Rick Horton

Haha, true, but I know with me ADHD is a real personality trait.

No, it is in fact not. It's the absence of a belief. The non-acceptance of a proposition. Atheism is a belief that accepting theism is not merited. However, knowing only that leaves so much unanswered. Do they believe it is not merited because they think the likelihood of theism being correct is 0%? Do they believe it is not merited because they think the likelihood of theism being correct is 50% and they demand 80% to accept a proposition? Or do they not believe it is merited simply because they are indifferent and are comfortable not taking a stance even though it might be feasibly correct? And so on. My point is why waste our time going for something as vague as "I believe acceptance of theism is not merited"? Why not cut right to the meat of things - what they DO believe about theism and why they react to it as they do. This is done far quicker and more effectively by just going right to the %'s. Well it would be irrational to argue outside of myself, or I'd not be arguing from first principal. I can prove myself. I can't scientifically prove this outside of myself thing. But I already answered the question. I can't put some kind of percentage on that. You must be mad to try and equate things like this with percentages. It is nonsense because I'd have to say that the Christ God exists 100 percent in my experience of reality "as an idea" As a thing. Zero. All vague Gods have no affect on my life at all in any way. I don't know if they or it exists for sure, or at all so putting a percentage number would literally be insane.

I'd be very apprehensive to support any means of arriving at what is true other than reason and evidence. Perhaps a work of art could direct it's audience toward rational pursuits, but I'd really be nervous about that. If, say a movie, directs it's audience to perform some action, entirely through ethos or pathos, such that the audience then performs that action. Well, those poor people could have been compelled to do almost anything. Appeals to bias are anti-truth. They make discovering truth more difficult through the obfuscation of facts. Is it possible to paint a picture which, without appeals to bias, reveals what is true? I'm unconvinced that, other than mathematics, there is any way to arrive at valid sums. It isn't that people should think or accept rational arguments. It is entirely the prerogative of the individual to think critically or not. There is no imperative to reason. Reason is a communication style... A series of conventions which are objectively valid. What better advertisement for reason than reason? I mean, if I'm gonna advocate people reason, I better use reason to get that message out. Otherwise, I'd do better to advocate for whatever I was using to in-place of reason. Yes. if you cherish propaganda as an effective communication tool over reason, then it would be irrational to use reason, and it would be irrational to cherish reason over propaganda if propaganda was the better way to communicate. Of course on the other hand, if propaganda "is" a superior tool of communication it wouldn't negate reason as being the best way to "think" In other words, maybe propaganda is how you communicate with others, reason is how you think for yourself. Now something tells me that's a bunch of hooey but, what do I know?...

I made a strange little movie and it's about my relationship with Christians, and what I find so fascinating with them. I draw some strong analogies so this is probably rated R. I'd LOVE for you to PLEASE watch it. I think you'll be entertaine. I wouldn't steer you guys wrong. Here it is, and let me know what you think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uSramNdoD4

People are conditioned from birth to submit to authority. First by the family, then by the state. The Milgram students are exactly what you'd expect from 20 years of behavioral conditioning...good little soldiers. Of course, that's not what I said. Though, I find it interesting that you talk about beautiful paintings and songs as-if those things cannot be used as tools of control. As-if no one has ever used a . As-if a beautiful painting cannot decieve and manipulate. Much of the communication in society is used for power. Not all of it. There are songs, paintings, and arguments which compell without dominating, though such activities can only be accomplished with appeals to truth. BODY BLOW!

We're not asking here whether you think others ideas affect you. Yes they do to varying degrees. What we're asking here is what you believe about the existence of God. Not about the idea of God or others' beliefs about God. But your belief about God. Yes objectively means has its own existence outside of yourself. So what % likelihood would you give that God in those two definitions you gave exists? Since you said "NO chance" on #1, I take it you believe there is 0% likelihood of that version of God existing? What about the second definition? Well it would be irrational to argue outside of myself, or I'd not be arguing from first principal. I can prove myself. I can't scientifically prove this outside of myself thing. But I already answered the question. I can't put some kind of percentage on that. You must be mad to try and equate things like this with percentages. It is nonsense because I'd have to say that the Christ God exists 100 percent in my experience of reality "as an idea" As a thing. Zero. All vague Gods have no affect on my life at all in any way. I don't know if they or it exists for sure, or at all so putting a percentage number would literally be insane.

