A look into absurdism and asceticism.

Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all, the top two you copied and pasted were just stating the same thing, there was no comprehensive research, no data its clear you just ran with what you could because there is less evidence to back that point
Did you even look inside? Or did you think the summary on the pages were the whole articles?

Blimey, it's obvious that I'm conversing with a person of well below average intelligence! :O27GWRK:

you seem to lack the ability others have of reading between the line or connecting point A and B.
Says the person I had clearly label A and B to show to make them understand that B doesn't imply A. Remember this?

A: Scientific results find different results depending on who's funding.

B: This study was funded by various companies and organisations...

Your idea of reading between the lines and connecting A and B is so stupid that it's hard to believe you found your way into the internet at all. I mean even high school students who made any effort whatsoever would lose such a remarkably illogical notion. Reading between the lines for you is making connections that aren't there and inferences that are invalid, as is typical of conspiracy theorists!

There are several more studies that prove the opposite...
Then let's see them.
and don't quote me any further moron
Don't chat shit if you're gonna throw tantrums when you get proven wrong! :cryinglaughsmiley:
this dumbass is trying to argue most scientists agree corn syrup is good for you
Nope! Never argued such thing. This discussion is whether HFCS consumption increases the risk for obesity

You're inventing things. But your imagination is just as bad your memory of what were discussing, it seems.
everyone has already seen what kind of idiot you were when you called this a "social science"
I never called this a social science. We had the social/natural science discussion before you even posted the concerned article. So, again you're either inventing things on purpose or have a remarkably bad memory! Do you still think the food industry is a branch of science, btw? :icon lol:

Forget what i said earlier about not quoting me I have all week nigga :ftw9nwa:
Are you feeling confused or something? Make up your mind! :cryinglaughsmiley:
 
Last edited:
Did you even look inside? Or did you think the summary on the pages were the whole articles?

Blimey, it's obvious that I'm conversing with a person of well below average intelligence! :O27GWRK:


Says the person I had clearly label A and B to show to make them understand that B doesn't imply A. Remember this?

A: Scientific results find different results depending on who's funding.

B: This study was funded by various companies and organisations...

Your idea of reading between the lines and connecting A and B is so stupid that it's hard to believe you found your way into the internet at all. I mean even high school students who made any effort whatsoever would lose such a remarkably illogical notion. Reading between the lines for you is making connections that aren't there and inferences that are invalid, as is typical of conspiracy theorists!

Then let's see them. Don't chat shit if you're gonna throw tantrums when you get proven wrong! :cryinglaughsmiley:Nope! Never argued such thing. This discussion is whether HFCS consumption increases the risk for obesity

You're inventing things. But your imagination is just as bad your memory of what were discussing, it seems.
I never called this a social science. We had the social/natural science discussion before you even posted the concerned article. So, again you're either inventing things on purpose or have a remarkably bad memory! Do you still think the food industry is a branch of science, btw? :icon lol:

Are you feeling confused or something? Make up your mind! :cryinglaughsmiley:
You must have been conversing with the jinns in your head. Please quote where we had the discussion it was your dumbass that was confused and tried to spin it on me. Funny you should speak about logic when you cant see the significance of a study on corn syrup being funded by various companies that have a stake in it :gnzbryw:

And according to most studies it does, but keep getting duped by corn agents like the fool you are :yloezpe:

Here is a statement from a Yale prof on HFCs: “Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true, at least under the conditions of our tests,” said psychology professor Bart ***bel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. “When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they’re becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don’t see this; they don’t all gain extra weight.”

But before we continue on with this subject I want to see those quotes where we discussed social science before you brought it up or where I said food industry was a science :pachah1:I swear to myself i wont humor you any further until you bring those receipts
 
Last edited:
You must have been conversing with the jinns in your head. Please quote where we had the discussion it was your dumbass that was confused and tried to spin it on me. Funny you should speak about logic when you cant see the significance of a study on corn syrup being funded by various companies that have a stake in it :gnzbryw:

And according to most studies it does, but keep getting duped by corn agents like the fool you are :yloezpe:

Here is a statement from a Yale prof on HFCs: “Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true, at least under the conditions of our tests,” said psychology professor Bart ***bel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. “When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they’re becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don’t see this; they don’t all gain extra weight.”

