Hi folks - new here

[ZetaMan]

So there is no introduction board, and I would very much like to avoid materializing out of thin air and not being known. I'd also like to know what community I'm coming to here.

 

So hello!

 

I'm not going to fit in here like a hand in a glove. I believe in God (although I'm not really sure exactly how or in what capacity it exists, and I'm certain I never will), I study the Occult and psychology more than economic or political history, and I'm somewhat of a passionate Men's Rights Advocate/Activist. But what brings me here is Libertarianism and the Non-Aggression Principal and the 98% flawless reasoning of Stefan Molyneux - I feel I can learn, share, and teach some things here.

 

So, who are you? How can we benefit from each other's existence on this donor-supported platform?

[dsayers]

Hi there. Welcome to FDR. There is an introduction forum, but that's not terribly important.

 

I believe in God (although I'm not really sure exactly how or in what capacity it exists, and I'm certain I never will)

 

I wanted to respond to this first by acknowledging my bias that anything that can be described as a belief is an admission of being fasle.

 

Let us suppose for a moment that ghosts exist. Either they will impress upon our senses or they will not. If they do, we will be able to measure them and no belief would be required. If they do not, then it would be no different than if they did not exist. Either way, our belief in them would be meaningless.

 

If you accept this dichotomy, then I would ask you: What does believing in God mean to you?

[ZetaMan]

It's sad that we have to waste our time on what is essentially a difference on the level of epistemology against the backdrop of living in a free society. I'd suggest your eagerness to correct "the error of belief" springs from a subversive Marxist impulse. I believe I'm well within reason to fear roving Mad Max mobs burning down churches in a generation or two. [Yes, I'm aware I just employed at least 2 Fallacies there, but we all have the right to editorialize]

 

I do not accept your dichotomy. It's built upon the untested (and in my opinion, unprovable) presumption that what can be received by the senses can also be received and translated into data by an instrument (which must be an instrument we have today). To me that's a grave oversight when your "Eternal Soul" may very well be on the line.

You can tell me that since no paranormal phenomena (according to what you know) has been translated into data that none of these things could be said to exist as per the Scientific Method, but you cannot tell me that the lack of an instrument is itself sufficient proof that nothing outside our scope exists.

 

Before botanical science my ancestors were healing themselves with plants, fruit, and vegetables in their surrounds. There were no instruments available to inspect each plant in Ireland, one-by-one, but it did not deprive the plants of their constituent parts. 

I do not suggest at all that you adopt a religion or have a vague belief that something, somewhere, out there, exists that has something to do with your genesis. You see life however you want, just don't be an asshole [Non-Aggression]. But acknowledge where the structure of Logic as-per the Human brain may have it's limitations and allow philosophy to carry the torch from there.

 

Stuff I Can't Prove (A.K.A. Beliefs)

 

I have reasons to believe what I believe. Those reasons and my reasoning of them is very personal. That's not to say I'm embarrassed or jealous over them, they are personal. These are absolutely unique moments in space-time that are more similar than unique to the experiences of any other mystic, but still unique in space-time. I did not record any data as I am too busy living the experience and not worrying whether someone will believe me. Nor do I have a cause-and-effect theory in order to manipulate "God" into showing itself in order to be measured. Generally sentient beings don't enjoy responding to manipulation or dispassionate regurgitation of "methods". (The entirety of the world's religious regimes are the archetypal example.)

The scientific community has met the slippery boundaries of consciousness and found it to be totally unreliable for data in most instances. The studies done on Placebo effects for instance: a sugar pill, which would not cure the woes of the patient if he/she knew it was only sugar. Why wouldn't a free agent give you a different outcome than your data suggests if it has full knowledge you're trying to tickle it out of curiosity? 

If a sentient consciousness is the basis of our reality and has regard for it's offspring I would suggest it has no interest in feeding into childish desires by letting you poke it a couple 100 times for a consistent result (which is what a study requires). Maybe it's not really bothered whether we know it's a reality or not. Maybe it's more interested in building a relationship with a consciousness that is more like it's own. It would not be encouraging personal relationships by allowing you to think and prove to others that it is nothing more than a Newtonian process that fits very nicely into the prevailing utilitarian philosophy where everything but biomatter is dead - if even that.

