D.D.

Oh sorry, what I mean by "not an argument" is that the voting feature is one way for people to give feedback without typing a sentence - just click and we have little idea why and who up-voted / down-voted a post. It's not a feature I like but I'm not requesting FDR make any changes, just feedback in a sentence form.

FYI - After signing in, within the new Terms of Use and Privacy Policy agreement, the "guidelines of the board" link is broken and at the end, the "Privacy Policy" is displayed as something like "privacy_policy_text". Personally, I'm not a fan of the up-vote / down-vote feature - the feature isn't an argument. Otherwise the fresh look is nice.

You've over-exaggerated my position. I'm trying to help you by clearly understanding your question(s) and motivation. I don't find your question perplexing or weird - where did I say that? Unless I didn't understand, you did not answer why the topic of God's existence, nor why Atheists think God is self-contradictory, is interesting to you. I ask because you said you read Stef's book which is constructed on reason and logic as a rebuttal to claims put forth by theologists where, he steps the reader through the logic of one of your issues - "complexity". As a side note - To make the claim that "God's complexity isn't even a definable thing", means you have knowledge of God's state to make the claim of whether or not God's complexity is definable - complex, not complex, something in between. Stef offers his services to help people with their questions like yourself. Do your homework and have an as honest and open conversation as possible.

Help us understand why this topic is interesting to you and if you could, narrow your question to 1 or 2 sentences for clarity. I'm still unsure what you're really asking and why?

#3509 - http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3509/what-pisses-me-off-about-thanksgiving- Need more specifics, free market capitalism (what little there is) examples are speckled throughout multiple pod-casts. My suggestion would be to start with defining free market capitalism, however, based on the claim you say the person states, evidence may not work. This pod-cast may help - #3055-The Death of Reason: Why People Don't Listen to Reason and Evidence

Source Link for the following: Question: "What is Nestorianism? Who were the Nestorians?" Answer: The Nestorians are followers of Nestorius (c. AD 386–451), who was Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorianism is based on the belief put forth by Nestorius that emphasized the disunity of the human and divine natures of Christ. According to the Nestorians, Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body. His divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. This idea is not scriptural, however, and goes against the orthodox Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union, which states that Christ is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person. God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the Incarnation Jesus also became a human being (John 1:14). Interesting, so to sum up: Christian doctrine "states that Christ is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person." Nestorianism belief puts forth that "Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body."

Your argument and avatar makes better sense to me now. I'm sorry to say that I will not continue to debate this specific topic with you due to your belief but I must thank you for your open honesty. I will say that Christianity, as a religion, is far more virtuous than a religion like Islam. Of course, "virtuous" depends on ones definition.

Where is your evidence to back up your claim that Stef "wants to complexify [God] out of existence? Please note that Stef doesn't "say", he provides a logical argument. If I understand your statement correctly, you believe in the existence of God? I'm curious so that we all can understand your position and can respond accordingly. I don't understand what your saying here, please elaborate unless it's an argument regarding the existence of a God...the OP wasn't asking that and it would be best to answer that question before moving on to another.

I have not read Stef's book "Against the Gods" (link) nor have I read the sources of your references, so take my thoughts for what they are worth: On page 15 of Against the Gods, section titled "Why Are Gods Self-Contradictory?": "...a god is defined as an eternal being which exists independent of material form and detectable energy, and which usually possesses the rather enviable attributes of omniscience and omnipotence. First of all, we know from biology that even if an eternal being could exist, it would be the simplest being conceivable. An eternal being could never have evolved, since it does not die and reproduce, and therefore biological evolution could never have layered levels of increasing complexity over its initial simplicity. We all understand that the human eye did not pop into existence without any prior development; and the human eye is infinitely less complex than an omniscient and omnipotent god. Since gods are portrayed as the most complex beings imaginable, they may well be many things, but eternal cannot be one of them. Secondly, we also know that consciousness is an effect of matter – specifically biological matter, in the form of a brain." To sum up, in our empirical world (based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic), as Stef says "...even if an eternal being could exist, it would be the simplest being conceivable." but then it would lack the complexity required to be able to create something complex. When theorizing the existence of a God, it must be "portrayed as complex". This is why he states that gods are portrayed as complex. My question to you would be why are you interested in..."Why does Stefan say that "gods are portrayed as complex"?"

