Religion/Spirituality Atheism and the black community...good read

[intilectual recipricol]

answer my question and i shall reply

I dont have the answer whether or not you can see it with the naked eye. My guess is that you can, but need to recognize that it is what you are seeing. By charting the differences in the night sky over time, you are likely witnessing the expanding universe.

As stated before, can you see oxygen molecules with your naked eye?

 

[daze23]

I hate when people give me shyt for dapping a post btw. Just because I dap a post doesn't mean I co-sign every word of it exactly. Just a pet peeve.

I saw BarNone dap this post

http://www.the-coli.com/higher-lear...ld-have-studied-bible-first.html#.UWQ6OJNY7h4

and then close the thread

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

I saw BarNone dap this post

http://www.the-coli.com/higher-lear...ld-have-studied-bible-first.html#.UWQ6OJNY7h4

and then close the thread

it really boggles my mind how that retarded picture got so many daps. Especially when it is factually wrong on most of the shyt it claims.

 

[daze23]

Do you see the universe expanding with your own eyes?

sure, with the help of a telescope

 

[The Real]

I saw BarNone dap this post

http://www.the-coli.com/higher-lear...ld-have-studied-bible-first.html#.UWQ6OJNY7h4

and then close the thread

@BarNone def took an L for dapping that abysmal post, but it happens to all of us. Maybe he only endorsed the 5% of it that was true.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

@BarNone def took an L for dapping that abysmal post, but it happens to all of us. Maybe he only endorsed the 5% of it that was true.

being a little generous there breh

 

[daze23]

@BarNone def took an L for dapping that abysmal post, but it happens to all of us. Maybe he only endorsed the 5% of it that was true.

that thread went a little deeper than the OP, with the "these guys" comment

 

[No1]

@BarNone def took an L for dapping that abysmal post, but it happens to all of us. Maybe he only endorsed the 5% of it that was true.

Nah, I thought it was a joke thread breh. I thought it was satire and then I saw people taking it seriously and had no choice but to leave the dap there

 

[Slang]

I dont have the answer whether or not you can see it with the naked eye. My guess is that you can, but need to recognize that it is what you are seeing. By charting the differences in the night sky over time, you are likely witnessing the expanding universe.

As stated before, can you see oxygen molecules with your naked eye?

You believe so because you were told so, not with any evidence or living proof.

No person has seen an oxygen molecule, only a theoretical models.

 

[daze23]

You believe so because you were told so, not with any evidence or living proof.

No person has seen an oxygen molecule, only a theoretical models.

I've seen a brick and a feather drop at the same speed in a vacuum

 

[No1]

That is simply not true and I know it isn't for a fact because I am one of the people who was converted by hearing the arguments of strident, bombastic atheists/agnostics. I was outraged and offended at first, but eventually I had to give in after some thought because the facts and logic was on their side. That might be the reason I was the way I was on the old site. I have even seen message board posters go from being offended by nonreligious folks to becoming nonreligious themselves.

In fact I think the sledgehammer approach is more effective than the carefully-worded, diplomatic "we must respect beliefs" approach. Richard Dawkins' the God delusion made more people shed their religion than any tip-toeing "I'm not religious I'm spiritual" type ever could.

You are incorrect. Let's take away by "no one ever" for a second. You would struggle greatly against anyone with any level of aptitude for research if you tried to take the position you're taking in arguing that the bombastic approach is more effective historically. You guys conflate being assertive with being a douchebag and that's the point you guys keep missing. I go hard at people's heads at times because certain situations call for it, but it never involves calling them an idiot. The only way the stance you're taking can many any sort of sense or have any sort of current or historical bearing is if you assume what I'm saying is akin to the CNN habit of pretending everyone is making an equally reasonable point or that we should let people make arguments unabated.

If we really sat down, tossed out our collective anecdotes (and I've got more than most people) and did a historical analysis and a positive analysis, the weight of history and the present are both greatly on my side in educated societies. The only thing more effective is brutally imposing your belief upon others. As someone who watches government and how messages have to be communicated and how coalitions are built you know this.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

You are incorrect. Let's take away by "no one ever" for a second. You would struggle greatly against anyone with any level of aptitude for research if you tried to take the position you're taking in arguing that the bombastic approach is more effective historically. You guys conflate being assertive with being a douchebag and that's the point you guys keep missing. I go hard at people's heads at times because certain situations call for it, but it never involves calling them an idiot. The only way the stance you're taking can many any sort of sense or have any sort of current or historical bearing is if you assume what I'm saying is akin to the CNN habit of pretending everyone is making an equally reasonable point or that we should let people make arguments unabated.

