We take natural phenomena like eclipses, volcano eruptions, and earthquakes for granted. We understand them and why they occur. But hundreds of years ago, people wouldn't have had any idea what was going on. They would have thought the gods were destroying the Earth. Goes to show that the more we discover and learn, the less we attribute to mysticism. The age of religion is coming to an end, amirite?

Is it really necessary to use words like 'trichotomy' in this context? That has its place, certainly, but in this context it just looks like an attempt to overcomplicate your point, and it's unnecessary to use words most people reading this will not immediately know. I agree with your point, but the way you go about expressing it is incredibly pretentious.

Why are Mexican and African jokes the same?
Once you heard Juan, you heard Jamal.

This is exactly what I've been trying to explain for so long now, being a Christian who plans to major in Biology

Marry me.

No.

I like overusing big words when the points I try to make suck, too.

Your illiteracy is not my problem. What points are you referring to, exactly?

Is it really necessary to use words like 'trichotomy' in this context?

Is it really necessary for an artist to choose azure over blue? Your point is non-point. You're obviously offended by objectivity. That's not my problem.

That has its place, certainly, but in this context it just looks like an attempt to overcomplicate your point

You're allowing your biased perception to destroy your ability to reason. What reason do you possibly have to argue that my choice of words is unnecessary in this context? I don't think your reaction is based on reason at all, but emotion. So I won't hold my breath waiting for a rational reply.

and it's unnecessary to use words most people reading this will not immediately know.

Define "most people". I'm not a politician or a teacher. Your illiteracy is not my problem.

Trichotomy refers generally to a division into 3. However, the only time you would actually need to use it is for the more specific philosophical usage, which is not the case here. Because of this I concluded it was unnecessary.

And no, I agree that religion, philosophy, and science are manifestations of the same desires and collective consciousness, but it isn't necessary to express this in terms the majority of people will not understand. This argument doesn't need to be made on terms that eliminate the majority of people from responding.
I didn't make the comment about using big words to compensate for shitty points and I won't respond to those criticisms.

Attacking an ad hominem argument with another ad hominem argument does nothing to prove that you're smarter than him. This comment thread has regressed to nothing but insults.

I agree, but I don't think that's a good thing. This user consistently does the same thing, which is make simple points using words that guarantee the layman will not understand, and I think that's unfair.

A why doesn't necessarily implicate a higher force.

Your response seems rather emotional, Jamal. I don't think it's necessary to refute every single point anyone makes. You can agree with what someone says without thinking the way they say it is appropriate for that context.

Why are we here isn't necessarily a question asking literally why we're here. A purpose, a meaning for life, is a goal worth searching for even if you understand how you got here.

I agree with your point, but the way you go about expressing it is incredibly pretentious.

You don't agree with my point. If you did, you wouldn't perceive it as pretentious. You're criticizing the presentation of my comment to compensate for something.

Why are Mexican and African jokes the same? Once you heard Juan, you heard Jamal.

"Jamal" is not an African name. It's Arabic. "Juan" is not a Mexican name, it's the Spanish equivalent of "John", which is Hebrew in origin.

But expecting you to know that is like expecting a rhesus to know a simple mathematical operation.

Trichotomy refers generally to a division into 3. However, the only time you would actually need to use it is for the more specific philosophical usage

I use terms of philosophy when discussing topics of philosophy. This post is as much a topic of philosophy as it's a topic of science and religion, so your reason is a non-reason.

Here's what I think: You've never studied philosophy. Your education probably ended with science, so you regard anything from philosophy as separate from all other disciplines. This speaks more about your ignorance than mine, which explains why you're arguing to the people to support your bias against terms of philosophy and/or religion.

And no, I agree that religion, philosophy, and science are manifestations of the same desires and collective consciousness

I never said anything close to this. You don't agree with my points and this is proof that you clearly don't understand them. I suspect you're criticizing my post to compensate for a bias, and you aren't doing much to invalidate my suspicion.