[TheRobin]

Hi and welcome to the boardsOut of curiousty: Doesn't that cut you off from other people though to a certain degree? I mean, if you can't share the reasoning you can't really share the understanding of the belief. Yet you still use it as a guide for certain behaviours and opinions, so to me it would seem to only two options are to either have people around that don't care abour your understanding and reasoning or to have people around who share the same conclusions so that there's a shared belief of understanding each other.

[FireShield]

First of all, welcome to the forums, though I will likely not hang around here any more for reasons in another thread.

 

My main reason for posting however, is that I want to simply express my disgust for the people on this forum who simply downvote people they disagree with rather than giving any arguments against what they say, as is the case with the OP's second post on this thread. It's intellectually lazy and contributes to the mob mentality that evidently exists in this community.

[Yeravos]

Welcome to the boards ZetaMan!

[_LiveFree_]

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

[dsayers]

I'd hope that the people at FDR hold themselves to a higher standard. 

 

Like referring to a challenge of a truth claim as "internet courage"? While not addressing somebody you have feedback for while providing feedback in his presence?

 

The downvote was because out of curiosity, I asked him what belief in God means to him, which he did not answer. Not for lack of effort either, complete with reference to "my soul" which MAY be on the line. "Believe in God just in case he's real." That's not rigorous even by religious standards. Not to mention that God would see right through such a ruse.

 

How do you logically go from joining a philosophy forum to deserves a warm welcome? And if that is the standard by which you would judge others, why wouldn't you post in introductory threads more often? Many intro threads only have a member or two chiming in. Mine went over a week without any input, and may not have gotten any had I not bumped it.

 

Accosted? I don't feel that you are employing the empathy or compassion that you claim often gets lost here. I am curious as to why you bring up self-knowledge in light of all these inconsistencies.

 

For the record, I was heavily victimized by religion. I am sympathetic to the fact that religion means abuse inflicted upon somebody, even if only in the form of not encouraging critical thinking. Which is why I often engage people in an exploration of their belief, particularly in a beacon for philosophy. That said, I'm also mindful of how religion and statism (another religion) have been the excuse for the murder of millions of human beings throughout our history. And I am reserved in the presence of those who would speak of such things as if they are factual when they have no proof nor reason to believe it to be true.

 

Why is this less valid than your perspective?

[_LiveFree_]

Like referring to a challenge of a truth claim as "internet courage"? While not addressing somebody you have feedback for while providing feedback in his presence?

 

The downvote was because out of curiosity, I asked him what belief in God means to him, which he did not answer. Not for lack of effort either, complete with reference to "my soul" which MAY be on the line. "Believe in God just in case he's real." That's not rigorous even by religious standards. Not to mention that God would see right through such a ruse.

 

How do you logically go from joining a philosophy forum to deserves a warm welcome? And if that is the standard by which you would judge others, why wouldn't you post in introductory threads more often? Many intro threads only have a member or two chiming in. Mine went over a week without any input, and may not have gotten any had I not bumped it.

 

Accosted? I don't feel that you are employing the empathy or compassion that you claim often gets lost here. I am curious as to why you bring up self-knowledge in light of all these inconsistencies.

 

For the record, I was heavily victimized by religion. I am sympathetic to the fact that religion means abuse inflicted upon somebody, even if only in the form of not encouraging critical thinking. Which is why I often engage people in an exploration of their belief, particularly in a beacon for philosophy. That said, I'm also mindful of how religion and statism (another religion) have been the excuse for the murder of millions of human beings throughout our history. And I am reserved in the presence of those who would speak of such things as if they are factual when they have no proof nor reason to believe it to be true.

 

Why is this less valid than your perspective?

 

 

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. 

[dsayers]

Dude, the fact that you were aggressive towards ZetaMan and are now being aggressive towards me is kinda telling.

 

I find the word aggression to be a very serious one. I'm no expert, but I do believe that providing feedback about somebody in front of them but not to them is passive-aggressive. I brought this up and you didn't own it, or apologize for it, or even acknowledge it. While talking about empathy and compassion, self-knowledge, and the benefit of walking away, and not having to post.

 

I pointed out standards you put forth and didn't adhere to, which you've totally ignored and in fact put forth more standards while violating them, including an accusation of aggression.

