Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

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. ☕

Walter Grant5 said:Well, that point matters because our worldview is built on the info we have and how we process it. Cut off from information, you get narrow views and zero room to think.

The fact remains: you can't prove God through science. Having access to that reality helps actual believers, not religious fanatics with bad output. Extremism always breeds its own opposite. It’s a cycle. When an organism absorbs the good stuff from food, all that's left is crap to be flushed away.

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.

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.

brightpilot6 said: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.

But seriously, why wouldn't you use it in love too? Especially Science—I mean, goodness knows if we actually used logic there, pro athletes wouldn't be out there constantly messing around with supermodels.😂

restlesssurfer97 said:But seriously, why wouldn't you use it in love too? Especially Science—I mean, goodness knows if we actually used logic there, pro athletes wouldn't be out there constantly messing around with supermodels.😂

You're wasting your breath trying to find a logical answer to that one. 🐔

ruggedjackal46 said:You're wasting your breath trying to find a logical answer to that one. 🐔

Look, if your heart is actually broken, you don't go to a philosopher, you go see a cardiologist. 🐔

If you’re feeling butterflies in your stomach, you might want to skip the date and head straight to the coroner instead 🐔

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science (from the Greek episteme—understanding, knowledge, study; Latin scientia; English science; German Wissenschaft) is an organized system of total human knowledge gained by observing processes and phenomena in nature and society, processed through rational, scientifically accepted methods.

The thing is, Science tackles the whole God issue through philosophy, theology, and whatnot. Then you’ve got the believers who claim God’s existence is a necessity. That’s where the paradox hits, because if you go that route, the whole concept of faith loses its point.

Processes food and tosses the waste. Same thing happens on a macro level in sociology. You just gotta know how to store the waste instead of messing around with every little thing.

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

Science literally hasn't a clue 🤣

restlesssurfer9, the absolute king of sit-down comedy.

Walter Grant5 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science (from the Greek episteme—understanding, knowledge, study; Latin scientia; English science; German Wissenschaft) is an organized system of total human knowledge gained by observing processes and phenomena in nature and society, processed through rational, scientifically accepted methods.

The thing is, Science tackles the whole God issue through philosophy, theology, and whatnot. Then you’ve got the believers who claim God’s existence is a necessity. That’s where the paradox hits, because if you go that route, the whole concept of faith loses its point.

Processes food and tosses the waste. Same thing happens on a macro level in sociology. You just gotta know how to store the waste instead of messing around with every little thing.

Well, yeah, it's a necessity—because honestly, the odds of us even making it this far without it are basically zero.

Believing in some kind of higher power—anything beyond what we can touch or measure with basic science—is just hardwired into being human.

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? 🐔

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? 🐔

No. Why even ask when you already know the answer... 🤔

Larry Fox5 said:No. Why even ask when you already know the answer... 🤔

I mean, honestly, everything deserves a second look if you really think about it. A quiz? It's just Klopp. Klopp, Klopp, Klopp.

Larry Fox5 said:Well, yeah, it's a necessity—because honestly, the odds of us even making it this far without it are basically zero.

Believing in some kind of higher power—anything beyond what we can touch or measure with basic science—is just hardwired into being human.

But let's call it what it is: faith. It's wanting something to be true. Until there's actual proof, we don't treat it as fact. Just because needing something is part of being human doesn't mean it's reality.

Look, faith is fine. Everyone believes in something. Everyone does stuff thinking they'll reap the rewards later. The problem starts when those "rewards" involve stepping on other people's lives.

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? 🐔

If you want a real example of how behind the curve we are, look at the umbrella. Seriously, is that useless piece of junk really the best Science can come up with to protect an individual from the rain?

Larry Fox5 said:Well, yeah, it's a necessity—because honestly, the odds of us even making it this far without it are basically zero.

Believing in some kind of higher power—anything beyond what we can touch or measure with basic science—is just hardwired into being human.

Something is "necessary" when there’s no real alternative, not just when options are slim.

Plus, believing in something doesn't actually prove that thing exists.

And let's be real: even if something is "beyond," we still process it through our own biological hardware. Makes arguing about what lies outside the physical realm pretty much impossible.

There are people who don't believe in transcendence, but you'd still need some real-world example to explain what you mean. Are dreams transcendent? What about love?

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.

brightpilot6 said: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.

Take it easy. 😂

I don't see what religion has to do with my post, because obviously, I'm using everything that modern Science provides us.

btw, ruggedjackal46 with his umbrella gave a pretty great example there, like, is the umbrella the new big tech innovation or something??

brightpilot6 said: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. ☕

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

If you’re referring to me—since we were just speaking yesterday—then I have to say, I think you might be mistaken. However, if your comment was intended for someone else entirely, then I suppose there isn't much more to be said.

ruggedjackal46 said:To me, this doesn't even feel like some grand conspiracy theory; it feels more like 🤦 people who couldn't have cared less about the publication when things were normal, suddenly finding themselves obsessed with the contents because a couple of absolute psychos decided to storm the editorial office.

Aren't we all a bit different from one another? ☕ I felt the exact same way, honestly—just living with that nagging discomfort for ages without really giving it much thought, until it finally reached a breaking point. It wasn't until things actually shifted that I found myself sitting down at my computer, searching Google to get a better handle on what was actually going on. ☕