First of all you're mixing up two things. There may be logic behind why beautiful art affects us. But that's quite different from the question of whether the artist is actually using logic and reason as his/her tools. Many artists are explicitly not doing so and many even do art precisely because they have learned how much more powerful other forms of communication are. I mean there is logic behind how sentences are constructed too, but that doesn't mean that every sentence someone says is them using logic as their persuasion tool. If it was, you could never again accuse anyone using proper grammar of being irrational or illogical Second, you're incorrect in claiming that the only powerful art is that art which is somehow logical even in its form. There are many forms of very dissonant or surprising music that people are very moved by. There are entire schools of art based on not being sequential or logical or even doing things that are quite random (look at Jackson Pollock, for example). Attempting to twist art which aims to communicate to the unconscious into logic/reason is not going to work, nor should it. THIS debate could go on for hundreds of years.

Nope, your not a God. I know this simply because I'm the one and only God. It would seem rather absurd if people could define words (god, atheist,theist) that are being used. If that was the case then they would not be speaking English anymore. So it's important to describe the terms you are using? It seems rather annoying that you yourself use term god and Atheism continuously while never once defining what those mean to you. When we asked what you mean with these you simply state that people have different views of the words "god" and "Atheist". See what you did there? You are not defining your terms, but you rather give us a non-answer. Therefore making it impossible for anyone to get anywhere with the methdology you suggested to be used. What do you mean when you say god? Describe it's properties. What is Theism? What does a theist claim? Is the claim based on measurable evidence in the external world. Or a subjective impulse in the brain? Or something else? What is an Atheist? Is this person making a claim about something, or rather evaluating what claims others are making? On what basis do you make these percentage claims about the existence of a god/gods. Eyet again do you extend these percentage claims for Unicorns, Santa and Cave Trolls? What are you looking for in this thread? When someone says "I think it's counterproductive when asking someone about their beliefs to keep using words like 'atheist'" it's kind of silly to go "Haha you just said the word." Yes I said it, but I wasn't using it. I referred to the word, I didn't utilize the word. And I'm saying when attempting to discuss people's beliefs about God, it's counterproductive to get hyperfocused on the word and miss the point about the meaning of what is being said. I didn't say you can never use it in any circumstance. This thread is about learning about what a given person's beliefs are on these subjects. That's it. If you want to know what they believe, it's a lot more useful to ask them by being as specific as possible in terms of what you're asking about and how they express their belief. Using drawn out descriptions and making sure you're on the same page rather than using commonly misconstrued single words, as well as asking for percentages rather than general estimates (ie: maybe, kind of) is going to give you more accurate information about that person's beliefs. It's that simple. If your goal isn't to find out someone else's beliefs, then none of this applies and you're dealing with some other topic. If your goal is to, as meaningfully as possible, ascertain another person's beliefs on these issues, then I believe you'll do so more successfully the way I'm describing. My goal in the thread was to support the original poster who asked whether one doesn't need certainty in order to be an atheist. My point is that there are atheists who claim certainty and other atheists who don't claim certainty. By asking for their % estimate you find that out very quickly. By focusing on the word "atheist" you might never find it out. How about this. I'll answer your question, and I'd like you to assign a percentile value to my statement. I have 2 definitions for God. I'll address both. 1. The Christian God- He is not real. The idea of him is real because I have to deal with all those "Christians" and so the idea affects my reality, thus the idea is real. He, as a real thing, and all that is claimed of him to be does NOT exist. No chance. 2. The Thinker God- The God that even the most rigorous thinkers cannot dismiss as existing. Some form of all powerful all intellegent all powerful form from which all was doth spawned. Number 2 ^^. I like the idea, but even that idea is not real because it cannot be difined further and has too many possible interpretations. In this way, as an idea it is even less valid than Christianity as far as it's affect on MY experience of reality, though as a real THING it has a greater chance than the Christian God of being real. So, oddly enough the more possible THING has the lesser of impact compared to the thing that doesn't exist, but which as a real "IDEA" cannot be said not to exist, because it affects my reality, and my reality is the only self evident "thing". It's not up to me to assign a % value. It's up to you. You say about the #1 version "He is not real." How sure are you of that? 100%? 99%? 5%? We're not asking which idea has more impact on your life. That's a completely different question. We're simply asking how likely you think it is that either of these things actually objectively exist. Not whether people's beliefs in them affect you. Just whether you think they really do exist. What do you mean, objectively? Outside of myself? Because, nothing can be proven outside of my experience of reality. Therefore it doesn't matter that something is subjective or objective because it only matters whether it has an actual affect on reality. Christianity has a huge impact on my reality. The more vague definitions have zero impact. So it doesn't matter if one, none, or either one is more objectively real. It's far more "real" to my existence in reality if it has an affect. My experience of reality whether it's argued that that is subjective or objective "still" has ultimate authority in reality, because the only reality that is self evident and provable is "mine".

