#38351  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:10 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You are rejecting this claim because you can't see how the retina and light could interact when light hasn't reached Earth yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
We can't see it because you can't explain how that is even possible. You can't explain because it isn't possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm just trying to get you to understand the plausibility of this model. Forget the evidence right now, I can't even get past first base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angukuk
The first base is evidence. You can't get past it because you don't have any evidence.
Oh really? So what gives you the all knowing knowledge that Jesus was the son of God instead of a very wise man? I refuse to get into this but the truth is you don't know. I understand why you're here. You are trying to reconcile religion with science, and I appreciate your effort, but you are misguided when it comes to this discovery.

Oh really? So what gives you evidence that Jesus was the son of God instead of a very wise man? I refuse to get into this but the truth is you don't know. I understand why you're here. You are trying to reconcile religion with science, and I appreciate your effort, but you are misguided when it comes to this discovery.

Jesus did receive revelations from the universe, a higher power, God...?, but to say Jesus was the Son of God and that if we don't accept him as such we are all going to hell, is irrational. It is incongruent with who God is supposed to be, which doesn't add up and causes major issues with logical thinking people. It's a complete fairy tale yet the wisdom that comes from religion is absolutely life changing. I get that the story about Jesus dying on the cross to take all our sins away is a wonderful idea (and actually in some unexpected way supports the knowledge that we are already forgiven and not to blame because man's will is not free; all in keeping with God's will, or the will of our nature); and I also understand that this faith in the story is what allows people to trust the literal translation of the Bible. But a lot of people cannot take this on faith alone. That doesn't mean religion hasn't saved lives, but there is a discrepancy (between the literal translation of the Bible and the scientific pursuit of knowledge) that people who are logical thinkers just cannot accept. I'm sorry Angakuk, but you are not in the position to tell me whether my father's discovery was valid or not. You just aren't. So accept that and try to learn what Lessans discovered, which you have no real understanding of. You are ready to attack me at the slightest provocation. I believe this has something to do with the venue we're in because I don't think you would do this if we were speaking one on one. FYI, I don't accept the stories of Judaism either and that God actually spoke directly to Moses through a burning bush, although he may have received incursions of truth, just like Jesus did. My daughter-in-law comes from the Holy Land of Israel. I don't get into religious debates with her or anyone else. These are personal choices which everyone has a right to. I just don't believe Jews have special privilege because they are the chosen people. :shock:

So I will repeat: Where is the evidence (you are always asking me for evidence, so now I'm asking you) that Jesus was the Son of God? Am I being blasphemous? :sad:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
So if you, David and thedoc take over the thread like you did in Project Reason, what good will it do? I won't get a word in edgewise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Just like you haven't been able to get a word in edgewise here. It is truly a shame that your opportunities to post here have been so severely limited.
My opportunity to be here has not been limited by my ability to express myself, but it has been limited by your worldview which can easily try to counteract what I say with your belief system, which is all it is, a belief. The responses you have given thus far are based on a certain amount of ignorance (I am not saying you are an ignorant person; I would never say that; we are all ignorant in some areas) but you do not know enough to tell me that what my father discovered is inaccutate. :sadcheer:
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-19-2014 at 08:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38352  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:19 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
That in itself is a contradiction, silly. If these photons from the Sun travel to Earth, then the distance from the eyes (on Earth) to the object (the Sun) is exactly the same as the distance they have just traveled.

Sun-to-Earth distance = Earth-to-Sun distance.
I had an answer for you, but you blew it again. I just noticed you called me dingbat again along with liar and other horrible names. I am sorry Spacemonkey but I need a break from you. If you continue to disregard my request not to call me names, I will not engage with you. What is it you don't get?
I said I would refrain from calling you a dingbat if you answered my questions. You have not answered them. You even said you would never answer them.

Dingbat.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38353  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:48 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
That in itself is a contradiction, silly. If these photons from the Sun travel to Earth, then the distance from the eyes (on Earth) to the object (the Sun) is exactly the same as the distance they have just traveled.

Sun-to-Earth distance = Earth-to-Sun distance.
I had an answer for you, but you blew it again. I just noticed you called me dingbat again along with liar and other horrible names. I am sorry Spacemonkey but I need a break from you. If you continue to disregard my request not to call me names, I will not engage with you. What is it you don't get?
I said I would refrain from calling you a dingbat if you answered my questions. You have not answered them. You even said you would never answer them.

