I know without a doubt there is no god

[Mui]

So there.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodBlessIraq.jpg

http://atheist.8k.com/irritate.html
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Quiz_JPO.htm

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/blasphemy.jpg
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/LifeInHell.jpg
http://www.infidelguy.com/ig16.html
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Cardinal-Law/CardinalLawgifs/best/ramirelkjhz.gif
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Cardinal-Law/CardinalLawgifs/best/stahler.gif
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Cardinal-Law/CardinalLawgifs/best/spencer.gif
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Cardinal-Law/CardinalLawgifs/best/schorgfdr.gif
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Cardinal-Law/CardinalLawgifs/wolvertokjhgn.gif

[strawpuppy]

Depends on how you percieve GOD

If it is from other people telling you who god is, then I am not suprised...

Maybe you should throw everything you ever heard out the window and start again, step by step on a path of your own, and find the answers to you own questions.

[Mui]

are you giving me advice?

I am already enlightened.

[strawpuppy]

Then you know there is no god......

[Mui]

yea

[Sera Michele]

I pretty much think that if there is a god of some sort, he doesn't (and why would he?) really care about all this dogma crap surrounding religions today. And that we aren't any more special to any creator than anyhting else he created, and that he doesn't take any special notice of us. He doesn't care who sleeps with who, who marries who, who goes to what type of church, etc...

Humans need to get over this thing where we think we are so much more special than anything else. Or like we have some devine reason for being here that any other living thing doesn't. It is just silly.

[forest_pixie84]

So there.
hmmm

[themnax]

the illustrations make valid and interesting political points, but like belief itself, are of no pertinence to the nature, origen or even existence of any nontangable force or being, whatever form or nature it may or may not in reality take

they are indeed however, an absolutely valid commentary on popularly fallowed revealed beliefs as they are properly perceived to have come to be practiced.

my own doubt is only that such beliefs are or have any valid or direct relation to whatever nontangable forces and beings may actualy exist.

the bennifit of any belief, one no more nor less then another, is the degree to which it encourages people to want to avoid causing harm, and the harm theirof, the degree to which it encourages people to deceive themselves as to the mechanisms by which they do so.

=^^=
.../\...

[Kharakov]

I pretty much think that if there is a god of some sort, he doesn't (and why would he?) really care about all this dogma crap surrounding religions today. Well, maybe dogma is encouraged to create controversy, which generates interest in religion, which in turn causes people to think about God on their own. God wouldn't humiliate the catholic church with a spherical world, evolution/genetics, and pedophilic priests if God wanted us to think that the catholics were the ones to teach you about God. The catholic hierarchy resembles NT pharisees and saducees (the jews who argued against the teachings of Jesus). God is right there, in front of you, around you, in you, everywhere, right now.


Humans need to get over this thing where we think we are so much more special than anything else. Or like we have some devine reason for being here that any other living thing doesn't. It is just silly.Silly.. silly.

[strawpuppy]

themnax, hard reading, but well put....

[Razorofoccam]

Mui

The qualifier in your statement is
"I Know"

You believe..yes..
To 'know'..as 'fact' that there is no god is not an understanding achievable to human beings.
To know there is no god would require the knowing of everything...
Total understanding. Of everything.

What human do you know capable of understnding everything?
That is.. about a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion more things than you understand?
[and occam]

This is why agnosticism exists.

Occam

[Kharakov]

im happy you feel that you found absolute truth, im having trouble computing absolute anything that doesn't appear to be not concrete My dad is working on water crystal formation in concrete (did NMR on concrete samples to look at hydrogen bonds etc.). Some friends of mine are painting concrete, and I will have to paint a concrete floor soon.

[Kharakov]

To know there is no god would require the knowing of everything...
Total understanding. Of everything. Guess you would have to be God to know whether or not you (God) exist.

[Mui]

thats j ust a crappy argument for people to hold their faith to..

god is man made, therefore it is flawed.

therefore god does not exist

[forest_pixie84]

My dad is working on water crystal formation in concrete (did NMR on concrete samples to look at hydrogen bonds etc.). Some friends of mine are painting concrete, and I will have to paint a concrete floor soon.lol:)

[strawpuppy]

Kharakov.... Wish I had something important to do like your dad...He sounds interesting

[Kharakov]

Kharakov.... Wish I had something important to do like your dad...He sounds interestinglol :). Watch the concrete harden, young grasshopper.

[BlackGuardXIII]

thats j ust a crappy argument for people to hold their faith to..

god is man made, therefore it is flawed.

therefore god does not exist
Pretzel logic... starts with an assumption of the conclusion. I could say:
I have seen miracles and experienced them personally, and seen magic, and spoken with those who have said they communicated with God. I do not disbelieve them just cuz I haven't.

Therefor there is a God.

By the way, when I was 18, I did not believe in God, same as you, but I had a lot of much better points to explain why than you have expressed. This is because I had already studied many religions of all types in depth. Since then, I have seen more of the unexplainable events, so many in fact, that I cannot ignore the existence of some hidden energy or force that is gently guiding and protecting me, and others close to me.

[Kharakov]

Sorry. How do I delete this?

