_LiveFree_

lol, ok What do I want out of the situation? Nothing. I'm not in the situation. But now I have to ask you, what do you want out of it? If these are just strangers passing in the night (meaning people of little or no consequence in your life), why would you even care? Let them transact their "business" and then be on their way. In fact, if it is just a "business" relationship, why jeopardize that by telling someone how stupid they are? Exchange product and money and be done with it. Trying to correct every stupid person on the planet is a quick ticket to crazyville. Don't go! It's irrational to argue with irrational people. It is not irrational to engage in a free market exchange of goods with irrational people.

Just because someone says something you disagree with doesn't mean you have to respond. And you can have all the truth on your side that you want, but if you pick the wrong manner and timing to convey your ideas it won't matter. "The downvote was because out of curiousity." ok, i don't know what that means. Dude, the fact that you were aggressive towards ZetaMan and are now being aggressive towards me is kinda telling. Take some time off, Dsayers. You joined the boards 2 months ago and you've got almost 900 posts. The reason why I don't post in every single thread that pops up here is that I don't have the time or interest to do so. I'm not the doorman. I happened to be walking by and this is what I saw. I'm sorry that your introduction thread didn't get responded to for a week. However, not being responded to and being challenged right out of the gate are two very different experiences. "How do you logically go from joining a philosophy forum to deserves a warm welcome?" - oh my goodness, Dsayers. Takes some time off. Go have fun, man! I'm not questioning your philosophical perspective. I'm questioning the manner in which you employ it. Because you are here, Dsayers, and are really diving into this philosophy, you need to realize that the purpose of Freedomain Radio is not to "spread philosophy and truth". It is to develop individuals who will become the spreaders of philosophy and truth. Stef isn't a successful podcaster just because he has philosophy. He's been successful because he combines that philosophy with entertainment, compassion, passion, gentleness, patience, humor, charisma, and a bunch of other qualities that draw people to him. That is what you should really be focusing on here. Stop grabbing at people, and start opening up to people. That is where success lies in changing the world. That is the very heart of Real Time Relationships. So when I say, "Take some time off", what I mean is, I know how intense all of this can get. I know the urgency and seriousness of the subject matters. And it is so easy to lose self balance. You're doing this truth thing so well, but if you don't rest now and then that won't matter. I take time off all the time in order to check myself. To take a step back and process how I'm feeling, acting, and expressing myself. And just maybe, now might be a good time to take a little time to do things simply for the enjoyment of them. Please take this with the highest respect. It's posted publicly because it's something everyone encounters and it may help others relax a little bit. Again, I take time off allllllll the time! It really does help. And it really is necessary.

Welcome, ZetaMan. I want to apologize to you for the piss poor welcome you've received here. One of the things that can get lost in all of the philosophical back and forth on these forums is empathy and compassion. From my point of view, you walked in the front door here on the forums, said "hey!", gave a very small bit about yourself, and then was accosted by "You're wrong, here's why." Not very inviting at all. Even for people who are after self-knowledge, internet courage has a powerful allure. I up voted your comment, not because I agree with you, but because it's complete horse **** to get down voted on your second post on a forum especially when you were being respectful, courteous, engaging, and articulate. On the one hand, it's the internet, what do you expect? On the other, I'd hope that the people at FDR hold themselves to a higher standard. Hope you enjoy your stay here! Nathan

That is a pretty intense emotional reaction. Why do you think you feel so strongly about this? This kinda answers my first question, but could you expand on it? I'm actually not following your logic here. Not that you're wrong, but if you could talk some more about your reasoning that would help. I will say that having such a strong reaction to this is an indicator of past experiences intruding on the present. What is obvious from your post is that you don't respect these people with which you are trying to debate. 1) Why are you debating them? 2) Why are you spending time with them at all if you have such intense disdain for them?

It wasn't a conclusion. How can a question be a conclusion? And in context, he was talking about how you can't undo history. Did you interpret his comments as advocating people being conquered? I'd suggest going back and listening to the context. An analogy he gives starting at about 1:19:00 is that if we were to legalize marijuana everywhere tomorrow, what about the millions of people who's lives were destroyed for possessing it? Do we pay them restitution? How can we without violating the NAP by stealing from others to do so? That whole section was not advocating violence of the past. It was about not committing more violence now in order to try and undo the past.

You know you could also just briefly stop by, say hello, drop off a gift, and then head off to do whatever it is you have planned. This approach hinges on the fact that you'll have a conflicting event or errand that you need to attend to.

