GuzzyBone

You say tomatoes, I say tomatos. It does mean the lack of a pattern, method, cause, reason, explanation. I could cite you endless sources to confirm this, however in the above definition, you can also clearly see that there is no random and everything occurs with reason (and often detectable probability) regardless of our ability to predict the final results, therefore there is no such thing as anything actually happening at random. In fact, much work goes into setting up the illusion of random generation in programming code, which in some ways is like playing god and creating your own little sub reality, especially in the world of video games. Religion says it is intelligent design and everything happens for a reason. Science, at it's best and most humble admits things happen with reason, whether we can detect this reason or not. Reason, consciousness, reason, consciousness... Things happen for a reason? Kinda sounds like consciousness. You say tomatoes, I say tomatos. Militant Athiest proponents of Evolution often ascribe random generation in place of a conscious and universe of reason (intent), yet they are also inconsistent and use Science that admits no such thing is ever truly random, beyond our ability to detect the reason. In fact, the more you look into anything, the more reason and explanation eventually becomes evident and understanding is possible. This is the entire incentive and process behind study, which we would not even bother with if things were just happening all sporadic, random, and inconsequentially. Consciousness allows us to use critical reasoning (the process of examination and tracing the dominoes of consequence), it allows us to act with reason, and it see how things happen with reason. Consciousness and reason itself are not very far apart. A universe with reason, can easily be allegorically described as and perceived consciousness and intent, as nothing happens without purpose, method, reason. Our understanding of God is simply the allegory for a conscious and consequential universe.

Morality is weighing of behavior that brings us better survival vs. closer to death. Nothing more. It is subjective in the personal form, and has degrees of objectivity in the macrocosmic context of ALL humanity surviving, because human beings are extremely cooperative creatures whose survival largely depends on each other, and the betterment of your fellow man is the betterment of YOU. This is largely how you could potentially teach morality to a sociopath, at least in the purely logical and mathematical context, basically "When you hurt others, you are hurting yourself". I could prove this in various ways and explain how we don't teach our children not to steal because it hurts others or gets them arrested, but I think that it is self-evident enough that this is ultimately self-destructive behavior. Yes, I know the opening chapter of UPB declares survival is not the root of morality because it is too subjective, however as I just pointed out, this only applies on the personal level and is relatively absolute when you consider all of humanity as a family. THIS is the core teaching of religions, that we are ONE, that we are ALL God's children and no one should be left behind or ostracized (which is a form of violent punishment in itself). Regardless of what Stefan claims, religion helps people see very clearly that we all have a moral responsibility and obligation for the betterment of each others capacity for survival. This is it's boon. This is the GOOD that comes out of it. You already know religious people have some of the healthiest lifestyles and families on Earth, you cannot take small violent or oppressive minorities within religions and use them as straw men to deny this basic fact. Don't believe that GOOD vs. BAD/EVIL is Life vs. Death? Go ahead and take a stroll through the synonyms and definitions of good, bad, and evil. We have an inborn understanding of that helping each other to survive better makes you survive better, and just in case you don't, that's where religion comes in with giving people a greater understanding of this through parables, stories, metaphors, and teachings. Symbolism, allegory, and parable is the language of things we know and see in our subconscious minds, but have trouble putting into conscious words. Any artist worth his salt will tell you the same. Stefan is wrong when he determines the use of violence as WIN-LOSE, it is ultimately LOSE-LOSE as both parties suffer in the long term, just as a thief has never learned to accumulate money legitimately and has to continue to spiral downward into the consequence of his violent sustenance. This is objective morality in action. The major proponent of such a thing, being religious teachings. I literally heard Stefan scoff and mock a caller when he brought up concepts of "We are one" and then in another video he is moved to tears over the peace created by people's innate understanding of this objective morality on Christmas Day during World War II. He claims he's scoured the world and made it a mission to find what would compel people to drop their arms and drink together and play games on CHRISTMAS day. The answer is within his question as is often the case with great philosophical problems. He claims he has look in religion, but his own emotional hatred and distaste for it, will never allow him to see anything beyond a small minority of unappealing traits within the religious community. Religious people are the most moral people you will ever meet. This is a basic known fact. If you disagree, you haven't spent very much time in many churches or religious gatherings. You can say you have, but this isn't true at all. God forbid it happens, but wait till you're falling apart one day and the only people who will take you in and help you restore your life are those of religious leanings. Then you will see the power of it's value and truth. This is strawman that many Atheists create where they selectively look at potential negative uses of religion or early understandings of Gods, or the manipulations of particular sects... It comes from an emotional place, not one of morality. Are you not genuinely curious of the deeper meanings beyond the origin of the notion of morality through human history? What is this desire to completely dismiss all the old learnings as trash, and start from scratch like a babe in the woods? You don't have to believe in God to be genuinely CURIOUS of the value and deeper meanings (allegory) behind religious teachings of morality.

