3,004 Forum Posts by "Peter-II"
At 3/27/07 11:47 PM, Memorize wrote: You want to know what's sad about those links?
That they all gave answers like this: "Not quite as true as they said, but basically correct" (the 800 year lag between temp and Co2).
I'm sorry, but if you call that refuting, it's rather a pathetic way of doing it.
I know you're a troll, but seriously, don't mislead people like that again. Being a politics reg you should know full well that most people are only likely to glance at the link.
At 3/27/07 05:13 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Hey Peter, me and Forum-Guy are trying to have an intelligent discussion about the creation of the universe, and we don't need your ass flaming here for no fucking reason and ruining it.
So... either go bitch about how fucking stupid Christianity is on the Science vs. Religion thread, or fuck off completely.
Haha. Well, my ego is satisfied quite enough for the night.
Peter out!
Also, to the topic starter: the likes of Ravariel or EndGameOmega would have a field day with you. Einsteinian physics removed the need for aether; the big bang didn't happen "trillions" of years ago. Please go read a physics book.
At 3/27/07 04:40 PM, Dre-Man wrote: which says that the universe was created by an explosion caused by a chemical reaction
Hahahahaha, oh my.
Impressive, the impact that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has had on you people. Seriously - before you were all "well it's only a 0.6 celsius change in temperature" and "it's only environmental sensationalism" and now all your arguments are carefully rehearsed from that program. Have any of you ever considered consulting more than one source to base your arguments on? And seriously, it was a goddamn British program, haven't any of you anything more convincing in the States since that's where most GW scepticism originates?
I watched it, and really didn't find it to be that convincing. It was all going fine and I was about to reconsider my stance on GW until they started whining about its advocates being anti-US. Come to think of it, that was probably why the program had a greater impact on the Americans than it did on the Brits.
I personally fail to see how pumping shitloads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere isn't going to have an effect on the environment...but whatever, climatology is such a damned complex science that even if GW turns out to be true to the extent that mainstream science says it'll be then we'll still have no idea what's going to happen.
Also, about the sun spots thing - I'm pretty sure New Scientist debunked that hypothesis about 6 or 7 years ago. I'll have to dig out the issue.
Hey, this thread is becoming scientific again. Nice. Having been away for a while I'm finding the heathenry thread pretty hard to decipher so I'll warm myself up with this:
At 3/25/07 02:07 AM, Death-Cannon wrote: I do not have the time to read every post this thread has concocted but I will reply with hopes that not much has changed.
In the creation-evolution atheism-theism argument, nothing ever changes.
A better name for this topic would be "Belief versus Belief". Science is simply a study of certain subjects, the sciences of biology, archaeology, zoology, physics, and chemistry are the big players that converge on the creation of the universe. Yet, all agree that disproving faith is impossible, they just want to help people channel their faith, to point them in the right direction.
Not entirely sure what you're saying here but it's something like: science is a belief just as religion is because it talks about the same kind of things that religion talk about - that is, it discusses the beginning of the universe and the origin of man. Do forgive me if this is somewhat of a strawman.
Now, faith and science are completely different things. One relies on the reliability of empirical observation and the other...doesn't. Look, regardless of how true religion is or isn't, it isn't there to give us accurate descriptions of the origin of the universe of humans. It just...isn't. Regardless of how true it is the ancients wouldn't have understood the big bang or evolutionary theory, so why on earth would their divine revelations dealt with these kinds of issues? Why the HELL would you assume that, for instance, Genesis 1 gives an accurate, completely technical description of the creation of the universe? WHY?! The universe is WAY too messy for its creation to have been as Genesis 1.
They are doing their best to find the right direction, yet no way to see through the fog that is the past. We know that time travel is impossible and that any chance of seeing the moment when "God made" the universe.
No, we have several ways of looking into the past. I honestly find it quite annoying when people don't understand how such an intricate past could be observable "here" - just because you don't understand theoretical physics doesn't mean theoretical physicists don't, or that you know better than them.
Proving a thesis is hard enough, proving a theory and inducting it as a scientific law is practically impossible, only some of the most obvious things are laws.
Define "practically impossible". Laws are always being refined - take Newtonian physics for instance. He wasn't right, but he was close enough. Should we discount all of his work because Einstein refined it? Or discount all of Einstein's work because Planck refined it?