I'd agree with some of the above comments. If you are really nervous about asking a girl out you're already doing it wrong. Read some Nathaniel Branden and make some platonic relationships with women first. If you are already over thinking your first interaction with her I can tell you that the likelihood of this going well is low. IMO, maybe RTRing with yourself about why you feel so nervous about asking a girl out would be a good idea. Keep asking yourself questions until you feel chills shoot through your whole body. This may take a while so be patient.

UPB is it. Everything that he's done here is really based on what comes out of UPB.

Welcome, fitzpatrick! Congratulations on all of your progress! If you're here to learn then you're here for the right reasons There is so much to learn here and so much content. If you haven't already started, I recommend going through the podcasts in order. http://www.freedomainradio.com/Podcasts.aspx I used the torrents to download them all so I can load them on my iphone and listen whenever I get the chance. There are also audio books to listen to. Don't feel rushed into making a decision about what direction to take your life. If you need to take the time out to just learn and set your bearings, do it. You only get one life so measure plenty of times before cutting! Glad you're here!

Stef posted something like this a few days back. Sometimes it's better, especially in the beginning, to just be around people who are different than those you've hung around before. I can tell you that the feeling of alone-ness wouldn't go away even in an atheist meeting. Each step forward, no matter how minuscule, takes you further from where you've been and closer to where you want to be. This is your path, and you're a mother fucking Goddess. So walk that bitch. It won't be easy, but honestly, that's why you've chosen it. Make friends with that feeling of being alone. That uneasy gut twisting chest hardening sensation is not telling you you're completely alone. It's saying, "Look! I'm here! Talk with me! Walk with me! Be strong with me!" That sensation you get when being alone is like the Cosmic Background Radiation. It's everywhere, and until you really listen to what it has to say it just appears as static. That feeling you get when you think you're alone is the Big Bang that is your beautiful soul. I can't even begin to imagine what the last month has been like for you. All I know is, if there is anybody on this planet that can not only survive what you've survived, but thrive and live the most fulfilling loving life, it's you. Keep up those deep breaths. Be gentle with the Goddess. And message me anytime you need a friend. Edit: something else you may want to try is to have 21 y/o Jami ask 31 y/o Jami what she wants 21 y/o Jami to do. Then, once a course has been set, have 21 y/o Jami gently inform 11 y/o Jami what you're going to do and how it's going to help, and that you'll be with her the whole way.

Just purchased this book. Just a chapter in and it sounds like it was written by someone at FDR. Looking forward to reading the rest.

Dude, let it go. It's his life, not yours. It is impossible for you to know what's best for him. All you can do is act as honorably and as virtuously as you can. My best friend married a girl I warned him not to. Turned out I was so wrong. In fact, he needed her more than the other way around. Be a good friend and stop believing that your ideas about his life are better than his. Focus on yourself. Live your life so well that people will come to you asking how you can be so happy.

Why do you think his happiness is your responsibility?

Holy shit! Welcome aboard, badass!

Large population centers will still exist but they will mostly be commercial and industrial. Businesses that require large real estate and resources like water and power will want to share the burden of producing those resources with other business. For instance, it would be cheaper to build one large water purification plant that services a district of manufacturers than it would be for each manufacturer to build their own. Lower resource users like residential areas would naturally spread out. So you wouldn't have large sprawling metro areas like NYC, LA, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, etc. There would be very dense commercial areas (but not as large as what we see today), but people would live everywhere else. Think of a black hole in space. Small compared to the size of other celestial objects, but extremely dense. When there is a monopoly on water and power distribution, transportation, land ownership, and civil services like security and fire protection, humans will naturally gravitate toward the location of this monopoly. It's cheaper to do so. Hence, massive ugly sprawling metropolitan areas. Specifically in America, it will last as long as America keeps pointing its guns at other countries. Once the guns are overtly pointed at American citizens, it will no longer be cheap to live in cities and people will flee them. That's when the bill for living this way will come due.

It will change things. And it's exactly what it sounds like you need to do. When I finally started allowing myself to feel the rage built up inside of me, I had an experience where i just let it take over me. I ended up punching my mattress extremely hard with my fist over and over for about 5 minutes. Almost broke my wrist. It is what I needed to do. And once I did, my dad no longer had control over me. I didn't have to cry every night.