Good article. Thank you. Would love to see the establishment, particularly the media, be more willingly to let go misconceptions of the past in favor of newer evidence. The worst example of dogmatically refusing to let go and evolve is the case of Pangea, which is almost theological in it's mythical qualities of 1 single special island on a vast ball of water. This deserves a thread of it's own, but the gist is that Expanding Earth/Growing Earth theory clicks perfectly. It answers so many questions of the chronology of the Earth, why fossils and artifacts are buried so deep, the beginning of water, contintents fitting together like a puzzle (on ALL sides), fossil locations accross continents, and human migration patterns without the need for bandage theories like Ice/Land Bridges.

I didn't argue against this, that was the point I made. Our perception makes us believe that the things we experience are real and concrete outside of perception, and yet they are real. I didn't say you were dead wrong, I just offered it's counterpoint. You are only proving my original point that 2 parties with seemingly contradictory statements can be both right and wrong simultaneously. I fail to see how the first part truly contradicts anything I've stated, nor how it implies the impossibility of observing anything. The second statement that it is an absolute impossibility to observe contradictory laws, I wonder if this is your own addendum. You have no possible way of truly knowing whether or not if one day gravity will simply reverse itself or change in some bizarre fashion. You can try to predict the probability, but unless you have omniscience you shouldn't absolutely declare something like this impossible. Furthermore, all frames of reference simply means the ones that are available to us now. Fluctuation and inconsistency can be observed in nearly all things on the quantum level (see: "String Theory"). The better the instrument, either the more noticeable the inconsistency or the more things become indistinguishable. If time and space are in perpetual flux or at least subject to the possibility of flux, so are all physical "laws". scientific laws are no more than human observations and annotations of perceived consistency. The theories and language of Science itself are inconsistent, and there's nothing wrong with that. It is the various and diverse observations and theories of many different people, based on critical reasoning and hypothesis (fancy word for "educated guess"). Are you to say that Scientific laws and theories never contradict each other? I beg to differ. Science is just a language and tool, not an authority. The same applies to religion, philosophy, etc... If space and time are relative to each other and measured relative to the observer, then there is not necessarily any actual constant or "same"-ness beyond the perception of consistency measured in relation to our ability to observe it. Lacking the tools to discern incremental variations in physical "laws" or constants does not make the case that they are actually constant in anything but our perception. They seem constant, so we declare it so. All things are subject to the possibility of change and time, perception, space, existence, these experiences all derive from things changing (inconsistency) and we compare them to the things that seem to stay the same.

Considering that everything we experience and do is limited and effected by our perspective and filtered by the natural limitations of senses, ego and emotions... Yes. Considering advancements in Science like the double slit test and observer effect that indicate something does not actually even exist until someone is there to even perceive it... Yes. Considering that the Theory of relativity itself refers to: Measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of observers. In particular, space contracts and time dilates. Spacetime: space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other. Without comparison and relation, there is nothing to even perceive at all, and all is seemingly in flux. Without relativity we would not even be able to see light (compared to dark), blue (compared to red), and all the other infinite spectrums of sensory data. Yes. The most profound and game-changing scientific research has all indicated that it would be wrong for you to say that. It may not SEEM like it is wrong, but again, that is perception itself and compared to how right vs. wrong it seems. Everything is relative and subject to our interpretation, just as the Apple is not actually an Apple and is ultimately just a part of the MATTERial fabric of space and time that we compare to other parts, and perceive it as what we call an "Apple". The findings of the Observer effect and Double Slit test and other similar studies and theories have been repeatedly empirical confirmed throughout my life. Two people can experience the exact same event from a different perspective and observe completely contradictory laws of physics. I have experienced empirical phenomena that most people could never imagine, and those that have less emotional interest in accepting it's possibility, will ultimately start to forget major details or search deeply for a way to explain these phenomena away. Phsyics and scientific laws are all subject to degrees and waves and are not universally constant anymore than we perceive them to be constant in comparison to our tools of measurement. Lacking the capability to measure these deviations and fluctuations does not in any way change that one some level they are in flux, and that is our perception that gives them what we call "consistency".

Philosophy is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence" It is to ponder the greater questions and attempt to perceive, contemplate, or understand the bigger picture in all aspects of life. If you have no interest in full ramifications and implications of an infinite and paradoxical universe, as is confirmed and implied in some the most fascinating, enlightening, and revelatory scientific experiments and theories of the modern age, then respectfully I have to ask, what the hell are you doing on a philosophy forum? Are we trying to learn deeper truths and achieve wisdom or simply bask in our own arrogance and construct our own reality? It's staggering why I even have to ask this, it can hardly be put into words... If you have no interest in contemplating the nature of reality and existence, why are you here? Abstracts concepts (which are essentially allegory) like omniscience and omnipotence are just symbolic terms that relate our perception of human consciousness on a larger scale (the infinite) and we use these symbols to imply something greater than ourselves that can hardly be understood. You are trying to say that because it doesn't make sense to you than it can hardly exist at all, but yet here you are. Reality itself doesn't make comprehensible sense, but it's all we remember and it's all we've ever known. Do you have no interest in understanding how this impossible situation of existing at all can "be", how anything can "be"? You are supposed to be philosophers. If you look at everything that seems impossible and deem it that it must certainly "not be" at all, you have no business being a Philosopher. If an Atheist thinks that not existing at all after death makes perfect sense, then they admit that the concept of not-existing at all "makes sense" to them, and yet reality and consciousness exist despite all impossibility. If you intellectually or emotionally can never admit that 2 items can be infinitely different and infinitely identical at the same time, or how this same paradox applies to the entire universe, then you are purposely excluding yourself from ever understanding the greatest and most profound scientific discoveries and philosophical discussions of our time. And for the record, Up is Down. There is no up or down, these are labels we created to understand where we are in relation to things. The guy on the other side of the world thinks that he is looking up but he is looking in completely the opposite direction. This is a living example of "The Law of Non-Contradiction" being broken. It is true that you are looking up, but you are also NOT looking up, but instead looking down, left, right, diagonally, etc... all in relation to your perspective. There is no up or down. They are just abstract comparison terms. Has anyone started shitting ice cream yet?

