A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's kind of the point, at least from my perspective. If this world is the result of a Creator or Creators, the best that can be said for them is that the Creator(s) clearly don't care about our piddling lives. Or they do care, but can't do anything of significance -- for some unfathomable reason. Either way, I'm utterly mystified as to why anyone would think that such beings should be worshipped.


If the Universe is created, then the Creator(s) would surely have about as much in common with us as we do with bacteria anyway. In any event, in the very unlikely event that the Universe was created, it seems to be overwhelmingly obvious that the Creator(s) don't care about us and/or don't know about us -- either way, we're on our own.

Personally, I've got much better things to worry about than hypothetical deities for which I've yet to see a single shred of evidence. There are far too many questions out there that we can address, and so I'm not terribly concerned with spending time on questions that we can't address.

Do god(s) exist? Probably not, but who can say? As far as I'm concerned, it's a lot like asking what color the sky is on the third planet of the star Zeta Orionis -- pointless, since we lack the relevant data.

I create things all the time. It would be silly for the things I create to assume that I created them for their own good. Not at all, I created them for my good. And if that means they suffer a terrible fate, so what.

[sadie]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I create things all the time. It would be silly for the things I create to assume that I created them for their own good. Not at all, I created them for my good. And if that means they suffer a terrible fate, so what.

There is something else besides "MY good" and "THEIR good"; it is THE good...or "The Good", as the philosophers, religious and otherwise, like to call it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by sadie

There is something else besides "MY good" and "THEIR good"; it is THE good...or "The Good", as the philosophers, religious and otherwise, like to call it.

In the context of "the god", there is usually only one. But even in the context of a society of gods, the created product of that society serves the society, the product is disposible. Especially among gods. However, I can understand how highly socialized critters with strong empithetic response would jump to conclusions when it came to their relationship with god (s).

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Interesting you should mention the book of Job, I really enjoyed the study of that one. When you get down to it, it really had a simple message.

For me, the most intriguing things about that book are: 1) the fact that Satan just happened to be "hanging out" in God's presence (which has profound implications in and of itself), and 2) that Yahweh is fundamentally ambivalent and - some might say - schizophrenic. God decides to mess with one of his most faithful followers on a whim/bet from Satan, and at the end of it all, even though Job is restored, he never learns why he suffers. God's response to him is, to paraphrase, "tough shit - deal with it. I'm God!", which I think is in itself a profound truth about the nature of Being - whether or not you care to subscribe to a deity.

[Vivisectus]

"Satan" has meant many things over the years. In the book of Job he is not the enemy of God: he has a function at the divine court that is very much in the service of the God of the book of Job. He is more like the state prosecutor than Gods adversary in this particular part of the bible.

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Watching Janis try to force reality into conformity with her and her father's little folie a deux is a bit like watching a skateboarder in a narrow alley challenging a tractor-trailer for the right of way. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence knows how this is going to end. No matter how much swerving, ducking, denying, and screeching she can do, the Mack of Reality continues on its merry way. Facts will remain facts, physics will remain physics, and human nature will remain the puzzling, sloppy, sometimes sordid, sometimes sublime goulash it has always been. People with curiosity and integrity will continue to add to our knowledge of the chassis, engine, and cargo, while Janis'n'Lessans legacy (a minute spot of grease on the grille next to half of a mummified dragonfly) will have no effect, positive or negative, on any of it.

What a waste.

[Dennis Campbell]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

Watching Janis try to force reality into conformity with her and her father's little folie a deux is a bit like watching a skateboarder in a narrow alley challenging a tractor-trailer for the right of way. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence knows how this is going to end. No matter how much swerving, ducking, denying, and screeching she can do, the Mack of Reality continues on its merry way. Facts will remain facts, physics will remain physics, and human nature will remain the puzzling, sloppy, sometimes sordid, sometimes sublime goulash it has always been. People with curiosity and integrity will continue to add to our knowledge of the chassis, engine, and cargo, while Janis'n'Lessans legacy (a minute spot of grease on the grille next to half of a mummified dragonfly) will have no effect, positive or negative, on any of it.

What a waste.

Nicely written, if I may so say.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

Watching Janis try to force reality into conformity with her and her father's little folie a deux is a bit like watching a skateboarder in a narrow alley challenging a tractor-trailer for the right of way. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence knows how this is going to end. No matter how much swerving, ducking, denying, and screeching she can do, the Mack of Reality continues on its merry way. Facts will remain facts, physics will remain physics, and human nature will remain the puzzling, sloppy, sometimes sordid, sometimes sublime goulash it has always been. People with curiosity and integrity will continue to add to our knowledge of the chassis, engine, and cargo, while Janis'n'Lessans legacy (a minute spot of grease on the grille next to half of a mummified dragonfly) will have no effect, positive or negative, on any of it.

