User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2015-09-16 at 12:06 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?I have not once in this thread stated my opinion on the objectivity of rainbows. In the OP, I mentioned what some people would say, which someone already pointed out would be wrong, which I agreed with.
As for Godzilla, two people seeing a movie about Godzilla would not mean Godzilla objectively exists. There are no behemoth, fire breathing reptiles walking around earth destroying stuff.
The film projector and speakers causing the illusion of Godzilla do objectively exist, but Godzilla doesn't exist.
Similarly, the phenomenon of light refracting through water droplets being viewed from a specific angle does objectively exist. The droplets objectively exist. The light objectively exists. But the appearance of gigantic colourful arches in the sky are optical illusions. -
2015-09-15 at 10:35 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
Why can't people discuss things without calling the person in which they're discussing names? When smart folk debate things they don't end every phrase with 'you stupid faggot' they state their point and wait for rebuttal. Like I said this is a tricky subject, but as I said too, at the end, you CAN take a picture of a rainbow and EVERYONE can see it, so it's hard to argue against that as objective.
You're right about that, good sir.
However, if you and I went to the movies and we both saw and heard Godzilla, and took pictures of him, does that mean Godzilla exists objectively? -
2015-09-15 at 10:19 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?Wow you are dumb.
A rainbow is a colourful arch which appears in the sky under specific circumstances and is an optical illusion - there really is no arch in the sky.
The visible spectrum is just the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum visible to the human eye. It is not the optical illusion of a giant arch in the sky.
These things have different definitions because they are different things. You dummy. -
2015-09-15 at 9:16 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
I have no idea what I'm talking about.
I would say you have a much better understanding of this than most of the people in this thread, especially that dummy "thelittlestnigger".
That nigga doesn't even understand the difference between a rainbow and the spectrum of visible light. -
2015-09-15 at 11:43 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
wow man. You are a hardcore faggot.
Pick up a text book or learn some shit from the local community college (as you are obviously not smart enough to go to a real college).
All this "its inside your mind" shit is high level retarded and you should probably be euthanized.
No, actually the rainbow is inside your mind. Because it is an optical illusion.
Yeah, I know, light exists out there. Yes, those water droplets exist out there. Those are not a rainbow. Because a rainbow is an optical illusion produced when viewing water droplets at a particular angle relative to the source of light. So yeah, a rainbow does exist inside your mind. It has no physical location. A light source has a physical location. Water droplets in the sky have physical locations. A rainbow exists in your mind.
Dummy. -
2015-09-15 at 4:38 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
Can we pinpoint its exact physical location? No. Because the location in which it resides is in a spectrum of waves rather than in geometric coordinates. But from the fact that it is a spectrum of waves we can verify it exists objectively.
Now since you seem to not understand physics and its phenomena point out which part of the above explanation doesn't make sense to you and we can work towards making you understand things on a level that is slightly above your current capacity for retardation.
Actually, the location of the rainbow is inside of your mind. You see, the rainbow is an optical illusion caused by viewing water droplets at a specific angle relative to a source of light. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, maybe you're dumb? You seem to have confused individual rainbows with the visible spectrum of light. -
2015-09-15 at 3:13 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?A rainbow is an optical illusion:
A rainbow is not located at a specific distance from the observer, but comes from an optical illusion caused by any water droplets viewed from a certain angle relative to a light source. Thus, a rainbow is not an object and cannot be physically approached. Indeed, it is impossible for an observer to see a rainbow from water droplets at any angle other than the customary one of 42 degrees from the direction opposite the light source. Even if an observer sees another observer who seems "under" or "at the end of" a rainbow, the second observer will see a different rainbow—farther off—at the same angle as seen by the first observer.
You obviously didnt read my or greenplastics post. A rainbow, as in a spectrum of light exists objectively.
If a rainbow exists can you pin point its exact physical location?
-
2015-09-15 at 12:26 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
objectively means it exists whether you think it does or not. so the reasoning of "i see rainbows therefore they exist" would be subjective, not objective.
That's right.a rainbow is just the alteration of light waves by a certain arrangement of moisture in the air.
