Wesley

I am pretty sure any donation level allows reputation voting.

It is fundamental to science and the scientific method that the positive proposition is where the burden of proof is. If I claim there are leprechauns, then it is my duty to prove that and you are fully allowed to accept that they do not exist if I am not able to prove it. This is how science works. However, much more of the problem is that everyone means something different by "God", so the entire argument is stupid to begin with. If you define God as something self-contradictory, then we can claim non-existence in the same way we can claim that a square-circle doesn't exist. If you define it as something that does exist like "the universe" then it exists, but we have the word "universe" for it and it seems that it is unnecessary to complicate things. If you define it as "the process by which the universe was created" then that is something scientific and we may not completely understand what it is, but it did happen. The major problem with God is that it means nothing. Everyone has a different definition which they project their own emotional baggage onto the word. Thus, it doesn't become about facts and evidence, but about saving the emotional crutch.

Welcome Sayo! Glad you conquered your anxiety and joined up. I am sure that some of your conversations here will be able to help your process toward self knowledge. Good luck on your journey!

Welcome to the board! I would be curious to get more information on the transition from Catholicism to here, what influences you had, what your introduction was to Stef, etc. It can be helpful in making arguments to others coming from a similar background, as well as where you have come from and where you are now.

The problem is no one individual or group. If it was just the Vatican, then they would be the crazy people nobody talked to. The problem is bad ideas and the fact that those bad ideas are pervasive in society, inflicted on children, and normalized. Nearly everyone has issues, few realize it, and even fewer work on repairing the damage.

The whole thing was just sad, but this is the moment where I began to feel disgusted. What therapist would do this to someone whose mind is so broken?

Because everyone knows we went in Iraq and Afghanistan to catch the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Because we weren't occupying some 150+ countries before the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened. Because I have studied Robert A. Pape's work on what causes suicide terrorism and think we should occupy more countries. (His work shows a far, far greater correlation between foreign occupation and suicide terrorism than between smoking and lung cancer).

(This is the entire article, but heres a link anyway) http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/07/26/prosecutor-casts-manning-as-anarchist.html

I tend to agree and do not like to take drugs. However, a special place may be reserved for psycadellics by inducing hallucinations, also known as a form of waking dream. As long as you do not believe that these dreams come from a god or something, but are produced from your own mind, they could be as "unlocking" as dreams are. I have not tried them still, but I have been curious at times to do so.

This was at least part of what I was saying. Thanks for bringing the term to the discussion.

Things that exist are provable. God is self-contradictory and cannot exist as is commonly defined. Thus, god could never exist. Something that does exist or is later proven to exist may be attributed to god, but the definition will surely change to be possible within reality when this happens. Thus, I guess, what proof would be necessary for god to exist depends on the definition of god. If you are trying to prove a square-circle, then you wont be able to as the concept falls apart upon conception. It contradicts itself. If you are trying to prove that the universe was created, then there would be a scientific explanation or process that did happen which resulted in the universe. This would then be attributed to become the new definition of "god". This new definition of god would not include the original, self contradictory concept of god, however.

Mathematics do not exist. It is a set of valid concepts derived from experiences. I'm not sure if the metaphysics question was meant to be cutting, but it is highly irrelevant to the questions I asked. Lets pretend that I make the claim that unicorns exist. My method of proving this is that last night I dreamt that unicorns existed and I have not dreamt of things that did not exist before, thus unicorns must be real. What standard would disprove this claim when I have told you my method for answering this question, no matter how absurd it sounds?

Wikipedia: Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively,[1][2][3] to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[4] What else exists? What standard is there besides nature, science, etc? If you are going to assert that we should use something besides the scientific method to prove anything, then you need to assert this method and prove that it results in valid conclusions. Of course, as I write this I think that may be impossible as this would be holding whatever this other standard is to the standard of science and logic, but I figured I would ask anyway. Regardless, what standard should we use for determining truth from falsehood?

You better watch your back around here. I know that they talk a good game about rational ideas, but these people really like to beat up people who have different opinions. Asking questions or disagreeing of any kind is strongly discouraged behavior. Beating you up is not the first stage. It starts with veiled threats, but watch your back! <- (Thats the Agnosto-Deist Devil which may have existed at creation, but it is unknown whether it still exists) After all, the doctrine is true and there is no room for questioning the shiny forehead. Now being serious, you don't need to worry about having different idea. The goal is not for you to accept the conclusions. Rather, the idea is to accept reason, logic, and evidence. If everyone is being honest and asking questions and using rational standards of measure, then there is no problem. Being a minarchist or an agnoto-deist only invites questions, counter-evidence, discussion, and logic. You should not be ashamed of propositions, but rather sharing them so we can find out what is true. If I am mistaken, I would very much enjoy and appreciate the correction. I look forward to your response to Nate's questions and the start of some interesting discussion.