What a waste.

If only it would end that way for her. At least peacegirl would finally have peace. But as it is, she will go on, in her batshit insane way, tilting at reality and drawing a laughing derisive crowd wherever she goes. Convinced that the problem lies with everyone else. She will remain a tragic figure for some time to come.

Get help peacegirl.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The 'instantly' is very necessary because it is the antithesis of time. It takes no time for us to see the material world as long as light is present. (

Since it does indeed take time for us to see the material world, the "instantly" remains incorrect.

[koan]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I read it as Lessans using mind slides and projection as an analogy. You seem to be stating that he seriously thought something projected out of the brain through the eyes....is that what you are saying?

If so, ROFL!

Yes. That was my cartoon explaining emission theory. It's not hard to understand why Lessans believed it when you consider his esteem of Plato and his lack of understanding of why Plato's emission theory was rejected. He missed that it was accepted then found to be wrong. Emission Theory of vision involves rays of sight being emitted or projected from the eyes. Even if it was true it would still take time for the "seeing rays" to get to what they saw. So Lessans made Plato's theory even worse... though he was too uneducated to know that it was either falsified or that his description made it worse than the falsified version.

I found out about Emission Theory because I figured he got his "original idea" from somewhere. All of his original ideas are actually not original at all. And he conglomped them together in a way that makes the Mad Hatter's tea party look like a lunch meeting of scholars.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

Yes. That was my cartoon explaining emission theory. It's not hard to understand why Lessans believed it when you consider his esteem of Plato and his lack of understanding of why Plato's emission theory was rejected. He missed that it was accepted then found to be wrong. Emission Theory of vision involves rays of sight being emitted or projected from the eyes. Even if it was true it would still take time for the "seeing rays" to get to what they saw. So Lessans made Plato's theory even worse... though he was too uneducated to know that it was either falsified or that his description made it worse than the falsified version.

I found out about Emission Theory because I figured he got his "original idea" from somewhere. All of his original ideas are actually not original at all. And he conglomped them together in a way that makes the Mad Hatter's tea party look like a lunch meeting of scholars.

And you say you read what he wrote? You're completely out of line koan. His claim has nothing to do with "emission theory" of Plato, or rays of sight being emitted or projected from the eyes. This is nuttier than nutty. Why are you so upset that he actually found something original? It's interesting to note how hard you are trying to turn him into something that is in your head only. For what reason, only you know.

The truth is he never did take credit for his discovery. I hope that one day you'll be able to recognize your own personal reasons for trying to discredit him, even if it hurts your pride, which is really what this is all about.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eleven: The New Meaning of Education

p. 547 My efforts to write the book, Decline and Fall of All Evil, are of
no greater importance than your efforts to play pool or do something
else because we are all following our nature which dictates that we
move in the direction of what is better for ourselves at any given
moment in time. I cannot take credit for removing the evil when my
will is not free, only for writing this book; there is a big difference.
Durant’s Story of Civilization, his Mansions of Philosophy, and all
the other books he wrote played just as important a role in this
discovery.

My understanding of what it meant that man’s will is not
free was the end result of the knowledge given by everyone who ever
lived. Through the process of reading and studying I was privileged to
acquire information that led me to this answer. All knowledge is a
gigantic accumulation of what everybody does in his motion towards
greater satisfaction. Just because I happen to be at the end of the line
when everybody pushes me or sets the stage that induces me to find
answers that were never before possible does not allow me to take the
credit, nor is an individual to blame when everybody pushes him
towards murder and war. I am only obeying a law that forces me to
move in this direction because it gives me greater satisfaction. God
deserves the credit, not me. Before long tears will be flowing in
abundance, but happy tears, and the whole world will thank God for
this wonderful new world. I am just a child of God, like everyone else.
None of us are given a free choice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If only it would end that way for her. At least peacegirl would finally have peace. But as it is, she will go on, in her batshit insane way, tilting at reality and drawing a laughing derisive crowd wherever she goes. Convinced that the problem lies with everyone else. She will remain a tragic figure for some time to come.

Get help peacegirl.

How twisted you are. Get help NA.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His claim has nothing to do with "emission theory" of Plato, or rays of sight being emitted or projected from the eyes.

Then answer my questions about the "projection function of the brain". Was the slide/projector language Lessans used merely analogy-as I read it- or do you believe there is a physical projection of some kind from the brain out through the eyes?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His claim has nothing to do with "emission theory" of Plato, or rays of sight being emitted or projected from the eyes.