Dingbat.
Call me what you want and threaten me in this way, and you will get no answer Spacemonkey. It's as simple as that. Now if you're smart you will refrain from calling me names. Even rats know how to avoid what they don't want. If you can't get off the wheel of a rat, oh well. That's your problem, not mine. :glare:
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38354  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:05 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Call me what you want and threaten me in this way, and you will get no answer Spacemonkey. It's as simple as that. Now if you're smart you will refrain from calling me names. Even rats know how to avoid what they don't want. If you can't get off the wheel of a rat, oh well. That's your problem, not mine. :glare:
I'm not threatening you. And I was getting no answers anyway, so why should I refrain from calling you names? I tried being polite and respectful and guess what happened? You declared you weren't going to answer any more of my questions anyway.

Dingbat.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38355  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:15 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

See, this is why you need a break, peacegirl. You are just spinning round and round, here. :headspin: This is why you should try Talk Rational, for a fresh set of eyes. :bigeyes: I'll even write your OP for you, if you'd like. We'll draw 'em in! :yup:
Reply With Quote
  #38356  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:20 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

OK, here is your OP for Talk Rats:

Hi, everyone, I'd like to discuss a set of discoveries made by an author who died in 1991. The first is a philosophical discovery: why we lack free will, and how, when the reason for this is properly understood, a profound change in human relations is entailed. The second discovery has to do with light and sight, and has philosophical implications that tie in with the first discovery. The third discovery has to do with death and the nature of of consciousness. Taken as a whole, the three discoveries have profound ramifications.

See how nice and concise that is? You should have let me edit Lessans' book. :yup:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-20-2014), Dragar (07-19-2014), LadyShea (07-20-2014)
  #38357  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:22 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Also, for best results, don't give the thread a grandiose title that will immediately make people think you are promising more than you can deliver. Try something moderate: "The two-sided equation." Which is what you'll want to be discussing first, after all. Also post in the philosophy forum, not the science forum, for best results.

Good luck. :yup:
Reply With Quote
  #38358  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
That in itself is a contradiction, silly. If these photons from the Sun travel to Earth, then the distance from the eyes (on Earth) to the object (the Sun) is exactly the same as the distance they have just traveled.

Sun-to-Earth distance = Earth-to-Sun distance.
I had an answer for you, but you blew it again. I just noticed you called me dingbat again along with liar and other horrible names. I am sorry Spacemonkey but I need a break from you. If you continue to disregard my request not to call me names, I will not engage with you. What is it you don't get?
I said I would refrain from calling you a dingbat if you answered my questions. You have not answered them. You even said you would never answer them.

Dingbat.
And I said you had better stop calling me names or I will refuse to answer you. So much for taking me seriously. :(
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38359  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:29 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Also, for best results, don't give the thread a grandiose title that will immediately make people think you are promising more than you can deliver. Try something moderate: "The two-sided equation." Which is what you'll want to be discussing first, after all. Also post in the philosophy forum, not the science forum, for best results.

Good luck. :yup:
Maybe you could introduce me? You may do a better job because I always get ahead of myself and then people stop listening. I don't want a repeat of this thread, or I won't stay.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38360  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:31 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I accept your promise, but maybe my first post will rub everyone the wrong way. I don't want that to happen, so what do you suggest? I will do what you think is the best way to approach this. :)

1. - You could be honest, answer questions directly and honestly. If you really don't know something, but believe it, say so, and let others try to help figure out a plausible explanation.

2. - Or you could just do the same thing you have been doing here for 3 years, and 10 years before that.

2 completely different approaches.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #38361  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:40 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Oh really? So what gives you the all knowing knowledge that Jesus was the son of God instead of a very wise man?