[Razorofoccam]

By the way, when I was 18, I did not believe in God
Blackguard

At 18 occam did'nt give a F about god..
At 25 he started thinking.
At 30 he became a mildly rational being.
At 35 he said there was no god.
At 40 He saw indications to support such an idea
At 45 The structure of reality begs for a direction....for it has many indicators of being directed.
If this direction be a god...so be it....

What will occam think at 70?
Maybe if he works hard at understanding..some wisdom.

What will he think when he is dead,,,0.
So what was the point of it all..
TO pass what he learnt to other living humans...
His purpose.. is JUST THAT...and no more.
[besides creating ONE new human being]

This purpose is well worth the effort.. It does not as so many wish.
Give him more life...
Occam does not seek MORE LIFE.
He is here to work out what to do with this one..
And to pass that wisdom to others...

This is called being a part of humanity...
And humanity is all that matters.
Not you or occam...
We as individuals may through our thinking and acts..
Change the human situation for the better.

maybe one in a hundred think of this...
And that is why the world is as it IS.


Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Occam does not seek MORE LIFE.

And why exactly is that? Why avoid living life to your fullest potential?

[Razorofoccam]

The statement.
"occam does not seek more life"

Relates to the huge amount of time many spend looking for proof that there is
conscious personal existance after our mortal death in this world...

And when they cannot find it... They believe it anyway....

Occam thinks it is an interesting idea..But fears the 'nonexistance of self' that appears to be the result of death.
No more than he fears the 'nonexistance of self' that WAS before he was concieved.

The trauma of death is indeed scary...occam hopes he will snuff out in his sleep.
Not incinerated alive in a car accident.

This life occam has...what did he do to get it??
Well...is that not the question of purpose?

Occam earns his life by doing what he can to gain understanding ..and pass it on.
This is a purpose he intuitively things a correct one...

To spend this life scrabbling for more life..after death.. seems pointless...
Since the entire concept has no phenomena to back it up.
It exists as a human concept...and aparrently..no more.

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

The statement.
"occam does not seek more life"

Relates to the huge amount of time many spend looking for proof that there is
conscious personal existance after our mortal death in this world...

That's one way of looking at it. But I'm more concerned with meaning than truth. Finding meaning in life doesn't necessarily have to do with fact. You seem to found a meaning of life: to pass on knowledge to others. I fail to see how this is the meaning of life, unless you can provide some argument proving it to be so. But, if you ask me, no argument is required. This is the difference between meaning and truth: meaning is always entirely subjective, whereas a body of knowledge usually contains both subjective and objective elements. But the point is, if all meaning is subjective, what makes the meaning of your life, passing on knowledge, any better than the meaning of mine, living life in accordance with God's Will?

[Razorofoccam]

You seem to found a meaning of life: to pass on knowledge to others. I fail to see how this is the meaning of life
Hammer

Of course it is not...
It is occams...and if ohers want to do the same thing.
That is their choice and responsibillity...

What meaning of life do you understand that is WHOLEY your understanding..?
Wholely a product of YOU? The mind you ARE.?
For it is YOUR life...do you assign its meaning so quickly to others' beliefs...
Do you shed reponsibillity for your acts so quickly to the words of a book.
Is that not FUNDAMENTALISM

Religion says you have free will...free will being the exercise of reason.
But if you use it wrong...
You will be tortured forever.
Then it says the one method that works. Reason..is the voice of the devil
For reason says ..where is the christian god?..and the religious say THAT.. is the voice of the devil..

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Of course it is not...
It is occams...and if ohers want to do the same thing.
That is their choice and responsibillity...
Right. So what is it that makes your choice, passing on knowledge, better than my choice, living like in accordance with God's Will?

What meaning of life do you understand that is WHOLEY your understanding..?
Wholely a product of YOU? The mind you ARE.?
For it is YOUR life...do you assign its meaning so quickly to others' beliefs...
I don't follow. I'm not saying that the meaning I have found in life is any better than yours. I'm just looking for recognition that the meaning I've found is as equally valid as yours.

Do you shed reponsibillity for your acts so quickly to the words of a book.
Is that not FUNDAMENTALISM
That's what I was saying. You make it sound as if Christians are off the hook and can avoid taking responsibility for their actions. That's not true. I choose to follow God, but that's still a choice and so I have to accept the consequences of that choice. Because of my beliefs I am forced to conclude that you will go to hell, and so I am responsible for you hating my beliefs, and, by extention, you hating me. I can't go blaming that on God because I'm the one who has to deal with it, not God.

Religion says you have free will...free will being the exercise of reason.
What does free will have to do with reason?

[BlackGuardXIII]

Right. So what is it that makes your choice, passing on knowledge, better than my choice, living like in accordance with God's Will?


I don't follow. I'm not saying that the meaning I have found in life is any better than yours. I'm just looking for recognition that the meaning I've found is as equally valid as yours.


That's what I was saying. You make it sound as if Christians are off the hook and can avoid taking responsibility for their actions. That's not true. I choose to follow God, but that's still a choice and so I have to accept the consequences of that choice. Because of my beliefs I am forced to conclude that you will go to hell, and so I am responsible for you hating my beliefs, and, by extention, you hating me. I can't go blaming that on God because I'm the one who has to deal with it, not God.


