WaveCapsByOscorp™
2021 Grammy Award Winner
That’s one reason I like to consider space; all those other politics of our planet go out the window when you think about exploration. It becomes us versus nature but in a more survival manner
but arabs can and arabs aren't black, they're semite.
If its one thing I learned in my early years is that the universe is 100% even on both sides...
It can get infinitely larger the more you study...
It can get infinitely smaller the more you study...
The fact that even each human body (not even getting into plants, rocks etc) is a small universe unto itself is wondrous.
People talk shyt about comic books and sci-fi. But those things I think are more accurate than we give them credit for. Especially concepts like a "multiverse".
It can get infinitely larger the more you study...
It can get infinitely smaller the more you study...
The fact that even each human body (not even getting into plants, rocks etc) is a small universe unto itself is wondrous.
People talk shyt about comic books and sci-fi. But those things I think are more accurate than we give them credit for. Especially concepts like a "multiverse".
Striving For Greatness
Get Certs or Die Tryin
whats the point of all of this 
raoulduke187
All Star
bu...bu...but the Earth is flat
b..b...but there was a big boom
it's funny how they hate the concept of god yet they look at like Niel deGrasse Tyson as a god
They're a bunch of simpletons to put it frankly. They can't tell the difference between when a scientist is giving them pure facts and when he is philosophizing.
If you rely on popular science books like those that are authored by Tyson, Hawkins etc, and you think that they are giving you pure, unadulterated facts, then you are an idiot. Their job is to look at the data and then interpret it for you as a layman, which means that what they present to you will inevitably be impacted by their philosophical beliefs- beliefs that are unscientific, mind you. If you want unadulterated information, you go to scientific journals and you'll often find that the language is totally different.
The existence of God is not a scientific question. God, by definition, is not subject to the laws of physics and exists outside the realm of the natural world - which is the domain of science.
Science is not an ideology or a belief system. It's a set of tools that helps us make sense of the natural world. Full stop. That's all that it has ever been. Now, scientists, like all humans, have their own beliefs and values which are impacted by the dominant culture and its beliefs and worldviews.
When science was dominated by religious people, the scientists at the time would filter their findings through the lens of their philosophical beliefs. We now live in a secularized world that is dominated by materialists, i.e. people who believe that all existence = physical matter. That's their presupposition and the light in which they interpret their data.
When some other Civilization takes over after the inevitable decline of the West, they will infuse their own beliefs about the nature of existence, God etc. into science.. And the cycle will continue.
Last edited:
Materialists are a funny bunch 
If all that exists in nature is physical matter, then that means that human life has no intrinsic value, which makes all this talk about "human rights" a complete fraud. Why is a human more valuable than a plant or a chair? At a very basic level, they've made of the exact same components
There are so many inconsistencies in their beliefs.
The concept of the sacredness of human life is a religious concept which is rooted in belief in the Divine Reality.
Most atheists are dishonest with themselves and are not comfortable with the ultimate implications of their belief system.
Same thing when it comes to morality. You cannot be an atheist and believe that objective morality exists. Atheist philosophers who are honest with themselves, like professor Peter Slezak, will say flat out that there is no objective morality and that morality is based on utilitarianism.
So stealing is not immoral in and of itself. It's immoral because we have all agreed that it's immoral to steal because it has a negative impacts on the collective.. Obviously this raises some serious questions.
If all that exists in nature is physical matter, then that means that human life has no intrinsic value, which makes all this talk about "human rights" a complete fraud. Why is a human more valuable than a plant or a chair? At a very basic level, they've made of the exact same components
There are so many inconsistencies in their beliefs.
The concept of the sacredness of human life is a religious concept which is rooted in belief in the Divine Reality.
Most atheists are dishonest with themselves and are not comfortable with the ultimate implications of their belief system.
Same thing when it comes to morality. You cannot be an atheist and believe that objective morality exists. Atheist philosophers who are honest with themselves, like professor Peter Slezak, will say flat out that there is no objective morality and that morality is based on utilitarianism.
So stealing is not immoral in and of itself. It's immoral because we have all agreed that it's immoral to steal because it has a negative impacts on the collective.. Obviously this raises some serious questions.
billions of galaxies and some of these fool want to acknowledge we are alone smh
I don't get the condescending tone of some poster in response to a poster looking at such a fascinating thing and having a feeling - small or large - that it is too magnificent not to be a designer.
I could understand an atheist breh hearing someone marvel at the beauty and thinking there most be some purpose to us and then doing the
and saying "I can actually understand but I disagree."
