Amber rose says she no longer believes in God… there’s just too many questions

[Tair]

Be anti-science on a platform that literally only exists due to science brehs.
Question the science as a scientific illiterate but don't question your own narratives brehs.
Don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory brehs.
Deny we went to the moon brehs.
Be a flat earther in 2022 brehs.

Be dumber than your ancestors brehs.

The only person who is scientifically illiterate is you.

Show me where belief shows itself up in the scientific method

Steps of the Scientific Method

This project guide provides a detailed introduction to the steps of the scientific method.

www.sciencebuddies.org

We, or at least myself, learned this as kids.

I am not anti-science because I know belief isn't a function of science nor does it require belief. Science is a method of observation and investigation, belief plays no role in it and should never play a role in it. That is why people who say "I believe in science" only show they don't even know what it (science) is and are prone to believe in anything with the "backed by science" label attached to it.

 

[King_Kamala61]

Agreed, but @Everythingg will suggest that your idea of what was primitive technology, compared to what we have now, is actually wrong. It was their technology back then that was actually the most advanced in human history, the elite have just hoarded most of the information from us, and as a result, what we have now is from them trickling down little bits of that technology over time. None of those are statements or claims btw, he is just asking questions.

Some people look at man made objects as if it came from gods..but no...just artistic men and women.

I dont blame non artists tho...they do look at our work in astonishment.

I recently sold 4 pieces to a future HOFer RB in the NFL. And Im sitting in "awe" that I have a high value client and he in "Awe" about my paintings.

We both telling each other that we great. Its peculiar to see two geniuses having a conversation about their genius lol

 

[Th3Birdman]

The only person who is scientifically illiterate is you.

Show me where belief shows itself up in the scientific method

Steps of the Scientific Method

This project guide provides a detailed introduction to the steps of the scientific method.

www.sciencebuddies.org

We, or at least myself, learned this as kids.

I am not anti-science because I know belief isn't a function of science nor does it require belief. Science is a method of observation and investigation, belief plays no role in it and should never play a role in it. That is why people who say "I believe in science" only show they don't even know what it (science) is and are prone to believe in anything with the "backed by science" label attached to it.

Nikka, who are you talking to?

You sure you quoted the right person? Why are you trying to educate me on the scientific method?

 

[Reflected]

First you deflected to intelligence levels. Then you tried to deflect to the flat earth. Now you’re demanding a source for skepticism


A skeptic is someone that doubts the truth of something. Now you’re mad because I refuse to play your game of “give a source to your skepticism” just so you can deflect some more. You’ve done everything EXCEPT address the reasons I gave to my skepticism.

Your arms aren’t long enough my guy. Go hit the weight room

Bro, if you had evidence, you would post it. I think you do, but you are afraid of the ciritism. Look, I don't care for changing your mind, changing the mind of an individual is a fruitless endeavour, my only intention at this point, since you won't provide evidence, is to make you look as foolish as possible. I mean, me asking for evidence was a trap as well, you either didn't post it and look like a loon or you post it and I ridicule it too hell and back. So if put to a poll, I'm sure most would overwhelming see you as the loon that you are. And I'm fine with that, that's the beauty of rhetoric, it doesn't really matter what you think, if you can't convince others to think the same.


But I see you are now doubling up on the emotes to depict "mad" and "laughing", I take an objectivist approach to human behavior, and I would say based on how this discussion has evolved, that you aren't too happy with the outcome. So I will also take a point there as well.

But I will leave you to your devices, it was fun in the last bit of this.

 

[Tair]

Nikka, who are you talking to?

You sure you quoted the right person? Why are you trying to educate me on the scientific method?

because you negged me saying I was "anti-science while using a phone" for saying, "people who say, 'I believe in science' are silly".

 

[Reflected]

Some people look at man made objects as if it came from gods..but no...just artistic men and women.

I dont blame non artists tho...they do look at our work in astonishment.

I recently sold 4 pieces to a future HOFer RB in the NFL. And Im sitting in "awe" that I have a high value client and he in "Awe" about my paintings.

We both telling each other that we great. Its peculiar to see two geniuses having a conversation about their genius lol

Grats, and that was what I initiated with, that people look at things in awe when they don't understand it but if they put in the work to understand, they would most likely realize how silly it was to initially approach it in such a manner. Not diminishing skill or talent, but just that a lot of people really sell themselves short, sadly, and I think that due to focus on producing workers, as opposed to giving every human the opportunity to have many open pathways for they choosing, and maybe some don't care for that, sure, but it should always be an option for them.

 

[Th3Birdman]

because you negged me saying I was "anti-science while using a phone" for saying, "people who say, 'I believe in science' are silly".

You got negged for being anti-science, because you are. I don't give a fukk why you said what you said-- nikkas on this site are illiterate and don't know what they mean by saying "I believe". What they're actually saying is "I trust", because that is what science has earned as it has a nearly immaculate track record.

You know this, and you're preying on this illiteracy as a way to dap fish.

Trust me, this is not the type of smoke you want.

 

[Everythingg]

You have to understand convex and concave and chiroscura and how an object can hold light....plus sanding etc etc.

Yea bruh there’s an obvious difference between painting and sculpting.