What does free will have to do with reason?

Hammer, I truly believe that your truths and life's meaning is equally valid to mine and equally true, even if dramatically different. This is possible since we are never to know each others reality.

My meaning is the camper's creed and the Wiccan commandment.
To leave this place a little better than I found it.
and
If it harms none, do what you will.

And I feel that everyone can have a different belief, and we can all be right.

I stopped believing in hell at eleven years old, that does not mean it does not exist in your reality, just that it could very well not exist in mine, yet still exist in yours.

I would love to follow 'God', or Spirit as I prefer to call It. I just have not been given clear enough marching orders other than what I have posted as my life's meanings. I don't know what will happen when I die, but I believe it is not the end, and am curious what lies ahead. Not impatient, curious, I can wait.....

[Razorofoccam]

Right. So what is it that makes your choice, passing on knowledge, better than my choice, living like in accordance with God's Will?


I don't follow. I'm not saying that the meaning I have found in life is any better than yours. I'm just looking for recognition that the meaning I've found is as equally valid as yours.


That's what I was saying. You make it sound as if Christians are off the hook and can avoid taking responsibility for their actions. That's not true. I choose to follow God, but that's still a choice and so I have to accept the consequences of that choice. Because of my beliefs I am forced to conclude that you will go to hell, and so I am responsible for you hating my beliefs, and, by extention, you hating me. I can't go blaming that on God because I'm the one who has to deal with it, not God.


What does free will have to do with reason?
Blackguard

1. Nothing...But that your choice calls for the sending of ANY which choose their own way..to eternal torture...
Occams way..allows you to believe ANYTHING you wish,,as your inherent right.

2. Occam HAS ALWAYS SAID that each believes as he wishes...
That is their right..

YOU..said " You seem to have found a meaning for life..To pass information on to others..I fail to see how this is a meaning of life?"

Occams reply was an attempt to find out if YOU understood YOUR meaning of life...or is it something you read in a book.?
Occams is not. It is a thing he made from the pieces of human understanding available.
If you fail to see how this is a meaning of life...Then is that not your deficiency?

3.
*Occam 'makes it sound like what you want him to sound like"
*WHO FORCES YOU to believe occam will go to hell?
YOUR fundamental belief,,without verification..in ONE book.
*Occam HATES nothing
*Or You..How could he hate one he has never met? What is the point of hate?

*What does free will have to do with reason?
Well to start..How do you know free will exists or not?
Reason.
Reason allows us to understand free will.
Reason also allows us to have it.
Do sheep have free will. Do sheep have reason.
No
Does a rock have freewill, does a rock have reason.
No
Show occam a thiing without reason..that has free will..The abillity to choose a path based on understanding and forethought. and wisdom.
One path from many options...The options are a function of rational free will..The thing your god gave us to decide with...
Yet calls the devils work...for reason sees no christian god...

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

1. Nothing...But that your choice calls for the sending of ANY which choose their own way..to eternal torture...
Occams way..allows you to believe ANYTHING you wish,,as your inherent right.
You can still believe anything you wish. The choice to obey or disobey God is still a choice, and your right. Simply because there are negative consequences to your choice doesn't mean that you have any less of a choice.

[quote]YOU..said " You seem to have found a meaning for life..To pass information on to others..I fail to see how this is a meaning of life?"

Occams reply was an attempt to find out if YOU understood YOUR meaning of life...or is it something you read in a book.?
Occams is not. It is a thing he made from the pieces of human understanding available.
If you fail to see how this is a meaning of life...Then is that not your deficiency?
I do not fail to see that this gives life meaning. What I meant is that I fail to see how it can be proven to be the meaning of life. But it's a meaning, not a truth-value, so proof is not necessary. And if I choose to get my meaning from a book, then how is that any less meaningful than your meaning?

3.
*WHO FORCES YOU to believe occam will go to hell?
No one. I chose to.

YOUR fundamental belief,,without verification..in ONE book.
It's not just one book. The verification is all around me all the time. Empirical evidence signifying the presence of the divine.

*Occam HATES nothing
*Or You..How could he hate one he has never met? What is the point of hate?
Right on. I'm glad you feel that way.

*What does free will have to do with reason?
Well to start..How do you know free will exists or not?
Reason.
That's not how I concluded that free will exists, but I'd still like to see your deduction. Spinoza concluded that free will does not exist through reason. I concluded that free will exists because of emotions I feel such as regret. Without such emotions, free will is meaningless. Of course, I don't really prove that free will exists, more that the illusion of free will exists. But that's really what counts, after all.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

My meaning is the camper's creed and the Wiccan commandment.
To leave this place a little better than I found it.
and
If it harms none, do what you will.
I don't see how anyone can find anything wrong with that. But I've always wondered, about the Wiccan commandment, what about harming yourself, physically, mentally, or spiritually?

And I feel that everyone can have a different belief, and we can all be right.
Oh, without a doubt. I'd say it can even make life better. Different view-points get people thinking.

