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?

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.

Never use too strong words in an amirite post always use words like sometimes or usually because there's always that one time it doesn't apply and people disagree, amirite?

Sometimes you shouldn't use strong words like "never" because there's always that one time it doesn't apply.

Starting a comment with "This is probably gonna get downvoted but" is pretty much a sure fire way of getting voted up, because the majority of the amirite community will pretty much go out of their way to prove that no one can accurately predict their behaviour, amirite?

I could be wrong, but it's easy to manipulate reactive contrarians with good old-fashioned reverse psychology. Especially on the Internet.

Only 55% of Americans know that the sun is a star. You hope to God that the rest were answering the poll sarcastically, amirite?

Sauce pls.

I looked it up and found zip.

55% of Americans will agree with a bogus statistic if it supports a confirmation bias

Writers should do more things like Wicked, were you get to here the other side of the story, amirite?

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 think about this whenever I listen to shitty industrial music and find myself craving a song that doesn't exist.

It's sad that the main driving force in the world is money, amirite?

It's actually trade.

That's not sad, that's business.

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?
@Jamal Apples and oranges; there's an explanation of "how" (natural science) and an explanation of "why" (philosophy...

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.

► Play the moments. | ▌▌ Pause the memories. | ■ Stop the pain. | ◄◄ Rewind the happiness, amirite?

| ● Record the sex.

You hate when girls ovary act about something, amirite?

ISWYDT

You know you're searching up something inappropriate when Google doesn't auto-complete it, amirite?

Or just esoteric.

It's kind of disconcerning that we are known by a number to the government, rather than a name. Amirite?

You're also known by your legal name. That's why government forms usually require that you input your name along with your SS#

But I see what you're saying. Ultimately, all your personal info is contained behind a cold and impersonal line of alphanumerics.

Love is an emotion that you cannot turn on and off. Either you still love someone, or you never did. amirite?

Romantic "love", or natural love, is driven by emotion, which people tend to confuse with love. Rational love - real love - is not driven by emotion, but guided by principles. Indeed, one CANNOT "fall out" of rational love. But one CAN experience a falling out of romantic "love", since it's little more than infatuation.

In romantic love, a person loves everything BUT the other person. They love the romantic elements; the idea of being in love. When the romantic elements dissipate, they experience a fallout and interpret their experience as that of no longer being in love.

Conversely, in rational love, a person loves the other person. The romantic elements are a byproduct, that is, rational love is still there even in the absent of romantic "love".

Unfortunately, people are conditioned by society (though mediums of entertainment like books and television, i.a.) to believe that romantic "love" is the only form of love. It's sad. And a symptom of a bigger problem.

http://amirite.net/652115
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_love
http://www.divorceinteractive.c...antic_love.asp

It's tough arguing with Christians. You could have a completely legitimate and scientifically backed argument for why homosexuality is genetic, and they will say something like, "Well, God wouldn't make gays, so that isn't true," without a shred of doubt in their mind, amirite?

It's tough arguing with anyone who assigns absolute cognitive authority to one frame of reference.

cody simson is a copy of justin bieber, amirite?

...and Justin Beiber is just a copy of every teen idol since the 80s.