Here's some suggestions as you requested: Anger and Forgiveness by Raymond Lloyd Richmond, Ph.D., a sample of the contents can be viewed @ http://www.guidetops...ogy.com/af3.htm Pod-cast http://www.fdrpodcas...august-4th-2013 @ ~2:19:23 in which he says, "The anger against your abusers is perfectly healthy. The danger of the anger is that it can draw you back into wanting to fix, rage against, act against your abusers."

I'm so confused by your definitions, grammar, and spelling that I'm going to politely bow out.

A pattern I've noticed on this forum, never mind the internet, is a lack of a revision process required when providing an argument. A revision process is a process that takes you through multiple drafts before reaching that finished paper, or in this case, thread / post. I find that posts are written as if outsiders are assumed to already understand and perhaps share the posters arguments and meanings - kind of like jumping into the middle of a conversation or the middle of someone's life experiences. I'm guilty of this too. The above post for example, may benefit from being concise. Reading someone else's post consumes the readers time and energy, like right now. A few early flags of confusion in the above post for myself was: chronic bad parenting bad compared to others in the same environment subsidize bad genes I have no idea what the OP is texting about...but it comes with a poll that you can vote on without providing an argument. What does the OP consider as "bad parenting" and "bad genes"? Who is the OP referring to with "compared to others"? Describe "environment" and "subsidize".

This behavior is beneath FDR forum guidelines and that of emotionally regulated deep-thinkers, but sometimes we slip up. I suggest you take some time to reflect on why this topic / thread has effected you and why you reacted this way. Please come back and post what you learn. Enjoy the rest of your day.

How do you know I'm anxious? You didn't ask me. It appears to me, correct if I'm wrong, that you may have some anxiety over others "inability to answer for the ways in which [your arguments] challenges [their] irrationally held position." This is why I asked "When will it be enough for you?" I'm here posting about the effects this topic has on you. I'm focusing on you because you've made your arguments, rebutted others arguments, pointed out their irrationality, yet you continue to argue with them. This isn't an attack on you. You and I have some minor history on this board and I appreciate the help you've given me. I thought I'd help you see the effects this voting topic has on you. I thought maybe you have an emotional drive to post here; you wouldn't be the first nor the last. Of course, you're not required to open-up about any of this and you're free to write me off as "projecting / poisoning-the-well / irrational / biased / a dissenter / etc." Anyway, I just wanted to pop-in and convey my thoughts to you and now I'll be stepping out to focus back on getting my one-man corporation off the ground.

Dude, I'm concerned about you a little bit, my friend. You've made your arguments on this board multiple times with condensed linked articles written by you, thank you You've contributed >4000 posts (~avg 3.97 posts per day since active membership) and an established reputation of >1000 is outstanding! I think it's safe to say that you've helped people and they appreciate you for that. When it comes to making your arguments on this topic of voting - When will it be enough for you?

A trimmed (36 minutes) pod-cast diving into the psychology when posting on the FDR board: FDR_983_Sunday_Call_In_Show_Feb_17_08_trimmed.mp3

Today, November 19th, is International Men's Day. Objectives of International Men's Day include a focus on men's and boy's health, improving gender relations, promoting gender equality, and highlighting positive male role models. It is an occasion for men to celebrate their achievements and contributions, in particular their contributions to community, family, marriage, and child care while highlighting the discrimination against them. Symbol of the International Men's Day which represents strength and masculinity As you can see, the symbol is a handful of gold and a symbol of masculinity. All this combined, is received as "A large worth of male power", the symbol of the International Men's Day. Copyright © 30.09.2009."International Men's Day Symbol" Is protected by the UK Copyright Service with registration number: 309245 I Adam agree to publish that work under the Licence GNU Free Documentation License and release it to the public domain. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. The International Men's Day Google Doodle is missing. The only one I found was from 2008 and it's reach is strictly within Russia where this event originated. The International Women's Day Google Doodle is certainly present found here. You can e-mail Google regarding this missing Doodle here because they seem to have forgotten about men. Now excuse me while I lift some weights, belch, fart, scratch and grab my crotch, work on an engineering problem, take a leak standing, and journal about a tense dream I had last night (ya, I have feelings too ladies). Edit: Original post missing...technical reasons?

