Origins Thread

[AN2]

You believe in talking snakes and rib-women, though. You have no cosmology. None that makes any sense, or explains anything anyway. So far you've not offered a single non-magical explanation for existence whatsoever.

You're just two proboscis monkeys tied to donkeys in a Victorian amphitheatre, and I'm just here to toss peanuts at you.

Write a decent post, not self-absorbed, and other people might talk to you

 

[Fishalt]

Write a decent post, not self-absorbed, and other people might talk to you

You're replying to me right now, and so far all I've done is call you a faggot.

 

[AN2]

You're replying to me right now, and so far all I've done is call you a faggot.

I'm not really talking to you though, am I

 

[Fishalt]

I'm not really talking to you though, am I

You're both morons.

You're better than Tiger, I'll give you that. But that's a pretty low bar.

 

[Tiger]

I'm not going to pretend to know the origins of the universe. This doesn't imply that it being created from nothing by magic by the god of a desert people is a remotely plausible explanation. Stacking doubt-over-doubt on current theories of its creation doesn't lend credence or plausibility to your own beliefs, which are childish. Though for some reason you seem to think this is how proof works.

Ah, yes. The gospel according to modern man: “I don’t know where the universe came from… but I do know it wasn’t God.” The humility of agnosticism quickly gives way to the arrogance of mockery — especially when the target is a worldview older, deeper, and far more intellectually rigorous than the paper-thin cosmologies pedaled by today’s scientific priesthood. As pedalled by Jambo

You sneer at the “God of a desert people,” parroting the same tired reductionism, as if invoking geography invalidates metaphysics.

Meanwhile, you keep a straight face while gesturing vaguely at theories where universes pop out of nothing, laws emerge from nowhere, and entropy resets itself in an eternal loop of cosmic Groundhog Days — all without a shred of empirical or philosophical coherence.

You speak of “stacking doubt-over-doubt” as if it’s an insult to theism. But the multiverse is stacked doubt — a labyrinth of escape hatches for minds that cannot tolerate the implications of design or intention. It’s metaphysical cowardice with a lab coat.

Childish? No, what’s childish is pretending that explaining nothing with fancy language is somehow more “mature” than believing in the Logos — the rational, knowable, purposeful ground of being. You mock Scripture while genuflecting before cosmologies that offer less reason, less coherence, and far more fantasy.

You call it science. I call it myth without the poetry — metaphysics disguised as mathematics, for a generation that thinks sarcasm is wisdom and reverence is weakness.

So tell me, friend: if you admit you don’t know, why are you so hostile to the only worldview that dares to offer an answer with philosophical teeth?

 

[Tiger]

You're both morons.

You're better than Tiger, I'll give you that. But that's a pretty low bar.

Is that view based on your common ‘appreciation’ for underage girls?

 

[AN2]

You're both morons.

You're better than Tiger, I'll give you that. But that's a pretty low bar.

Fish, disabuse yourself now of the notion that you're within four standard deviations of my IQ. Good lad

 

[AN2]

Is that view based on your common ‘appreciation’ for underage girls?

What do you mean by that?

 

[Fishalt]

Ah, yes. The gospel according to modern man: “I don’t know where the universe came from… but I do know it wasn’t God.” The humility of agnosticism quickly gives way to the arrogance of mockery — especially when the target is a worldview older, deeper, and far more intellectually rigorous than the paper-thin cosmologies pedaled by today’s scientific priesthood. As pedalled by Jambo

You sneer at the “God of a desert people,” parroting the same tired reductionism, as if invoking geography invalidates metaphysics.

Meanwhile, you keep a straight face while gesturing vaguely at theories where universes pop out of nothing, laws emerge from nowhere, and entropy resets itself in an eternal loop of cosmic Groundhog Days — all without a shred of empirical or philosophical coherence.

You speak of “stacking doubt-over-doubt” as if it’s an insult to theism. But the multiverse is stacked doubt — a labyrinth of escape hatches for minds that cannot tolerate the implications of design or intention. It’s metaphysical cowardice with a lab coat.

Childish? No, what’s childish is pretending that explaining nothing with fancy language is somehow more “mature” than believing in the Logos — the rational, knowable, purposeful ground of being. You mock Scripture while genuflecting before cosmologies that offer less reason, less coherence, and far more fantasy.

You call it science. I call it myth without the poetry — metaphysics disguised as mathematics, for a generation that thinks sarcasm is wisdom and reverence is weakness.