Your argument is flawed not that Jesus wasn't getting revelations from the intelligence of this universe (which you can call God if you so choose), but to say Jesus was the Son of God and that if we don't accept him as such damn you all, you are all going to hell is irrational. It is incongruent with who God is supposed to be, which doesn't add up and causes major issues with logical thinking people. It's a complete fairy tale yet the wisdom that comes from religion is absolutely life changing. I get that the story about Jesus dying on the cross to take all our sins is a wonderful idea (and actually in some unexpected way supports the knowledge that we are already forgiven and not to blame because man's will is not free which justifies a no blame environment; what irony and all in keeping with God's will, or the will of our nature); and I also understand that this faith in the story is what allows people to trust in the new testament. But a lot of people cannot take this on faith. That doesn't mean religion hasn't saved lives, but there is a discrepancy that people who are logical thinkers just cannot accept. I'm sorry Angakuk, but you are not in the position to tell me whether my father's discovery was valid or not. You just aren't. So accept that and try to learn what Lessans discovered, which you have no real understanding at all. You are ready to attack me at the slightest provocation and I'm sure this has to do with the venue we're in. FYI, I don't accept the stories of Judaism either and that God actually spoke directly to Moses, although he may gotten incursions of truth just like Jesus did. My daughter-in-law comes from the Holy Land of Israel. I don't get into this with her because it's not necessary. I love her for who she is, but I don't believe Jews are given special privileges because they are the chosen people. :shock:
Where did that come from? I don't remember anyone posting about God or Jesus. Peacegirl can really fly off on a tangent when she doesn't have a good answer.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #38362  
Old 07-19-2014, 04:06 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Also, for best results, don't give the thread a grandiose title that will immediately make people think you are promising more than you can deliver. Try something moderate: "The two-sided equation." Which is what you'll want to be discussing first, after all. Also post in the philosophy forum, not the science forum, for best results.

Good luck. :yup:
Maybe you could introduce me? You may do a better job because I always get ahead of myself and then people stop listening. I don't want a repeat of this thread, or I won't stay.
Sorry, I don't post there. I call Talk Rats "The Cesspool."

Still, there are very good posters in the Philosophy and Life Sciences forum (nowhere else, at all) and your thread, in the Philosophy forum, WILL get attention. Particularly since that forum has been lagging in activity for some time.

If you do decide to post (and I think you should, for the fresh eyes), there is a good chance that someone named Bartholomew Roberts will enter your thread early, introducing himself and asking to be your friend. :hugsmile: Later on, he will threaten to disclose all your personal information on the Internet, and hunt you down and kill you in your home.

Don't take it personally! :hand: Recently, he threatened to kill a poster named Socrates by introducing super-heated steam via a tube into Socrates' anus, but it's just his "schtick." The admins apparently figured that out after suspending him several times; now they leave him alone.

You may get support from someone named Atheistoclast, who is always out to overturn the status quo, as is Socrates, who thinks birds did not evolve from dinosaurs and that aliens from zeta something or other tinkered with humans thousands of years ago.

Dave Hawkins, a young earth creationist who doesn't brush his teeth, may be interested in what you have to say. There was also a little old lady named Flo Jellem who used to post there. I don't think she does anymore, but she's into all kinds of woo woo and if she sees your stuff she may give you support. She styles herself "Professor Emeritus of Home Economics at Chester Alan Arthur Junior High School" and was married three times but had to "kick each of my husbands to the curb, dear." She calls everyone "dear" and is very sweet and a good listener.

Good luck. :wave:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (07-19-2014), LadyShea (07-20-2014)
  #38363  
Old 07-19-2014, 04:10 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And I said you had better stop calling me names or I will refuse to answer you. So much for taking me seriously. :(
And that's a completely stupid threat to make given that you already refused to answer me before I called you any names. Dingbat. And why do you think it is such a big favor to me to answer my questions? Don't you want to have a coherent and non-contradictory set of answers to this photon problem that you've been stuck on for the last 5 years? Or do you not actually care whether or not your account makes any sense?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (07-20-2014)
  #38364  
Old 07-19-2014, 06:00 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
See, this is why you need a break, peacegirl. You are just spinning round and round, here. :headspin: This is why you should try Talk Rational, for a fresh set of eyes. :bigeyes: I'll even write your OP for you, if you'd like. We'll draw 'em in! :yup:
It's true that this place has gone stale. There's only a few people participating and it's the same repetition over and over but the good news is that being here for all these years has helped me to clarify my position.

I decided to introduce myself David, but thanks for the offer. That was really nice of you, I must say. I don't relish starting with a whole new group of philosophy enthusiasts because 10+ years of being in these forums gives me a clue as to how I will be received. But I want to give people the benefit of the doubt, just like I wish they would give my father.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-19-2014 at 06:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38365  
Old 07-19-2014, 06:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Also, for best results, don't give the thread a grandiose title that will immediately make people think you are promising more than you can deliver. Try something moderate: "The two-sided equation." Which is what you'll want to be discussing first, after all. Also post in the philosophy forum, not the science forum, for best results.

