Jump to content

Heaven & Hell Thread. Naw, Just Fecking Hell.


shull
 Share

Recommended Posts


18 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:


 

 


Now go read my later reply to him. It's all over the place and raises more questions than it answers. :D

 

OK on the subject of the circle.

In Flatland you are stuck on the same 2-D piece of paper as the sphere is passing through. You can only look left and right or up and down but in both cases it's along the plane of the paper.

Now consider the sphere going through the paper and you should see what I described. You wouldn't be able to raise your head off the paper to see the circle.

The book describes this better than I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, stlucifer said:

No need for creepy thoughts concerning your last sentence Oaksoft.

IF he were taught your green was blue and vice versa one of you would be telling everyone you were watching Saints on blue grass. Not just seeing blue stands next week.

 

Imagine a green thing. Grass. I see it as green but @Slartibartfast sees it as blue. He doesn't associate the blue colour with the word blue because as a kid he's been told that this is what green looks like. So when we both look at grass we are calling it green even though our retinas are picking up two different colours.

The problem then is what do we see as blue. Maybe it's a subtle change of shade of what slarti thinks is green and he is told THIS is blue. Then we see slightly different flavours of blue but we both call them blue. Maybe slarti sees blue as green but has been taught that this is what blue looks like.

Now we are both calling the green thing green and the blue thing blue although we both see different versions of each without realising it.

I think the need for a symmetrical fault (swapping two colours) might be proof that we all see the same colours within some tolerance band. It's pushing things to believe slarti could see green things as blue AND blue things as green. In reality if it was that different, slarti would be calling blue things green AND green things green and I'd spot there was a problem. Besides, the chances of two major DNA coding errors in a related area seems very unlikely. Maybe that is the evidence to disprove my initial thought.

Now THAT is the beauty of science in action! During a discussion on a footy forum.

Show me an example of religion doing THAT! :D

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:

Book was delivered today. I'll start it when I get home - or maybe read it tomorrow at work. :)

That was quick.

I should have mentioned that you can get the book as a free download for the computer as a PDF. Oops!

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Imagine a green thing. Grass. I see it as green but @Slartibartfast sees it as blue. He doesn't associate the blue colour with the word blue because as a kid he's been told that this is what green looks like. So when we both look at grass we are calling it green even though our retinas are picking up two different colours.

The problem then is what do we see as blue. Maybe it's a subtle change of shade of what slarti thinks is green and he is told THIS is blue. Then we see slightly different flavours of blue but we both call them blue. Maybe slarti sees blue as green but has been taught that this is what blue looks like.

Now we are both calling the green thing green and the blue thing blue although we both see different versions of each without realising it.

I think the need for a symmetrical fault (swapping two colours) might be proof that we all see the same colours within some tolerance band. It's pushing things to believe slarti could see green things as blue AND blue things as green. In reality if it was that different, slarti would be calling blue things green AND green things green and I'd spot there was a problem. Besides, the chances of two major DNA coding errors in a related area seems very unlikely. Maybe that is the evidence to disprove my initial thought.

Now THAT is the beauty of science in action! During a discussion on a footy forum.

Show me an example of religion doing THAT! :D

But, quite clearly. That is NOT what you described. You said:

21 hours ago, oaksoft said:

As for your last bit, I have always wondered if my blue is the same as your blue. What if you were seeing green but had been taught that this was blue from childhood? Creepy thought.

This is NOT perception. In this case your green would be his blue. This would quite clearly mean he would see your green grass but call it blue.

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

I got as far as the first sentence and had the urge to pick my nose to find a green thing.emoji103.png

I think I had more enjoyment rolling the bogey into a ball and flicking it into the bin than trying to work out the rest of the stuff you wrote. emoji14.png

To be fair I wasn't hopeful that either you or Lucy would be able to follow a discussion like this. :P

At least I tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion is yet another control mechanism set up by man for the worse off in society be it wealth, health, education or whatever other factor you want to throw in. It was one of the first to create and split divides and has continually done so over the years. Those who wish to believe may need something to believe in, so let them have it. Unfortunately it is exploited for the wrong reasons and causes more damage than good. The debate is simply just not worthwhile for the reasons above and the divide will pretty much always remain due to the continuing dysfunctional elements in society. Good luck to anyone to wishes to believe as long as they don't throw it in others faces.

Thought this shit was being kept off the forum anyway? Let the dafties along the road debate the nonsense. Wonder how many at ibrox go to church and put money in the plate and similarly the argument in the eastend is mass or bingo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
3 hours ago, jaybee said:
Didn't it just, learned years ago NOt to get into a debate over religion because it's an unwinnable argument. phew!!!