Today, November 19th, is International Men's Day. The symbol of the International Men's Day represents strength and masculinity. As you can see, the symbol is a handful of gold and a symbol of masculinity. All this combined is received as "A large worth of male power", the symbol of the International Men's Day. Copyright © 30.09.2009."International Men's Day Symbol" Is protected by the UK Copyright Service with registration number: 309245 I Adam agree to publish that work under the Licence GNU Free Documentation License and release it to the public domain. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

As dsayers pointed out below: It's quicker and easier to provide a link to a page of text than it is to write a page of text. I agree with dsayers here: We're trying to help you because there seems to be a reoccurring theme in your statements. My intention isn't to judge or criticize you, but to help you see yourself, I'm not a therapist of any kind, mine you. Here's a recent example of your line of thought: You seem to have determined that the standard of communicating online is to match the amount of text of someone else's response and in a timely fashion. Is this where your frustration comes from? Do you feel bad, inadequate, weak or stupid if you fail to meet your standard? I don't want to tell you how to feel, you tell us what you feel when you see a "wall of text" to your posts. Take your time. Maybe write your thoughts down on paper with a pen / pencil (I prefer the feel of a pencil) before typing here to workout the thoughts. Can we hold off the sophistry stuff for now? I think that's an after-thought to your initial feelings.

Looks like I have some more learning to do before jumping into the arena. Thanks for your input, especially your link dsayers. UPB is something else for me to fully understand.

Do you have a United States of America birth certificate? If so, didn't someone ask the State to own you? Without the birth certificate, you would have less access to "regulated freedoms" like earning income on the value you provide to someone, even though the State reminds you of the leash through taxation, etc. I pay taxes. It could be argued that by doing so I agree with theft by the State and support it's ownership of myself and others. I pay taxes because the State will use force to get their taxes from myself and others. Meanwhile I work at undermining the State, even if that means using it's own weapon or befriending it's enemies. Life is not Black-and-White but grey. Not using violence to defend yourself because you have a principle called NAP will get you killed. Your enemies are counting on you holding to your values while they use violence against you. That's your weak spot. None of this means I agree with the State.

Without a specific post / thread to refer to, here are my general thoughts: I've noticed that some people don't go through a whole thread, read each post, and then respond. Usually, they read the latest, or two, and respond. Maybe your post was the last one? Some people will scan a thread and pick out a post they want to comment on. This doesn't necessarily mean they are targeting you specifically. It could be because they want to reply because they feel like they are accomplishing something with their day, genuinely want to help or correct, or yes, there is a chance they are targeting your words for whatever reason "...calling me names" - What specifically? Just a reminder, there are Guidelines which are enforced here at FDR. There is also a "Report" button on each post anyone can use to flag, I'm assuming (I haven't tested it), the system administrator. Otherwise, from the guidelines - "Please respect your feelings. If you find that a thread is becoming unpleasant, please disengage." "The truth can only result from a positive and challenging mutual exploration of facts and principles. Escalation is the responsibility of both parties." This forum is open to people who don't share the same values of yourself or I. There's no membership filtering system here. This means there can be enemies within. You may have run into them or they share some of your values but are just dicks for whatever sad reason. Here's a podcast you may find helpful or not: Podcast 665: Be Nice! Part 1 - Self Protection A positive is that when you find someone who matches your values / etc., it will feel like you found a diamond because a diamond's value is mostly in it's rarity. Perhaps you don't feel like you're heard? Maybe it's their speed or they don't address your facts? I don't mean to put feelings or thoughts into your head. You mean you didn't read my post carefully, that I spent an hour writing! I'm joking. Great, so you do it for your benefit because you want to learn and you recognize that it takes practice. Then why be frustrated with yourself if you "...don't seem to know some subjects well enough to be able to get out the responses I do faster"? Your comparing yourself to others. You don't know how long they've been doing this or what they do for a living. These are just my thoughts. Thanks for answering my questions.

I almost always, on average, spend about 2 hrs writing a response, which is why I don't post often. Especially when there are questions asked which has been answered in podcasts provided by FDR and are easy to consume. I try to be concise as possible because: people don't like to read long posts people tend stop reading a sentence if it contains multiple thoughts limitations in text like sarcasm can be misunderstood which eats up more resources drafting a response becomes like journaling where I may learn new things about myself spelling and grammar In the end, it's valuable to a point. I have other priorities and treat this forum with that in mind. This stands out to me. How do you know you're "ganged up on"? Why do you feel you are "correct[ing] others"? Do you feel obligated to do so?

You've been a "Member Since 06 Mar 2016", have currently made "220 posts" and now you ask this question. This is not a honest question. You have an agenda, what is it?

I think those are some ideas you may want to try out. Let us know how it goes. Regarding FDR considering peaceful parenting as a top priority, I believe FDR promotes "philosophy" as a top priority because through philosophy, peaceful parenting is logical.