This is an edit of an above post that has yet to be moderator approved: Birds have scales and lizards/reptiles have scales in different types and different ways. The Dinosaur fossil record is in-line with bird-like scales with also variations of some reptile-like scales, however the presense of feathers is found in conjunction with scales in the most well-preserved specimens. This drastically conflicts with modern portrayal and reconstruction of Dinosaurs in scientific media, entertainment, and museum.

Science doesn't necessarily fully agree on things any more than Religious sects fully agree on anything, just as definitions of words themselves can vary and differ in cultures and textbooks. Regardless the larger part of the scientific community, the media, public education, and cultural conditioning has taught people to accept with very little question, the idea that Dinosaurs share the traits of the traditional definition and perception of a "reptile" (cold blood, scaley skin, lizard-like tongues and movements). This is where dogmas of past misconceptions and assumptions overrides all evidence and example. Are you going to deny that despite all evidence to the contrary, the Scientific community continues to portray Dinosaurs with these physical properties? The majority portrayal and description of Dinosaurs with these classical reptilian physical properties defy all reasonable assumption and theory based on reason and evidence, yet somehow it persists through an unwillingness to abandon or challenge the dogma of the past that we have taken for granted as "truth". When scientific community at large is saying through their actions that "The evidence indicates Dinosaurs are technically like birds in nearly every way, but we will continue to call them "Reptiles" and portray them with Repitilian features that have very little resemblance to birds at all, despite no evidence to support this portrayal." Ladies and gentlemen, we have Dogma. This is the same kind of dogmatic faith that refused to change perception of the Sun's revolutions, and ostracized or attacked contrary models and theories. You many not see that, but it's true. People have held the mythology of scaley cold-blood dinosaurs for so long that they have an emotional resistance to admitting it's unreasonable to portray Dinosaurs this way, and so, refuse to portray it accurately with what has been learned. I can't use minority or differing theories/opinions of within the Scientific community to point out contradiction and misconceptions in the beliefs of a majority or establishment? I guess you should tell Richard Dawkins he can't do that either for Religion, or do I have to play by different rules?

Infinity as a broad concept does not have a quantifiable size, mass, dimension, or space as whole because if it is truly infinite in all directions simultaneously then it is not even there at all. Limitations define time, size, mass, dimension and space. We can quantify, articulate, define, and attribute characteristics to the 1900s-2000 A.D. because we have set finite limitations and boundaries to examine and articulate an area of infinity that is being described. However infinity as an abstract or tangible concept cannot be appropriately represented or quantified with anything other than limited (the opposite of infinity) abbreviations/symbols/equations. In fact the only appropriate symbol or numerical value of infinity is no symbol at all. A complete and accurate representation of infinity would be completely blank (stasis, no definable limits, no change or consistency because both values require relativity to their opposing concept in order to be defined, quantified, or perceived at all). In this way math does not actually exist in any material or quantifiable form without setting limits. Whatever you are using math to measure, if you say you have 2 apples, you would also be ignoring that neither object is really the same object and that you have already defined a set limit of terms which define an object as an apple. Really there are no apples at all, because "apple" is just a word used to compare perceived limitations or observable properties of an object in relation to other things. "i have two apples" implies that the similarities between the two objects define them as the same object, when really this is only pattern recognition. If you were to examine both objects endlessly and with every means that could ever be available, there would be no limit to the indistinction and distinction of the "two" objects. We only perceive them as having distinct definable and limited properties in relation to the amount of perceivable similar properties. Both objects consist of material ("matter") reality as a whole, and their distinction is only a perception. These are the types of philosophical subjects that can lead to greater understanding of the universe around us, and have very applicable utility in all languages of learning and fields of exploration. Unfortunately there are people who seem to have the impression that accepting these seemingly contradictory truths would somehow lead to madness, and it potentially could if not counterbalanced by the defined limitations we set with languages and words. However, my original argument still stands that two things can simultaneously be true and false, just as an apple can simultaneously "exist" (distinguishable similarities and limitations) and "not exist" (there are no apples, just "matter" being compared by perceived similarities and limitations). It is our own relative sensory limitations that give us the ability to define, recognize patterns, and process sensory input. For example, say you had no limitations to what you could "experience", you would not be experiencing anything at all, because always experiencing everything at one time would never have any kind of alternative experience to compare it to. Just as we cannot actually define "happiness" without comparing it to "sadness".

