NotDarkYet

If it were called "Truth" that'd be fine. BUT why not consider some of the names of the older podcasts?! There is a an overwhelming number of wonderful titles of podcasts.... Howabout naming it "The Story of Your Enslavement: The Documentary" Or sumpin

I also don't love the name. I wonder what alternative title's they've been playing with.

Yess!!!!!! Finally!!!!!! The amount of reproductive fluid that was just released in my pants is record breaking. A docomentary is exactly what we needed. This is the next step. This will fill in the gaps (marketing wise) that 100,000,000 podcasts can never reach. Freedom, may now be a REAL possibility for our grandchildren. (some of which are dying in my pants)

Which definition of gods could exist. And which definition of gods couldn't not exist? For me 1) Possible: An extra-terrestrial super being that has techonologial power beyond our imagination. God-like. But not a "god" in the theological sense. 2) Not Possible: A creator of the univere. An entity that punishes people with Hell, and rewards with Heaven. A thing that has consiousness without material being. Etc 3) Equal to Non-existence...something we'll never ever come into contact with that has no material or energetic effects. Why use the word "God"...because it has religious meanings. Why not talk about "unknown intelligences" or something?

What are gods? It seems silly to talk about the percentages of somethinge existing...if that something is not defined at all. Of course there is a chance that (X) exists if you dont define (X).

What is/are god(s)?

Many would have said something can't be both a particle and a wave at the same time. "Particle" and "Wave" were concepts about things too small to see with our naked eyes. Reality DIDN'T contradict itself here...our concepts did. We adjusted our concepts to fit reality. And if NOTHING can be certain, why do you say "We 100% can't be 100% certain about truth" Isn't that a contradiction? You're making a statement of certainty about reality.

Hi DaProle, That was a question I had many many years ago when I was just losing my religion. The quick answer is this: Do you KNOW there is no such thing as a square-circle? Yes, a thing cannot be itself, and NOT itself at the same time. God is a self-contradictiory entity at many levels. -- Also, the burden of proof is upon the agnostic, not the atheist. If god exists...then he will have mass..or be energy...or the effect of one of those things. So it's a testable hypothesis.

One more thing. Be honest. How do you feel about your relatively low postcount? Obviously you have some super strong feelings at the moment.

Ok. We disagree on what is 'important information' and what isn't. Fine. Values differ. But, ultimately this is a question for the owner of this property. Can we agree on that much?

No, but that's not a valid analogy because this forum has an important purpose. The postcount has a trivial purpose at best. Trivial? Knowlege that someone has spent many years on the forum is TRIVIAL? It's interesting to note that you claim to know what is trivial information to others.

I did that before I created the thread. It still does not explain why we have a postcount specially when it can cause someone to project their insecurities. We have reached the conclusion that a postcount creates unnecesary preconceptions. Then why not remove it? What "unneccesary preconceptions"? Unneccesary according to you. Not me. The postcount is a FACTUAL ACCOUNT OF A USERS HISTORY ON THIS FORUM! It is not a lie. It is a fact. You have some insecurities about this...and that's fine...but it's not fine when you put this on us.

To the OP: The postcount is obviously a rorshach object for you.... you are throwing your own insecurities into it I think you should use your discomfort about the postcount to do a little self-examination. . Ask yourself: " What feelings do I have when considering my "post status" compared to others?" "Why do I feel threatened by having a low postcount?" etc... Instead of projecting your insecurities onto us.

The postcount is useful to me so I know the approximate FDR experience level of the poster. A high postcount indicates that we have similar values and I'm not gonna be wasting my time with a passive aggressive troll. A low postcount (less than 20ish) means I should be careful interacting with them, because I don't know anything about their values relative to mine.

Here is how I explan the answer to people who refuse to believe the answer. Imagine you have 100 doors. You stand in front of door 1. Now you have TWO SETS of doors. SET 1 = Your door. Set 2 = The 99 other doors. Of those two sets. Where is the money more likely to be? In the large set, of course. Now the host OPENS 98 of the 99 doors. Leaving 1 remaining. It becomes very very clear that the money is probably in that other door. The 3 door problem is the same, but on the smallest possible scale.

It bears noting that Stef has beat out a world famous PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!!!! Sea change? Me thinky.

Using a gun to get what you want = Evil. Using a gun to get what you want = Moral Necessity

A WELL DESERVED CONGRATULATIONS SIR! Wow. Just....wow. Reading these brought tears to my eyes.

Wow. Just.....wow.... Stef, thank you for this. By the way, your podcasts have been the center of discussion at my workplace during the last few weeks. Everyone that I've shown your stuff to has become a philosophical anarchist. Three new anarcho capitalists have been created in my office this WEEK. You're barre none the best communicator of philosophy that I have seen. (Can't wait for the documentary. I bet it'll also be a knockout. Can't wait to donate again too! As soon as I'm back in America you'll get some of my cash.)