Have you talked with your friend about your concerns and asked her why she feels she needs to do this? It seems a bit odd to have a friendship where you feel like you couldn't at least ask what is going on for them.

My recommendation if you are trying to discover a hobby is to go out there and try things. There may be community activities, clubs, events, meet-ups, and other things. Find anything and everything and try it out and see what happens. At some point you will find people (or person) who you have fun with or an activity that was enjoyable. You can then continue to grow based on that thing y ou found enjoyable. I don't know how active meet-ups are in your area, but that may be a place to start. If there is a college in the area or a community club or something you may be able to find where they place special events. Just try it all and eventually you are bound to discover something. Even if something is not fun, then thats one thing you can cross off your list, which can be valuable information as well. In my experience, the people make all the difference. Putting in the effort to find at least one good friend is worth a lot as you can even just go to lunch with them and it becomes fun. You likely will need to go to these clubs and events to find (a) good friend(s).

1) Top right corner there is a link to "View New Content". Clicking the dot on the left of a forum link takes you to the most recent unread post in the forum. 2+3) You'll want to spend some time in the notification options. You can set it up to email you updates or go into your notification center based on a variety of types of interactions, including emails if you would like. I haven't worked it all out totally, but it should be able to do what you want.

In the conversion process, they couldn't keep avatars.

Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/hh341490.aspx http://channel9.msdn.com/Series/C-Sharp-Fundamentals-Development-for-Absolute-Beginners http://www.microsoftvirtualacademy.com/m/tracks/developer-training-with-programming-in-c Here are some quick things I found in a google search. Apparently codecademy doesn't have C#. My biggest recommendation for learning a language would be to study up on the basics and then start to build something. Nothing is a stronger motivator for learning advanced concepts than to want to do something an not knowing how. Then you can search online or join forums and figure out how to do it until you reach the next problem. At least that is my method. Google and the Internet are the best programming resources.

I am going to float an idea, and see if people like it, can help me refine it, or want to completely reject it. Self esteem seems to be as disparate, delusional, and irrational as the ethical system that one judges themselves against. Most people's ethics are based on subjective preference- either internal, of their priest or God, of their state, or of their cultural mythologies. This makes self esteem an irrational an dellusional concept and only accurate to the extent that it alligns with rational ethics. Thus, when an evil person has high self esteem then it is a false concept, and it also would mean that someone with low self esteem who hasn't done evil would be wrong as well. My feeling is that self esteem in a rational sense is not false or delusional. If I view myself as bad or evil for committing murder of an innocent with no mitigating factors, it seems that I would be accurate in this assessment. It also means that my skill in piano doesn't have an impact on my self-esteem (rationally) as I may have skills in other areas, or that relaxing was my preference. Thus, self-esteem is irrational largely to the extent that it is currnetly used, but not necessarily an empty concept. The hole in this would be that the idea of "self" esteem becomes irrelevant, as in a rational world it would just be esteem, for rational standards would largely be the same. Though there may be a special place for self esteem still as there is more knowledge about the circumstances that you know by which any external source may be able to acquire. You know more about yourself than anyone else. Let me know what you think.

Ah, so I see it on my profile, but not on other people's. That makes sense. Though I'm guessing moderators could see it. That makes more sense now.

Thanks for this, it actually seems quite interesting. Though, of course, I am a bit skeptical by the time they get to the week on voting, but I will certainly partake in this. Thanks for the post.

I am so sorry you are in this situation. I am glad you are working to try to get out of it. I also believe that seeking help through therapy or whatever you can accomplish in self-knowledge would be enormously helpful, though I am not aware of what can be accomplished on such a limited income. I do not think that you need to take responsibility for where the money has come from. It sounds like the state has ruined your life. You can consider this to be some sort of penalty to make you whole for the harm caused. In a free society, if this would have happened to you then someone would owe you money, or you would be dependant on charity. Unfortunately, this is not how our current system is set up because the state has it "covered". Do not fault yourself for being here. Just do whatever you can to process past traumas- with whatever help you can get- and build yourself up to be as self-sufficient as you can.

Yes, A Knight's Tale, and the game is called jousting.