I would love to follow 'God', or Spirit as I prefer to call It. I just have not been given clear enough marching orders other than what I have posted as my life's meanings.
The 'marching orders' are far from clear. You just have to know how to read the signs. Of course, it's a mostly subjective thing, but I usually look for help from the saints, in prayer and in reading their works.

[Razorofoccam]

TheHammerSpeaks
1:You can still believe anything you wish. The choice to obey or disobey God is still a choice, and your right. Simply because there are negative consequences to your choice doesn't mean that you have any less of a choice.


2:I do not fail to see that this gives life meaning. What I meant is that I fail to see how it can be proven to be the meaning of life. But it's a meaning, not a truth-value, so proof is not necessary. And if I choose to get my meaning from a book, then how is that any less meaningful than your meaning?



3:
It's not just one book. The verification is all around me all the time. Empirical evidence signifying the presence of the divine.

That's not how I concluded that free will exists, but I'd still like to see your deduction. Spinoza concluded that free will does not exist through reason. I concluded that free will exists because of emotions I feel such as regret. Without such emotions, free will is meaningless. Of course, I don't really prove that free will exists, more that the illusion of free will exists. But that's really what counts, after all.[/QUOTE]
Hammer

1.
Exaclty...Except with occam the choices are governed only by what is real.
He does not think christian dogma is based in reality...
In fact he cares little...
What he does care about is those snared by hokey fiction...

2.
Who decides WHAT is the meaning of life...You? Some impacted ink on sheets of dead tree?
The MOL//is a human term for why we are here...
As there are NO obvious instructions in reality as to waht tje MOL is...
Then occam makes his own...through his own resouces,

3...You say it is all around you. Empirical evidence...
THEN , you can show it to occam...
Show occam the empirical evidence of the christian god...

How do you do that?

Using reason.
The only tool we know off that works when it comes to living in reality.
[in understanding it]
A reality based on laws that reason is also based in.

Occam thinks reason works for us NOW....
It is our next few rungs on the ladder to what the buddhists call godhead.

And what rung on that ladder do we stand on now...?
The first...

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

1.
Exaclty...Except with occam the choices are governed only by what is real.
He does not think christian dogma is based in reality...
In fact he cares little...
What he does care about is those snared by hokey fiction...

How do you know it's fiction?


2.
Who decides WHAT is the meaning of life...You? Some impacted ink on sheets of dead tree?
No, every person has to find his or her meaning of life. Meaning is entirely subjective.

The MOL//is a human term for why we are here...
As there are NO obvious instructions in reality as to waht tje MOL is...
Then occam makes his own...through his own resouces,
And how do you accomplish this?

3...You say it is all around you. Empirical evidence...
THEN , you can show it to occam...
Show occam the empirical evidence of the christian god...

A text is made up of signs signifying things. When the principles of exegesis are applied to the entire universe, not just texts, all of creation signifies God... well, not for everyone, but it does for me.

[Kharakov]

A text is made up of signs signifying things. When the principles of exegesis are applied to the entire universe, not just texts, all of creation signifies God... well, not for everyone, but it does for me.cool.

[J_Lazarus]

Mui

The qualifier in your statement is
"I Know"

You believe..yes..
To 'know'..as 'fact' that there is no god is not an understanding achievable to human beings.
To know there is no god would require the knowing of everything...
Total understanding. Of everything.

What human do you know capable of understnding everything?
That is.. about a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion more things than you understand?
[and occam]

This is why agnosticism exists.

Occam Classic misunderstanding of logic, Occam. :eek:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/logical.html

- Laz

[Razorofoccam]

How do you know it's fiction?

Because HAMMER
It IS fiction based on our human understanding of such

Shall we dispence with the crap?

SHOW occam the truth of the bible as a real phenomena..

SHOW the FACTS that support christianity...

NOW

Occam

If you cannot...

Then start thinking with YOUR brain
And not the dogma of others.

[Razorofoccam]

Classic misunderstanding of logic, Occam. :eek:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/logical.html

- Laz
Lazarus..


Occam is not INTERERSTED in your hotlinks...

He is interested in your abillity to think.

If he wants informtion from those hotlinks, he will find them himself.
They are not YOUR thinking..
And amazing as it may seems..occam is not interested in HIS truth...
He wants to hear YOURS.

Occam wants to hear what you think...THAT. is the true path to understanding.

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Blackguard

1. Nothing...But that your choice calls for the sending of ANY which choose their own way..to eternal torture...
Occams way..allows you to believe ANYTHING you wish,,as your inherent right.

2. Occam HAS ALWAYS SAID that each believes as he wishes...
That is their right..

YOU..said " You seem to have found a meaning for life..To pass information on to others..I fail to see how this is a meaning of life?"

Occams reply was an attempt to find out if YOU understood YOUR meaning of life...or is it something you read in a book.?
Occams is not. It is a thing he made from the pieces of human understanding available.
If you fail to see how this is a meaning of life...Then is that not your deficiency?

3.
*Occam 'makes it sound like what you want him to sound like"
*WHO FORCES YOU to believe occam will go to hell?
YOUR fundamental belief,,without verification..in ONE book.
*Occam HATES nothing
*Or You..How could he hate one he has never met? What is the point of hate?