 

I explained my perspective and asked why it is less valid than yours. You didn't answer. You didn't even pretend to notice a question was asked. Instead you're telling me that when somebody puts forth a truth claim is the wrong time to acknowledge their assertion that the truth has value, that there's a number of posts that both indicates a lack of value and indicates a need to walk away, cutting a sentence off in the middle of it and saying you don't know what that phrase means when the value of a sentence is in the entire sentence. All pretty desperate attempts to attack somebody.

 

You DID acknowledge my request for an explanation of how you know that joining the forum means deserves a warm welcome. You refused to answer it while pretending to be making the case for the value of a warm welcome! That's the real shame: I thought the point you made contrasting the spread of truth and grooming people to be open to the truth was a damn fine point. Yet you wrapped it in all of this, while scolding me for supposedly wrapping good points in all of this.

 

I'm not questioning your philosophical perspective. I'm questioning the manner in which you employ it. 

 

I think if your motivation were so noble, it wouldn't have begun with passive-aggressively addressing it, continued by way of putting forth standards for others while violating them yourself (while claiming self-knowledge which such inconsistencies suggests a lack of), and ended with aggression and accusations of aggression.

 

I really don't want to be the, "I know you are but what am I?" guy, but it seems as if every issue you've brought up, you've actually been the one to introduce it. Call it projection or call it displacement, I think you could benefit from pursuing self-knowledge to help remove the blind spots and disconnects. I would be interested in learning what you experience in the past that could lead to such an explosive interaction where words would've sufficed.

[Culain]

Zeta, welcome to the forum.

 

Which work of Molyneux's in particular was the most inspiring to you?

 

Have you his book "Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics"? It expands on the NAP and is well worth the time.

 

Though I must ask, why did you mention religion in your introduction? It almost begs for a response... no, it DOES beg. Were you testing the water- so to speak? You're not being dishonest in any way by not bringing it up; to "fit-in" all that is asked is to provide a respect to reasoning and self-knowledge. IMO Dsayers took that invitation.

 

Enjoy your stay.

[ZetaMan]

Zeta, welcome to the forum.

 

Which work of Molyneux's in particular was the most inspiring to you?

 

Have you his book "Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics"? It expands on the NAP and is well worth the time.

 

Though I must ask, why did you mention religion in your introduction? It almost begs for a response... no, it DOES beg. Were you testing the water- so to speak? You're not being dishonest in any way by not bringing it up; to "fit-in" all that is asked is to provide a respect to reasoning and self-knowledge. IMO Dsayers took that invitation.

 

Enjoy your stay.

To be honest I've only been looking to his work in the past week. My job gives me the liberty to listen to a lot of audio as I work, so I'm a few steps away from getting a book. That title interests me, though, as I wonder how you can rationalize ethics. I was always under the impression you're moved to do good or you're not. A small learning curve involved and that's it.

What I liked best from Stefan so far is when he painted the picture for us that we're still farm animals living in tax farms. 

 

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

Thank you, Nathan. I've thoroughly enjoyed my experience here so far. I get a small scent of pretense in the air, but hey, "fake it till ya make it", right?

 

Welcome to the boards ZetaMan!

Cheers!

 

First of all, welcome to the forums, though I will likely not hang around here any more for reasons in another thread.

 

My main reason for posting however, is that I want to simply express my disgust for the people on this forum who simply downvote people they disagree with rather than giving any arguments against what they say, as is the case with the OP's second post on this thread. It's intellectually lazy and contributes to the mob mentality that evidently exists in this community.

It's pretty f*cking weak if you ask me. And it's nothing new, so take heart. 

I spent many years, some of those years in management roles, on Internet forums. Some of them had these "Karma Systems" and the like, and they only bring out the worst in people. I haven't the first clue why FDR needs a Karma system. Are bad or disagreeable posters that reprehensible that we need a ranking system to help us avoid reading what they say?

 

Hi and welcome to the boardsOut of curiousty: Doesn't that cut you off from other people though to a certain degree? I mean, if you can't share the reasoning you can't really share the understanding of the belief. Yet you still use it as a guide for certain behaviours and opinions, so to me it would seem to only two options are to either have people around that don't care abour your understanding and reasoning or to have people around who share the same conclusions so that there's a shared belief of understanding each other.