I mean technically they used technology to create the Venus DeMilo and the Pyramids....its all technology...its just not our "advanced" technology.

And going by what they built they had something more than we’re led to believe. What has been built in the last 100 years that compares to these:

 

[Tair]

You got negged for being anti-science, because you are. I don't give a fukk why you said what you said-- nikkas on this site are illiterate and don't know what they mean by saying "I believe". What they're actually saying is "I trust", because that is what science has earned as it has a nearly immaculate track record.

You know this, and you're preying on this illiteracy as a way to dap fish.

Trust me, this is not the type of smoke you want.

I don't trust you, and I don't care what "smoke" you think you have.

I wasn't trying to dap-fish either. I know what I am talking about unlike you and many others.

 

[Reflected]

because you negged me saying I was "anti-science while using a phone" for saying, "people who say, 'I believe in science' are silly".

I would have to go back but I think that discussion, which I was skimming through, just got off on the wrong foot. I would say you can both believe in science but also find it "silly" to believe in it. And the only reason I say that, is because "belief" at least in philosophy is such a complex idea that anyone engaging in a discussion about "belief" should define the term before proceeding. I don't even think most of you guys disagree on anything major, just came in with different definitions, I won't say understanding, because as I mentioned earlier, there are different approaches to that idea.

For example:

Belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

I actually don't even engage in it because it can spiral out of control. Most recently, in agnostic and atheist circles, there was huge debate, entirely centered around the term and it actually led to a huge falling out, it's still a hot topic to this day. So some people will take a hard stance on belief requiring a "know" and some people will say you can never have a "know" so belief is valid without it, and so on and so forth. It's pretty insane.

 

[Everythingg]

Some people look at man made objects as if it came from gods..but no...just artistic men and women.

I dont blame non artists tho...they do look at our work in astonishment.

I recently sold 4 pieces to a future HOFer RB in the NFL. And Im sitting in "awe" that I have a high value client and he in "Awe" about my paintings.

We both telling each other that we great. Its peculiar to see two geniuses having a conversation about their genius lol

Umm cut the cap

I never said anything about these coming from anybody but humans. What I said was that they’re not built by humans with no technology. And if they were then they CLEARLY have a better understanding than what is around today to have the ability to build things that stand until this day in a quality higher than what we see today.

Hammer, chisel, and hand sanding isn’t doing this.

 

[Th3Birdman]

I wasn't trying to dap-fish either. I know what I am talking about unlike you and many others.

Actually you don't.

You quoted me trying to explain to me the scientific method. Breh, I've done actual science, in actual labs. I minored in evolutionary biology, and the ONLY reason I didn't get my degree in that is because I fell in love with Japanese, so I got a Masters in that. I did all the coursework for a B.S., and even prepared a dissertation on the evolution of fruit flies, a species we have actually witnessed evolution in.

Unlike a lot of the cats you interact with on this site, I've actually done this coursework, and will bury you in evidence for everything I speak on.

You should stop while I'm preoccupied elsewhere. You really don't want my attention.

 

[Juggalo Fred]

She must have listened to this song

 

[Tair]

I would have to go back but I think that discussion, which I was skimming through, just got off on the wrong foot. I would say you can both believe in science but also find it "silly" to believe in it. And the only reason I say that, is because "belief" at least in philosophy is such a complex idea that anyone engaging in a discussion about "belief" should define the term before proceeding. I don't even think most of you guys disagree on anything major, just came in with different definitions, I won't say understanding, because as I mentioned earlier, there are different approaches to that idea.

For example:

Belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

I actually don't even engage in it because it can spiral out of control. Most recently, in agnostic and atheist circles, there was huge debate, entirely centered around the term and it actually led to a huge falling out, it's still a hot topic to this day. So some people will take a hard stance on belief requiring a "know" and some people will say you can never have a "know" so belief is valid without it, and so on and so forth. It's pretty insane.

When people say "I believe in science" they believe someone's word/conclusion generally. They are giving authority to a person whose work/conclusions they don't know all too well and just accept it as being true when it may not be. That is what those in that "I believe in science" cohort are actually saying. "I believe in Sandra the scientist and whatever she says," "I believe in Mark the scientist and whatever he says", etc... They don't actually engage in the work. They just trust someone else's word.

There is a reason why the Royal Society lives by the code:

Nullius in verba

which means, "take no one's word for it."

When anyone says, "I believe in the science" they are usually, if not all the time, taking someone's word for it.

Actually you don't.

You quoted me trying to explain to me the scientific method. Breh, I've done actual science, in actual labs. I minored in evolutionary biology, and the ONLY reason I didn't get my degree in that is because I fell in love with Japanese, so I got a Masters in that. I did all the coursework for a B.S., and even prepared a dissertation on the evolution of fruit flies, a species we have actually witnessed evolution in.

Unlike a lot of the cats you interact with on this site, I've actually done this coursework, and will bury you in evidence for everything I speak on.

You should stop while I'm preoccupied elsewhere. You really don't want my attention.

You keep playing with your drosophila flies.

 

[Th3Birdman]

You keep playing with your drosophila flies.

Exactly. Let's keep it on this level.