Then what is the "Projecting Function"? can you explain it without a 'cut and paste' from the book?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eleven: The New Meaning of Education

p. 547 My efforts to write the book, Decline and Fall of All Evil, are of
no greater importance than your efforts to play pool or do something
else because we are all following our nature which dictates that we
move in the direction of what is better for ourselves at any given
moment in time. I cannot take credit for removing the evil when my
will is not free, only for writing this book; there is a big difference.
Durant’s Story of Civilization, his Mansions of Philosophy, and all
the other books he wrote played just as important a role in this
discovery.

My understanding of what it meant that man’s will is not
free was the end result of the knowledge given by everyone who ever
lived. Through the process of reading and studying I was privileged to
acquire information that led me to this answer. All knowledge is a
gigantic accumulation of what everybody does in his motion towards
greater satisfaction. Just because I happen to be at the end of the line
when everybody pushes me or sets the stage that induces me to find
answers that were never before possible does not allow me to take the
credit, nor is an individual to blame when everybody pushes him
towards murder and war. I am only obeying a law that forces me to
move in this direction because it gives me greater satisfaction. God
deserves the credit, not me. Before long tears will be flowing in
abundance, but happy tears, and the whole world will thank God for
this wonderful new world. I am just a child of God, like everyone else.
None of us are given a free choice.

Did the term 'false modesty' occure to anyone else?

[Dennis Campbell]

Or more than a touch of projected grandiosity. "It is not me, it is god," is a favorite line.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dennis Campbell

Or more than a touch of projected grandiosity. "It is not me, it is god," is a favorite line.

That would make him very "special".

[Dennis Campbell]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That would make him very "special".

We have one over on PR, a "Brother Mario," AKA BM, who's also "special." Just ask him.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What question do you imagine you've answered? The question I've been asking you, both at PR and here at FF, is when the photons at the retina on Earth were previously located at the Sun. You've done nothing at all but evade and refuse to answer.

That's not the case at all. YOU are the one you can't figure out your own claims, and are pointedly refusing to even try.

You said you would answer my question. Was that a lie?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

YOU don't understand the efferent version of sight which you are still failing to explain. Your account is and remains completely contradictory, as you've proven every time you've tried to answer my questions about it only to contradict yourself in the process. If you think the problem is my lack of understanding, then how am I supposed to overcome this when you refuse to actually answer my questions about how it is supposed to work?

That the light is already at the eye is not the issue. Your problem is that you have no explanation for where that light came from or how it got there. The afferent account can explain where light at the retina came from and how it got there. Your efferent account cannot, and that is why it fails.

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You did say the photons will be on Earth. The retina is on Earth, and you've said there will be photons at that retina on Earth instantly at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited. I asked where they came from, and you said they were previously located at the surface of the Sun. Is there some part of this that you wish to change or retract?

If not, then please answer my question: You say that in Lessans' newly ignited Sun example there will be photons at the retina on Earth at the very moment (12:00) that the Sun is first ignited, and that these photons came from and were previously located at the surface of the Sun. So when could they have been located at the Sun? (Pick an answer and we can see if it works)

a) Before 11:52.
b) At 11:52.
c) Between 11:52 and 12:00
d) At 12:00
e) Sometime after 12:00

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did you say you were willing to discuss this and answer my question? [Y/N]

Are you actually willing to discuss this and answer my question? [Y/N]

Did you say something that was not true? [Y/N]

Bump.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How twisted you are. Get help NA.

peacegirl: have your read any books on philosophy and theory that weren't authored by the garden gnome of the apocalypse?

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by Dennis Campbell

Nicely written, if I may so say.

Thanks. You're too kind.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you say you read what he wrote? You're completely out of line koan. His claim has nothing to do with "emission theory" of Plato, or rays of sight being emitted or projected from the eyes. This is nuttier than nutty. Why are you so upset that he actually found something original? It's interesting to note how hard you are trying to turn him into something that is in your head only. For what reason, only you know.

The truth is he never did take credit for his discovery. I hope that one day you'll be able to recognize your own personal reasons for trying to discredit him, even if it hurts your pride, which is really what this is all about.

I don't just say it, I prove I've read it over and over again.
Lessans mentions Plato six times. He only mentions and disparages those with whom he feels he is competing and improving upon. To play scientist you need access to books not yet found in second hand stores.

Also, I'm not upset. You are upset because facts do not support your argument. I'm not upset because the fact do support my position. My only concern has been that people, like you, who can't accept facts contradictory to their argument are quite often mentally ill. I'm no longer concerned because you aren't going to become concerned and there is no benefit to continuing trying to get you to seek help.

I don't need to discredit Lessans because he has no credit. You can't discredit someone who doesn't have it in the first place. It's a non-issue.