If we really sat down, tossed out our collective anecdotes (and I've got more than most people) and did a historical analysis and a positive analysis, the weight of history and the present are both greatly on my side in educated societies. The only thing more effective is brutally imposing your belief upon others. As someone who watches government and how messages have to be communicated and how coalitions are built you know this.

You couldn't be more off base with this post. You are making some generalizations that don't even apply to what we're talking about. And the evidence is on my side, not yours. But I'm busy right now, so I'll explain why when I have more time later.

 

[Blackout]

Agnosticism >>>> Atheism

 

[No1]

You couldn't be more off base with this post. You are making some generalizations that don't even apply to what we're talking about. And the evidence is on my side, not yours. I'll explain why when I have more time later.

No, I'm not remotely close to being off base (though the site lagged and cut of my message). But save yourself the trouble, on a serious note. You can find any outlier you want and try to string them all together, but the weight of evidence historically and in the present is on my side. But quite frankly if I actually do show you why you're wrong, it would be like writing an essay and I mean an ACTUAL essay. Needless to say the approach of, "But you're wrong because of XYZ and you're assuming TVU when in actuality it means XYS and I understand why you would believe ABC, but it is weakened by WXYZ" has always been more effective in garnering widespread support than bashing people over the head and calling them idiots. People do not like being attacked maliciously and in a demeaning manner. Just the idea that they're being attacked turns them off to what you may be saying.

You cannot use the approach used on children with adults outside of other circumstances (usually having a certain connection or affinity or identity within a group I.E. Malcolm X in certain speeches). That situation is not present when trying to convince a stranger of the irrationality of their religiosity. There is nothing general to what I am saying except that it is generally applicable. I also can find outliers to what I've said, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

There are more people like TrueEpic who cosigned me in this thread than there are people like you who would be persuaded the other way. Everything I said is relevant to this topic because it applies in every situation. It is understood by seasoned arbitrators and negotiators and judges. It is such an understood concept that--I won't lie--it's annoying me to debate it. I feel like anyone who has studied the art of persuasion should understand it. There are forums where the opposite is true, and we should know what those are.

But like I said, this thread was not going to be about me and so you can reply if you want but I have no intention of going back and forth. We all just have to agree to disagree, because this is a minute point and not worth swerving the thread. If you want to make a thread about the art of the argument and persuasion then you are obliged to do so.

(my battery is about to die)

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

No, I'm not remotely close to being off base (though the site lagged and cut of my message). But save yourself the trouble, on a serious note. You can find any outlier you want and try to string them all together, but the weight of evidence historically and in the present is on my side. But quite frankly if I actually do show you why you're wrong, it would be like writing an essay and I mean an ACTUAL essay. Needless to say the approach of, "But you're wrong because of XYZ and you're assuming TVU when in actuality it means XYS and I understand why you would believe ABC, but it is weakened by WXYZ" has always been more effective in garnering widespread support than bashing people over the head and calling them idiots. People do not like being attacked maliciously and in a demeaning manner. Just the idea that they're being attacked turns them off to what you may be saying.

You cannot use the approach used on children with adults outside of other circumstances (usually having a certain connection or affinity or identity within a group I.E. Malcolm X in certain speeches). That situation is not present when trying to convince a stranger of the irrationality of their religiosity. There is nothing general to what I am saying except that it is generally applicable. I also can find outliers to what I've said, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

There are more people like TrueEpic who cosigned me in this thread than there are people like you who would be persuaded the other way. Everything I said is relevant to this topic because it applies in every situation. It is understood by seasoned arbitrators and negotiators and judges. It is such an understood concept that--I won't lie--it's annoying me to debate it. I feel like anyone who has studied the art of persuasion should understand it. There are forums where the opposite is true, and we should know what those are.

But like I said, this thread was not going to be about me and so you can reply if you want but I have no intention of going back and forth. We all just have to agree to disagree, because this is a minute point and not worth swerving the thread. If you want to make a thread about the art of the argument and persuasion then you are obliged to do so.

(my battery is about to die)

Let me make case as to why you're wrong and you're speaking from a position of ignorance, overgeneralization, and conflation of unlike phenomena before you go writing bull-headed essays, tearing down strawman I didn't even make.

I said I'd address it later when I have time. You're already beating your chest in some self-aggrandizing victory lap and I haven't even made my argument yet. I will do that sometime late tonight. Jesus, you gotta be the most arrogant 22 year old on the planet.