Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hence the comforting burqa of religious belief. It assuages your fear of dying./shrug......why believe we are just dust and fleeting?........Why believe in any god at all? When we are just dust and fleeting? Who knows what god is?
to be honest, I would have no problem feeding scantily clad women grapes as THEY lounged in a hammock......Hence the comforting burqa of religious belief. It assuages your fear of dying./shrug......why believe we are just dust and fleeting?........Why believe in any god at all? When we are just dust and fleeting? Who knows what god is?
Them-there virgins, scantily clad women feeding you grapes while you lounge in a hammock, sitting on puffy clouds while fat, naked babies play harps, etc.
Sounds like, you know, heaven.
Do you really believe that the eternal party in the sky will be any less fun without you?
It's convenient that you want to disconnect your religious fundamentalism from the thread context but it's a bit late for that.
Perhaps if you didn't make continual references to your version of gawds, you might be taken seriously when you whine about being questioned regarding your obvious motives.
And yes, we certainly do have an instantaneous perception of the present. Lacking a science background, (while pressing your religious agenda), you have difficulty understanding that. You might try reading some material on physics for a better understanding of the subject matter.
Other than that, nothing you have offered so far does anything to support your religious conviction concerning the thread proposal gawds=time.
Oh my, but you angry fundamentalists do get nasty when your sacred cows are called into question. I just find it Iaughable that you try to represent a thread connecting your gawds to time as something other than a theological claim.It's convenient that you want to disconnect your religious fundamentalism from the thread context but it's a bit late for that.
I did it in the first paragraph of the OP and two more times on Page 1. There are six other times in the thread where I have stated to you and others that this is not a theological debate. I've had to call down a Muslim and a Christian for trying to argue their theological beliefs. So what it's a bit late for is you to show any degree of honesty or integrity.
Perhaps if you didn't make continual references to your version of gawds, you might be taken seriously when you whine about being questioned regarding your obvious motives.
You've gotten it all wrong, dear. I am not whining about anything, I am exposing you for the lying and dishonest bat shit crazy bitch you are.
And yes, we certainly do have an instantaneous perception of the present. Lacking a science background, (while pressing your religious agenda), you have difficulty understanding that. You might try reading some material on physics for a better understanding of the subject matter.
Other than that, nothing you have offered so far does anything to support your religious conviction concerning the thread proposal gawds=time.
Oh, I have a science degree, dear. I doubt you ever passed a high school science test... must have been blowing your teacher. NO... Perception does not happen instantaneously. Nothing physical happens instantly (without time.) It does not matter how many times you reject that fact, it's still a fact and you've not disproved it.
Oh my, but you angry fundamentalists do get nasty when your sacred cows are called into question. I just find it Iaughable that you try to represent a thread connecting your gawds to time as something other than a theological claim.
And quite clearly, your understanding of science is paltry. Do consider trying to understand the science you are struggling with. We clearly have a perception of the present. You have rattled on with nothing but your pointless "..... because I say so" nonsense while refusing to offer a coherent explanation for the claims.
As for you blowing your teacher, whatever works for ya' sweetie.
Our perception of the present certainly does happen instantaneously. Your "...... because I say so" denial is a poor substitute for your lack of understanding of that basic event.Oh my, but you angry fundamentalists do get nasty when your sacred cows are called into question. I just find it Iaughable that you try to represent a thread connecting your gawds to time as something other than a theological claim.
And quite clearly, your understanding of science is paltry. Do consider trying to understand the science you are struggling with. We clearly have a perception of the present. You have rattled on with nothing but your pointless "..... because I say so" nonsense while refusing to offer a coherent explanation for the claims.
As for you blowing your teacher, whatever works for ya' sweetie.
I can see why you're so stupid and empty-headed. You refuse to open that empty vessel for further knowledge. The only one here who is rattling on with "because I say so" nonsense is YOU. The physics aspect here is very simple and most any high school level physics student understands it. When things "happen" it requires time. Things cannot "happen" without time. You've had every opportunity to disprove this with science and you haven't.
Instead, you've presented this fantastic theory of magical instantaneous perception which defies physics and science.... Then you follow that with really stupid shit like this:
We clearly have a perception of the present.
