Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

steelharbor9 said:I mean, who even talks about scientific proof for something that is inherently unprovable? It feels just as silly and pointless as my earlier point about the plaid rabbit. (But honestly, it’s exactly the same because you can't prove it and you can't disprove it either.)

Exactly. As a college student, it actually kind of trips me out to see how many of my classmates take religious studies classes from that one caricature of a professor—you know, the one who claimed women can't get pregnant from assault. Man, hey, it's their choice and I respect it enough to just never bring it up.

BUT, in a stereotyped world like the one we live in—if I were to tell them that what they do "in their free time" has nothing to do with using their brains, they'd probably claim I'm spreading hate or infringing on their freedoms.

If they said something to me about my lack of belief, I guess that would be fine, because, man, I don't have any "sacred cows" that are off-limits, which is a pretty absurd concept anyway...

(I'm just talking about general society here; I'm sure my actual friends are way smarter than the stereotypical characters I'm using, based on how long I've known them.)

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.

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.

Are you just missing some basic facts here, or are you just trolling again? Like, as usual.

Science is never going to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God, because by definition, it's just not something that can be proven or disproven. It’s just how it works, I suppose.

As for all those philosophical ramblings about the origin of everything—well, let's just leave that to the people who love talking in circles without saying anything at all. I mean, is our little back-and-forth on a message board really what counts as "science" or the "meaning of life"? Maybe not.

Scientific achievements are absolutely massive, and the potential is basically limitless. Trying to say otherwise feels almost silly, if you ask me.

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.

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.

It’s not religion that’s at fault here; it’s the people using it as a tool—you know, those folks who manipulate young, gullible people into doing terrible things in the name of faith.

steelharbor9 said:Are you just missing some basic facts here, or are you just trolling again? Like, as usual.

Science is never going to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God, because by definition, it's just not something that can be proven or disproven. It’s just how it works, I suppose.

As for all those philosophical ramblings about the origin of everything—well, let's just leave that to the people who love talking in circles without saying anything at all. I mean, is our little back-and-forth on a message board really what counts as "science" or the "meaning of life"? Maybe not.

Scientific achievements are absolutely massive, and the potential is basically limitless. Trying to say otherwise feels almost silly, if you ask me.

Look, I’m not even trolling, it’s just that you’re acting like some kind of religious fanatic who can’t actually wrap their head around my Enrollment posts because you aren't reading them with any actual comprehension.
The way you're talking, you basically sound like a potential terrorist, and honestly, you're lucky life didn't take you down a path where you end up radicalizing young Americans. 😂

Science is never going to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God because, by its very definition, it’s unprovable and impossible to debunk.

Are you actually going to let that word "NEVER" stay there, or can we swap it out for "TODAY" or maybe "FOR NOW," or are you just going to cling to your incredibly narrow worldview forever?
That’s really the heart of the whole thing.

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.

brightpilot6 said: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.

Look, I’ve been sticking to my guns since LeGriffi’s very first Enrollment when he started trying to lean on scientific evidence to prove that God exists.

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.

brightpilot6 said: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.

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?

restlesssurfer97 said:Look, I’m not even trolling, it’s just that you’re acting like some kind of religious fanatic who can’t actually wrap their head around my Enrollment posts because you aren't reading them with any actual comprehension.
The way you're talking, you basically sound like a potential terrorist, and honestly, you're lucky life didn't take you down a path where you end up radicalizing young Americans. 😂

Science is never going to be able to prove or disprove the existence of God because, by its very definition, it’s unprovable and impossible to debunk.

Are you actually going to let that word "NEVER" stay there, or can we swap it out for "TODAY" or maybe "FOR NOW," or are you just going to cling to your incredibly narrow worldview forever?
That’s really the heart of the whole thing.

I just can't get behind that. We're talking about things that, by their very damn definition, are impossible to prove or disprove. And guess what? They’re never going to be proven or disproven. I'm not even talking about who created the world here—I'm just talking about whether God exists.

There are plenty of well-accepted theories about how the world began that actually have solid foundations. Honestly, they're all way more grounded and sensible than that total nonsense about the seven-day thing. I guess most people agree on that, maybe?

You might think you've got the whole world figured out, but if you honestly believe you can prove God exists, you're probably off base. I mean, you can look at the big picture as much as you want, but I guess it just doesn't work that way. Maybe.

restlesssurfer97 said:Look, I’ve been sticking to my guns since LeGriffi’s very first Enrollment when he started trying to lean on scientific evidence to prove that God exists.

And which one of those am I absolutely never claiming to be—since, you know, that's just impossible—but how many times do I have to bring that up? I guess it's becoming a bit of a broken record, maybe.

You went and threw science into some crazy context that neither ZZ nor I were even talking about. I guess maybe you just felt like it? Just seems a bit out of left field to me!

steelharbor9 said:I guess it's because, among other things, scientists actually get that critical thinking isn't hate speech. Other people... well, they never really understood that, and I don't think they ever will.

Could you clarify who you mean by "everyone else"? Are you referring to all believers, or strictly those extremists and fanatics? A believer who truly understands their faith would never find themselves at odds with critical thinking, wouldn't they?