So tell me, friend: if you admit you don’t know, why are you so hostile to the only worldview that dares to offer an answer with philosophical teeth?

Because it doesn't make any sense. It's really that simple, Tiger. This notion you have that I and other atheists have some other agenda motivating disbelief is purely a consequence of your own bad psychology and religious indoctrination.

Truth be told, Tiger, I am simply a superior being. I don't need carrots and sticks and hocus-pocus to live a moral life, or to be a good person. I have something you will never have, and that is nobility.

 

[Fishalt]

Is that view based on your common ‘appreciation’ for underage girls?

No, they're totally unrelated things.

 

[Tiger]

What do you mean by that?

You are on record of stating that if men are not attracted to underage girls that they are liars.

 

[Fishalt]

Fish, disabuse yourself now of the notion that you're within four standard deviations of my IQ. Good lad

You're just a drunk in a rented kip playing chess on a Commodore 64, Jimmy.

You're worthless.

 

[AN2]

You are on record of stating that if men are not attracted to underage girls that they are liars.

We had this earlier today, you and the other worthless eater (not @Fishalt) are resorting to off-topic libel

When does the "general mod warning" have teeth?

Banned from the thread - 1 week
Site ban - 3 days

Is my suggestion

 

[Tiger]

Because it doesn't make any sense. It's really that simple, Tiger. This notion you have that I and other atheists have some other agenda motivating disbelief is purely a consequence of your own bad psychology and religious indoctrination.

Truth be told, Tiger, I am simply a superior being. I don't need carrots and sticks and hocus-pocus to live a moral life, or to be a good person. I have something you will never have, and that is nobility.

Haha, a “superior being”. I’m going to enjoy using that quote. That’s some claim from a nonce.

Your response is the classic refrain of the self-declared Übermensch: “I am noble because I say so.” No need for metaphysics, teleology, or first principles—just raw assertion wrapped in ego.

You’ve managed to distill modern atheistic humanism into its purest form: a belief system that proclaims moral grandeur while denying any objective source for morality at all.

You say it “doesn’t make any sense,” as though repeating that phrase were an argument. But what, precisely, is senseless? A universe with intentional origin? A transcendent Logos? Or is it simply the idea that your moral judgments aren’t self-authorising? Because that’s what’s truly at stake.

You scoff at “carrots and sticks,” but fail to realise you’ve merely traded them for social approval and self-congratulation. At least the religious man knows what he serves. You serve your own reflection.

As for your “nobility”—a curious boast from someone whose entire worldview is predicated on accident and amorality. In your cosmology, you're a temporary arrangement of atoms destined for dissolution. In mine, you are an immortal soul with objective moral worth. Strange, isn’t it, that you mock the latter and boast of the former?

 

[Tiger]

We had this earlier today, you and the other worthless eater (not @Fishalt) are resorting to off-topic libel

When does the "general mod warning" have teeth?

Banned from the thread - 1 week
Site ban - 3 days

Is my suggestion

Why? You literally claimed these things yourself. Nobody forced you to say it.

When drunk, you have been quite brazen about these claims. You have posted some creepy videos with creepy commentary as evidence.

 

[AN2]

Why? You literally claimed these things yourself. Nobody forced you to say it.

When drunk, you have been quite brazen about these claims. You have posted some creepy videos with creepy commentary as evidence.

What's creepy?

 

[Tiger]

What's creepy?

The videos of underage girls that you’ve posted and talked about how attractive they are.

Plus the initial discussion were you said a chap called Kenneth convinced you that being attracted to underage girls is normal for older men and that anyone who wants objects to this is a liar.

 

[Fishalt]

Haha, a “superior being”. I’m going to enjoy using that quote. That’s some claim from a nonce.

Your response is the classic refrain of the self-declared Übermensch: “I am noble because I say so.” No need for metaphysics, teleology, or first principles—just raw assertion wrapped in ego.

You’ve managed to distill modern atheistic humanism into its purest form: a belief system that proclaims moral grandeur while denying any objective source for morality at all.

You say it “doesn’t make any sense,” as though repeating that phrase were an argument. But what, precisely, is senseless? A universe with intentional origin? A transcendent Logos? Or is it simply the idea that your moral judgments aren’t self-authorising? Because that’s what’s truly at stake.

You scoff at “carrots and sticks,” but fail to realize you’ve merely traded them for social approval and self-congratulation. At least the religious man knows what he serves. You serve your own reflection.