Everything is relative and subject to our interpretation. Contradiction is a: A combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another. They do not have to be implicitly referring to the exact same thing. Rock is just an abstract label that we apply to matter with similar properties. So if I am to say that a Rock is a "Rock", but it also not a Rock (it is matter or compressed dirt) are you going to say that I am just interpreting it differently or can you admit that these are contradicting statements that are both true and false simultaneously? By saying through differing interpretation it is no longer a contradiction, to a degree you are right, because both are true and do not actually conflict, they don't actually contradict each other. However, both statements are seemingly a contradiction in the conventional meaning and understanding of the word "contradiction". Obviously I am arguing that they don't actually contradict, however at first glance and without explanation they seem to completely contradict. The "contradicting" statements are true simultaneously. Contradiction is just an abstract term for comparison anyway, there are no tangible items or beings called "contradictions". If they are abstract, to a degree they are always illusory and relative.

There are no extremes is the point I am making. An absolute statement is always false and true 1+2 = Infinity, 1+5 = Infinity. That is the real truth. 1+2 can = 3 if we are talking about apples, but the mere abstract of 1+2 = Infinity. But how many apples are there really? What is an apple but an abstract word that we compare to the properties of various infinitely different objects. There is infinite space between all these numbers and they are completely abstract and without value until applied to some other concept. Math does not actually exist. It is nothing more than a pattern-recognition language that must be compared to something to have any kind of empirical value. What is same? Is anything the same? Is anything actually different? What is a rock? It's just a word. There are many different types of rocks, are all rocks the same? Well they are all rocks. Do you insist on mindfucking yourself like this? Can you not accept a paradox? I'm not going to argue in circles with semantics and abstracts. This community and people in general very much love to confuse themselves in this way. If you are curious as to how I can know that God simultaneously exists AND doesn't exist I think you will educate and liberate yourself if you truly spend some time fully contemplating the implications of infinity, and do some more research into the nature of paradox in quantum physics. The law of non-contradiction is one of those bullshit absolutes that flies in the face of language and reality. Everything is relative, even truth. If you wanna delude yourself into thinking otherwise and really invest your time into searching for that absolute truth, you will either dead end yourself in irrational extremes or you will learn to accept a paradox. The universe is but an atom within the hairy balls of a very fat man, oh but we are so much more

All we have is the fossil record of skeletal remains of what we call "Dinosaurs" and through time we have attributed them to have scaled skin and lizard-like features, bringing the eternal dragon mythology to life... despite flying in the face of all collected evidence. 1. It is a physical impossibility for Dinosaurs to have been cold-blood creatures: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2370365/Dinosaurs-NOT-cold-blooded-physically-weak-claim-scientists.html (a simple internet search reveals this same claim repeated over and over and over) From the very top of Wikipedia's "Physiology of Dinosaurs": 2. The closest living relatives are BIRDS From Wikipedia on "Dinosaurs": This same article on WIkipedia routinely reaffirms the myth that "Dinosaurs" are "Reptiles" yet this thesis is never evidenced or supported in any way. However it does contain an entire section detailing the vast discoveries linking the biology of BIRDS to Dinosaurs. 3. The word Raptor itself is an avian term for Bird of Prey. 4. The question of gimpy little arms (vestigial wings) on Dinosaurs and the beak-like mouths of species like Triceratops is easily answered in comparison with species of birds on earth, particularly the skeletons of Emus and Ostrich. I could link pictures of Ostrich and Emu skeletons or you could continue this research yourself. I could show you numerous studies and evidence that supports my claims or you can research this further yourself. You could also call me a heretic and continue believe the batshit mythology that is taught to you in public school and thus accepted wholesale by the establishment of Big Science despite all contradiction within the evidence. Conclusion: Dinosaurs were likely flightless and flightful species of prehistoric and gigantic birds. All evidence suggests the likely-hood of feathers. There is no evidence to support the myth of cold-blood or reptilian scaled dinosaurs in any way shape or form, but regardless the Dogma of Science refuses to adapt and change cultural perception.

