Posts by brightpilot6

If you don't look like this by the time you hit sixteen, you might want to reconsider a career in pro football:

restlesssurfer97 said:Let's talk a little bit about science and those specific areas where we just seem to be stuck in the past.
To me, stuff like the whole concept of wheels, tires being filled with nothing but air, turning a steering wheel left and right, relying on paved roads as a basic necessity, and dealing with massive traffic jams where thousands of people are just sitting there isolated in their own individual cars just to get from point A to point B—it all feels incredibly primitive and outdated.

Am I out of my mind here? 🐔

And what's the takeaway?

Hit a wall? We travel via jet engines, spacecraft, and maglev trains. But perhaps for Steve and Mary, it is simply more intuitive to operate a hunk of metal rolling along the ground with a common-sense left-right steering mechanism, rather than navigating something through the sky with a million different variables and controls.

Besides, cars are entirely logical from start to finish; they pass the common sense test. They aren't built based on some shaky premise that might or might not be true. Could they be better? Of course they could, and they will be. Work is being done on that front, and nobody is claiming that the cars we drive today are the absolute pinnacle of achievement or that we shouldn't strive for something superior. Or worse, that seeking improvement is forbidden under threat of eternal damnation.

If you’re dealing with stomach pains or some sort of intestinal issues, perhaps you should seek guidance from a local pastor 🐔

restlesssurfer97 said:Honestly, I think it's the exact opposite, and it’s kind of ridiculous to take science—which, let's be real, doesn't even have a clue about our actual origins—and treat it like some definitive authority on the existence of God.
It's like going to some tiny, remote town in rural Wyoming where no actual scholars bother to visit, and then claiming the local guy who barely finished middle school is somehow an expert on advanced physics.

It’s always been that way, you know? When your body pulls the good stuff out of what you eat, all that's left over is just waste you gotta flush away.

Well, it takes the good stuff, the useless stuff, and even the toxic stuff too.

We have to consider the logic of his argument, don't we? Logic should always be a factor, except perhaps when it comes to matters of the heart—which, given how religion weaves itself into our daily lives, surely includes faith as well. And since logic itself falls under the umbrella of Science, then yes, we must include Science in the equation.

Walter Grant5 said:If I remember right, you were checking out that Apple's review that tried to play the "common sense science" card against religious fanaticism. Personally, I don't think common sense science covers wild theories—it's about actual, proven results.

LG made a valid point that the entire framework of religious ideology rests upon a foundational premise that simply cannot be scientifically proven. It is well known that this makes the whole ideology unfalsifiable, which means using it as an argument in any debate is logically flawed—especially when trying to justify the taking of a life.

restlesssurfer97 jumped in with the argument that invoking science is actually more ridiculous than invoking religion, since science is constantly debunking itself 🤷. But I wonder, is it really more absurd to defend Newton's second law than it is to believe in the fantasy of the Holy Trinity? Or is it more laughable to take credit for sailing a ship built by science than it is to truly believe a man can walk on water? ☕

Or perhaps, if you need knee surgery, it’s perfectly logical to visit a priest before seeing a doctor. ☕

restlesssurfer97 said:You clearly don't remember how this went down. I actually spelled out exactly what I was responding to right here, so you can go ahead and look it up yourself if you're feeling unsure.

Even though the whole thing with Samsung isn't really the point, it's just annoying how people from the CIA show up out of nowhere acting all bitter about the results—throwing around lines like 'well, they got exactly what they wanted'—when they weren't even part of the conversation to begin with, and honestly, it’s been bugging me for a while now how people act like the total lack of scientific proof for God's existence is somehow some massive, heavy-hitting argument in itself.

ZZ certainly seems to have a sixth sense for reading between the lines. ☕

Now, Byron is going to weigh in with his take on those two standout talents emerging from the youth academy.

Maybe there’s an honest headline about Barcelona buried somewhere in LP, but I certainly can't prove it.

Patrick Martin said:There is only one God ☕

Indeed, and he shall be crowned once again today, shall he not?☕

Robin Fox2 said:I honestly believe Islam is just inherently flawed as a religion; at its core, it spreads through force, having conquered 90% of its territory by the sword... When something is built on such a foundation, you can't just reform it into something better, which is the uncomfortable truth people tend to avoid saying, but whatever...

What really grinds my gears is the hypocrisy within Western liberal circles—they won't say a word when Scientology is making a fool of everyone, yet they'll jump to defend Islam in a heartbeat, purely because of the voting power...

Then again, I realize I don't actually care, since I live in a relatively homogeneous country, and if everything goes to hell, I'll just pack up and move to the States...