*What does free will have to do with reason?
Well to start..How do you know free will exists or not?
Reason.
Reason allows us to understand free will.
Reason also allows us to have it.
Do sheep have free will. Do sheep have reason.
No
Does a rock have freewill, does a rock have reason.
No
Show occam a thiing without reason..that has free will..The abillity to choose a path based on understanding and forethought. and wisdom.
One path from many options...The options are a function of rational free will..The thing your god gave us to decide with...
Yet calls the devils work...for reason sees no christian god...

Occam
Re: My meaning of life, I stated it somewhere that I believe in leaving this planet a little better than I found it, and 'If it harms none, do what thou wilt.'
I am still learning, and do hope to find more and deeper meaning than that.
I believe in Spirit, but cannot say I know much about what It is or what my purpose is beyond what I have written above.
I believe the rest of your post was directed at hammer.
And I do like your views a lot, they are very informative and enlightening to me.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Because HAMMER
It IS fiction based on our human understanding of such
No, it's fiction based on your understanding of such. Don't even try to speak for the whole of humanity. There are plenty of people out there who believe that the bible is fact. But you know what I think? It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Existence is not a predicate, right? So we could babble on for our whole lives trying to prove or disprove God's existence and get no where. It's the meaning of the bible that counts, not its truth value. And that's what I've been trying to get at this whole time.

If you cannot...

Then start thinking with YOUR brain
And not the dogma of others.
You know, I could accuse you of the same thing. Start using your brain and stop following Enlightenment dogmas. But I won't because you probably have a very good reason for believing such doctrines, even though I disagree with them. I fail to see why religious people are merely brainwashed, unthinking automatons. This is what I've noticed is the most bullshit thing out of everything you say. You're trying to make the word 'reason' your own personal trademark. There is only one kind of reason, your kind. And everyone who does not use your kind of reasoning is, by definition, unreasonable. And isn't that just perfect? Because then you can just call someone who disagrees with you unreasonable and not have to actually think about his arguments.

[BlackGuardXIII]

No, it's fiction based on your understanding of such. Don't even try to speak for the whole of humanity. There are plenty of people out there who believe that the bible is fact. But you know what I think? It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Existence is not a predicate, right? So we could babble on for our whole lives trying to prove or disprove God's existence and get no where. It's the meaning of the bible that counts, not its truth value. And that's what I've been trying to get at this whole time.


You know, I could accuse you of the same thing. Start using your brain and stop following Enlightenment dogmas. But I won't because you probably have a very good reason for believing such doctrines, even though I disagree with them. I fail to see why religious people are merely brainwashed, unthinking automatons. This is what I've noticed is the most bullshit thing out of everything you say. You're trying to make the word 'reason' your own personal trademark. There is only one kind of reason, your kind. And everyone who does not use your kind of reasoning is, by definition, unreasonable. And isn't that just perfect? Because then you can just call someone who disagrees with you unreasonable and not have to actually think about his arguments.

feel the love people

[Shane99X]

feel the love people
What is love really?:p

(j/k)

[Razorofoccam]

Re: My meaning of life, I stated it somewhere that I believe in leaving this planet a little better than I found it, and 'If it harms none, do what thou wilt.'
I am still learning, and do hope to find more and deeper meaning than that.
I believe in Spirit, but cannot say I know much about what It is or what my purpose is beyond what I have written above.
I believe the rest of your post was directed at hammer.
And I do like your views a lot, they are very informative and enlightening to me.
BlackGuard

Well said

Honnest....Join us.

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

No, it's fiction based on your understanding of such. Don't even try to speak for the whole of humanity. There are plenty of people out there who believe that the bible is fact. But you know what I think? It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Existence is not a predicate, right? So we could babble on for our whole lives trying to prove or disprove God's existence and get no where. It's the meaning of the bible that counts, not its truth value. And that's what I've been trying to get at this whole time.


You know, I could accuse you of the same thing. Start using your brain and stop following Enlightenment dogmas. But I won't because you probably have a very good reason for believing such doctrines, even though I disagree with them. I fail to see why religious people are merely brainwashed, unthinking automatons. This is what I've noticed is the most bullshit thing out of everything you say. You're trying to make the word 'reason' your own personal trademark. There is only one kind of reason, your kind. And everyone who does not use your kind of reasoning is, by definition, unreasonable. And isn't that just perfect? Because then you can just call someone who disagrees with you unreasonable and not have to actually think about his arguments.
Hammer

Occam does not speak for humanity and is not capable of doing so.

The bible and the quran speak for humanity

That is their job..No?

However..Occam does not think they do. Religion speaks ONLY for those that believe it...

IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE THAT DO NOT.

Occam does NOT..

Is he evil?

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

The bible and the quran speak for humanity

That is their job..No?
Not really. They speak for God.

Religion speaks ONLY for those that believe it...
Them too.

IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE THAT DO NOT.
Right.

Is [Occam] evil?
By my standard, yeah I guess so. But by your standard, I'm brainwashed, indoctrinated, and unwilling to think for myself. So I guess we'll just see, won't we?