But before we continue on with this subject I want to see those quotes where we discussed social science before you brought it up or where I said food industry was a science :pachah1:I swear to myself i wont humor you any further until you bring those receipts
That study was flawed, and this is very well documented! See here. By the way, in the flawed study the author you quoted himself admits that many experts have refuted the conjecture that HFCS is to blame, contradicting your assertion that "according to most studies it does." How dumb do you have to be to shoot yourself in the foot in such a way that the study you were trying to use to prove yourself right contradicts you? I'm starting to pity you, honesty!

You're confused. Read what I said again. For example, I said we had the social/natural science discussion before you even posted the concerned article (which is factual as you first posted the article in page 3 and that discussion happened in page 2). But you took that as an accusation that you brought up the social/natural science distinction first. Your comprehension skills are barely there, are they? You're a confused individual!
 

simulacrum

Neo-Darwinist
How the hell is atheism satanic? :liberaltears:

Religious people never cease to amaze. They attach anything opposed to their views with the word satanism then on go on with their lives as if they solved the riddle as to why people prefer not to believe in their religious chicanery and buffoonary. Life is not that simple, I wish it was though...

@Inquisitive_ And what's your quarrel with scientific materialism and why do you think it's a view that is championed by the elite? Last time I checked, Christians and to some degree Muslims ( UAE) also have power like the elite you so heavily criticize and they too are hell bent on promulgating their dogmatic and myopic views. Their newest shtick is ''Intelligent Design''. How laughable. Forcing children to learn hocus pocus story without any empirical evidence to back it. I call that child abuse.

I probably got an idea as to why you are against scientific materialism. The idea that we are nothing but crumbs of organic matter clinging to the surface of one tiny rock makes your stomach churn.. Hence why you desperately try to debunk materialism because it is diametrically opposed to your theistic world-view. But rest assured even if people come to that conclusion, they still have to lead their lives ''meaningfully''. It doesn't mean it's the end of the world. It just means we are cosmically insignificant.

To get back on the main topic, that's the whole conundrum of Absurdism, the chasm between human experience and reality. We all are searching for meaning in this life, but we will never be able to ground it intrinsically. Religious people arrogantly say we've found the intrinsic meaning to life, which is living for some deity. Now that's absurd!
 
How the hell is atheism satanic? :liberaltears:

Religious people never cease to amaze. They attach anything opposed to their views with the word satanism then on go on with their lives as if they solved the riddle as to why people prefer not to believe in their religious chicanery and buffoonary. Life is not that simple, I wish it was though...

@Inquisitive_ And what's your quarrel with scientific materialism and why do you think it's a view that is championed by the elite? Last time I checked, Christians and to some degree Muslims ( UAE) also have power like the elite you so heavily criticize and they too are hell bent on promulgating their dogmatic and myopic views. Their newest shtick is ''Intelligent Design''. How laughable. Forcing children to learn hocus pocus story without any empirical evidence to back it. I call that child abuse.

I probably got an idea as to why you are against scientific materialism. The idea that we are nothing but crumbs of organic matter clinging to the surface of one tiny rock makes your stomach churn.. Hence why you desperately try to debunk materialism because it is diametrically opposed to your theistic world-view. But rest assured even if people come to that conclusion, they still have to lead their lives ''meaningfully''. It doesn't mean it's the end of the world. It just means we are cosmically insignificant.