Right, because Christianity was spread by flocks of white doves scattering olive branches and droplets of holy water across the globe, wasn't it? ☕

restlesssurfer97 said:Nah, I can't go along with you there, ZZ. I really don't agree, because by that logic, even the hooligans who gather under the Atletico Madrid flag would count as some kind of "version" of religion. They just interpret football and their love for the club a bit differently, adding their own weird spin to it.

But let's not get carried away here, because I honestly can't keep up a debate about Atletico Madrid forever.

By the way, that speech from the fallen officer's brother? That's the answer for everyone pointing the finger at religion as the sole reason for what happened in Paris. What a moment 🙏🙏🙏

And just one more thing, ZZ, you seem to react most strongly to comments like 'they got what they deserved,' and that was pretty much the first thing you noticed.
For me, though, the things that really jumped out were the entries like 'all religious fanatics should be wiped out, skin them alive.'

I don't personally believe that Islam is inherently militant; after all, it holds many virtues, much like Christianity does. Ultimately, aren't they all drawn from the same well? However, the issue isn't found in hope or faith itself, but rather when certain organizations twist that very hope or belief into fear, weaponizing it to serve their own agendas. In that regard, I make a clear distinction between a genuine belief in God or Goodness and organized religion.

And, as I’ve pointed out before, I don't limit my definition of "religion" strictly to theistic faiths; I include any ideology designed to mold the human mindset for the sake of control—most notably extreme nationalist movements or toxic tribalism.

restlesssurfer97 said:Nah, I can't go along with you there, ZZ. I really don't agree, because by that logic, even the hooligans who gather under the Atletico Madrid flag would count as some kind of "version" of religion. They just interpret football and their love for the club a bit differently, adding their own weird spin to it.

But let's not get carried away here, because I honestly can't keep up a debate about Atletico Madrid forever.

By the way, that speech from the fallen officer's brother? That's the answer for everyone pointing the finger at religion as the sole reason for what happened in Paris. What a moment 🙏🙏🙏

And just one more thing, ZZ, you seem to react most strongly to comments like 'they got what they deserved,' and that was pretty much the first thing you noticed.
For me, though, the things that really jumped out were the entries like 'all religious fanatics should be wiped out, skin them alive.'

Of course I reacted to that, seeing as people were killed, regardless of who they were.

If religious fanatics had been killed solely because of their fanaticism, and someone actually said "they got what they deserved," then perhaps I would have challenged those specific claims.

Robin Fox2 said:I’m not suggesting science holds all the answers. We can tackle the simple stuff, certainly, but when it comes to the truly vital questions, we’re still wandering in the dark. Perhaps somewhere out there, someone actually is watching us, looking down and thinking, "you guys really blew it; this isn't at all what I had in mind when I designed you"...

And let’s be clear, no single theory regarding the origin of everything is set in stone. Nobody actually knows what transpired; we just have our most educated guesses about how it all went down, but certainty? Hardly. If we were truly certain—as certain as we are of the chemical composition of water—we wouldn't be having these debates in the first place 😁 I am perhaps the least religious person on the planet, and I would gladly structure my entire existence around scientific principles, but being told "it just appeared" feels just as hollow as hearing "God got bored and decided to create everything."

Of course it doesn't. If anything, the very essence of science is its admission that it lacks answers to the ultimate questions.

I find myself hoping that some higher intelligence exists, that goodness eventually finds its way back to those who do good, and that death isn't the final curtain call. But there is a distinction between hope and belief; I don't necessarily believe it, I simply hope for it.

Then there is a third, entirely separate matter: the sheer absurdity of organized religions that exploit hopes like mine, using vague narratives, empty promises, and veiled threats to maintain control over the masses.

I place my absolute, unwavering faith in nothing but Florentina, Christian, and Carl.

restlesssurfer97 said:Alright, let me take a step back here because maybe I’m just uneducated when it comes to religious stuff, but are you seriously suggesting that the Muslim faith or the Quran actually promotes killing people as a way to earn a happy afterlife?

When I speak of religion, I’m not just referring to the sanitized, official versions we see today; I mean every iteration we’ve encountered or might encounter in the real world. I’m talking about everything from militant Christianity to militant Islam to various nationalist religions. Many of these versions do indeed peddle the idea of a blissful afterlife as a prize for taking out one's enemies.

As for Christianity, if you simply look at the Old Testament, Yahweh behaves somewhat like Sauron toward his enemies—and honestly, even toward his own people if they fail to follow his commands.