As for your “nobility”—a curious boast from someone whose entire worldview is predicated on accident and amorality. In your cosmology, you're a temporary arrangement of atoms destined for dissolution. In mine, you are an immortal soul with objective moral worth. Strange, isn’t it, that you mock the latter and boast of the former?

I haven't traded in anything for social approval. It's a non-issue. I have some Catholic friends. Unlike yourself, they aren't lunatics, and aren't interested in trying to convert me. If I wanted social approval, I'd join a church. And no, Tiger, it doesn't make sense. None of it does. Not talking snakes, magic apples, talking flaming bushes, sending yourself on a suicide mission to prove a point not worth making in the first place. It's all nonsense. Baroque trash.

You don't know what my worldview is predicated upon. Not even I know that.

What I do know is that I do not need the promise of heaven nor the threat of eternal punishment to behave morally and with decency. It takes courage to do good without either--and a lot of soul to want to.

 

[AN2]

The videos of underage girls that you’ve posted and talked about how attractive they are.

Plus the initial discussion were you said a chap called Kenneth convinced you that being attracted to underage girls is normal for older men and that anyone who wants objects to this is a liar.

What does underage girl mean?

 

[Tiger]

What does underage girl mean?

For crying out loud James. You are going to get this site in trouble. In Ireland it’s 15 and younger.

 

[AN2]

For crying out loud James. You are going to get this site in trouble. In Ireland it’s 15 and younger.

Huh? How'd you figure that?

 

[Tiger]

I haven't traded in anything for social approval. It's a non-issue. I have some Catholic friends. Unlike yourself, they aren't lunatics, and aren't interested in trying to convert me. If I wanted social approval, I'd join a church. And no, Tiger, it doesn't make sense. None of it does. Not talking snakes, magic apples, talking flaming bushes, sending yourself on a suicide mission to prove a point not worth making in the first place. It's all nonsense. Baroque trash.

You don't know what my worldview is predicated upon. Not even I know that.

What I do know is that I do not need the promise of heaven nor the threat of eternal punishment to behave morally and with decency. It takes courage to do good without either--and a lot of soul to want to.

You say you “don’t know what your worldview is predicated upon,” yet you speak with the unearned certainty of a man who thinks moral behavior floats free from metaphysics—as if ethics were a happy accident of neurons in a meaningless void. That’s not nobility—it’s incoherence polished with vanity.

Your disdain for “talking snakes” and “magic apples” is the smug catechism of the modern ignoramus, who mistakes sacred allegory for comic book literalism. The Genesis narrative isn’t a zoological report—it’s a metaphysical diagnosis of the fall of man. But you’ve traded contemplation for sarcasm, so the deeper architecture of meaning eludes you.

You also claim moral superiority while admitting you have no idea what your worldview stands on. That’s like declaring yourself king while denying the existence of the throne. And your claim that you “don’t need heaven or hell” is nothing more than moral bravado in a vacuum—a flourish with no foundation.

Meanwhile, the “baroque trash” you scorn built the cathedrals, the concept of the person, the university, and the natural sciences you now weaponise against their own metaphysical scaffolding. You’re like a rebellious tenant mocking the architecture while still living under its roof.

You call yourself a superior being. No, sir—you’re a borrowed vocabulary in search of a metaphysic. And grace, which you sneer at, is the only thing sustaining the gap between your ignorance and your decency.

 

[Tiger]

Huh? How'd you figure that?

Save it for the Gardai James.

 

[AN2]

Save it for the Gardai James.

FFS

How do you figure, that in Ireland, an "underage girl" is aged 15 or younger? Did your priest tell you that? Can you not answer a straightforward question?

 

[Fishalt]

You say you “don’t know what your worldview is predicated upon,” yet you speak with the unearned certainty of a man who thinks moral behavior floats free from metaphysics—as if ethics were a happy accident of neurons in a meaningless void. That’s not nobility—it’s incoherence polished with vanity.

Your disdain for “talking snakes” and “magic apples” is the smug catechism of the modern ignoramus, who mistakes sacred allegory for comic book literalism. The Genesis narrative isn’t a zoological report—it’s a metaphysical diagnosis of the fall of man. But you’ve traded contemplation for sarcasm, so the deeper architecture of meaning eludes you.

You also claim moral superiority while admitting you have no idea what your worldview stands on. That’s like declaring yourself king while denying the existence of the throne. And your claim that you “don’t need heaven or hell” is nothing more than moral bravado in a vacuum—a flourish with no foundation.

Meanwhile, the “baroque trash” you scorn built the cathedrals, the concept of the person, the university, and the natural sciences you now weaponise against their own metaphysical scaffolding. You’re like a rebellious tenant mocking the architecture while still living under its roof.