To get back on the main topic, that's the whole conundrum of Absurdism, the chasm between human experience and reality. We all are searching for meaning in this life, but we will never be able to ground it intrinsically. Religious people arrogantly say we've found the intrinsic meaning to life, which is living for some deity. Now that's absurd!
Essentially this. It all boils down to this. Theists dislike the idea of our insignificance. "We must have meaning in this world set by providence", "My soul must have significance". @Inquisitive_ ties materialism with satanism, one is physically grounded with real effects ( through bartering or providing value to a material to use as a substitute) whilst the other is a figment of human imagination. Satanism is a sub branch of the abrahamic faiths. One is tied to the other. confucianism can be found in all humans,"good" human morality such as giving charity, not killing is not morality that is borrowed from the abrahamic faith as inquisitive confounds. As long as we have "good" morals we will always have a purpose imo. shit I'm high af hope it makes sense. :icon lol:.
 
How the hell is atheism satanic? :liberaltears:

Religious people never cease to amaze. They attach anything opposed to their views with the word satanism then on go on with their lives as if they solved the riddle as to why people prefer not to believe in their religious chicanery and buffoonary. Life is not that simple, I wish it was though...

@Inquisitive_ And what's your quarrel with scientific materialism and why do you think it's a view that is championed by the elite? Last time I checked, Christians and to some degree Muslims ( UAE) also have power like the elite you so heavily criticize and they too are hell bent on promulgating their dogmatic and myopic views. Their newest shtick is ''Intelligent Design''. How laughable. Forcing children to learn hocus pocus story without any empirical evidence to back it. I call that child abuse.

I probably got an idea as to why you are against scientific materialism. The idea that we are nothing but crumbs of organic matter clinging to the surface of one tiny rock makes your stomach churn.. Hence why you desperately try to debunk materialism because it is diametrically opposed to your theistic world-view. But rest assured even if people come to that conclusion, they still have to lead their lives ''meaningfully''. It doesn't mean it's the end of the world. It just means we are cosmically insignificant.

To get back on the main topic, that's the whole conundrum of Absurdism, the chasm between human experience and reality. We all are searching for meaning in this life, but we will never be able to ground it intrinsically. Religious people arrogantly say we've found the intrinsic meaning to life, which is living for some deity. Now that's absurd!

You missed the entire point I made which is that your faith (yes it is a faith) was concocted not through any rational or scientific experimentation as falsely depicted but by powerful elite oligarchs and secret socieites from the same blood lines that championed it, funded it and brought it into existence, the same people who throughout history were rightly persecuted for being satanists.

The entire Darwinian family including even his very best friend Huxley were all part of masonic lodges and secret societies which is really a front for satanism at the very top, this is not a secret at all and no disputes this about Darwin's family.

It's the same story with Copernicus who deified the Sun in his own writing (heliocentricity is nothing more then Pagan satanic sun worship) it's the same story for the founders of NASA that subscribe to Alistair Crowley occultism, again all occultic and secret societies at the very top lead to satanism.

When you examine the financiers of these movements (private central banking cartels) that have unlimited finance through usury, it's the same bloodline, the Rockefellers and the Rothschild's are the champions that have their poisoned tentacles everywhere, from drug medicines, education, media, Hollywood, finance and even agriculture (monstanto)

None of these things are a secret, it's all out their for any truth seeker in the open, those quack scientists are nothing more then paid prostitutes that propound the views of those that pay them, that's why Monsanto drops 100 million on research to prove their poison is good for human's, as does every other industry that hire scientists to prove their own products are the best, the financiers are the ultimate pimps not some prostitute scientist.

To ignore all these obvious blatant conflict of interests and writings on the wall as well as so many whistle blowers including an elite banker you yourself made a thread on, goes to show how dumb, deaf and blind you really are.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, hence why I told @supz the false presupposition of people stops them from embracing the truth or any sound evidence and you as well as him are a clear proof of this.
 
