't the standard of which one decides to or not to reply. Your reply only consisted of "Well IF the study is correct, then it wouldn't be a coincidence" to paraphrase and a quoted segment. However, I never stated it was a coincidence in the first place and simply pointed out that a coincidence would be more interesting than happenstance. I restated that in my second reply since you strongly implied to believe that I thought it was a coincidence or a fluke.
It was nothing more than that but like any reply of mine it seems you must blow the content out of proportions, despite the opinion being a very valid one to consider and then pretend that your opinion is somehow greater and more correct despite never actually present that opinion for critique, only insulting others. Its what you mostly do, and it's hardly interesting anymore.
This game of yours with me is old, think of something new. |
LOL. Go back on this thread, and tell me who was the first to throw an insult?!?
A reminder:
| Quote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Dawkadoodle wrote: | | According to the survey, its locality is geared to one nebula and excludes all formed planets which tends to suggest that percentage will have a large margin of error as time passes. It's a study based on a galactic happenstance, when it becomes a coincidence things will be more interesting. |
The article says this: "We think that most stars in the galaxy are formed in dense, Orion-like regions, so this implies that systems like ours may be the exception rather than the rule," said researcher Joshua Eisner, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley.
So if this study is correct, then this is not a coincidence by any stretch of the imagination. |
And return back to my original statement, this study is still based on happenstance. There is a large margin of error and a Coincidence would make those implications more reasonable since the veracity of the study is up in the air. Its a figure of speech.
I read the article, no need to read it to me again because you can't comprehend a simple opinion.
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 4:32 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: |
LOL. Go back on this thread, and tell me who was the first to throw an insult?!?
|
Ah and we finally get to the core of the problem, you think I insulted you because I stated indifferently that you mistook my comments for something they weren't. If I called you a bumbling idiot because you didn't fully grasp what I said, I would've accepted that was an insult. However, all I presented was an indifferent tone you took as an harsh, insulting tone.
Get over it, and get back to the topic of the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 4:32 AM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: |
LOL. Go back on this thread, and tell me who was the first to throw an insult?!?
|
Ah and we finally get to the core of the problem, you think I insulted you because I stated indifferently that you mistook my comments for something they weren't. If I called you a bumbling idiot because you didn't fully grasp what I said, I would've accepted that was an insult. However, all I presented was an indifferent tone you took as an harsh, insulting tone.
Get over it, and get back to the topic of the thread. |
Fuck you, I'm done with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dawkadoodle
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 2230
Local time: 4:32 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: |
Fuck you, I'm done with you. |
Until you break your word and try to the same thing again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emo samurai
Black Messiah
Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1606
Local time: 4:32 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dawkadoodle wrote: | | You have added this person to your Ignore List. Click HERE to view this post. |
Trust me, this solves EVERYTHING.
_________________
Those who don't believe in evolution haven't benefited from it.
I didn't outsmart you; you outdumbed me.
It is a human right to profit from the stupidity and arrogance of others.
Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is happy.
--Henry Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 483
Local time: 4:32 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MockingGods wrote: | | emo samurai wrote: | | After all, if there were a creator, wouldn't this kind of solar system, and life in general, be more common? |
From a slightly different angle we could also ask why create billions upon billions of other star systems if they serve no real purpose. Until just recently well over 99.9999999 percent of the now observable universe was hidden to us, so it can't even be said they were created for our visual pleasure. The more likely conclusion is all these stars are result of natural mechanisms, just as we are. |
God needed those star systems to show us his awesome might. Plus, if we see how great he is through things that don't affect us and are vast distances away, he doesn't have to waste his time appearing to us and doing magic tricks.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Basilosaur
Forum Plebian
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 149
Local time: 5:32 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | God needed those star systems to show us his awesome might. Plus, if we see how great he is through things that don't affect us and are vast distances away, he doesn't have to waste his time appearing to us and doing magic tricks. |
But studies suggest that the universe might currently be expanding. So that might mean that we would see less and less star systems since they are moving far apart. Other studies say that the universe is 13 billion years old and earth is 4.5 billion years old. In the future there would still be a lot of other nebulae being formed so the total number of star systems that would ever be would be a lot bigger so does the chance of intelligent or non intelligent life forms appearing on suitable planets. If we humans actually could eventually reach even further out then the chances of habitable planets would greatly increase and i think all this rubbish i typed is actually rubbish.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 4:32 AM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | MockingGods wrote: | | emo samurai wrote: | | After all, if there were a creator, wouldn't this kind of solar system, and life in general, be more common? |
From a slightly different angle we could also ask why create billions upon billions of other star systems if they serve no real purpose. Until just recently well over 99.9999999 percent of the now observable universe was hidden to us, so it can't even be said they were created for our visual pleasure. The more likely conclusion is all these stars are result of natural mechanisms, just as we are. |
God needed those star systems to show us his awesome might. Plus, if we see how great he is through things that don't affect us and are vast distances away, he doesn't have to waste his time appearing to us and doing magic tricks. |
Yeah, but, but... I like magic tricks.
Oops, no, I demand that God performs magic tricks. In fact if he outperforms Chris Angel, then God is cool...
EDIT: ( see my thread http://www.atheistforums.com/chris-angel-rocks-t8765.html#208966 ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