Winnable or not, if it gets even just one person to go and critically evaluate their belief(s), then it's worthwhile. Whether that person has "the tools in their box" to be able to properly critically evaluate their belief(s) is another matter.

Says you and just who are you to tell anyone else just what they NEED to do.                    THAT my friend is THE problem with religion.  end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:


 

 


It wasn't set up to control, but it was used to control. It originated as a way of trying to make sense of the natural world and the big questions about it with the limited knowledge that they had.

Humans were divided and killing each other long before religion. Religion just gave them another reason to divide themselves and kill each other.

They do throw it in others faces, though they do it subtly. As previously stated, school chaplains and religious schools, bishops in the house of lords etc.

The dafties along the road claim to believe. So do the dafties in the east end. They both are claiming to believe in the exact same god, they just differ on how to worship him and a few minor details about what he meant in his book. Absolutely nothing worth hating or killing someone over - the problem is, because none of them have a f**king clue about what they are talking about, they don't know this.

They're obviously both wrong, though. :)

Not that many of them will practice "their" religion anyway.

 

Aye fair point. Must admit it was the most feckin ingenious PR stunt to sell a book though. I certainly wouldn't waste any time trying to convince anyone as research gathered states it could come down to brain size or a specific gene which would explain a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

c**t!! :)

Actually, I prefer a physical book anyway but ...

you still owe me the £1.99 for it as it says that a sphere will portray as a circle. Starts at the last paragraph of page 58 in my copy, about half way through chapter/section 16. It's even got a diagram.

It's the ability to navigate around the outside of the circle within the plane that allows it to be identified. It has no angles, and appears the same from wherever it is viewed, unlike any other shape. A sphere moving in and out of the plane would appear as a line of varying length when viewed from one frame of reference. If you then moved around to other locations within the plane and observed the same scene from different viewpoints it would become apparent that you were looking at a circle that was somehow varying its own circumference (as the sphere moves in and out of the plane).

Edited by Dirty Sanchez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that’s always fascinated me is what else is around us that we can’t see.

You can’t see wind, but you see the effects of it. You can’t see Wi-fi, or radio signals, but we know they are there. 

If you’re in a football ground you can always sense a change in atmosphere. Excitement, nervousness, elation... 

When you have an idea, if you think to yourself, I’ll remember this later, then you try to remember it later and you can’t. Similar with dreams. Where did that idea come from, did anyone else have access to it... How powerful is an idea? 

There are “things”, for want of a better word that we know exist but we can’t measure, and quite possibly “things” that we don’t have the tools to receive, or measure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doakes said:

The idea that’s always fascinated me is what else is around us that we can’t see.

You can’t see wind, but you see the effects of it. You can’t see Wi-fi, or radio signals, but we know they are there. 

If you’re in a football ground you can always sense a change in atmosphere. Excitement, nervousness, elation... 

When you have an idea, if you think to yourself, I’ll remember this later, then you try to remember it later and you can’t. Similar with dreams. Where did that idea come from, did anyone else have access to it... How powerful is an idea? 

There are “things”, for want of a better word that we know exist but we can’t measure, and quite possibly “things” that we don’t have the tools to receive, or measure. 

I think science can only account for 4% of the stuff in the universe. That leaves 96% as unknown. I think I am right about that although my numbers might be a bit out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:


 

 


You forgot about light in the visible spectrum, we can't see that as it's invisible.

Another "mind f**k" is the properties of matter. As an example, one molecule of water is not wet but lots of them together are.

The football bit is similar to what I said earlier about there being more than 5 senses.

Not being able to remember something is probably down to neural pathways in the brain not being created. In a similar way that things you do a lot seem to just not be remembered. Like driving to work. Unless something "different" happens, no new neural pathways are created and it's as if you never did it at all. It's the reason why kids think it takes forever from one Xmas to the next, they are constantly creating neural pathways due to new experiences, whereas adults think it is quick, due to not having as many new pathways created because they tend to have a routine. That's why you should always go somewhere different on holiday, it will seem to last longer, due to all the new neural pathways being created, and you will be "more refreshed" as you will think you have been away from work longer. It only applies in a "looking back" way, which is why boring, repetitive tasks are mind numbing at the time but when looked back at appear to have lasted no time at all.

Anyway, that's 5 past 9, better go get ready for my half 8 start. :)

 

A single molecule of water is not "wet" because that is a macroscopic property caused by weak hydrogen bonding between water molecules which turns water into a liquid. It feels wet because water sticks to your hand when you dip into it. Rather than forming a sphere, the water molecules on your hand preferentially spread out (for favourable energetic reasons) forming bonds with the surface of your skin. Luckily, water evaporates at room temperature otherwise our hands would never fully dry. Those of us unlucky enough to get other liquids like diphenyl ether on our skin can tell stories of reeking of the damn stuff for weeks on end.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

You forgot about light in the visible spectrum, we can't see that as it's invisible.