Talking about it won't do shit. It's time to let it out. Right now. You won't die. And you won't hurt others. Feel it all and watch it pass away. See you on the other side, Culain

Now I'm going to use the ignore feature. I'm not interested in interacting with you at all. Bye.

Welcome, welcome, Prairie! So sorry to hear about the abuse you suffered. You'll find many people here with similar backgrounds including myself. Besides therapy, constructive hobbies are probably the best way to deal with abuse. You sound as if you are already skipping along the path to full self-realization! Well, let me tell you from my own direct experience, Freedomain Radio is like a massive shot of adrenaline straight to the heart. If you stay here and really dig into the content you'll see changes in yourself coming frequently and quickly. It isn't always fun. In fact, if you don't get pissed off now and again you're not doing it right . But the results are fantastical. Glad you're here! See you around.

ok, this made me think. (After writing and deleting two responses...) You're last paragraph summed it up. "I'm just saying that if you are going to use the word "something" (as in "there is always something in that ostensibly empty space") it necessarily implies that it's being compared to something that is not something (which by definition is "nothing"). And if you are saying that "nothing" is an erroneous concept then so is the statement that "something" is replacing it or filling it up." "Something" implies comparison to another "something". "This is a glass", "compared to what?". To say something is "something" is to say that it exists. You can't say that something is also not something. It either exists or not. The concept of there not being "something" exists as a thing, but the state of not being something does not. I'm running up against a wall, so that means it's analogy time. (take this as a for instance, not literal) All people have cars, there is no instance where a person does not have a car. It is impossible for there to be a person without a car. What does the statement "I don't have a car," mean? I guess that the concept of "nothing" is like the concept of "infinity". When using mathematics, infinity can be very helpful. When talking about things, the concept of nothing can be helpful. But do these concepts accurately describe a possible state of/in the universe? I think another problem with definitions is the scale we're operating on. On the macro level these definitions you've pointed out are obvious. Fuggit, i've got more reading to do. Thanks, Kevin!

So because I reject Christianity, I must want to engage in democidal genocide? Please stop posting in this thread. If I want to debate you on your Tiplerisms I will join you in the thread you started. Thanks, James. Whether the big band occurred or not I don't think is all that relevant to this topic (although, it very well could be!). The fact of the matter is the universe is uniformly expanding. This is definitely not the most efficient way to disprove creationism. Creationism has already been disproved. From what i've seen it's the emotional attachment to the myth that must be overcome. That was my tertiary point about Krauss's approach to explaining the "Universe from Nothing" thing. Krauss is showing that at every place in the universe, there is "something". We don't live in an "empty" universe. We live in an ocean of "ghost particles" popping in and out of existence. This is the best presentation of Krauss's I've found thus far. Anyway, my point was that we derive logic from interacting with this consistent universe, and since there is no such thing as "nothing" in this universe, where did the idea come from and is it really valid. If it is not a valid concept, then that is one more nail in the deeply buried creationism myth (or another angle that can be taken against it).

Projection is also a psychological defense against feeling real feelings. If I was a closed-minded hate-filled bigot, I would have called you a name....like "closed-minded hate-filled bigot". Instead, what I did was say thanks, but no thanks.

I'm not interested in Christianity. Nor do I have respect for those that try to appear scientific in order to prove a ridiculous myth. Thanks for your interest James. What I am interested in is feedback on the idea of nothing.

Furthermore, I just wanted to add that everyone has at one point or another used the idea of "nothing" as a psychological defense against feeling something that you don't want to feel. For instance,... Parent: "What are you doing in there?!" Child: [puts pants back on and turns off porn] "Nothing!!" Girlfriend: "What are you thinking about?" Boyfriend: "Nothing." Friend: "What do you want for your birthday?" Other Friend: "Nothing." [i want to know I'm really important to you!] Spouse: "WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME?!" The Estranged: "NOTHING!!" [i need your love!!] Teacher: "Does anyone have an answer? . . . .anyone? ....Nothing? Class: [in their minds] "You're an awful teacher." This is exactly what I mean! The concept of "something" is all there is. To contrast "something" with "nothing" is the same as contrasting "something" with "blahblahHOOEEYpoo". You can only contrast something with something else, hence the contrast. Logic arises out of our interactions with the universe. But we have never interacted with "nothing" and have discovered that we never will. "Nothing" doesn't exist. It is just another imagined alternate dimension. Strangely enough, alternate dimensions always seem to be defined by properties or experiences we've had in this dimension. We can't even truly conceive what "nothing" would be like. What we thought was nothing, we now know to be something. Nothing by definition cannot be something. To try and contrast "something" with "nothing" is to make "nothing" into "something". It's self-contradictory. I don't feel like I'm missing something, but please let me know if you think I am. ---------------------------------------- Also, (not being a dick, just want to make sure I cover all my bases as best I can ) invalid: being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law the concept of God is invalid. I put the concept of nothing in the same category as God. If someone asked me "What do you want for your birthday?", I could respond, "Nothing", and we'd both have a basic understanding that I don't want that person to get me anything as a gift. But that is not nothing. What do I want? I want this person to refrain from giving me any thing. I want them to respect my wishes. This is something. This is also why the english language and those lazy jerks who crap all over it can kiss my ass. The definitions we so casually assign to words can reap psychological defenses that keep us from seeing obvious truths.