Patrick Martin said:KKK

And here comes Rakar. ☕

steelharbor9 said:I just can't get behind that. We're talking about things that, by their very damn definition, are impossible to prove or disprove. And guess what? They’re never going to be proven or disproven. I'm not even talking about who created the world here—I'm just talking about whether God exists.

There are plenty of well-accepted theories about how the world began that actually have solid foundations. Honestly, they're all way more grounded and sensible than that total nonsense about the seven-day thing. I guess most people agree on that, maybe?

You might think you've got the whole world figured out, but if you honestly believe you can prove God exists, you're probably off base. I mean, you can look at the big picture as much as you want, but I guess it just doesn't work that way. Maybe.

And which one of those am I absolutely never claiming to be—since, you know, that's just impossible—but how many times do I have to bring that up? I guess it's becoming a bit of a broken record, maybe.

You went and threw science into some crazy context that neither ZZ nor I were even talking about. I guess maybe you just felt like it? Just seems a bit out of left field to me!

Alright.

There are plenty of widely accepted theories about how the world started that actually have solid foundations, and honestly, all of them are way more grounded and backed by actual evidence than that total nonsense about the seven-day thing.

Great.

You might think you're being super open-minded, but if you actually believe the existence of God can be proven, you're just plain wrong. So go ahead and look at the big picture as much as you want.

Fine.

How can we even talk about evidence when you clearly don't even know what that means? I guess I forget from time to time that some debates are just straight-up tilting at windmills. You can try to explain things as much as you want, but if it just won't sink in for someone else, there's really nothing you can do...

Keith Miller30 said:Could you clarify who you mean by "everyone else"? Are you referring to all believers, or strictly those extremists and fanatics? A believer who truly understands their faith would never find themselves at odds with critical thinking, wouldn't they?

And here comes Rakar. ☕

The fanatics and the people who just refuse to accept anything different, obviously.

restlesssurfer97 said:So, basically, the slaughter of an editorial staff is the fundamental divide between science and religion; honestly, this feels totally fresh, maybe even revolutionary if you ask me.

Look, people, there’s always this constant, nagging argument about some kind of 'scientific proof' for the existence of God.
Like, what scientific proof are we even talking about here? Give me a break.
Humans stepped foot on the Moon once—and even that's debatable—and we haven't really ventured anywhere else outside our beautiful little planet. So, based on that, are we seriously supposed to just trust some scientific explanation for how the entire galaxy came to be?
Please, let me just laugh at that out loud.

I mean, I truly believe that little Mohammed, who was born in Iraq nine years ago and finished his first three years of elementary school—two of which were spent under ISIS—that kid probably has a better shot at understanding what's actually happening on this planet than some highly educated scientist has of grasping what's going on in our galaxy.
There is zero doubt about that, and if anyone thinks otherwise, they're just incredibly narrow-minded in my book.

And no, I'm not trying to compare religion and science, but this whole thing about 'scientific' proof for God's existence? Come on, please.

The issue with you is that one can never tell whether you are being serious or just trolling. 😁 Still, I find myself agreeing with you. ☕

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.

steelharbor9 said:How can we even talk about evidence when you clearly don't even know what that means? I guess I forget from time to time that some debates are just straight-up tilting at windmills. You can try to explain things as much as you want, but if it just won't sink in for someone else, there's really nothing you can do...

The fanatics and the people who just refuse to accept anything different, obviously.

Alright, so we've categorized the fanatics. But could you perhaps clarify what you mean by "those others"? In what specific context are you thinking? After all, isn't it entirely possible for an atheist to be just as closed-minded toward different perspectives?

Yeah, I actually dig that whole confession thing. Like, you're being totally honest and all. And then, I guess, right at the start, you say something like, "I decide to turn my life around and stop sinning," but then you look at the schedule and see your next absolution is in, I don't know, two weeks.

Honestly, what kind of logic is that? 🤣

It’s like some guy pulling up in a Mercedes tells you everything you messed up is forgiven as long as you pray for X amount of hours and follow Y healthy lifestyle plan. To me, it’s just straight-up hilarious. People can call me a hater if they want, but that's just how it looks to me.

Keith Miller30 said:Alright, so we've categorized the fanatics. But could you perhaps clarify what you mean by "those others"? In what specific context are you thinking? After all, isn't it entirely possible for an atheist to be just as closed-minded toward different perspectives?

I mean, it’s pretty obvious we can't label an entire population based on one single trait, right? I was just building on ZZ's point about scientists—and yeah, sure, maybe there’s a tiny fraction of a percent of scientists out there who are actually fascists in their free time. It happens, I guess.

From what I’ve seen, most scientists don't really struggle with accepting other people's traits, and they don't feel like diversity is some huge threat to their own identity or anything.

Take religious fanatics, for example. To them, the LGBTQ+ community is a problem because it challenges their idea of a "sacred" family. Their version of it, anyway. And yeah, obviously there are some scientists out there who feel the exact same way—believe it or not, every single one of them I've ever met would definitely fall into that fanatic category.

Of course it’s ridiculous and totally absurd, but look, we’re all about being tolerant here and nobody’s out to mock anyone, as long as people aren't constantly shoving it down our throats. ☕

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."