This is exactly what was done when I showed how including the word "random" in scientific theory automatically undermines it's authenticity and utility. Random has a specific meaning that is culturally and linguistically understood, yet it was redefined in this thread as "without cost or benefit" which is a made up definition that has no reflection on the word "Random" in any field of study. There is no such thing in nature as "Random" and random generation like the roll of a die is only the illusion of random, and everything in nature has cause & effect, method, reason for why it happens (whether we know the reason yet or not). If you accept this as a basic truth in any field of study, then the most appropriate response to any theory that proposes "random" as an explanation should be treated with criticism, revision, and total skepticism. If I were to propose a theory and call it "The Theory of Randomness" and go through great effort to use fancy words and alleged "proofs" as to how everything is just random shit happening WITHOUT REASON, this theory should be shamed out of the room for laziness: the lack of desire to find reason, lack of utility, lack of explanation, lack of understanding anything, and how it contradicts all reason. In other words, if we can scrap this whole "random mutation" thing, then maybe we can actually learn something instead of just assuming there is no answer. If elements of evolution are true, and species change and adapt to better survivability within their environment, then how does this not prove a form of conscious intent AKA intelligent design. Intelligent design and theories of evolution are in not necessarily incompatible. However dogmatic worship and unwavering loyalty to flawed and questionable premise will never see the two theories unite. I make this accusation of BOTH sides in general. I mean for gods sake we live in a world where the scientific establishment declares that Dinosaurs are cold-blooded lizards despite all research and common sense observation shows this to not only be impossible but that they are prehistoric giant birds (flightless or not). Even a casual comparison of an Emu (closest living relative) and Ostrich skeleton to a Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor reveals this basic truth, yet people go on believing this giant Lizard bullshit with loyalty and unquestioning faith. This is what public school does to the health of our minds.

The numerical distance between 1 and 2 is infinite (there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2), the space between 1 to 5 is also infinite. They are the same, but they are also not the same (both are simultaneously true). A rock and a seagull are both composed entirely of matter. They are the same, but they are also different (both contradictory statements are true). Me and you are the same (there are infinite similarities), but we are also not the same (infinite differences). Both contradictory statements are true. Everything exists, but also nothing at all exists. This is a paradoxical and infinite universe. If every single possibility imaginable is happening simultaneously all at the same time, nothing is actually changing and therefore nothing at all exists. This is a macro scale example and I could go further with it if you wish, but quantum physics is one of the few areas of Science that actually bothers to accept a paradox. Paradox (Contradiction) is a natural law of Infinity. Government is voluntary in that it can only exist if we allow it to be, however Government is completely involuntary (Both are true). The Big Bang is a contradiction in itself. Nothing existed, and then suddenly everything existed. If you don't see the parallels between Big Bang Theory and the creation story of Genesis, then you are missing out on the bigger picture. Humans have already discovered emotionally and intellectually that this is an infinite and paradoxical universe where 2 things can simultaneously be, and not be. God exists, and God also does not exist (Both are true, and I can very easily simultaneously accept and believe both). I can understand and prove this with multiple tools/languages of math/science/physics/religion/spirituality/logic etc... but the community was not so open to hearing this possibility and acted with hostility to the idea. I could go on forever. Nature is one massive contradictory paradox, so to create such a ridiculously fallacious law as "The Law of Non-contradiction" is to condemn yourself to forever being pigeon-holed into extreme positions. Because it is emotionally taxing for some people to truly accept that every word out of their mouth is both wrong and right, true and untrue, not many bother to actually accept this ultimate truth. It also renders a lot of arguments moot when talking in abstracts or bigger picture philosophy, which can take some of the fun and learning out of argument. For example: my statement that "The Law of Non-Contradiction is bullshit" is ultimately both true and untrue. Both are observable phenomena are true. Aristotle observed the effects of non-contradiction in his work and decided it was a truth, however he also excluded many other observable phenomena that contradict his position. Lastly, MMX also provided you with several seemingly contradictory examples of his perspective that are both true. Can I not both Hate and Love this community at the same time? I do testify that BOTH are True.

My god, how can people be so stupid as to voluntarily donate to a State that involuntarily extracts money with threats of violence?. This is like watching people crowdfund the mob. Why are people trying to pay off Odious Debt? It's like paying the bills for the charges on your stolen credit card. Madness, but I suppose some people prefer the comfort of a slow and painful and escalating slavery over personal responsibility.

I forgot to mention also, "Law of Non-Contradiction" is bullshit. Golden mean is closer to truth. I can provide countless examples if you wish. Me and you, we are the same, but we are different (not the same). Aristotle was dead wrong on that one. I can go on if you want. I wish this community could move past that empirical flaw of Aristotilian logic. Regardless, I will listen to the podcast that was linked to arguing against the golden mean and get back to you.

MMX is really hitting the nail here and like I said before I sided with Stefan's perspective until I actually talked with MMX about this personally. Alot of the arguments here against PUA are completely misunderstanding PUA. My wife is a woman of virture who is dedicated to peaceful parenting, anarchism/voluntarism, and enthusiastically persues philosophy in our lives. When MMX provided examples of PUA experiences to her, she lit up instantly and said repeatedly "I would've loved that". PUA is flirting and ice-breaking turned into an artform. You guys are turn it into some kind of manipulative con with the intent to exploit, put down, or use women for sex. As MMX explained to me "intent" is a major focus of pick-up artistry, and from his example with the McDonalds worker he lit up her day. He didn't take advantage of her, he didn't exploit her in any way, he broke the ice, brought conversation to an emotional level, and made her feel good about herself and him (WIN-WIN). You can look too much into it, whatever, the bottomline is that pick-up artistry is just advanced flirting. I think it is safe to say that all woman enjoy flirting and playful communication, regardless of how well they are raised or how virtuous or philosophically-inclined that they are. I don't think you can very well say how someone like Isabella Molyneux would react to PUA with any kind of authority. What was really interesting to me and my wife in particular was the potential to PUAs teachings and apply it to wider forms of ice-breaking and communication with people despite the enormous mask and projections they hide behind. I genuinely look forward what MMX discovers in his applications of PUA toward philosophy, bettering others, and self-improvement. There an assumption that you cannot change a person, and it's true you cannot better them with force. But better understanding female psychology and biology can definitely lead to better understanding on how to help improve the character of a female regardless of where she is in life. If we accept that the majority of males and females (if not all, including us) have been abused and broken by a corrupted society and our own parents, then we should be striving to better those around us and not just simply ostracizing them for lacking the tools to do so.