Good luck. :yup:
Maybe you could introduce me? You may do a better job because I always get ahead of myself and then people stop listening. I don't want a repeat of this thread, or I won't stay.
Sorry, I don't post there. I call Talk Rats "The Cesspool."

Still, there are very good posters in the Philosophy and Life Sciences forum (nowhere else, at all) and your thread, in the Philosophy forum, WILL get attention. Particularly since that forum has been lagging in activity for some time.

If you do decide to post (and I think you should, for the fresh eyes), there is a good chance that someone named Bartholomew Roberts will enter your thread early, introducing himself and asking to be your friend. :hugsmile: Later on, he will threaten to disclose all your personal information on the Internet, and hunt you down and kill you in your home.

Don't take it personally! :hand: Recently, he threatened to kill a poster named Socrates by introducing super-heated steam via a tube into Socrates' anus, but it's just his "schtick." The admins apparently figured that out after suspending him several times; now they leave him alone.

You may get support from someone named Atheistoclast, who is always out to overturn the status quo, as is Socrates, who thinks birds did not evolve from dinosaurs and that aliens from zeta something or other tinkered with humans thousands of years ago.

Dave Hawkins, a young earth creationist who doesn't brush his teeth, may be interested in what you have to say. There was also a little old lady named Flo Jellem who used to post there. I don't think she does anymore, but she's into all kinds of woo woo and if she sees your stuff she may give you support. She styles herself "Professor Emeritus of Home Economics at Chester Alan Arthur Junior High School" and was married three times but had to "kick each of my husbands to the curb, dear." She calls everyone "dear" and is very sweet and a good listener.

Good luck. :wave:
Thanks for the heads up but it doesn't seem very inviting. I have a feeling even if I do introduce myself that it will NOT last very long given these peculiar personalities. :chin: I certainly would not relish someone threatening me with harm whether he is serious or not. That's where a moderator should step in, and the fact that they give him the freedom to say these things is not something I could tolerate very well.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-19-2014 at 06:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38366  
Old 07-19-2014, 06:11 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Before you write an introduction for me, please let me see it first. Helping me to do this doesn't doesn't mean I want your participation.
She's really something, isn't she? :D

She expects me to write an introduction for her. Why would I do that? Please remember that I think Lessans' work is garbage, in case you forgot. :yup:

And, while expecting me to do this, she also doesn't want my participation. :chin:

Well, as I said, I don't post at The Cesspool, so I won't be participating but I also won't be writing you an introduction. However, because I am so kind-hearted, :yup: I DID write you a proposed opening post that you can use under your name, along with a proposed thread title. Did you miss those things?
Reply With Quote
  #38367  
Old 07-19-2014, 06:12 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Here it is. :bump:

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
OK, here is your OP for Talk Rats:

Hi, everyone, I'd like to discuss a set of discoveries made by an author who died in 1991. The first is a philosophical discovery: why we lack free will, and how, when the reason for this is properly understood, a profound change in human relations is entailed. The second discovery has to do with light and sight, and has philosophical implications that tie in with the first discovery. The third discovery has to do with death and the nature of of consciousness. Taken as a whole, the three discoveries have profound ramifications.
Reply With Quote
  #38368  
Old 07-19-2014, 06:16 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
OK, here is your OP for Talk Rats:

Hi, everyone, I'd like to discuss a set of discoveries made by an author who died in 1991. The first is a philosophical discovery: why we lack free will, and how, when the reason for this is properly understood, a profound change in human relations is entailed. The second discovery has to do with light and sight, and has philosophical implications that tie in with the first discovery. The third discovery has to do with death and the nature of of consciousness. Taken as a whole, the three discoveries have profound ramifications.