[randy]

Humans need to get over this thing where we think we are so much more special than anything else. Or like we have some devine reason for being here that any other living thing doesn't. It is just silly.

Im with Sera, i agree

and there were sme real good points in this thread

very good reading :D

[BlackGuardXIII]

BlackGuard

Well said

Honnest....Join us.

Occam
PM me, Occam, and let me know more, if you could. I hesitate to join anything, due to past experience, and the wish I have to not discount others.

[Kharakov]

Occam does NOT..

Is he evil?
Evil is ignorance of reality. You can see this in another's character by the stance they take on issues.

[Kharakov]

BlackGuard

Well said

Honnest....Join us.

Occam
3. Oblivious To Evil

Join us

Evil night of an evil death
Epitome of illusion
Sacrifice of the unborn child
Enter the kingdom of darkness
Sodomized for the ritual
For there is nowhere to run
Open the gates to the manifestation
And grant me the powers of darkness

[Chorus:]
Infernal majesty, take this dead offering
Feeding the demon seed, evil bestowed on me

Exorice the power of dead
Invert my cross of time
The retaim of Satan anarchy
Inside my scared sign

Lucifer bring me the legions of deaths
Abbadon kill until nothing is left
Oblivious to evil

[Lead - Eric/Brian]

Death of defiled the rituals
Of dreams and disillusion
Unlock the box and gimp in pain
Summon the demons of darkness
Evil Gods that fast with flesh
Prepare me for the dead
Release me from the angels so righteous
For your God is dead

[Chorus]

Join US!!!!! "Oblivious to Evil" Deicide/Deicide (1990) (Awesome album)

[BlackGuardXIII]

Oh what a lovely verse......so poetic....and um.....disturbing.

[Razorofoccam]

Hammer

Greets


[TheHammerSpeaks]
Not really. They speak for God.

So YOU say.


Them too.
Right.

Yes of course you must believe the books speak for all...
otherwise they would mean nothing.


By my standard, yeah I guess so. But by your standard, I'm brainwashed, indoctrinated, and unwilling to think for myself. So I guess we'll just see, won't we?

Twisted reply..And you know it.
You do not know occam as a person,, his life in the living...
But you suggest you know he will be tortured forever in a hell you
believe because a book says so.
While occam will defend your very INHERENT RIGHT..
To believe that.
Why..
Because ideas do not kill

People do

[Razorofoccam]

PM me, Occam, and let me know more, if you could. I hesitate to join anything, due to past experience, and the wish I have to not discount others.
Blackguard

HOHO

I meant..join us here on this thread....:-)

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

3. Oblivious To Evil

Join us

Evil night of an evil death
Epitome of illusion
Sacrifice of the unborn child
Enter the kingdom of darkness
Sodomized for the ritual
For there is nowhere to run
Open the gates to the manifestation
And grant me the powers of darkness

[Chorus:]
Infernal majesty, take this dead offering
Feeding the demon seed, evil bestowed on me

Exorice the power of dead
Invert my cross of time
The retaim of Satan anarchy
Inside my scared sign

Lucifer bring me the legions of deaths
Abbadon kill until nothing is left
Oblivious to evil

[Lead - Eric/Brian]

Death of defiled the rituals
Of dreams and disillusion
Unlock the box and gimp in pain
Summon the demons of darkness
Evil Gods that fast with flesh
Prepare me for the dead
Release me from the angels so righteous
For your God is dead

[Chorus]

Join US!!!!! "Oblivious to Evil" Deicide/Deicide (1990) (Awesome album)
Kharakov

Great!!!

Glad you too could JOIN US .....ON THIS THREAD....

Pretty average song though... As human acts of evil are far more horrifying than any act of satan...
If the guy next door butchers his kids...
It was the guy next door that did it.
Not satan.
While demons and devils are easy prey.
Occam kills them constantly in Doom3
And who is to say they are any more real than nasties in a PC game?

No-one seems to be able to...


It seems it was a bullet aimed at a target that did not exist...
There is only one US..to join.
You and occam are allready part of it...
We just need to make it so. [as act]


Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Yes of course you must believe the books speak for all...
otherwise they would mean nothing.
Well, wait a second. The books speak for those who believe in them, no one more. Something doesn't have to speak for everyone to be meaningful.



Twisted reply..And you know it.

So, then you don't think I'm brainwashed?

You do not know occam as a person,, his life in the living...
But you suggest you know he will be tortured forever in a hell you
believe because a book says so.
Right. And do you suggest that I will rot in the ground after I die because modern science says so?

While occam will defend your very INHERENT RIGHT..
To believe that.
Why..
Because ideas do not kill

People do

That's very true.

[Kharakov]

Glad you too could JOIN US .....ON THIS THREAD....

Pretty average song though...The album is great. There is just something about it that makes me really happy, probably the song crucifixation. Dunno though...

As human acts of evil are far more horrifying than any act of satan...
If the guy next door butchers his kids...
It was the guy next door that did it.
Not satan.

People don't kill, God kills.

[J_Lazarus]

Lazarus..


Occam is not INTERERSTED in your hotlinks...