Firstly, you aren't referring to a traditional trichotomy considering you are revoking the notion of a three-fold nature. Considering prior to this, nobody had listed those three items as a trichotomy or aspects of man's nature, your usage was again unnecessary.
Second point is ad hominem. It's irrelevant whether or not I have studied philosophy, and you're making leaps of faith that are irrational and unsystematic, considering I've done nothing to suggest a bias towards philosophy. Had you used scientific terms to isolate most readers, I would have done the same.
Explain your point then. Last sentence is again ad hominem.

I'm not following your herrings.

You don't agree with my comment, so you play pedant and appeal to the ignorance of people to dissuade others from agreeing with it. This has nothing to do with my use of terms and everything to do with your bias against the spirit of my post.

I'm not stupid, so I'm not going to follow you down the rabbit hole of meaningless miasma. Your points are non-points and your reasons are non-reasons. I'm done here.

@Jamal (original comment)
I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but I have to say disagree that science requires abstract ideas to explain why something happens. If you have the 'how', you don't ~need~ a 'why'. Maybe it helps some people to believe that there is a why- that there is a reason bad things happen- but if there is an explicable natural cause for an event, the only reason you would ~need~ a why is if some supernatural force was causing it to happen. Essentially, it's circular logic; nature/science doesn't need a reason to what it does; a higher power might. Therefore, the existence of a reason is only necessary if a higher power exists and vice versa.
I'm not entirely sure if that made any sense whatsoever, or if my point is relevant to yours, but I figure it's at least relevant to the post.

Care to explain? My point was that the 'why' is not necessary if we know the 'how', and my interpretation of "the question of why will always remain" was that the 'why' was necessary.

That's your opinion. I disagree. If everything is just scientific cause and effect, why would there need to be a reason?

Ah, I see. The post had me thinking more along the lines of natural occurrences. I wasn't thinking about personal meaning/ why we do what we do/ what we are looking for out of life, because of course we have are personal reasons that we create for ourselves.

I meant a 'why' for natural scientific cause and effect, as the post refers to... as in there is no higher 'intelligence' deciding how nature works... there is a why in our human intelligence obviously.

Omg thank you.

I don't need your running commentary. If you don't have anything to say on the topic of my first comment ITT, then don't waste my time.

Hey dude maybe it's not all about you. It made me feel better that I wasn't the only one who "misinterpreted" your comment, so it wasn't a total waste of time. Besides, my comment had everything to do with your original statement and you still treated it like a waste of time. If it's that big a problem just gtfo.

Incredibly pretentious

Damn, this got entertaining. Reminds me of the posts that Scratonocity used to argue on.

mmkay

Dude, you're not some misunderstood wandering soul. Calm down.

I never implied otherwise. And who the hell was even talking to you? The reason you posted this is because I was ignoring your comments ITT, so you decided to chime in with pointless and irrelevant commentary about the nature of my character just to get attention. You're as transparent as they come.

So you've got the attention you were looking for. Grand. Now do me a favour and stay the hell out of conversations that don't involve you. Otherwise, I'd like you to meet the bottom of my killfile.

My point was that the 'why' is not necessary

My comment has nothing to do with necessity. Nevertheless, to challenge the necessity of "why" is to challenge the necessity of sapience, which is absurd.

Only a Materialist would make such an irrational claim, if only for the sake of argument. Your intent isn't to understand me, but to misunderstand me and erect pointless stawmen arguments that force a division between science and all other fields of inquiry.

You know, I really don't give a flying fsck about your inferiority-complex fueled perceptions. In fact, I'm going to use more polysyllabic words just to spite the illiterate troglodytes ITT. Nothing anyone has said has changed my view on the necessity of using terms of philosophy, so you've wasted your time with your petty, sophomoric, embarrassingly ignorant whine.

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but I have to say disagree that science requires abstract ideas to explain why something happens.

You've misunderstood what I said.

Marry me.

I like overusing big words when the points I try to make suck, too.

OH MY GOD Christianity is not the only religion that has ever existed ever!

There's no direct explanation, but that far back no one would have understood why the big mountain was spraying red liquid all over the place. The only natural occurrence that I can think of that has a reference in the Bible is Rainbows.

That's true, but any major world religions left mostly don't bother with explaining natural phenomena.