Also, laws are less obvious than you think. They just seem obvious when you hear about them.
Disproving a theory is easy and can happen with one discovery. Evolution is still young and cannot be confirmed nor will it ever be, so belief in it is similar to religion but the religious justify their beliefs with certain historical inconsistencies and phenomenon.
Theories are very rarely completely discarded, usually just refined. Evolution is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt - the nature of proof relies on axioms such as in mathematics, and science isn't an axiomatic system, so nothing can ever be "proven" per se. But, so that less scientifically-minded people, the word "proof" is entirely acceptable when talking about theories. I've noticed a lot of people start to doubt evolution and the big bang when it's called a "theory" or that it isn't "proven". This is seriously bad. Since these people will never take an interest in science...hang on, I'm going on a bit of a tangent here. Let's move on.
Are you so different from them? Fearful of being wrong you hide behind science and attack something which you do not know.
Holy crap. Holy crap. Do you have any idea how many times in this thread atheists have said that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive? You're talking about science as if it's some kind of trump card. Considering how much ignorance about the nature of science you've so far displayed in this post, you are being seriously hypocritical here. Faith is known by most atheists - sure they probably haven't experienced, but with religion it isn't proven, so why would an atheist assume some kind of truth there anyway? Oh my fucking christ....
You hate their ideas and their faith yet you "hate" it.
I really don't hate religion. It's useful socially. But heh, we hate it yet we "hate" it...yeah, hate usually entails hate....
Does that hate really exist? blah blah blah
Now you are simply talking shit. How old are you? 14 by any chance? I'm afraid on running out of characters here, so I won't bother taking your quite frankly retarded points and destroying them, one by one...sounds enticing, actually....
This can be applied to religion, for thousands of years we humans have had religion, many of them lasting for many many centuries, you say you have disproven them, and you think they will not take it lightly, not only have you just lied but you have made them question them and their entire lineage.
In many ways the big bang and evolution do make the concept of religion seem ridiculous - see my first post in this topic for reference - but other than that, they don't need to be mutually exclusive, as people have said several times in this thread. Very few atheists claim that science disproves religion per se, except Richard Dawkins of course.
Also, very few religious people have ever questioned their faith just because of a few outspoken atheists. They just go all "OMG ITS ONLY A THEORY"...a bit like you, eh?
You believe that everyone can just shake it off and say, "You know what this theory has some good ideas let's go along with it." and everyone can skip to a happy ending?
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.
People will never get rid of religion and you are a fool to think that religion should die, instead of getting rid of it let it adapt, you have tried to take power over something that you, an insignificant human being with a very small minority of the world behind you can see the entire universe, science still knows nothing.
Science knows quite a bit, actually...not that it knows everything, obviously. But from the available evidence we can say that the universe originated from a very small, very dense, very hot state. From the available evidence we can say that man originated from ape-like creatures, and eventually an abiogenesis in primeval oceans.
Religion knows nothing. No one knows anything.
So your little rant has turned into knowledge nihilism? Seriously, you are probably going to regret making this post later...no more weed for you.
Our grasp on reality is so small, the Earth is big to us, yet so small and we don't even know everything about it yet.
We don't know everything? Woah man, thanks for that, I'm really reassured. As opposed to anything as you proclaimed before?
Do not believe your argument cannot be argued as you have said, for it can't even stand enough to be proven.
You don't even know what proof is, do you?
Thank you if you have read my entire piece, and I apologize if I went off topic on any part of it.
Thank you is fucking right. Paragraph it next time, for the love of god. Also, don't talk out of your ass either. It's amusing for a while, but eventually it just gets annoying....
At 3/23/07 01:08 PM, TheBigPicture wrote: Great, if evolution, all the precise fundamental laws, and the unfolding universe were not products of chance, please tell me, what great mystical mechanism caused them to be manifested in their exact respective ways?
Clearly the universe is not random, so I fail to see why faith is needed to explain its uniformity. Other than that, however, most of the universe's uniformity can be explained through the four fundamental laws of physics.
In other words, the distribution of stars throughout galaxies is a result of gravitation working between the stars as opposed to a supreme deity holding it together.
At 3/23/07 07:35 AM, TheBigPicture wrote: Actually, the natural world demonstrates the existence of God as clear as day, and if you can't see it, you're blind.