He is interested in your abillity to think.

If he wants informtion from those hotlinks, he will find them himself.
They are not YOUR thinking..
And amazing as it may seems..occam is not interested in HIS truth...
He wants to hear YOURS.

Occam wants to hear what you think...THAT. is the true path to understanding.

Occam
My thinking is entirely equivalent to their's - and the reason for my providing those links was for your own opportunity to study up.

If you're not interested in understanding the faults of your views - what, precisely, makes you different from the views of common religionists?

Again, to say a universal negative cannot be proven is a gross misunderstanding of logic. Logic itself is a process of weeding out contradictions from our thought - would be rather odd if it couldn't disprove things, wouldn't you say?

- Laz

[Razorofoccam]

TheHammerSpeaks
So, then you don't think I'm brainwashed?

No...You were the one that said occam would go hear or there
because you believe it...
Occam never said where you may go.[or himself]
does that mean you are brainwashed?

Right. And do you suggest that I will rot in the ground after I die because modern science says so?

Occam never said a word about where you..your mind will go...
Science says your body and brain rot in the ground...
And there is some justificatioin for that is there not.?

But MIND is not a physical thing it seems..its engine is probably brain..which is physical...
But MIND is way more than we understand.

Occam cannot say MIND ceases to exist on the death of the body...
His method does not allow assumption of such magnitude.

And his method will certainly never make the assumption that anothers mind will be tortured forever because a book says it will.
[Based on no real phenomena]

Method is just that.method...a way of thinking
Desire is the antithesis of it...but also the drive for it.
Use desire.. to understand...
Not control. [others] For desire seem mostly about power over people.
While reason is about understanding...what IS

You desire to live forever

Occam is more pragmatic. He also desires more existance.
But can see no reason why he should have any after this life is over..
Why should he...?
Because of the words in a book?

So occam is happy with the existance he has...its great.

And when he dies...
He gets
A: oblivion ..no worries..that what he had before he was born
B: More existance...no worries..a great new adventure...

A win/win situation... For remember..His story started with non-existance.
And if it ends with it...He still had existance...this life.



Occam

[Razorofoccam]

Kharakov
People don't kill, God kills.

Kharakov

Show occam real phenomena to back that statement up...

:)

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

Lazarus
My thinking is entirely equivalent to their's - and the reason for my providing those links was for your own opportunity to study up.

If you're not interested in understanding the faults of your views - what, precisely, makes you different from the views of common religionists?

Again, to say a universal negative cannot be proven is a gross misunderstanding of logic. Logic itself is a process of weeding out contradictions from our thought - would be rather odd if it couldn't disprove things, wouldn't you say?

Lazarus

If your thinking is equivalent to theirs...

Then why would occam bother talking to you...
You are the mouthpiece for others ideas.
Did you have those ideas first?
Occam thinks not.

You have little idea of what occam is interested in.

What universal negative is that?
Reason/logic does not disprove negatives...

It gives example of where positives [thoeries of what is] do not hold true to observation.
If there is such an example. Then a theory must be revised, or abandoned.


Occam

[Razorofoccam]

No, it's fiction based on your understanding of such. Don't even try to speak for the whole of humanity. There are plenty of people out there who believe that the bible is fact. But you know what I think? It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Existence is not a predicate, right? So we could babble on for our whole lives trying to prove or disprove God's existence and get no where. It's the meaning of the bible that counts, not its truth value. And that's what I've been trying to get at this whole time.


You know, I could accuse you of the same thing. Start using your brain and stop following Enlightenment dogmas. But I won't because you probably have a very good reason for believing such doctrines, even though I disagree with them. I fail to see why religious people are merely brainwashed, unthinking automatons. This is what I've noticed is the most bullshit thing out of everything you say. You're trying to make the word 'reason' your own personal trademark. There is only one kind of reason, your kind. And everyone who does not use your kind of reasoning is, by definition, unreasonable. And isn't that just perfect? Because then you can just call someone who disagrees with you unreasonable and not have to actually think about his arguments.
Hammer


But what is fact?
do you know what FACT means?

Something experienced by all...
Always.
A thing all agree on.

Your bible and its dogma are no such thing..
yet occam does not say it does not exist.
He says it is improbable as there is no phenomena to support it..
Just human words...

Get it right man...
Occam does not say your belief is false...
He says it is improbable...
And NO REASON to base a life on.
Unless desire says so.

And WHAT process to understanding does desire have.
Greed

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

No...You were the one that said occam would go hear or there
because you believe it...
Occam never said where you may go.[or himself]
does that mean you are brainwashed?
It means I stand by my convictions. I have chosen to be a Catholic, and so I must accept all the dogma that goes along with being a Catholic. That's what a comitment is all about.

But MIND is not a physical thing it seems..its engine is probably brain..which is physical...
But MIND is way more than we understand.
So what phenomena have you observed that proves the existence of the mind? You could use the cogito, but that's a deduction, not a phenomenon.

Occam cannot say MIND ceases to exist on the death of the body...
His method does not allow assumption of such magnitude.
Fair enough, I guess.