YES! Clearly, we do have a perception of the present and clearly, I've never denied this. For the third time in the past several pages, I've had to correct your lie. I've never said that we don't have a perception of the present. That's just goofy and silly... why would anyone say or think such a thing? Why do you keep making this false claim, trying to pin this on me like it was something I said? (Never mind, I know why.)
Our perception doesn't happen instantly, it requires time passing. Anything humans can perceive is already in the past before their brain can process it. Our perception is constantly in the past, after the present. The moment of present time is non-observable because physics has to happen, and "happening" takes time.
Our perception of the present certainly does happen instantaneously. Your "...... because I say so" denial is a poor substitute for your lack of understanding of that basic event.
I'm afraid your objection to the above is entirely a matter of your lack of a science vocabulary.
Such the stereotype of the angry, self-hating fundie.Our perception of the present certainly does happen instantaneously. Your "...... because I say so" denial is a poor substitute for your lack of understanding of that basic event.
I'm afraid your objection to the above is entirely a matter of your lack of a science vocabulary.
It cannot happen instantaneously, dingbat! You're doing nothing but showing everyone what a complete and utter dumbass you are. You should really consider shutting your yapper when people start talking science because you are one more clueless air head.
Not only are our perceptions not instant, they happen at different times depending on perspective. You know how you see a flash of lightning and it is followed by thunder? Well, the thunder is actually the sound made by the lightning ripping through the atmosphere. The perception of someone on the ground in close proximity of the strike is completely different than your perception 10 miles away. Light travels faster than sound, so you have perception of the light first, then the sound follows. If we had "instant" perception, we'd realize all this immediately at the same time. But physics has to happen, light and sound has to travel, time has to pass. Even the splitting of an atom takes time.
Even with the physics taking time to happen, you still have a physical body and brain which have to process incoming information. The optic nerve is stimulated, it sends chemical and electric signals to the brain... these signals must travel, they don't get to the brain instantly. Then the brain has to process the signal, this also takes time. Some people have slower brains than others... (you are a classic example of that). So not a damn thing is happening instantly, even though it may appear that way to an air head like you.
Our perception of the present certainly does happen instantaneously. Your "...... because I say so" denial is a poor substitute for your lack of understanding of that basic event.
I'm afraid your objection to the above is entirely a matter of your lack of a science vocabulary.
It cannot happen instantaneously, dingbat! You're doing nothing but showing everyone what a complete and utter dumbass you are. You should really consider shutting your yapper when people start talking science because you are one more clueless air head.
Not only are our perceptions not instant, they happen at different times depending on perspective. You know how you see a flash of lightning and it is followed by thunder? Well, the thunder is actually the sound made by the lightning ripping through the atmosphere. The perception of someone on the ground in close proximity of the strike is completely different than your perception 10 miles away. Light travels faster than sound, so you have perception of the light first, then the sound follows. If we had "instant" perception, we'd realize all this immediately at the same time. But physics has to happen, light and sound has to travel, time has to pass. Even the splitting of an atom takes time.
Even with the physics taking time to happen, you still have a physical body and brain which have to process incoming information. The optic nerve is stimulated, it sends chemical and electric signals to the brain... these signals must travel, they don't get to the brain instantly. Then the brain has to process the signal, this also takes time. Some people have slower brains than others... (you are a classic example of that). So not a damn thing is happening instantly, even though it may appear that way to an air head like you.
Such the stereotype of the angry, self-hating fundie.Our perception of the present certainly does happen instantaneously. Your "...... because I say so" denial is a poor substitute for your lack of understanding of that basic event.
I'm afraid your objection to the above is entirely a matter of your lack of a science vocabulary.
It cannot happen instantaneously, dingbat! You're doing nothing but showing everyone what a complete and utter dumbass you are. You should really consider shutting your yapper when people start talking science because you are one more clueless air head.
Not only are our perceptions not instant, they happen at different times depending on perspective. You know how you see a flash of lightning and it is followed by thunder? Well, the thunder is actually the sound made by the lightning ripping through the atmosphere. The perception of someone on the ground in close proximity of the strike is completely different than your perception 10 miles away. Light travels faster than sound, so you have perception of the light first, then the sound follows. If we had "instant" perception, we'd realize all this immediately at the same time. But physics has to happen, light and sound has to travel, time has to pass. Even the splitting of an atom takes time.