Another "mind f**k" is the properties of matter. As an example, one molecule of water is not wet but lots of them together are.

The football bit is similar to what I said earlier about there being more than 5 senses.

Not being able to remember something is probably down to neural pathways in the brain not being created. In a similar way that things you do a lot seem to just not be remembered. Like driving to work. Unless something "different" happens, no new neural pathways are created and it's as if you never did it at all. It's the reason why kids think it takes forever from one Xmas to the next, they are constantly creating neural pathways due to new experiences, whereas adults think it is quick, due to not having as many new pathways created because they tend to have a routine. That's why you should always go somewhere different on holiday, it will seem to last longer, due to all the new neural pathways being created, and you will be "more refreshed" as you will think you have been away from work longer. It only applies in a "looking back" way, which is why boring, repetitive tasks are mind numbing at the time but when looked back at appear to have lasted no time at all.

Anyway, that's 5 past 9, better go get ready for my half 8 start. :)

 

There's all sorts of strange anomalies that don't make any sense.. placebo effect, dark matter, dark energy, tetraneutrons etc! I think the fact that sometimes even scientists have to put their hands up and say "I don't know", is one of the things that makes/keeps us human. We'll never "know" everything, and that's what keeps it interesting. Lots of new pathways to be explored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:


 

 


It wasn't set up to control, but it was used to control. It originated as a way of trying to make sense of the natural world and the big questions about it with the limited knowledge that they had.

Humans were divided and killing each other long before religion. Religion just gave them another reason to divide themselves and kill each other.

They do throw it in others faces, though they do it subtly. As previously stated, school chaplains and religious schools, bishops in the house of lords etc.

The dafties along the road claim to believe. So do the dafties in the east end. They both are claiming to believe in the exact same god, they just differ on how to worship him and a few minor details about what he meant in his book. Absolutely nothing worth hating or killing someone over - the problem is, because none of them have a f**king clue about what they are talking about, they don't know this.

They're obviously both wrong, though. :)

Not that many of them will practice "their" religion anyway.

 

Many of the commandments, rules in the bible, Q'ran and rules for kosher/halal foods, etc are actually commonsense rules for surviving in a harsh environments.  They were enshrined in the books of faith as being handed down from God because who else would work out that bairning your sister might create a faraway/shull as an output or that eating contaminated meat would lead to a fatal dose of the skits?

 

Thoroughly practising a religion is actually quite hard, which is where the people who advise and judge you come in.  Some are pragmatic, considerate and well meaning and I have no problem for these people as they mostly do good.  Others are fundamentalist and zealous and they ususally cause a LOT of bother by trying to reinterpret rules that are only relevant in a desert 3000 years ago in the context of a country that is thousands of miles away in both time and distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

It was just an example, maybe I should have picked a different one. default_smile.png

 

You're using "diphenyl ether" as a euphemism for "cum", aren't you? :)

f**king hell no. :shockaroony

Diphenyl ether is a real thing.

As for the first bit. I saw a teachable moment and pounced panther-like. You are lucky to have me around. :D

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:
14 hours ago, jaybee said:
Says you and just who are you to tell anyone else just what they NEED to do.                    THAT my friend is THE problem with religion.  end.

Where did I say anyone "needs" to do anything?

I have no wish to get into a pissing contest with you , but your statement was "Winnable or not, if it gets even just one person to go and critically evaluate their belief(s), then it's worthwhile. Whether that person has "the tools in their box" to be able to properly critically evaluate their belief(s) is another matter."   My point was NOT to debate religion, yours was contrary, in fact your "Winnable or not" implies something worth debating................... surely? ergo you encouraged debate..  Moot point perhaps but valid I feel.  :wub:

Now I shall have to chastise myself for doing what I ought not to..       :wub:         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
1 hour ago, jaybee said:
I have no wish to get into a pissing contest with you , but your statement was "Winnable or not, if it gets even just one person to go and critically evaluate their belief(s), then it's worthwhile. Whether that person has "the tools in their box" to be able to properly critically evaluate their belief(s) is another matter."   My point was NOT to debate religion, yours was contrary, in fact your "Winnable or not" implies something worth debating................... surely? ergo you encouraged debate..  Moot point perhaps but valid I feel.  :wub:
Now I shall have to chastise myself for doing what I ought not to..       :wub:         

But where does "need" come into it?

If you can't or won't see it not worth me trying to explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...