Essentially this. It all boils down to this. Theists dislike the idea of our insignificance. "We must have meaning in this world set by providence", "My soul must have significance". @Inquisitive_ ties materialism with satanism, one is physically grounded with real effects ( through bartering or providing value to a material to use as a substitute) whilst the other is a figment of human imagination. Satanism is a sub branch of the abrahamic faiths. One is tied to the other. confucianism can be found in all humans,"good" human morality such as giving charity, not killing is not morality that is borrowed from the abrahamic faith as inquisitive confounds. As long as we have "good" morals we will always have a purpose imo. shit I'm high af hope it makes sense. :icon lol:.
Don't put words into my mouth, there is no morality in the scientific materialist world view, your nothing more then a bunch of atoms and molecules all predetermined, there is no free-will and there can't be any free will among atoms which is the unanimous view all atheist quack scientists, I made a thread on this before bringing all their inchorrent quotes

Hence discussing morality or meaning in life with you is a complete oxymoron because it's not part of your belief system, in your world view your nothing more then a preprogrammed robot, a bunch of molecules crashing into each other, every individual is unique and thus there can never be any objective truth statement or a truth claim whatsoever that you can expound upon, everything is subjective in your world view

This is the blatant incoherence the entire quack community struggles to grapple with each opposing the other, here I will quote verbatim Richard Dawkins response to such a question and see the inconsistency for yourself.




Richard Dawkins at Politics and Prose .. The God Delusion
Question and Answer


Questioner: Dr. Dawkins thank you for your comments. The thing I have appreciated most about your comments is your consistency in the things I’ve seen you written. One of the areas that I wanted to ask you about and the places where I think there is an inconsistency and I hoped you would clarify it is that in what I’ve read you seem to take a position of a strong determinist who says that what we see around us is the product of physical laws playing themselves out but on the other hand it would seem that you would do things like taking credit for writing this book and things like that. But it would seem, and this isn’t to be funny, that the consistent position would be that necessarily the authoring of this book from the initial condition of the big bang it was set that this would be the product of what we see today. I would take it that that would be the consistent position but I wanted to know what you thought about that.

Dawkins: The philosophical question of determinism is a very difficult question. It’s not one I discuss in this book, indeed in any other book that I’ve ever talked about. Now an extreme determinist, as the questioner says, might say that everything we do, everything we think, everything that we write, has been determined from the beginning of time in which case the very idea of taking credit for anything doesn’t seem to make any sense. Now I don’t actually know what I actually think about that, I haven’t taken up a position about that, it’s not part of my remit to talk about the philosophical issue of determinism. What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, “Oh well he couldn’t help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.” Maybe we should.. I sometimes.. Um.. You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil where his car won’t start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe that’s what we all ought to… Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is “Oh they were just determined by their molecules.” It’s stupid to punish them. What we should do is say “This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced.” I can’t bring myself to do that. I actually do respond in an emotional way and I blame people, I give people credit, or I might be more charitable and say this individual who has committed murders or child abuse of whatever it is was really abused in his own childhood. And so again I might take a ..

Questioner: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?

Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue.
 
Don't put words into my mouth, there is no morality in the scientific materialist world view, your nothing more then a bunch of atoms and molecules all predetermined, there is no free-will and there can't be any free will among atoms which is the unanimous view all atheist quack scientists, I made a thread on this before bringing all their inchorrent quotes

Hence discussing morality or meaning in life with you is a complete oxymoron because it's not part of your belief system, in your world view your nothing more then a preprogrammed robot, a bunch of molecules crashing into each other, every individual is unique and thus there can never be any objective truth statement or a truth claim whatsoever that you can expound upon, everything is subjective in your world view

This is the blatant incoherence the entire quack community struggles to grapple with each opposing the other, here I will quote verbatim Richard Dawkins response to such a question and see the inconsistency for yourself.
Your definition of morality is one that is determined by God and written as a "constitution" through texts such as the Quran and Hadith. And any other form of morality sourced from gnosticism or some sort of senex is invalid.
I can see why you would take an issue with this as a devout muslim and a believer of a God. Dawkins is being intellectually honest when he sees the inconsistency between his views on determinism and the nonchalant attitude that should be taken accordingly, because "everything is determined". There would not be any justice taken if unaccountability was widespread in a society. Kill a man and take his bread would be acceptable if such an outlook was taken. Total societal collapse. No shit, Dawkins does not have a clear cut answer on determinism, no one has. :pachah1:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Trending

Top