It was an itch I was going to have to scratch at some point as Militant Atheism doesn't fly past my window without me pontificating on it. I thought I'd just get that out of the way, and make sure people knew where they stand with me. It was also an attempt at a list of reasons why I'm not just like you. It seems a few around these parts not only respect Molyneux, but want to be their own special version of him. I honestly think I'd throw myself off a cliff in a world populated with people like that. Glad to see it's not as Twilight Zone as I feared it may be.

[_LiveFree_]

Dsayers, firstly I want to apologize for being passive aggressive in my first post in this thread. Not my best moment. However, I still believe you could benefit greatly from taking time away from the boards. You do come across as very aggressive. You drew conclusions left and right about me. I disagreed with you and you decided to pick me apart. This is highly dishonorable. I voiced an opinion where I said I "questioned" the manner in which you employ your philosophical beliefs, or in other words, the way in which you conduct yourself. I felt this was and is appropriate because you have obviously dived head first into FDR, which means you're not a coward and you're very intelligent. The manner with which you conduct yourself is more important than having all of the right answers, though.  There is nothing wrong with challenging erroneous ideas as they come up. But as Zetaman and I discussed in another thread, there is a matter of timing when it comes to this. How many questions did you ask Zetaman? How much about yourself did you put forth? Did you find common ground first? 

 

You had an issue with his religious beliefs. Why not invite him over to the Atheism section of the forum if he would like to discuss them? It really felt like you didn't care who he was; like he could be a bot and it wouldn't matter. His only purpose in life is for you to practice your debating skills on him. And I get this feeling everywhere you post. 

 

Would you have been open enough to find out that Zetaman and his wife just split up? (Zetaman talks about his in another thread openly) Maybe this is having a profound emotional effect on him right now. If you don't at least have an idea where someone is coming from, how can you engage in an effective debate? Maybe there shouldn't be a debate at all. 

 

All of these unanswered questions up in the air and you just plow forward. 

 

Really, you don't have to listen to me at all. Nor am I on your case because I think you're a bad person or internet troll or anything silly like that. It's quite the opposite. I wish I had your energy, stamina, and debating prowess. 

 

As far as me having self-knowledge, am actually doing quite well in that department. I've been journaling for 10 years, listened to over 1500 FDR podcasts, have been in therapy for 2 months now (since i can afford it!), have read many books on self-knowledge (ex. Nathaniel Branden, Alice Miller, and many more), haven't had the burden of marriage/divorce or children to occupy my time, have completely cut ties with all of my family, and generally work on myself every single day. It's my first job, my second job being my full time employment where I make money. I still make mistakes for sure. I made one in this thread. 

 

But if you think that you can pick me apart because I disagreed with you and made the mistake of being passive aggressive, you're very wrong. 

 

The reason why I am engaging you here is because I believe you and I can sharpen our teeth on one another (that's really not meant to sound erotic i swear.) I think I can bring a different perspective to you about you, and you've certainly brought one to me that I will be thinking and journaling about. For that I am very appreciative.

 

Now, if you'd like to continue discussing this over pm, i'd be more than willing (also, there is no need to hijack an intro thread any further). My participation in this thread is done. 

[dsayers]

You do come across as very aggressive.

 

I'm assuming you do not know what that word means. That's why the first time that you did this, I responded to it first and foremost, and explained that I take such an accusation very seriously. I notice you haven't actually taken the time to share what you base this on.

 

You drew conclusions left and right about me.

 

I've re-read my every word to and about you. I see a lot of talking about your behaviors. There's only one thing I've said about YOU, which I have said twice. Which is that I think you lack self knowledge. I based this on the fact that even in this, your 3rd post, you continue to put forth standards that you yourself violate. This tells me that it is not a standard for you, that it is something that you're putting forth as a standard to ward off scrutiny, and that you're doing this for the purpose of controlling another. THAT is aggressive and the fact that you don't see these discrepancies is a lack of self-knowledge.  Allow me to elucidate:

 

You drew conclusions left and right about me. ... There is nothing wrong with challenging erroneous ideas as they come up. But as Zetaman and I discussed in another thread, there is a matter of timing when it comes to this. How many questions did you ask Zetaman? How much about yourself did you put forth? Did you find common ground first? 

 

You had an issue with his religious beliefs. Why not invite him over to the Atheism section of the forum if he would like to discuss them? It really felt like you didn't care who he was ... Would you have been open enough to find out that Zetaman and his wife just split up? (Zetaman talks about his in another thread openly) Maybe this is having a profound emotional effect on him right now. ... All of these unanswered questions up in the air and you just plow forward.

