bootoo

Ive heard about the gnostics before - and listened to most of this podcast, but on looking into the guy he seems to be running with some very questionable themes other than gnosticism, makes me go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm but yes, the ecstatic religious experience is a very interesting subject I saw one documentary that showed some cultures who lost access to the drugs that would induce these states coming up with all kinds of crazy ceremonies and traditions to try to re-produce it putting themselves in great pain or at great risk in the process. Some people just dance in a group for 12 hours straight too. Seems like a lot of work, payoff must make it worth it? The whole demi-urge story and all that is pretty cool too, can see similar themes in the more ancient religions of a god being unaware of its own creation (by some particular other gods who thought it would be interesting to keep it from it) thinking it was the cause of everything including itself and running wild with its creation good thread

Holding someone responsible for believing apostates should be killed, when being stoned to death has been the only other option in their lives would be a bad move Holding someone responsible for believing apostates should be killed when they are at no risk to believe otherwise and have all available resources regarding philosophy, science and reason at their fingertips seems reasonable Are you free to do that which does not occur to you? Does it occur to everyone to stop being a loser? I have family and friends who it appears dont have that critic in their head holding them to any social or personal standards, and their lives were very different to mine. Could be a clue there...but i think thats off topic on this board

Obviously the government is horrible at almost everything, raising money is one of the few exceptions. Do you know how easy it is for governments to print money to steal from tax payers to raise funds and how hard it is for private enterprise to do the same with a not for profit motive? Still dont understand what this has to do with climate deniers. They arent denying it because secretly they are worried the government will do a bad job remedying the problem. They arent teaming up with the private enterprises and working on remedies and showing that government involvement isnt needed (and im sure they wouldnt turn down government raised (or stolen) funds if they were offered some). They are denying it is happening at all and calling for business as usual.

I think appearance does not matter. Content is all that is important. For strangers you get social queues based on appearances which are good for short term guesses on a persons character and intentions - but its a terrible idea to hold a lasting idea based on appearance alone. Example: If someone shows up to a job interview without a suit when a suit is expected, it matters for that job interview because the person is showing they are unaware of social expectations which is unacceptable when human co-operation is needed. Exceptions granted for socially retarded geniuses of course. Long term - it only matters that you look healthy and that you do not appear to be a threat.

I think lots of sisters, mothers and wives care about these things - based on my own direct experience with people I dont know of any reason to think women dont care about these things

some therapists are useless, i know a guy been in therapy for decades and is still mad at momma

Where are these $5 hoes at homie - holla at me

That settles it then!

HAAA great post! 10/10

Aaron Swartz Not sure why there are 'climate change deniers' - the worst case scenario is governments give money to scientists to do research and develop technologies. I can understand if you dont want it to be true because you dont want to take the steps to reduce your energy use and consumption - its hard to give up awesomeness - but otherwise who cares other than the investors of companies who will make less money if they use less carbon?

I wonder, why just stop with feminists? why not have a 'anti-sexists' page? Isnt the problem with feminists their exclusivity towards females?

no way to know what 20% of 4 billion people are doing with 80% of 4 billion people seems a bit silly

Looks like the sample groups by Dr Caveman are based on questionaires completed by sample groups ranging between 120-8000 people At best these can be used to direct further study. These can not be taken as evidence supporting any of the claims made in the article. The answer remains 'no one knows'

Good short article by Chris Ryan who wrote 'Sex at Dawn' including touching on the 'alloparent' model we are wired to live in http://debateout.com/christopher-ryan-author-human-sexuality-expert/ “If a child is getting love and support from several different adults, which is how our ancestors evolved, then they will develop a different psychological mindset where they aren’t expecting all of their love and emotional nourishment to only come from one or two people. In the nuclear family, there’s a baby who thinks there are two people or one person who they are dependent on for everything. If that person stops loving them, then they will die. “There’s a different personality structure that forms there, and that is the genesis of the pair-bonding need that a lot of people have. And of the insane jealousy and insecurity that people have around losing that primary partner. These are things that grow out of an emotional environment of scarcity, where you think: ‘If I lose him or her, then I’m going to be miserable and alone.’ “It’s weird that people think it makes sense to apply a completely different vision of relationships when it comes to sexuality than when it comes to any other relationships in our lives. You don’t get pissed off if your friend has other friends. And yet, we apply this distorted and warped reasoning to our other relationships.” Puritans and impotent old men ruined everything for everyone

I wanted to drop kick most of the parents in this video

The good news is, guy is an author and neuroscientist. He has about the same access to state violence that you do. I'm not concerned.

Nothing hardcore or religious here. Seems he is just talking about the system as it is and how it could be. Not sure if you are aware, but most people in the world havent ever considered Anarchy and have no reason to. Its fun for us to talk about on the FDR forum and explore the idea of anarchy philosophically but there is no reason to hate on anyone who chooses not to. We are only here for fun - you are missing out on a ton of good information from people if you disregard and demonize anyone not playing our game.

who did it and what did they do? 9/11 is for conspiracy videos the new friday 13th for horror movies. If you don't watch a conspiracy video on that day you support the enemy

If it takes the whole family all day to secure enough food/supplies to survive then their only thoughts will be on securing food and supplies. If you are an upper class gentleman in 17th century Europe you dont have to worry about where your next meal comes from, you dont even need to spend any time in getting it, it is brought to you, you also have very threat of death on a day to day basis. Some of these people chose to spend their safe and free time studying and thinking and talking - and you got the enlightenment Today, even tho even a lower class gentleman in the USA basically doesnt have to worry about where his food is coming from or if his death is imminent, but instead has TV and drugs and a million other distractions keeping them studying thinking and talkin about nonsense, and you got the upcoming zombie apocalypse. If philosophy is important to you, work on freeing peoples time up and work on giving quality content for people to study, think and talk about. Like FDR does!

who is 'we' that is sending teachers? Would be happy for anyone who can help anyone to go do that better to die helping disadvantaged kids than it is getting heart disease from junk food and living on the sofa!

Assholes get 0 time or attention - if you start a confrontation then you contribute to the reason they are taking our money and buying security - do not engage

No it is 3 hours of Cenk telling Sam Harris what people might think he means, while Sam Harris clarifies what he actually means. Nothing about the state.

awesome video

Was hard to watch, but i liked it - Though Cenk was too busy trying to compare what harris was saying to his pre-determined arguments and when he found a close enough match he would talk about it, miss the original point and then change the subject, rather than actually listen to what harris was actually saying and responding and i dont like the 'people might think you mean' argument, what people, who cares, what do you think? But overall it was nice of Cenk to give Harris so much time to answer his questions and to make his points and responses

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/389680/they-are-coming-your-children-kevin-d-williamson Interesting article about how certain gov officials see homeschooling Also pretty good break down of public schooling in America