Even with the physics taking time to happen, you still have a physical body and brain which have to process incoming information. The optic nerve is stimulated, it sends chemical and electric signals to the brain... these signals must travel, they don't get to the brain instantly. Then the brain has to process the signal, this also takes time. Some people have slower brains than others... (you are a classic example of that). So not a damn thing is happening instantly, even though it may appear that way to an air head like you.
Of course we do have an instantaneous perception of the present. Your skewed religious version what you call "sheer physics" is really pretty silly.
If would have served your attempt at argument to provide some credible evidence for your "sheer physics" but as we see with your rattling, you have your own invention of physics.
Of course we do have an instantaneous perception of the present.
It's pretty typical behavior for you to stomp your feet and threaten to take your ball and bat and leave when you're too befuddled to compose a coherent argument.Such the stereotype of the angry, self-hating fundie.Our perception of the present certainly does happen instantaneously. Your "...... because I say so" denial is a poor substitute for your lack of understanding of that basic event.
I'm afraid your objection to the above is entirely a matter of your lack of a science vocabulary.
It cannot happen instantaneously, dingbat! You're doing nothing but showing everyone what a complete and utter dumbass you are. You should really consider shutting your yapper when people start talking science because you are one more clueless air head.
Not only are our perceptions not instant, they happen at different times depending on perspective. You know how you see a flash of lightning and it is followed by thunder? Well, the thunder is actually the sound made by the lightning ripping through the atmosphere. The perception of someone on the ground in close proximity of the strike is completely different than your perception 10 miles away. Light travels faster than sound, so you have perception of the light first, then the sound follows. If we had "instant" perception, we'd realize all this immediately at the same time. But physics has to happen, light and sound has to travel, time has to pass. Even the splitting of an atom takes time.
Even with the physics taking time to happen, you still have a physical body and brain which have to process incoming information. The optic nerve is stimulated, it sends chemical and electric signals to the brain... these signals must travel, they don't get to the brain instantly. Then the brain has to process the signal, this also takes time. Some people have slower brains than others... (you are a classic example of that). So not a damn thing is happening instantly, even though it may appear that way to an air head like you.
Of course we do have an instantaneous perception of the present. Your skewed religious version what you call "sheer physics" is really pretty silly.
If would have served your attempt at argument to provide some credible evidence for your "sheer physics" but as we see with your rattling, you have your own invention of physics.
All you are doing is repeating your "because I say so" argument. You've not presented anything of science to support your insane claim of instantaneous perception. I've not "invented" anything here, just using plain ordinary physics that any high school student understands. Light and sound travel... sorry toots--That's a physical fact of life. Nothing happens instantly.... everything that happens takes time to happen. If I drop a ball, it does not instantly appear on the ground, it has to travel there and it takes time. This is physics in action. I didn't invent it, I am not re-inventing it, and I am not proposing anything that contradicts it. You're just refusing to accept it which makes you a total moron.
The only thing rattling here are the rocks inside your empty head.
Okay... so here is what is going to happen now, Hollie. Unless you present some tangible science or physics to support your outrageous and fantastic claims of instant perception, I am going to completely ignore anything you have to say from here on out. It has become painfully obvious you just want to demagogue the thread and hoot down another Conservative while you rant against religion. You're not interested in a debate, you're too busy being a troll. So you can be a troll and tee off on religion or me, I don't really care, you're not adding anything to the conversation at this point, so rattle on dimwit!
Of course we do have an instantaneous perception of the present.
Of course we don't and I hereby challenge you to present ANY evidence to support your argument.
I've already presented MY evidence... Light travels, sound travels, electric impulses travel, all require time to travel. The brain has to process information and it requires time to do so. Therefore, it is impossible for us to have "instantaneous perception" of anything.
No. Nothing at all from you delineating how gawds=time™So... no evidence?
So how does our instantaneous perception of time=gawds®?Did you forget the title of your thread?
Apparently you did. You've not gotten it correct as of yet.
You wrote: "We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present."
.We have a perception of something that has already happened.