So does the rainbow itself exist objectively?
If you went to a movie theater and saw and heard a monster, would you say the monster exists objectively? Or is the monster just an illusion produced by the theaters speakers and projector?you also cant say "its just an optical illusion" unless you are prepared to start calling everything an optical (or some other type) illusion.
But it is just an optical illusion. You can't say it isn't unless you are prepared to prove otherwise. -
2015-09-14 at 7:35 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?Some people would say yes, because they can see rainbows, therefore rainbows exist.
Others would say no, a rainbow is just an optical illusion.
What is your opinion?
-
2015-09-14 at 12:12 PM UTC in The Universe and You
He didn't say anything in OP was incorrect, he said it was tedious and unoriginal, which it is. What does it matter if we're stardust or whatever? Why is the interesting and why should we care?
Why does anything matter? What is the purpose of all the stars and galaxies in the universe?
The good thing about this is the rest of the universe doesn't care about being original. The universe doesn't care if you're interested in it or understand your connection to it, or if you would rather talk about how drunk you got last night. The fact that you are connected to everything doesn't change. -
2015-09-13 at 3:57 PM UTC in The Universe and You
Why do we have to go into a forest to feel the 'powerful connection?' Why can't I just do it here in my apartment?
You don't need to go to a forest. But it can help sometimes to feel closer to nature. -
2015-09-13 at 3:45 PM UTC in The Universe and YouConsider how much air is not inside your lungs right now. That doesn't mean there isn't air inside of you. Nothing said in the OP is incorrect. The good thing about science is that it's true whether you agree with it or not. So, do you have a legitimate reason to be calling this bullshit, or do you just not like the idea of being connected to everything else?
-
2015-09-13 at 8:11 AM UTC in The Universe and YouWe are part of this universe; we are in this universe, but perhaps more important than both of those facts, is that the universe is in us.
The molecules that make up your body and the atoms that construct the molecules are traceable to the centers of high mass stars that long ago exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy. We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically and to the rest of the Universe atomically. We are living within the universe, and the universe is living within us.
If you go off very far into a forest and get very quiet, you'll come to understand that you're connected with everything. Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.
-
2015-09-13 at 6:48 AM UTC in Freedom or SecurityIs true freedom or true security actually obtainable?
-
2015-09-13 at 6:44 AM UTC in Freedom or SecurityGet Free
-
2015-09-13 at 6:36 AM UTC in WE need more shit like this.
-
2015-09-12 at 6:26 PM UTC in Freedom or SecurityIs freedom or security more important?
Some would say we cannot give up our freedoms to gain more security without losing both.
Others would argue that security grants us freedom. That you cannot have one without the other.
What do you think is more important? Freedom, or security? -
2015-09-12 at 2:19 PM UTC in How did religion begin?
To answer the question: even animals mourn their dead. This behavior in ancient humans, combined with events frequently inexplicable from their contemporary ignorance, led to ancestral worship.
Or at least, that's one way religion started.
There is also the etiological explanation provided above. Personally, I suspect that's somewhat later in the chain, but particularly witty savages may have invented the gods to distract their pesky kids.
Animals don't have the kind of mentality to be able to "invent" myths to distract each other. The modern human mind took a long time to develop, and religious beliefs are likely older.
Ancestor worship in combination with the stresses of survival in primitive times likely caused our ancestors to experience hallucinations. The ancient story of Horus and Osiris tells us how a dying king would become his peoples God and continue to rule over them from beyond the grave through hallucinations. -
2015-09-11 at 10:46 PM UTC in How did religion begin?
It could have its roots in schizophrenics, amusingly enough. Recall coming across a rough overview on theories about schizophrenia, how the prevalence is too high to be explained without there being something to offset the natural reproductive disadvantage, shamans in some form being or having been a part of nearly every culture found.
I've actually read some of the bible, up until the last book by Moses (allegedly), where I could bear no more. I have no problem believing these were the product of a deranged madman.
Schizophrenia may very well be the vestigial remains of a primitive mentality and religion the remains of their culture.