I mean, shyt, I constantly go back and forth about what all of this shyt means -whether it be nothing or actually real purpose - because the unknown is that fascinating.
To my brehs who don't believe there is any design behind it and are people who go through their life being honest and kind people - PROPS for not thinking there is an eternal judgment and still being good people.
To my brehs who look at things like love, child birth, sex, universe and the complexity of humanity and wonder about the meaning of it all - PROPS for not being so superficial that you're willing to try to seek understanding about the unknown.
And for the brehs who SALIVATE to be passive aggressive or down right disrespectful to brehs who sometimes think it reasonable that there is purpose - I hope it's not just a projection of your fear that the secrets or internal shame about some shyt being judged isn't self-imposed clouding your perspective.
I could understand an atheist breh hearing someone marvel at the beauty and thinking there most be some purpose to us and then doing the
and saying "I can actually understand but I disagree."I mean, shyt, I constantly go back and forth about what all of this shyt means -whether it be nothing or actually real purpose - because the unknown is that fascinating.
To my brehs who don't believe there is any design behind it and are people who go through their life being honest and kind people - PROPS for not thinking there is an eternal judgment and still being good people.
To my brehs who look at things like love, child birth, sex, universe and the complexity of humanity and wonder about the meaning of it all - PROPS for not being so superficial that you're willing to try to seek understanding about the unknown.
And for the brehs who SALIVATE to be passive aggressive or down right disrespectful to brehs who sometimes think it reasonable that there is purpose - I hope it's not just a projection of your fear that the secrets or internal shame about some shyt being judged isn't self-imposed clouding your perspective.
The way it all zoomed out made it feel like our galaxy is just a micro micro micro organism to a larger creature.
What if our "universe" is just one cell in a much larger being?
The way that shyt zoomed out still has me shook
What if our "universe" is just one cell in a much larger being?
The way that shyt zoomed out still has me shook
They're a bunch of simpletons to put it frankly. They can't tell the difference between when a scientist is giving them pure facts and when he is philosophizing.
If you rely on popular science books like those that are authored by Tyson, Hawkins etc, and you think that they are giving you pure, unadulterated facts, then you are an idiot. Their job is to look at the data and then interpret it for you as a layman, which means that what they present to you will inevitably be impacted by their philosophical beliefs- beliefs that are unscientific, mind you. If you want unadulterated information, you go to scientific journals and you'll often find that the language is totally different.
The existence of God is not a scientific question. God, by definition, is not subject to the laws of physics and exists outside the realm of the natural world - which is the domain of science.
Science is not an ideology or a belief system. It's a set of tools that helps us make sense of the natural world. Full stop. That's all that it has ever been. Now, scientists, like all humans, have their own beliefs and values which are impacted by the dominant culture and its beliefs and worldviews.
When science was dominated by religious people, the scientists at the time would filter their findings through the lens of their philosophical beliefs. We now live in a secularized world that is dominated by materialists, i.e. people who believe that all existence = physical matter. That's their presupposition and the light in which they interpret their data.
When some other Civilization takes over after the inevitable decline of the West, they will infuse their own beliefs about the nature of existence, God etc. into science.. And the cycle will continue.
prolific posting. kind of what i try to say but can't put the words together.
And this is coming from an agnostic
GREAT fukkING POST. WOWThey're a bunch of simpletons to put it frankly. They can't tell the difference between when a scientist is giving them pure facts and when he is philosophizing.
If you rely on popular science books like those that are authored by Tyson, Hawkins etc, and you think that they are giving you pure, unadulterated facts, then you are an idiot. Their job is to look at the data and then interpret it for you as a layman, which means that what they present to you will inevitably be impacted by their philosophical beliefs- beliefs that are unscientific, mind you. If you want unadulterated information, you go to scientific journals and you'll often find that the language is totally different.
The existence of God is not a scientific question. God, by definition, is not subject to the laws of physics and exists outside the realm of the natural world - which is the domain of science.
Science is not an ideology or a belief system. It's a set of tools that helps us make sense of the natural world. Full stop. That's all that it has ever been. Now, scientists, like all humans, have their own beliefs and values which are impacted by the dominant culture and its beliefs and worldviews.
When science was dominated by religious people, the scientists at the time would filter their findings through the lens of their philosophical beliefs. We now live in a secularized world that is dominated by materialists, i.e. people who believe that all existence = physical matter. That's their presupposition and the light in which they interpret their data.
When some other Civilization takes over after the inevitable decline of the West, they will infuse their own beliefs about the nature of existence, God etc. into science.. And the cycle will continue.
I just found out a black man, a college physicist, claimed he has created a time machine