I'm not a physicist, nor a theologian. (or a philosopher for that matter) I'm just a dude with free time. /disclaimer I've been YouTubing physicist Lawrence Krauss and his lectures/debates about how the universe came into being out of "nothing". There was a debate between him and theologian William Lane Craig. One of the things that Craig kept harping on was the definition of "nothing". While watching that debate, I found myself agreeing with Craig. This led me to realize that either Krauss was wrong, or I just didn't understand what he meant by "nothing". Fast forward through many of his lectures and debates and I think I finally understand what the problem is and why he runs into so much resistance when trying to convince others about the universe arising from "nothing". Indeed, the problem is in the definition of the word "nothing", which is simply "not anything". A synonym that is much more revealing is the word "void" which is defined as "being without something specified". Now up until very recently in the history of the human race, we have understood the "void" of space to contain absolutely no matter or energy. If you wanted an empirical example of what "nothing" and "void" were, all you had to do was create a vacuum in space. And of course, the vacuum of space happened naturally and made up most of the universe. The creation myth says that God created the universe from nothing, out of the void. Iron age myth makers would look at an empty sack, empty cup, or up in the sky and say there is nothing in there. They would have a concept of what nothing actually is. Therefore, they could imagine "a great void". As mankind became more technologically advanced we began to understand that while a sack or cup may appear to be empty, in fact there are billions of microscopic particles dancing about inside them; and the sky we now know to be an atmosphere full of all kinds of particles. The concept of "nothing" arose out of the human mind's inability to directly experience something that appeared to not be there. In other words, "if I can't physically see it, it's not there. PEEK-A-BOO!" The way that scientific advancement played out, though, created an overlap between what we previously believed to be empty to a new concept of empty. No longer was the glass empty or the atmosphere empty, outer space was empty. Then later, the space between electrons and the nucleus of an atom was empty. As long as the concept of nothing had empirical evidence to show that nothing was a valid concept, then theologians would always be able to claim that before the universe there was nothing, with full confidence that "nothing" was something that could be fully understood by even the most mentally challenged individual. Enter quantum mechanics. We now understand that all of the visible matter/energy in the universe makes up about 1% of the total matter/energy in the universe. If you are to look at the vacuum of space, where we once thought we could look into nothing, we now understand theoretically and empirically that there are "ghost particles" popping in and out of existence. The void of space is not void. And since space is everywhere, there is no such thing as "nothing" or a "void". Everywhere in the universe, there is something. Nowhere in the universe can you find an true example of "nothing". What does this do to the creation myth "God created the universe from nothing"? Well, it relegates this to the category of creating an alternate dimension to define God. "nothing true can be said about our reality, because another reality may exist where truth equals falsehood." (Against the Gods? pg20 describing the agnostic argument) The truth about our reality is that it is completely full. We are fish becoming aware of the water. The human race has had a concept of what "nothing" is for so long that it seems obvious that it is a valid concept. Is the glass half empty of half full? It's always full! It is either full up on beer or it contains half beer and half atmosphere. There is always something there. The concept of "nothing" is completely invalid. It is no different than talking about pink polka dotted unicorns orbiting Saturn on a unicycle while whistling Dixie. So both concepts in the creation myth are now gone. God and Nothing. Both imagined fantasies that cannot be logically derived from observable reality. The difficulty that even non-believers have with the idea of a "Universe from Nothing" seems to be a psychological attachment to the idea that "nothing" is a real state of being. Lawrence Krauss would do better if he were to rework his approach to include the psychological implications of these findings. Being a total layman in these matters, I'd love to hear what you all think.