Religions—specifically those darker iterations we are discussing—tend to strike low. They prey on people who are susceptible to them (and there are plenty) by instilling a deep-seated fear of divine retribution if one fails to live up to certain standards. At the same time, the moral guidelines provided by these faiths are often nearly impossible to maintain in daily life, which creates a feedback loop where fear and internal guilt constantly amplify one another. That is the foundational step: fostering self-dissatisfaction and terror. Sometimes, that alone is enough to trigger negative social phenomena, where people try to compensate for their inner turmoil through outward aggression—some feel the need to be more "holier than thou" by persecuting anyone deemed unconventional, whether it's the LGBTQ+ community, people living outside traditional norms, or political dissidents back home. But let's go further. Occasionally, when it suits religious leaders, divine punishment is seen to fall upon others for failing to conform, even if you’re just standing by watching. This breeds a fear of "the other," which is then compounded by the fear of God. When you add a bad economy or the anxieties of globalization as catalysts, you get the kind of escalation we see today. Neither a belief in science nor being a die-hard Atletico fan tends to trigger these kinds of irrational terrors, or a fear of one's neighbor based on something as monumental as eternal life.

restlesssurfer97 said:I mean, personally, I think blaming religion for what went down in Paris is pretty shallow if you ask me. It’s kind of like saying Atletico Madrid is responsible for that fan violence over in Madrid—just to use a comparison, but yeah, it's basically along those same lines.

That isn't quite right. You won't find anything in an official document or a statement from the leadership at Atletico Madrid suggesting that murdering a rival supporter guarantees a blessed afterlife, nor would they claim that the mere existence of opposing fans is so offensive to the Atletico doctrine that they must be eliminated.

restlesssurfer97 said:Honestly, once science reaches a point where it can actually prove whether or not God exists, then maybe we can start taking it seriously on this topic, but until that happens, they should probably just stick to studying dust particles and bosons.

So many scientific theories have been totally torn down throughout history that I honestly don't get how anyone can cling to scientific knowledge like it's some kind of absolute truth, and what I was saying in my previous post about nine-year-old Mohammed is just my take on how little we as a species actually know about the galaxy and, by extension, the core essence of everything.

Now, I really have no idea what you're getting at anymore. If we are discussing those who consider themselves "believers" in science, they typically don't follow a specific scientific doctrine blindly; rather, they put their faith in science as a continuous process of refining our understanding of the world. They allow it to evolve—which is usually the case, as those Copernican shifts you seem to be referencing are actually quite rare. Who exactly is clinging to the Big Bang theory like a drunkard? There are countless different iterations of it, each one rooted in some specific measurement or calculation. But at the end of the day, they are just theories, which is precisely why they carry that name; I haven't actually heard any proponent of these theories call someone an idiot or cast anathemas upon them just because they don't subscribe to their particular view.

Nobody is actually debating who holds the truth or whose convictions carry more weight. The real issue is that someone who finds solace in God, or Krishna, or some other deity, feels they have earned a greater right to be offended by mockery than someone who simply relies on science or common sense. If we were to encounter two fanatic atheists willing to drop a bomb on Vatican City just because their logic has been insulted over the centuries, I doubt we would see nearly as many "they got what they deserved" comments in the news cycles surrounding events like Charlie Hebdo coming from all sides.

Exactly. And what’s even more telling is that I am almost certain no one is ever going to storm the offices of a magazine just because they published this image, or decided to poke fun at some scientific theory in a different way. You won't see scientists pointing to posts like these and labeling them as hate speech or an abuse of free speech.

Yeah, I suppose that’s about the long and short of it...

Keith Miller30 said:Muhammad.

Of course you can't just go around slaughtering them, much like those extremists weren't allowed to do either. Honestly, I’m not quite sure why anyone would even ask a question like that in the first place?

Does Muhammad represent the core values of Islam? If we’re going to take such an expansive view, wouldn't you say that you—and I, and our entire culture—insult the people in ISIS simply by the way we live our lives? If someone were to come after you, would your final thought probably be that you practically invited it?

Keith Miller30 said:Muhammad.

Of course you can't just go around slaughtering them, much like those extremists weren't allowed to do either. Honestly, I’m not quite sure why anyone would even ask a question like that in the first place?

It's because on most right-wing sites—you know, the ones leaning toward the old-school, ultra-traditionalist crowd—there's this underlying subtext suggesting these people got exactly what they deserved, and that we shouldn't bother offering any support whatsoever.

Perhaps some people fail to realize that we aren't necessarily supporting specific content, but rather the principle that one should be free to speak without fearing for their life.

As Byron once pointed out quite eloquently, civilization truly began at the exact moment when someone decided to insult another person instead of simply cracking their skull open.