Quite frankly it wouldn't be worth taking your post apart since every single one of your arguments bar one relied on the false presumption that an atheistic worldview entails a worldview that everything in the universe is generated by "chance", when in fact evolution driven by natural selection is not a random process; quite the opposite, in fact. Creationists love their strawmen, eh?
The other one of your arguments seemed to be something along the lines of there being no mechanism for speciation. This is also incorrect. Speciation would presumably (term used loosely) just happen as a result of continuous microevolution, which has been directly observed.
Well, apologies for being somewhat absent recently, but I've been rather bogged down with exams and such. I'll probably be back to my regularness on Friday.
I'd just like to notify you all that Dre's due to be back tomorrow. Prepare yourselves for the worst, people.
At 3/20/07 03:19 PM, kimochi wrote: Do I smell a bit of generalization? I'm 15 and I pysically laughed when I read all you had to say. I know what you're trying to say, a lot of 15-year-olds are stupid and unaware. But there are a lot of 15-year-olds that are the exact opposite.
Age: 26
I guess you don't fit into that category then, since you are "unaware" of your own age.
Please don't embarrass yourself by proving you're every single thing wrong with 15-year-olds (in your opinion).
Hahaha, what the fuck are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense. Way to back him up.
At 3/17/07 04:13 AM, Imperator wrote:At 3/17/07 04:07 AM, godsman11 wrote: every one of you idiots who are saying god doesnt exist, i want you to answer one simple questin. how can a man survive 2-3 pieces of shrapnel thru the skull into the brain?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
if you cant anser that then start believing in god.
Peter's on to something with these new guys......too easy......
Also, why would that prove the existence of god anyway? Some people die when big metal bars get driven through their brains, and some don't. It doesn't really reveal anything of a theistic nature either way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Fulp#Controv ersy
Wow...I didn't think there'd be a mention of Cellardoor6 on Wikipedia.
He's more infamous than I thought.
At 3/11/07 07:33 PM, CinergyStudios wrote: the problem is u evolutionist are believing in some big bang theory.. something u cant prove and that you only believe in by faith, in which u have created your own religion in it... and your saying those who believe in a God they cant prove are fools, where you have merely done the same thing.
...
Too easy.
gpd yh u hav a point. thrs no prpose to ecksistens, its al pointles if u thnk abt it
I wonder how they account for the fact that trees do, in fact, eventually die.
I don't get it, how the FUCK can they possibly compare natural cycles to do with the earth tilting on its axis to people going to eternity to either experience bliss or damnation in a place apparently not inside the physical universe after they die? And why would they draw the conclusion that the Bible is the correct word of god from that?
At 3/12/07 08:58 AM, Imperator wrote: Don't be surprised if we don't send you an invite. :(
Judging from how the topic is going thus far, I don't think we'll need invites
At 3/12/07 05:32 PM, stafffighter wrote: It is pure hubris to think that time is an illusion. Simply put there's no need for an illusion. At one point an object is in one place and at another point it occpies a different spece. At one point something dosen't exist, at another it exists and then at yet another it does not.
If time were an illusion to prevent our collapse from not realizing the truth we would be obliterated by the truth we were blind to. However we can be obliterated by the time and place of people and things.
Were you responding to me? If so, I never said that time was an illusion, but rather a description of how things happen. So this would mean that time is relative to whatever a human can experience.
Still, if we take modern developments into account such as rapid movement of particles which we of course can't notice, then the present would last as long as the smallest amount of time which is necessary for something to happen.
To put it even simpler, we're not so important existance needs to put on a show.
Of course not.
The problem of the specious present
This one's always interested me. It's a member of the problem of boundaries (i.e., precisely where is the line drawn between x and y), which seems to be seldom discussed. I've thought about this before, and have come to the conclusion that time is just a name given to how things happen by humans, meaning "time" as such doesn't exist. This would mean that the present is relative to what humans experience as the present. Thus, the present is the shortest amount of time in which a human can experience / notice something.
And by the way, the ship is what the ship is called.
At 3/12/07 01:32 AM, Imperator wrote: Well, the theory would follow that if multiple religions developed along the same way, all independent of each other, we would have a type of basic procession of religious nature. Whether that starting point is polygamy, or one of an evil, vengeful deity(ies) is beyond me. I know it's a stretch, but hey, we're living in a world where not only can people fly, but we can go to space too.