Nope, your not a God. I know this simply because I'm the one and only God. It would seem rather absurd if people could define words (god, atheist,theist) that are being used. If that was the case then they would not be speaking English anymore. So it's important to describe the terms you are using? It seems rather annoying that you yourself use term god and Atheism continuously while never once defining what those mean to you. When we asked what you mean with these you simply state that people have different views of the words "god" and "Atheist". See what you did there? You are not defining your terms, but you rather give us a non-answer. Therefore making it impossible for anyone to get anywhere with the methdology you suggested to be used. What do you mean when you say god? Describe it's properties. What is Theism? What does a theist claim? Is the claim based on measurable evidence in the external world. Or a subjective impulse in the brain? Or something else? What is an Atheist? Is this person making a claim about something, or rather evaluating what claims others are making? On what basis do you make these percentage claims about the existence of a god/gods. Eyet again do you extend these percentage claims for Unicorns, Santa and Cave Trolls? What are you looking for in this thread? When someone says "I think it's counterproductive when asking someone about their beliefs to keep using words like 'atheist'" it's kind of silly to go "Haha you just said the word." Yes I said it, but I wasn't using it. I referred to the word, I didn't utilize the word. And I'm saying when attempting to discuss people's beliefs about God, it's counterproductive to get hyperfocused on the word and miss the point about the meaning of what is being said. I didn't say you can never use it in any circumstance. This thread is about learning about what a given person's beliefs are on these subjects. That's it. If you want to know what they believe, it's a lot more useful to ask them by being as specific as possible in terms of what you're asking about and how they express their belief. Using drawn out descriptions and making sure you're on the same page rather than using commonly misconstrued single words, as well as asking for percentages rather than general estimates (ie: maybe, kind of) is going to give you more accurate information about that person's beliefs. It's that simple. If your goal isn't to find out someone else's beliefs, then none of this applies and you're dealing with some other topic. If your goal is to, as meaningfully as possible, ascertain another person's beliefs on these issues, then I believe you'll do so more successfully the way I'm describing. My goal in the thread was to support the original poster who asked whether one doesn't need certainty in order to be an atheist. My point is that there are atheists who claim certainty and other atheists who don't claim certainty. By asking for their % estimate you find that out very quickly. By focusing on the word "atheist" you might never find it out. How about this. I'll answer your question, and I'd like you to assign a percentile value to my statement. I have 2 definitions for God. I'll address both. 1. The Christian God- He is not real. The idea of him is real because I have to deal with all those "Christians" and so the idea affects my reality, thus the idea is real. He, as a real thing, and all that is claimed of him to be does NOT exist. No chance. 2. The Thinker God- The God that even the most rigorous thinkers cannot dismiss as existing. Some form of all powerful all intellegent all powerful form from which all was doth spawned. Number 2 ^^. I like the idea, but even that idea is not real because it cannot be difined further and has too many possible interpretations. In this way, as an idea it is even less valid than Christianity as far as it's affect on MY experience of reality, though as a real THING it has a greater chance than the Christian God of being real. So, oddly enough the more possible THING has the lesser of impact compared to the thing that doesn't exist, but which as a real "IDEA" cannot be said not to exist, because it affects my reality, and my reality is the only self evident "thing".