 

Before TELLING ME to walk away and attacking my post count, you

 

1) drew conclusions about me left and right

2) asked me no questions

3) shared nothing about yourself

4) made no effort to find common ground

5) didn't invite me to discuss anything

6) didn't care who I was

7) were not open enough to learn WHY I'm so active on the forums

 

You hold me to all of these standards, yet failed to meet even one of them yourself. Why, you didn't even talk to me directly about it! This means that you failed the standards test worse than you claim I did, which I actually did satisfy some of the items on your list. You don't see this discrepancy, which indicates a lack of self-knowledge. I pointed this out the other two times, which you didn't take under advisement while behaving as if we should take the advice of others under advisement. You could write that off as the heat of the moment that you've apologized for, but that wouldn't apply here. So I think there's more to it than that.

 

What good is a list of self-knowledge credentials if you don't notice you're contradicting your advice to others even when it's being pointed out to you repeatedly?

 

I've also challenged claims you've made which you've made no effort to address, even after it's been pointed out that you weren't addressing. I say this because I'm about to point out another.

 

I don't see how somebody recently splitting up with their wife, going to a philosophy forum, and asserting a belief in God complete with an admission of no proof would make somebody immune to curiosity about their religious beliefs. In fact, if you study his post history, you'll find somebody who is confrontational to the point of being aggressive by his own description and avoids epistemological explorations of the same. How do you know he's not using access to this forum to mistreat others as a way of dealing with the very item you're suggesting is tantamount to tip-toeing around him? After all, he does claim formal education and makes sophisticated walls to discount the input and scrutiny of others.

 

If you would have made any of the efforts you put forth as standards towards me, you would've found out that I understand, accept, and strive to rectify the fact that the way I come across to others isn't very warm. You wouldn't have even had to talk to me directly to establish this and I've been publicly open about at least once. You would also find that many people have found value in my input despite this lack of warmth, even when dealing with very forward observations about items that you would rightfully describe as sensitive.

 

So please, if you wish to apologize for something, it would be more believable if you weren't perpetuating the very thing you were apologizing for while you were making the apology. I for one am not one to write people off. Despite your hostility and manipulation, I agree that I would prefer we find a common ground because I have learned from you already, in this very exchange. Because even though it was wrapped in hostility and manipulation, and even though it was telling me something I already knew, and even though you were accompanying it with bizzare, bogus interpretation about post count, the way you worded it actually enhanced my understanding of the problem AND how to better address it.

 

I mean, if that's what your goal was, and those are the standards by which you feel it would be most effective, why not try that first and save the chest thumping for when you're dealing with somebody who would only respond to such things?

[_LiveFree_]

You have 900+ posts, I learned plenty from them. There was no need to ask you questions. Zetaman is new, you are not. I'm not interested in talking with you further since you continue to accuse me of hostility, manipulation, and lack of self-knowledge. It's interesting that all the things I mentioned that I didn't do with you I did with Zetaman. You know why? Because when I opened up to him he responded back in kind. You did not. I have no problem walking away from people who waste my time.

 

And now you're on ignore. Goodbye.

[dsayers]

when I opened up to him he responded back in kind. You did not.

 

I would not describe passive-aggressively offering feedback about somebody in front of them but not to them as opening up. I didn't reciprocate because I don't think speaking to somebody in an abusive manner is called for even when they're doing it to you. It's a standard I try to hold myself to because, as a victim of much coercion-backed propaganda over the years, one measure of speaking the truth that I've noticed is that one doesn't have to huff and puff to be convincing.

 

You have 900+ posts, I learned plenty from them. There was no need to ask you questions.

 

I hope you're able to identify where the fixation on post count comes from. First you used it to try and attack me. Now you're using it to fragment the standards you've put forth into "applies to < X posts" and "doesn't apply to > X posts" as an ex post facto justification for putting forth standards for others that you violate. You made no effort to explain how > X posts is fundamentally different from < X posts.

 

I have no problem walking away from people who waste my time.

 

And now you're on ignore. Goodbye.

