Apples and oranges; there's an explanation of "how" (natural science) and an explanation of "why" (philosophy, religion). You're mistreating both as if they are fundamentally incompatible. They aren't. So long as humans are sapient, the question of "why" will always remain, and so will philosophy at best and religion at worst. Science can't exist without philosophy and philosophy can't exist without science and religion. The three are constructs of mere sentience and sapience. Epistemologically speaking: there is no trichotomy; fake divisions are fabricated and propagated by Materialists and Idealists in an egotistical effort to oversimplify reality for the sake of meaningless debate.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Marry me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

>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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

>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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

>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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

>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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

mmkay

by Anonymous 12 years ago

@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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

>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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

A why doesn't necessarily implicate a higher force.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

>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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Omg thank you.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Incredibly pretentious

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Trust me, it's no inferiority complex. In all viable ways I'm already aware that I'm smarter than you. Smart people just go about their day, people that wish they were smart and want people to think they are smart do... Well do exactly what you've done on this post. A lot of what you're saying doesn't really make much sense and is in most ways a very outdated way of thinking. But people are getting lost in all the needless jargon. Using words like troglodyte to mean users of this site, as well as how angry you're getting shows me just how important everyone's approval of you is. It's kinda sad but I guess it realky isn't you're fault. Years of psychological abuse or parental issues could be the cause. It's the people who leave one quiet thought on the post about their views that are usually correct and intelligent. In fact your first comment was exactly that, you just exposed yourself when you felt the need to attack and sputter on about every single little detail people countered you on. For example if I know your character, and I think I do, you will reply to this comment with several replies, drawn out explanations, and a very condescending attitude. All for attention

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Now who wants to bet that after reading my comment he changes his tactics to a short reply that basically says 'I know I'm right, you're the one getting worked up not me, I'm not talking to someone so inferior, have a nice life.' all in an overly happy tone like he doesn't care and I'm the one who got really worked up while he was carelessly expressing innocent views.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

>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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Point out the parts of the Bible that were used to explain volcanoes and earthquakes and I'll agree.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think so. Because some people still believe that God created it that way, and just because they know how it works doesn't mean they won't believe in God.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Favvkes posts two things: controversial posts and cats.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There's still so much we don't know about the universe, that even if understanding all the mysteries would somehow eliminate faith, we are no where near close to getting to that point. We don't even know for sure what yawning accomplishes, let alone all the crazy stuff going on in outer space.

by Anonymous 12 years ago