Is this the scientific definition to the word "random": "without regard to cost or benefit"? Nope. Darwin advocates that the mutations occur toward "benefit" and anything that contradicts this proposal is just 'random and stuff'. Not quite a solid theory or explanation of anything. I find it interesting how so many responses to this thread have occured but yet only one person even bothered to try and argue against my common sense point. This is the same kind of unquestioning blind faith and support of Scientific authority that enables absurdist theories like "Pangea", the magical island of one-ness and ice bridges, to become standard faire in scientific thought. I literally exposed Darwinism as fallacious childs play. A bunch of fancy jargon for saying "shit changes to survive better, but anything that contradicts this is just random shit", but the man and his theories are held with such god-like reverance that the common sense heresy I speak goes ignored. I am here to tell you that the Emporer is bloody naked. I have never heard of a species dieing out because it grew a gimpy leg. If mutations were truly occuring at random at all without cause, effect, method, pattern, etc, you would see never see a large group of the same species adopting these same traits, instead it would be a wide variety of utter randomness with no uniformity. The lazy cop-out that is "Random Mutation", a fancy way of saying "fuck if I know, shit changes and stuff", also completely ignores the fact that no where in the world right now do we see a species with a half-formed leg or arm or wings. Instead we see fully developed and functioning species that have remained unchanged over long periods of time. Anyone care to prove how I am wrong about any of this, or were you too busy downvoting and trying to shame me and ostracize me into oblivion for questioning the authority of the cult of St. Darwin?

No one has won anything. There is no such thing as a "tax benefit" or "government benefits" nothing of benefit or service to you would ever have to be funded with the threat of violent force. People keeping a small portion of the money that was stolen from them in the first place may seem beneficial (praise be the thief!), but your still being robbed. Gaining "benefits" that are paid for with stolen money makes the person complicit in the crime (receiving stolen goods). Getting free shit with stolen money, or having your chains loosened a bit is not Equality. I think it will be interesting to see if this decision contributes to the divorce rate and legal battles that rage amongst legally-married couples throughout the country. Testosterone and testosterone do not mix very well in long term live-in relationships and gay couples are not well known for their monogamy. An onslaught of legal animosity could very possibly ensue. Most gay men LOVE parties, and a wedding is the ultimate party. We already have a problem with straight couples making the premature decision to bind themselves financially through the State. I could see this ruling very much influencing bad decision-making and getting married for the wrong reasons. I fail to see how bringing the State into something so sacred as the bond between friends or lovers is anything but a major LOSE-LOSE. All that i see has been achieved is now gay couples everywhere can bring the violence of State into the matters of their disputes. That isn't marriage or a right, it is the ability to hold each other hostage with the violence of the court system. Gays already had the ability to get married. Marriage is a ritual and a promise, not a certificate and tax "benefits". Now they have the "gay rights" to hold each other hostage with threats and litigation. Yay gay rights! I also worry what this media circus is doing to people's minds, especially small children. It is my belief that homosexuality should not be encouraged, if not purely for the gene-death aspect, there are many other reasons I could get into. Regardless, very few of the people waving rainbow flags are actually gay, or likely haven't even bothered to ask gay people what they think. Every openly gay man I have ever been friends with has been quite vocal against gay marriage, so this issue is being turned into a parade of irrationality without stopping to examine what consequences are at stake and what "gay marriage" really is. Did you know there are gays against "gay marriage"? Out of anyone, they provide the most rational arguments against it.

Truth is not black and white. Truth is usually in a middle ground rather than territories of the extreme. Truth is not always simply irrational or rational, it can be relative to the environment, person, and situation. Maybe the language of philosophy teaches to have these extreme stances and dance around in circles, but real truth is often found in the middle ground, and "both" becomes not only an acceptable answer, but also a truthful and honest answer. Perhaps our languages of Logic and Philosophy need some room to grow and a bit of overhaul. In other threads, I have already went into detail about empirical flaws in Aristotlian Logic, particularly with "the law of non-contradiction". Sure it cancels out the fun of arguing in endless circles, but often times (if not always) the truth is a little bit of "both" of two seemingly opposite extremes. Are we so resigned to the idea that we have devolved that we won't scrutinize the faults in ancient language systems made by fallible ancient men? Also, maybe we shouldn't talk in such abstracts, I don't think it has much practical benefit to anyone and only serves to make us seem smarter to ourselves. On the original topic of downvoting, I find it truly interesting how MMX gets four downvotes for eloquently expressing something very truthful and in detail. How is his post not helpful exactly, or did those who downvoted just not like what they are hearing? thebeardslastcall, I was only referring to you in the first paragraph of that post. Sorry, I should have been clearer. The rest was addressed to others who know who they are.