Yes, and it would seem that from when man first started trying to explain the mystery of life and existence, the numerous gods he created have reflected his nature from that period. So then we can assume that when Yahweh was murderous and brutal, the Hebrews were murderous and brutal too. Either that or they needed to become murderous and brutal in order to escape the Egyptians.
There is, of course, the theory of primitive monotheism - stating that the first god(s) that man created were supreme monotheistic deities that couldn't be expressed with statues, shrines or even, I suppose, writing. This is how many African tribes today see god; they say that he can't be comprehended by the human mind, and as a result of this, god is rather absent from their lives.
If this indeed how the first gods were, then it would be interesting to see which nature of humanity this mirrored. Of course, I suppose, assuming the validity of this theory, the tribesmen couldn't cope with this abstract view of god, which gave rise to some of the more accessible Pagan deities we see in the Axial age.
Unfortunately right now this seems to be an area of history that's too obscure to trace, so we can never really determine whether or not this theory is correct... 'course, never say never and all.
And yeah, it was pretty interesting. A lot of times you think of monotheism and polytheism as polar opposites or as separate and distinct ideas, when in fact chances are it's probably more like a continuum than anything else.....
Quite - as Ravariel said, the polytheistic nature of the Hindus is actually the worship of one supreme deity separated into more accessible forms so he is more easily worshipped. This is probably true for a lot of other polytheistic and henotheistic religions as well.
At 3/12/07 04:27 AM, Ravariel wrote: But I digress. Maybe it was a way to mitigate all the fire and brimstone and frogs that they told these stories of their god tussling and eating with the people, showing them that he DID have a gentler side when they did what he asked.
Yeah, that sounds pretty plausible - an effective social control tactic, I might add. Still, it's curious if we consider the history of the Bible.
At 3/11/07 06:34 PM, Imperator wrote: THAT would be a very substantial theory, because it would then denote that religious thought not only has a hierarchy, but an evolution and succession, starting with polytheism being the most "barbaric" of religious practices.
I don't know about that - the Hebrews seemed to be at their most hostile when the jealous, tribal Yahweh first appears in Exodus. Before that the Jews didn't seem to be too bothered about polytheism - but Yahweh demanded that he be worshipped above the other gods for sure.
Thankfully Yahweh didn't remain this barbaric, which I think has benefitted everyone really.
That'd be henotheism then.Of which I believe Greek (not sure of Roman) tradition holds a "Supreme" god above all others. The problem with evidence on this one lies in part because he isn't supposed to be talked about, therefore there are no shrines, temples, or many literary works on its (to avoid gender bias) existence. We do have a few allusions and references to this monotheistic aspect of Greek religion though.......
Link? That sounds pretty interesting.
At 3/10/07 02:06 PM, Ravariel wrote: It was also turned into a slur by the christians in order to gain power over the "heathen tribes" of northern Europe during the spread of the religion in it's early days. And now, we barely know it's real meaning. Amazing what spin can do, no?
Haha, evidently! Check it out:
76 views, 5 replies
Clocking in at less replies than such informative topics as Ive been thinking..., Anti-Terrorist Images and home work what do u think! Perhaps the BBS thought that because of this topic's title, it was yet another anti-Islam / anti-Pagan / anti-science rant and ended up being disappointed?
I'd like to bring up the possible - in fact, probable - polytheistic roots of Judaism. Yahweh seems to take all sorts of different forms throughout the Torah, and so it's highly likely that the Jews were in fact worshipping different gods. Abraham's god seems to be El, one of the Canaanite high gods, as he introduces himself as El Shaddai, meaning El of the mountain. El was somewhat of an epiphany, as well as a very mild god - he was a bit like a divine friend.Well, hell, that gets even stranger when it morphes into christianity, what with teh trinity and all. But yeah, these different facets of what is apparently the same god, do seem at odds. But then again, in other pantheons, gods were thought to have conflicting personalities. Zeus was considered both just and fickle. Thor, known as the hammer-weilding god of thunder, was also known as the Deep Thinker, the Consecrator and Man's Well Wisher.