 

If you weren't trying to control me (putting forth standards you don't embody), I wouldn't be wasting your time. The ironic thing here is that walking away from somebody who is wasting your time doesn't require notifying them of it. The act of notification is an appeal to insecurity, which is trying to control me.

[cynicist]

I used to be a catholic, so I was sympathetic to your first post, but after your second I'm going to go ahead and say I don't think you will have a good time on this forum, based on the beliefs you've put forward here. This conversation is about the search for truth, and correcting the error of belief in a deity is certainly a part of that. There is no evidence of, and plenty of good arguments against, the existence of a god or gods. You've also suggested that either logic itself or our ability to understand it is limited with no arguments or evidence to support it.

 

 

The scientific community has met the slippery boundaries of consciousness and found it to be totally unreliable for data in most instances. The studies done on Placebo effects for instance: a sugar pill, which would not cure the woes of the patient if he/she knew it was only sugar. Why wouldn't a free agent give you a different outcome than your data suggests if it has full knowledge you're trying to tickle it out of curiosity?

 

Are you serious? Science relies on evidence, not personal opinion. How can you compare the self-reporting of patients taking sugar pills to physical evidence of the existence of god? Or the contradiction inherent in saying that consciousness is unreliable for data when you need to possess a consciousness to even consider collecting it?

 

 

Before botanical science my ancestors were healing themselves with plants, fruit, and vegetables in their surrounds. There were no instruments available to inspect each plant in Ireland, one-by-one, but it did not deprive the plants of their constituent parts.

 

Right, and there was no need for instruments to prove the healing powers of plants when you can see the evidence from using them. How is that comparable to paranormal phenomena?

[ZetaMan]

Everyone on this thread:

 

I'm well aware that the lowest common denominator of self-knowledge and critical thinking in our society is absolutely in no way a standard we should be happy to live with and emulate. However, I feel there's something fundamentally missing from your lives as you've overshot in your attempts of intellectual rebellion. Perhaps it's my own lack of.... whatever... but something strikes me as not quite right. I feel like I'm locked inside a room with paranoid law students who don't want to be thrown in the dungeon based on some vague misstep in their language. Even lawyers speak with greater ease because they know that a Court will never lock them up for liberal use of Common English.

There are 12 forms of intelligence that the Human animal is capable of developing. Why do I see glaring evidence of only 2 or 3 being regarded as a part of reality? This is, after all, a philosophy forum.

 

 

You've also suggested that either logic itself or our ability to understand it is limited with no arguments or evidence to support it.

In the same manner that you don't have to prove the non-existence of Jesus, Krishna, or the giant teacup orbiting Earth, I do not need to prove that the Human brain isn't all-knowing and capable of understanding everything.

How could I possibly prove the non-existence of something to you? 

I'd like to add an addendum to all my posts Re: my "religious" beliefs.

I added in my brief self-description that I held a belief that most, if not all, FDR users will not hold themselves. Simply because I wanted this out of the way in a hurry. I don't see any reason to continue talking about it if I do not harm others. I don't preach my beliefs, I don't suggest harm comes to those who don't believe, nor do I claim any tax breaks because I believe as I do. I would suggest that everyone takes that cake and f*cking eats it, because it's the best cake you'll get. Atheists comprise the overwhelming minority on this planet, and the religious and spiritual people of this world allow their beliefs to poison their philosophy and give themselves excuse to bring harm to and coerce others. 

Considering the density of religious and spiritual populations, you will not see an Atheist world in your lifetimes (unless you coerce the world into becoming Atheist). So I would suggest that you not alienate yourselves from the rest of the world by zeroing in on someone's spirituality above the other aspects of their being and be happy with the fact that you have spiritual and religious Libertarians with otherwise-correct philosophy.

[cab21]

There are 12 forms of intelligence that the Human animal is capable of developing

 

what are these 12?

[ZetaMan]

what are these 12?

Oh. I'm so sorry to hear you're limited to a dial-up connection.

[cab21]

Oh. I'm so sorry to hear you're limited to a dial-up connection.

 

 

there are articles of 12, 9 , 7 all sorts of numbers of different types

 

http://www.cerconelearning.com/12Intelligences.html

http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm

http://www.macalester.edu/academics/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/intelligence05/mtypes.html

[ZetaMan]

Yup! It's in no way a proven or universally accepted scientific notion, but there are definitely more than one or two ways the Human can gain mastery over his environment.