You call yourself a superior being. No, sir—you’re a borrowed vocabulary in search of a metaphysic. And grace, which you sneer at, is the only thing sustaining the gap between your ignorance and your decency.

Your first paragraph doesn't make any sense whatsoever, I'm afraid. Irresolvable nonsense. Christianity, and indeed no religious system, is necessary for ethics, and nor is metaphysics. Ethics are a construct. It is in fact possible to have them without having ever experienced any notion of God whatsoever.

Trite metaphors, Tiger. Trite, contrived, recycled. Far older and more Cliché' than the holy texts to which you subscribe. To what exactly are these sacred allegories making reference? What material, mechanical explanations of existence, consciousness and reality? And what is the point of this process anyway?

It's nothing like declaring myself king. Of what exactly? What throne? You're babbling. It's just abstraction after abstraction.

The law built the concept of the person, Tiger. Not the Church. The system in which you live is more or less a Hobbesian model. Read a book written in the last 500 years, and start with Leviathan.

And yes, I am a superior person. At least relative to you. Though again, that is a low bar.

 

[AN2]

You're just a drunk in a rented kip playing chess on a Commodore 64, Jimmy.

You're worthless.

Can you play chess, Fish?

Or is all you know how to do is to hammer a nail into a plank of wood?

 

[AN2]

You say you “don’t know what your worldview is predicated upon,” yet you speak with the unearned certainty of a man who thinks moral behavior floats free from metaphysics—as if ethics were a happy accident of neurons in a meaningless void.

That’s not nobility—it’s incoherence polished with vanity.

Does anyone one else find this endless - That's not X.. it's Y (Wow) rhetorical device of Tiger's incredibly tiresome?

Your disdain for “talking snakes” and “magic apples” is the smug catechism of the modern ignoramus, who mistakes sacred allegory for comic book literalism. The Genesis narrative isn’t a zoological report—it’s a metaphysical diagnosis of the fall of man. But you’ve traded contemplation for sarcasm, so the deeper architecture of meaning eludes you.

You also claim moral superiority while admitting you have no idea what your worldview stands on. That’s like declaring yourself king while denying the existence of the throne. And your claim that you “don’t need heaven or hell” is nothing more than moral bravado in a vacuum—a flourish with no foundation.

Meanwhile, the “baroque trash” you scorn built the cathedrals, the concept of the person, the university, and the natural sciences you now weaponise against their own metaphysical scaffolding. You’re like a rebellious tenant mocking the architecture while still living under its roof.

You call yourself a superior being. No, sir—you’re a borrowed vocabulary in search of a metaphysic. And grace, which you sneer at, is the only thing sustaining the gap between your ignorance and your decency.

 

[Fishalt]

Can you play chess, Fish?

Or is all you know how to do is to hammer a nail into a plank of wood?

Can you get a date, or does your sexual gratification come entirely from jerking off to the local al fresco junior ballet school practice session through a pair of binoculars while you're crouched in the adjacent shrubbery?

Don't ask leading questions, James, you fucking idiot.

To answer your question, no, I don't play chess. I don't see the value in it instrumentally.

 

[AN2]

Can you get a date, or does your sexual gratification come entirely from jerking off to the local al fresco junior ballet school practice session through a pair of binoculars while you're crouched in the adjacent shrubbery?

Don't ask leading questions, James, you fucking idiot.

To answer your question, no, I don't play chess. I don't see the value in it instrumentally.

So you can't play chess.. and somehow that's an insult of someone who can, why?

A date? How many times do you sexually gratify yourself daily, or weekly, on average? And is it always with the same ugly woman you're not married to?

 

[Fishalt]

So you can't play chess.. and somehow that's an insult of someone who can, why?

A date? How many times do you sexually gratify yourself daily, or weekly, on average? And is it always with the same ugly woman you're not married to?

Mostly, but not exclusively. I throw a leg over your Ma sometimes. Depends how low she is on tea and biscuits, really.

 

[AN2]

I throw a leg over your Ma sometimes.

That sounds unfortunate.. Considering she's been dead for more than twenty years

I guess it's you and not me who likes to fuck dead grannies!

 

[Fishalt]

That sounds unfortunate.. Considering she's been dead for more than twenty years

I guess it's you and not me who likes to fuck dead grannies!

When I was in high school, there was a kid in a wheelchair with really short arms and legs.

Everybody called him "Steggles", because he looked like a frozen chicken.