The various ways in which Yahweh is presented conflict more extremely, though (correct me if I'm wrong). We have the epiphany Yahweh who has dinner with Abraham and wrestles with Jacob, and the murderous Yahweh who can't be looked at (upon pain of death) and inflicts the plague upon Egypt and drowns the soldiers while they were chasing the Hebrews.
This may just be a gentler side to the crazy god of the Jews.
May have been, but it's far more likely IMO that Abraham adopted the Canaanite god El, considering he was living in Canaan at the time, bears many similarites to El of Bethel and introduces himself as "El of the mountain".
Well, he morphed into a God with MPD
Hahahahahaha
Or as an actual christian might view it, the transitional phase from what they THOUGHT their gods were like, to what he really is like.
Ah yes, the god Yeshua...of course, it's interesting to see why Christians believe why Yeshua is god, considering he never claimed it himself. The disciples call him the Lord in the gospels, but even that's a little fishy...the Christian church hadn't decided on the role of Yeshua until the 4th century AD.
I'm still curious if that's not an actual call to polytheism... It seems to say that it's cool to worship other gods... just so long as you accept God as big-daddy... as the Odin or Zeus or Brahman of the pantheon.
That'd be henotheism then.
I think the direct Greek translation is "there shall be no strange gods for you before my face", which seems to indicate even more henotheism than the KJB translation.
Then again, maybe it's simply a way for the writers to allow their new god to accept the people who had believed in other gods, without forcing the destruction of their entire faith (which, I doubt, would have earned many converts)
Possibly, although Yahweh was incredibly jealous, as several Torah verses seem to state - in fact, Yahweh seems to hate all goyims (Jeremiah 10).
At 3/10/07 11:43 PM, CinergyStudios wrote: it didnt mean everything was wipped out by the flood there have been places found around the world where it looks like groups of people held out on a high elevation during the similar time period.... theres actually a mountain in Canada where a native tribe lived during believed to be similar time period.. on this mountain are water marks left at an un-matchable hight with today's water levels
Give me a (reliable) source, or just read problems with a global flood.
At 3/10/07 07:27 PM, Peter-II wrote: Or how one man could have built a boat single-handedly?
Damn my typos!
That's meant to say "such a boat".
Well, I've got time to kill.
At 3/10/07 03:30 PM, CinergyStudios wrote: even if u believe in evolution we obviously came from some super being (God)...
It's that obvious? I had no idea man could even begin to comprehend the pre-universe, let alone say what "obviously" caused it! Good god, I'm enlightened. Please tell me more, O great CinergyStudios, clearly you alone have come to a breakthrough in modern science, theology and philosophy. Shame about your lack of capacity in spelling though...even the most intelligent of men would have difficulty navigating their way through your poorly veiled streaming of consciousness....
things just dont go bang all of a sudden on there own, and if so im sure it would have happened or begain to happen again especially now that there is more elements in space then before this "big bang"..
Christ, you don't even know what a singularity is, do you? And yet you insist on knowing more than today's top cosmologists. Damn.
plus theres so much proff these days of stuff from the bible..
Oh my, this is going to be fun.
like how they just found noahs ark... like is what would actually be it.. a friend of mine actually worked on an expidition on it the pictures and mineral research they recovered changed my out look on religion.. like i was never a big follower but what he showed was definately powerful. info .
They found a boat. A boat, on a different Mount Ararat than the one mentioned in Genesis. Yeah man, I'm totally converted! By the way, since the flood allegedly destroyed all the species on earth, what evidence is there that all life today originated from Turkey? Oh, that's right...none. Or perhaps you'd like to inform us how such a gigantic boat could have floated rather than just remaining at the bottom of the desert when the rain started? Or maybe you'd like to elaborate on why the implications of a global flood that obviously would have gone as high as Mount Everest (since there's fossil forms on Everest) can't be seen today? Or how one man could have built a boat single-handedly? Well, I suppose I'm forgetting that people lived longer back then; after all, Noah was 600 years old when he built his giant boat in the desert.
So, there's evidence for an Old Testament myth you say? So have you converted to Judaism?
but meh soon enough will find out the truth are world is obviously coming to an end soon and most likely from our own doing.. probably war..