See how nice and concise that is? You should have let me edit Lessans' book. :yup:
I didn't see this OP when I first came online. I like it. :wink: The only thing I don't like is that you call his first discovery philosophical, which it's not. It was born out of philosophical thought, but it's factual David whether you believe it or not. That's why you never listened carefully, and why you resort to other theories on this subject like Norman Schwartz, thinking this somehow negates the proof of determinism.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38369  
Old 07-19-2014, 06:18 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Before you write an introduction for me, please let me see it first. Helping me to do this doesn't doesn't mean I want your participation.
She's really something, isn't she? :D

She expects me to write an introduction for her. Why would I do that? Please remember that I think Lessans' work is garbage, in case you forgot. :yup:

And, while expecting me to do this, she also doesn't want my participation. :chin:

Well, as I said, I don't post at The Cesspool, so I won't be participating but I also won't be writing you an introduction. However, because I am so kind-hearted, :yup: I DID write you a proposed opening post that you can use under your name, along with a proposed thread title. Did you miss those things?
If it's such a cesspool why would you want me to go there? I know you don't like my father's claims but for you to push me in a direction that will only be frustrating for me is not good advice. Is there any other forum you think would be a good fit?
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38370  
Old 07-19-2014, 07:10 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

If it's such a cesspool why would you want me to go there?
Just because I think it's a cesspool doesn't mean you will. Maybe this is where you will find support at last, who knows. :shrug:

Besides, it's one of the few forums that I know which, like this one, doesn't lock threads. They do lock threads after they become very long, but then they reopen the discussion in a new thread and the old ones are still visible. Just their way of housekeeping.

I recommend it. :nod:
Reply With Quote
  #38371  
Old 07-19-2014, 07:11 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
OK, here is your OP for Talk Rats:

Hi, everyone, I'd like to discuss a set of discoveries made by an author who died in 1991. The first is a philosophical discovery: why we lack free will, and how, when the reason for this is properly understood, a profound change in human relations is entailed. The second discovery has to do with light and sight, and has philosophical implications that tie in with the first discovery. The third discovery has to do with death and the nature of of consciousness. Taken as a whole, the three discoveries have profound ramifications.

See how nice and concise that is? You should have let me edit Lessans' book. :yup:
I didn't see this OP when I first came online. I like it. :wink: The only thing I don't like is that you call his first discovery philosophical, which it's not. It was born out of philosophical thought, but it's factual David whether you believe it or not. That's why you never listened carefully, and why you resort to other theories on this subject like Norman Schwartz, thinking this somehow negates the proof of determinism.
So take out the word "philosophical." :shrug:

Oh, and Norman Swartz is not a "theory." :D
Reply With Quote
  #38372  
Old 07-19-2014, 07:32 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Also, for best results, don't give the thread a grandiose title that will immediately make people think you are promising more than you can deliver. Try something moderate: "The two-sided equation." Which is what you'll want to be discussing first, after all. Also post in the philosophy forum, not the science forum, for best results.

Good luck. :yup:
Maybe you could introduce me? You may do a better job because I always get ahead of myself and then people stop listening. I don't want a repeat of this thread, or I won't stay.
Sorry, I don't post there. I call Talk Rats "The Cesspool."

Still, there are very good posters in the Philosophy and Life Sciences forum (nowhere else, at all) and your thread, in the Philosophy forum, WILL get attention. Particularly since that forum has been lagging in activity for some time.

If you do decide to post (and I think you should, for the fresh eyes), there is a good chance that someone named Bartholomew Roberts will enter your thread early, introducing himself and asking to be your friend. :hugsmile: Later on, he will threaten to disclose all your personal information on the Internet, and hunt you down and kill you in your home.

Don't take it personally! :hand: Recently, he threatened to kill a poster named Socrates by introducing super-heated steam via a tube into Socrates' anus, but it's just his "schtick." The admins apparently figured that out after suspending him several times; now they leave him alone.

You may get support from someone named Atheistoclast, who is always out to overturn the status quo, as is Socrates, who thinks birds did not evolve from dinosaurs and that aliens from zeta something or other tinkered with humans thousands of years ago.

Dave Hawkins, a young earth creationist who doesn't brush his teeth, may be interested in what you have to say. There was also a little old lady named Flo Jellem who used to post there. I don't think she does anymore, but she's into all kinds of woo woo and if she sees your stuff she may give you support. She styles herself "Professor Emeritus of Home Economics at Chester Alan Arthur Junior High School" and was married three times but had to "kick each of my husbands to the curb, dear." She calls everyone "dear" and is very sweet and a good listener.