Of course many people don't respond to logical ideas. They've been taught to use communication as a tool of dominance and authority. In many cases, people see language as more a weapon than a tool. Regardless, adopting communication as a vehicle of authority (even to communicate the truth of a matter) is a poor strategy. One may as well try to violently overthrow the state. We can abandon the idea of a good government, by rejecting force as a solution to social problems. Why is it any harder to abandon language as a tool of control, by abandoning marketers' tricks and keeping to rational argumentation? Perhaps almost no one will be convinced, that's entirely possible, but you can't purge deception and force from the culture using deception or force. We're not gonna bring math back by producing bad sums. Damn, Arius. That's pretty heavy. That's a different level for sure, to think on. Wow, thanks.

It's no use pretending that God doesn't exist.(as an idea) It has a strong influence on my experience. Therefore the idea of God is real. I don't really want to ignore it. It is there and it does have a huge affect on my life.

It's the toughest argument. I don't think there is a good answer yet.

I took it down. I was very unhappy with the presentation. I apologize.

I'm ADHD, big time, and I was self medicating for a lot of years before I knew why. Coffee.

Then okay, but these are all new concepts to me, and if I'm truly an Atheist because I don't know if God exists I'm fine with that and it doesn't change me in one way or the other.

Define subjective. Define objective.

Define subjective. Define objective.

Well, parts of you will get passed on if you have kids, but I haven't seen evidence that you will be passed on. But, who knows? Who can really say whether there is something on the other side? We're on this side, and maybe there is, maybe there isn't another, or many other sides, but I think it makes you kind of hopeful?

and that absolutely doesn't matter.

Thanks for your response. I have this follow up video, too, to add to the topic. It's only 4 minutes long. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq91aZ9EBg4

Needless to say, I'm very PROUD to have organized this mechanism in my life, to properly organize my moral actions. I haven't had it knocked down yet, and I haven't been able to disqualify Cossap, myself, and I've tested it rigorously HOPING I can disqualify it, but it's still standing, and is (I think) more useful than UPB.

There's no contradiction there at all. Everybody I experience is a subject of my reality. I know that for sure. Scientific principals seem to apply to my experience of reality. I've never seen them not, until they are disproven. All of the subjects in reality that have influence on me affect my experience, therefore all subjects of my reality are real, whether as an idea, concept, or thing. For example, the idea of God (the Christian one) is real because it affects my life due to other people using that idea to cause me to have to adapt different approaches in my life to maneuver through my experience of reality. However God (the Christian one) is not a real "thing". at all. But since the idea has affect, the idea is real. All of the subjects in my reality, which is the only thing that needs no proof and is self evident, DO exist as things, within my reality. Things that scientific method seem to support being in existence, in my reality as "things". Whether or not they can be proven to exist outside of "my" reality doesn't change anything, BUT ignoring the influence they have on my reality is pointless because they do have affect.

In that case, the conclusions reached from your arguments will only be applicable to yourself, since others have a different sum of experiences. But if your personal experience includes noticing that the scientific method makes it possible to know which theories have predictive power, then your method becomes more useful. Exactly []

Please watch this Vlog. It's not a complete idea, and instead of my usual vlogs I really need you to watch this, and maybe you can help me figure out what I'm saying, but it has to do with businesses/pricetags/taxes/total price.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plKwdJvm-tI

The problem wit philosophy is that it forces you to see how screwed up everything really is. And when you tell somebody what's wrong with something they think you're kind of out there. But it's not true. People who accept things because they are conditioned to, and not because they use reason to question the validity are "out there". Still, when you get into principals, truths, axioms, etc, it seems that most people are so indoctrinated,conditioned, that they fail to see the point that their logic stops and their conditioned brainwashed thinking starts.