thebeardslastcall, what you are not getting is that human development of self-awareness, mental and physical health is not necessarily a linear path. You are assuming that you are better or further along this path based on what? A few text interactions on a message board? A phone call to Stefan's show? Stefan has a way of painting a person's position how he desires. I don't know if he does it consciously or not, but he can be an intimidating presence and has a way of portraying things negatively or extremely without giving the person the chance to fully communicate what they mean. He has years of experience in debate and argument and can frame your argument how he so chooses. It's a power to be used with restraint, but I'm not sure to what degree he realizes he does this. I talked with MMX personally through video chat it was very clear that MMX was not portrayed accurately at all by Stefan. Stefan used extreme terms and positions to categorize and characterize MMX very differently than where he is actually coming from. After talking with him I realized that MMX is a lot healthier than me as far as self-knowledge, sound judgement, and physical fitness are concerned. This was not the perception I received from the phone call with Stefan. It was very eye-opening in how we can characterize a person's arguments and frame them anyway we choose. How do you know when you don't need therapy? When you don't need therapy. It's that simple. It's a personal choice, and there are many ways to better oneself and introspect without whatever traditional route is being imposed by others. It is very much an attempt at humiliation and false concern to publicly tell someone to go see a therapist and pass judgement on how far along they are in their development of a truly healthy and self-aware philosophical mind. It is said with feigned sympathy and little discretion. As has been stated here, you could have made your suggestion through private message. MMX is not your past or future self. It extremely presumptuous to act like you know a person from miniscule interaction. Empathy requires people to see themselves in the other persons position, but it can be taken it to an extreme when you start assuming they are just like you.

I forgot to mention also that in regards to LSD and similar hallucinogens, the physiological effects are the increase of sensory input to such a degree that one can experience a phenomenon called "ego death" or connecting oneself with the infinite and temporarily losing some of your identity in the process. This experience is humbling and therapeutic to many, but there also many who go through intense emotional trials and resist during the process. The same can be said of any therapy which is also an emotional experience. All drugs can be a learning experience, some more dangerous than others, and some are dangerous in different ways. It is best to know the science and overall experiences of people who have used these drugs before passing judgement or making a general assumption toward it's value or use as a whole. Nearly all of my self-knowledge and introspection was catalyzed by psychedelics. In many ways it rivals what can be achieved through one-on-one experience with a therapist. You should look into the studies and profound results of using psychedelics for curing addictions and various mental disorders. I am not suggesting nor discouraging someone use something that has potential legal and life-changing (for ill or good) consequences. Ultimately the decision is up to the individual. All experience is through the film and filter of emotional perception, to discount this basic fact would be lacking self-knowledge.

Nathan Diehl, I'm sorry for misspelling your name. I meant to type your full name but accidentally combined it into Nathaniel. Troubador, the point of this thread was "a rational approach to finding value in Religion and Spirituality". If the person has no interest in the possibility of finding truth or value in Religion and Spirituality then they have come here for their own inflammatory purposes. If the person wants to put forward the argument that there is no value or truth in Religion and Spirituality, I am open to that. However, clinging to a myth like it's gold instead of letting the conversation move on is willful faith and blind devotion to satisfy ones need for there not to be a God. This FDR community and Stefan himself regularly talk about differentiating moral responsibility from an abstract concept to the person committing the action. It is not religion killing people, it is people killing people. It is not religion preventing people from asking questions or using logic and reason, it is people discouraging questions and critical thought. If we can't discuss religion outside of the immoral actions of a small but vocal minority within the religious communities, then we lose all hope of assessing any truth or value in it's teachings. The majority of religious thought and teachings encourage pacifism so if you are familiar with the writings, very quickly it becomes obvious that it is the actions of people who corrupt the teachings to suit their own needs and desires. It's easy to take the older writings of the old testament to suit the needs of someone to prove "religion is violent", but that would be a misrepresentation and ignoring the more recent evolutions in religious thought and writings (New Testament, Qu'ran, Buddhism, etc.). I do think the Atheist community almost as a whole ascribe the same kind of blind devotion to certain theories and influential figures of the languages of science, logic, and reason. For example I provided serious argument against Aristotle's "law of non-contradiction" and the idea of unbreakable "Laws" in general. I also have extremely contrasting information in regards to flaws in portions of Darwin's "theory of evolution". But because these people are held to such high devotional esteem, to challenge their ideas is treated as if I am challenging God to a religious fanatic. The challenge doesn't go addressed, but instead I get accused of just "not understanding" or being "ignorant" of the Aristotle's law, which is odd because these theories aren't hard to understand. We teach (indoctrinate) them to small children as if they are wholesale truth, despite that we once taught that the sun revolved around the Earth. If the languages have a flaw, it needs to be addressed to find deeper truth. Philosophy and Logic are not synonymous with truth, they are just two of many tools for finding truth and assigning value in life. They were invented by humans, and ancient ones no less. They are just as fallible and subject to critical dissection as anything else. This is the blind devotion I see in Atheism towards Science and Philosophy. Jumping from one extreme to another is not healthy, it blinds you from seeing inaccuracies and problems in these two languages. I see no reason why Philosophy, Religion, Spirituality, Math, and Science cannot be compatible. They are all languages for understanding the universe, and if you give all of these languages the due respect of recognizing their fallibility and recognizing that they are subject to change and varying interpretation, then they all work together extremely well for finding deeper truths in our life. Unwillingness to examine the fallibility in those we prop up as influential heroes, and unwillingness to accept the possibility that they could have been wrong about anything, is setting ourselves up for failure. Blind unquestioning devotional worship of any language or abstract concept is detrimental to us all, whether it be Science, Logic, Religion, or anything...