Good luck. :wave:
Thanks for the heads up but it doesn't seem very inviting. I have a feeling even if I do introduce myself that it will NOT last very long given these peculiar personalities. :chin:
But peacegirl, that's the point! You'll fit right in! :D

Anyway, there are plenty of nonpeculiar personalities there including accomplished scientists. Of course, those are the ones who will ask you the same questions that we do, for the same reasons. :yup:

If you emphasize Lessans' "Man does not stand alone" BS, you may attract the support of Atheistoclast. Apparently he has managed to publish several papers attacking evolution in peer-reviewed science journals under the name Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr ( :lol: ) which fact causes no end of consternation to the biologists at Talk Rats. He might be a good person for you to know. :yup:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (07-20-2014)
  #38373  
Old 07-19-2014, 07:40 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

If it's such a cesspool why would you want me to go there?
Just because I think it's a cesspool doesn't mean you will. Maybe this is where you will find support at last, who knows. :shrug:

Besides, it's one of the few forums that I know which, like this one, doesn't lock threads. They do lock threads after they become very long, but then they reopen the discussion in a new thread and the old ones are still visible. Just their way of housekeeping.

I recommend it. :nod:
Thanks for your thoughts. I'll have to think about it, as it is the same type of venue as this one, and I'm not sure if the effort will be worth it. On the other hand, maybe it could be as these are a different group of people who may be able to elicit the kind of response that clarifies what this forum could not do.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38374  
Old 07-19-2014, 07:43 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I think you should do it. :yup: After all, I wrote you a nice opening post. You wouldn't want to let it go to waste.
Reply With Quote
  #38375  
Old 07-19-2014, 07:44 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Also, for best results, don't give the thread a grandiose title that will immediately make people think you are promising more than you can deliver. Try something moderate: "The two-sided equation." Which is what you'll want to be discussing first, after all. Also post in the philosophy forum, not the science forum, for best results.

Good luck. :yup:
Maybe you could introduce me? You may do a better job because I always get ahead of myself and then people stop listening. I don't want a repeat of this thread, or I won't stay.
Sorry, I don't post there. I call Talk Rats "The Cesspool."

Still, there are very good posters in the Philosophy and Life Sciences forum (nowhere else, at all) and your thread, in the Philosophy forum, WILL get attention. Particularly since that forum has been lagging in activity for some time.

If you do decide to post (and I think you should, for the fresh eyes), there is a good chance that someone named Bartholomew Roberts will enter your thread early, introducing himself and asking to be your friend. :hugsmile: Later on, he will threaten to disclose all your personal information on the Internet, and hunt you down and kill you in your home.

Don't take it personally! :hand: Recently, he threatened to kill a poster named Socrates by introducing super-heated steam via a tube into Socrates' anus, but it's just his "schtick." The admins apparently figured that out after suspending him several times; now they leave him alone.

You may get support from someone named Atheistoclast, who is always out to overturn the status quo, as is Socrates, who thinks birds did not evolve from dinosaurs and that aliens from zeta something or other tinkered with humans thousands of years ago.

Dave Hawkins, a young earth creationist who doesn't brush his teeth, may be interested in what you have to say. There was also a little old lady named Flo Jellem who used to post there. I don't think she does anymore, but she's into all kinds of woo woo and if she sees your stuff she may give you support. She styles herself "Professor Emeritus of Home Economics at Chester Alan Arthur Junior High School" and was married three times but had to "kick each of my husbands to the curb, dear." She calls everyone "dear" and is very sweet and a good listener.

Good luck. :wave:
Thanks for the heads up but it doesn't seem very inviting. I have a feeling even if I do introduce myself that it will NOT last very long given these peculiar personalities. :chin:
But peacegirl, that's the point! You'll fit right in! :D

Anyway, there are plenty of nonpeculiar personalities there including accomplished scientists. Of course, those are the ones who will ask you the same questions that we do, for the same reasons. :yup:

If you emphasize Lessans' "Man does not stand alone" BS, you may attract the support of Atheistoclast. Apparently he has managed to publish several papers attacking evolution in peer-reviewed science journals under the name Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr ( :lol: ) which fact causes no end of consternation to the biologists at Talk Rats. He might be a good person for you to know. :yup:
I don't attack evolution; I just don't believe evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive or that they have to conflict.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 16 (0 members and 16 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 3.12657 seconds with 14 queries