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.
Uh, you'd have to know how smart I am in order to determine how smart I'm pretending to be, genius.
I think you're hiding an infantile inferiority complex that has been triggered by your own logophobic delusions about intelligence. The fact that you're intimidated by this post is transparent. The fact that you reference some logophobic whine from anti-intellectualism to rationalise away your illiteracy is even more transparent. Funny part is, you probably don't even think it's that obvious.
I think you've deluded yourself into believing that I'm pretending to be smart to relieve yourself of dissonance caused by the fact that a stranger on the Internet has demonstrated a level of literacy that you feel uncomfortable with. I think you're threatened by it.
So you, like most illiterate tossers, accuse me of faking verbal-linguistic intelligence - as if doing so will somehow make you any less of an idiot. Fast fact: It doesn't. But that won't stop you, will it? Because it's so cool to be a fatuous wanker who wouldn't know what it means to be smart if someone bludgeoned him over the head with a copy of Lynn Gilman's "Human Intelligence".
At least s/he has found a way to stuff the words "vagina", "kittens", and "violence" in the same sentence. That takes commitment.
I'm want to write a script for a film set before the mythical flood.
The story will be told from the perspective of pretty much everyone but Noah's family, spotlighting a few interesting characters along the way as the world plots a course for its own destruction. Much of the background will come from the Book of Enoch, which describes the pre-flood world as one that was pretty similar to our own- but with access to non-terrestrial super-natural beings that essentially screwed with the evolutionary development of humanity.
The end of the epic will be something like The Day After Tomorrow/2012/Titanic: the audience will see characters that they love struggle against the element(s) before... well... losing everything they ever knew in a sea of chaos and divine contempt.
I tried a depression pill once...
Barely got away with my life.
I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
Haha. It's happened to me before, except I was chased off for telling some kid in a neighbourhood park that Santa Claus doesn't exist. His father practically chased me out of the park: "Go home and ruin someone else's Christmas!"
Fond memory, that.
I do it sometimes. Like if I'm drowsy or my mouth gets dry. But it's nothing a lingual frenotomy can't fix.
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.
This is POTD material.
I looked it up and found zip.
55% of Americans will agree with a bogus statistic if it supports a confirmation bias
Not the "best" response, but definitely high on the totem pole of sardonic comebacks.
Parallel claim: Everyone assumes black people eat chicken.
If "comfortable silence" describes the rare occasion when nonverbal communication is interpreted so well that there's no need to talk, then I agree.