Yes, indeed "will" find out the truth. What's the point you're making here? That the world's going to end "soon", even though people have been predicting that for centuries, even millennia? And I suppose that proves the prophecies made in Revelations or some shit? Jesus motherfucking Christ, you're the worst kind of theist; the complete moron.
At 3/10/07 01:29 PM, muchcoolerthanu wrote: last 2 posts were to the first couple of people
You are the eptiome of everything that is wrong with the politics forum.
At 3/8/07 11:14 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: That is what happens in EVERY SINGLE socialist/communist country, always. An evil, sly talking socialist who pretends that he only wants power to enforce equality uses his deception to brainwash people into voting for him and giving him as much power as possible.
Sweden, anyone?
At 3/10/07 09:28 AM, Sinthe wrote: I thought this was referred to as Asatru, or Norse Paganism.
Odinism is, I think, synonymous with Norse mythology.
At 3/10/07 12:42 AM, Ravariel wrote: A form of Paganism, Heathenry is more commonly known as Odinism.
Are you sure? I was convinced that heathenry was just a pigeonhole term for every non Judeo-Christian religion...
Other obscure religious discussion is welcome as well.
Well- this isn't that obscure, but I'm sure it'll be beyond the jabber that goes on in the current religion threads:
I'd like to bring up the possible - in fact, probable - polytheistic roots of Judaism. Yahweh seems to take all sorts of different forms throughout the Torah, and so it's highly likely that the Jews were in fact worshipping different gods. Abraham's god seems to be El, one of the Canaanite high gods, as he introduces himself as El Shaddai, meaning El of the mountain. El was somewhat of an epiphany, as well as a very mild god - he was a bit like a divine friend.
Hence the fact that Abraham literally sits down and has dinner with his deity in human form in Genesis 18 - along with two angels, no less. The writers of the Torah, however, presumably expect us to believe that this is the same god as Moses' Yahweh, who insists on appearing to him in at a distance (sometimes as a volcanic eruption, sometimes as a violent wind, etc., as if Moses looked upon Yahweh, he would die). In fact, when Moses asks Yahweh his name, he says "I am who I am". Rather than this indicating that Yahweh is a self-subsident being (since the Hebrew language didn't have a metaphysical side to it at this point), it was probably used to indicate a deliberate vagueness; as in, "never you bloody well mind who I am!"
And I honestly can't make myself believe that the god that wrestled with Jacob is the same god that inflicted a terrible plague upon Egypt. Yahweh was, plainly, a war god, completely different from Abraham's El.
Even part of the first commandment seems to indicate the existence of other gods..."Thou shalt have no other gods before me". This was probably Yahweh promoting monotheism above the previous henotheistic tendencies of the Jews.
And by the way, good thread :) Let's hope we can keep this obscure enough to deter the morons of the BBS, eh?
At 3/9/07 06:21 PM, Imperator wrote: Age 14.....yup.....Seek hekp NOW!
Wouldn't it make more sense if these people tried to prove that topic wrong?
So far we appear to have roughly zero examples of such an event occuring.
At 3/9/07 05:19 PM, Imperator wrote: It's all or nothing for kids these days.
I'm a firm believer in the theory that as people grow older, they see things in less and less black and white terms. In a non-debating context, you get all the social cliques that young'uns attribute to each other and, even more depressingly, themselves.
You also see it in voting patterns...young voters tend to be more idealistic than old voters, I'm told. And as your post exemplified, political stances in kids is very interesting indeed....good thing they're not allowed to vote.
Now THAT would be awesome.Take a look at Rav's idea. I like it, but I'm not really knowledgable about much else. Maybe we could give it a shot anyways and see where the rabbit hole leads.........
I think the idea should be invoked - but rather than any non-Judeo Christian religion in particular, we should have a pagan religion discussion thread.
We could discuss Greek and Roman mythology, Sikhism, Hinduism, maybe even Satanism. I can't say I'm that knowledgable about pagan religions either, but we could damn well give it a shot.
Of course, what should really be interesting is whether or not it'll turn into a creationism / evolution debate or, even more worryingly, a theism / atheism debate. This trend of religion and philosophy threads turning into science vs. theism debates is similar to Godwin's law, kinda.
Peter's law - as an online discussion about either religion, science or philosophy grows longer, the probability of it descending into a poor quality dispute about atheism vs. theism / science vs. religion approaches one.