I don't know what Stefan's argument on Universally Preferable Behavior is toward universal ethics, but morality at it's core (if you travel down the definitions and break it to it's roots) is simply Good = Survival, Bad = Death. True morality, the kind we hold valid (and not from indoctrination) is constructed on behavior that is good for the survival of species (that drives us together and towards improvement of quality of life) and behavior that is bad for the species (that drives us apart and leads us towards death). We are social creatures that survive symbiotically. Through moral actions when your quality of life improves, my quality of life improves with it, regardless of how miniscule or detectable. If you don't understand the core nature that Good = Survival (beneficial, improving, gaining health) and Bad = Death (destruction, despair, illness), then everything becomes muddy and confusing and somehow Government, the most murderous force on Earth (thereby the greatest EVIL man has ever known) can be justified in the mind as "necessary", "practical", "beneficial" or "realistic". Whatever is the number one cause of unnatural death (consequence of man's behavior) will always be the greatest evil that man has ever known. Cancer can be regarded as evil as it is often (though not always detectable) a consequence of man's behavior. Of course, we all know that Cancer is "bad". Like I said, I don't know what foundation Stefan uses to set up UPB, but hopefully it goes something along these lines. If it is missing this basic survival core, and fails to recognize that good for survival can be relative to environment, then I would worry it's missing the point. I look forward to reading the book. Non-Aggression Principle is applicable toward human behavior. Violent force is always bad for both parties and I disagree with Stefan's assement that violent force is Win-Lose. I would argue that it is Lose-Lose (long term), because our benefit is also dependent on the satisfaction and improvement of all parties. We do not tell our children not to steal because they may get arrested. We tell them not to do it because this behavior escalates, will destroy them in the long run, and is destructive to us all. Theft is not Win Lose, because the thief did not solve the original problem of "how to acquire wealth", he merely ignored the problem, went for the quick violent solution and hurts everyone in the process including himself. Non-aggression principle is pretty absolute in regards to other humans. Even in the case of self-defense you are not solving the problem, you are only using it as a last resort for temporary life preservation, but a whole host of new problems emerge. The original problem of "Why is this person using violence in the first place" has not been addressed or solved. If we look at violence as a problem for all, including the user of violence, I think we have a better chance of solving it. However, nothing is absolute, and the NAP cannot be applied to hunting for example. The use of violent force against animals to obtain food is not immoral but good for survival. Extremist positions cloud reason, but as far as human interaction NAP is pretty straightforward absolute as a principle.

The level of disrespect and trash talk is staggering. The arrogance on display is counter-productive to any kind of truth, wisdom, and is just plain bullying. I see the way MMX is treated and get a very clear idea of the type of propping up oneself higher than someone else that is going on. It's the delusion that can arise when someone gets a little bit of philosophy, self-knowledge, or truth in their life and then starts to assume that every word they speak is truth, and then uses it as a weapon to put others down. It's despicable and disturbing. MMX is a human being worthy of the same respect you would expect yourself. We all can get carried away but I have never seen him conduct himself in the belittling self-aggrandizing manner that I see direct towards him. MMX, I found a lot of insight and perspective in your conversation with Stefan and appreciate you taking the time and courage to open up like that. I look forward to talking with you 1 on 1 soon... ...hmm but maybe I shouldn't though because I might get "diarrhea" all over me [sarcasm] That kind of crap is pathetic and childish. Nathan, I see the dishonor and disrespect you do to yourself and others with this kind of talk. I see the way your peers encourage and exacerbate it. I will call it out when I see it, because it is destructive to all parties and is exactly what MMX originally wanted to talk about with Stefan. Stefan backed away from discussing it. It could've been addressed without names and keeping anonymity. The people involved have equal opportunity to call in and talk about it. I get why Stefan wanted to stay out of a potential dispute within the community that he helped to create, but that doesn't mean there isn't a real issue that needs to be addressed.