?

 

[AN2]

When I was in high school, there was a kid in a wheelchair with really short arms and legs.

Everybody called him "Steggles", because he looked like a frozen chicken.

?

Sadly, I think you're only here to disrupt

Your abuse of other posters, the staff and the site in general has become very noticeable

 

[Haven]

Speaking of stupid.

We discovered today that Tank and James believe the following:

For the thoughtful reader, now is a fitting moment to pause and consider the worldview espoused by our modern magi, James and Tank.

According to their cosmological folklore, the universe is eternally giving birth to itself—like a cosmic chicken endlessly laying its own egg. A chicken which has always existed and was never created.

Yet, in a breathtaking feat of metaphysical gymnastics, they insist that each new "chicken" is not a new universe at all, but the same one repeating ad infinitum, a kind of astrophysical Groundhog Day.

This, dear reader, is the sad spectacle of atheist cosmology in our time: a self-refuting fable posing as serious science. A parody in search of reverence.

They won’t be living this down in a hurry. This has been an intriguing evening’s work, finally nailing them down in their absurd belief’s.

For what it’s worth James is currently too drunk to make anything resembling a coherent response. So, we’ll have to wait until he sobers up tomorrow for anything resembling a coherent reply.

This is the third post of the same content. Bot issues.

 

[Haven]

What do you make about James and Tank’s beliefs that they have admitted to today? Are you a fellow traveler? (This is not a trick question)

They believe…

According to their cosmological folklore, the universe is eternally giving birth to itself—like a cosmic chicken endlessly laying its own egg. A chicken which has always existed and was never created.

Yet, in a breathtaking feat of metaphysical gymnastics, they insist that each new "chicken" is not a new universe at all, but the same one repeating ad infinitum, a kind of astrophysical Groundhog Day.

This, dear reader, is the sad spectacle of atheist cosmology in our time: a self-refuting fable posing as serious science. A parody in search of reverence.

They won’t be living this down in a hurry. This has been an intriguing evening’s work, finally nailing them down in their absurd belief’s.

Fourth copy!

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

What does underage girl mean?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You call yourself a superior being. No, sir

 

[AUL LAD]

Ah, yes. The gospel according to modern man: “I don’t know where the universe came from… but I do know it wasn’t God.” The humility of agnosticism quickly gives way to the arrogance of mockery — especially when the target is a worldview older, deeper, and far more intellectually rigorous than the paper-thin cosmologies pedaled by today’s scientific priesthood. As pedalled by Jambo

You sneer at the “God of a desert people,” parroting the same tired reductionism, as if invoking geography invalidates metaphysics.

Meanwhile, you keep a straight face while gesturing vaguely at theories where universes pop out of nothing, laws emerge from nowhere, and entropy resets itself in an eternal loop of cosmic Groundhog Days — all without a shred of empirical or philosophical coherence.

You speak of “stacking doubt-over-doubt” as if it’s an insult to theism. But the multiverse is stacked doubt — a labyrinth of escape hatches for minds that cannot tolerate the implications of design or intention. It’s metaphysical cowardice with a lab coat.

Childish? No, what’s childish is pretending that explaining nothing with fancy language is somehow more “mature” than believing in the Logos — the rational, knowable, purposeful ground of being. You mock Scripture while genuflecting before cosmologies that offer less reason, less coherence, and far more fantasy.

You call it science. I call it myth without the poetry — metaphysics disguised as mathematics, for a generation that thinks sarcasm is wisdom and reverence is weakness.

So tell me, friend: if you admit you don’t know, why are you so hostile to the only worldview that dares to offer an answer with philosophical teeth?

i listened to a biologist who did not have a religious agenda explain in terms the ordinary man could understand that you could take almost any species and state THEY EVOLVED and the biologist then stated --go to the biggest scrapyard in the USA --one measuring miles across containing machinery from hundreds of industries including a vast amount of aviation scrap .
now tell me you could you imagine a boing 747 self assembling -- even if there is enough material for 100 747s .

 

[AN2]

Well? What's your answer??

 

[Fishalt]

Sadly, I think you're only here to disrupt

Your abuse of other posters, the staff and the site in general has become very noticeable

Apologies if I come across that way. I'm genuinely here to watch two of the world's foremost citizen philosopher-physicists solve the mystery of life, the universe and everything. I expect you both to crack it any day now, and for one of you to come around to the other's view. Either you'll become a born-again Christian, or Tiger will renounce his faith. Seems inevitable at this stage really.