Method is just that.method...a way of thinking
Desire is the antithesis of it...but also the drive for it.
Use desire.. to understand...
Not control. [others] For desire seem mostly about power over people.
While reason is about understanding...what IS
What exactly is the difference between understanding and control? I don't mean control of other people either (necessarily), I mean control of our environment. Isn't truth (that which is to be understood) just a way of staying in control of our lives? And if truth is really just about control, then wouldn't the most powerful ideas be the real truths?

You desire to live forever
That is not the motivation behind my faith.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

But what is fact?
do you know what FACT means?

Something experienced by all...
Always.
A thing all agree on.
If that's what a fact is, then we're in a lot of trouble. You can't get two people to agree on the colour of an off-white shirt (I had like a half hour conversation about this very thing last night) let alone the rules that govern morality. Even if you could get 99.9% consensus, there will always be someone out there who will disagree, even if it's only to be difficult. And I have a lot of admiration for this person, the one who won't give in to the crowd, even if he can't really explain why. It takes a lot of conviction. I'm not worried about facts everyone can agree on, I'm worried about the facts for me.

Get it right man...
Occam does not say your belief is false...
He says it is improbable...
And NO REASON to base a life on.
Unless desire says so.
Isn't having faith to live a good life reason enough?

[Kharakov]

Kharakov
People don't kill, God kills.

Kharakov

Show occam real phenomena to back that statement up...
Well, if you know God made you, and you draw the logical conclusion that you are going to do what you were made to do, and then you kill someone, the blood is on God's hands, not yours.

Show occam real phenomena to back that statement up...
Occam, I am not God. God is the only one who can teach you this. I can tell you the truth, but I do not give you everything that you need to understand it- only God does this.

[UrsusKind]

Go ahead believe there is no God if you want to



That just leaves more GOD for me!!!!

[WhisperingWoods]

the blood is on God's hands, not yours.

I hope I never meet a psycho who believes that crap.

[seamonster66]

nobody knows anything about god, and whether one exists or not.

[Kharakov]

I hope I never meet a psycho who believes that crap.
Better stay away from God then, or at least keep your head in the sand like an ostrich. Good job (so far) avoiding the truth.

[Maes]

"I know without a doubt there is no god"

Stripping yourself from doubt (as a tool) may (I doubt) result with dogmatism.

[WhisperingWoods]

Better stay away from God then, or at least keep your head in the sand like an ostrich. Good job (so far) avoiding the truth.Heheh.. try telling all this to the judge.

Truth! Ha! You think that your buddy christ over here is putting that gun in your hand, telling you to kill, you my friend are fucked in the head. Hard. I've never heard of a real christian who believes that, besides the infamous killers.

You are in complete control. Isn't this why catholics go confess sins? Definately. God doesn't sin. God is no hyprocrite. Logic (or lack thereof) determines your response to a situation like that. Hey, Dahmer--that voice in your head isn't the word of god. Seek help.

[/EndRant]

[forest_pixie84]

there is something called the miracle of faith
and its not something invisible
it's something tangible and circumstancial

if a man witness a true miracle
he know longer needs to believe in anything
because he has proof now

god does show his face to some people
the statement, "I know without a doubt there is no god"
puzzles me, and i'd like to hear how you came to make such a statement, because I have proof that god does exist.
i will even show it to you, in timei don't get this^, if god has a "face" then what does it look like? the only place i heard it say that god had a face was in the bible, and i then it also said that if you were to see gods face you'd die. and if god is supposed to be everywhere at the same time, what kinda face can be all over the place?

[Razorofoccam]

TheHammerSpeaks

So what phenomena have you observed that proves the existence of the mind? You could use the cogito, but that's a deduction, not a phenomenon.

Brains that do not function ..result in NO mind
Brains that do..always result in a mind.
Conscious awareness..And subconscious..ONLY occur as a result of living, functioning brain.

'Gogito ergo sum' is A PHENOMENA. [i reason therefore i exist]
The phenomena of reason saying 'i exist'
because it can.
And IT CAN..ONLY because IT EXISTS.
It is not deduction based on sensory input...
It is a PHENOMENA saying I EXIST..because it DOES.
If it did not ..It could NOT say it.

Fair enough, I guess.

You GUESS?

What exactly is the difference between understanding and control? I don't mean control of other people either (necessarily), I mean control of our environment. Isn't truth (that which is to be understood) just a way of staying in control of our lives? And if truth is really just about control, then wouldn't the most powerful ideas be the real truths?

The difference is..Gratuitous controll of other bings to satisfy the whim of ego.
Manipulation and control.
You know EXACTLY what occam means.

Understanding and wisdom...Allow correct responses to problems with the least harm to any.
The least control.

You want an example of control..
Look at the catholic church in south america some 300 years back...
Slaughter..desease. terror..fear...
The church had a thousand years to sort out it's methods and thinking...
To find the path of christ.
It did no such thing.
The result...
ABSOLUTE HORROR.

The deduction..Organised religion has no controlling method.
Other than control of others.

Occam

[J_Lazarus]

Lazarus
My thinking is entirely equivalent to their's - and the reason for my providing those links was for your own opportunity to study up.

If you're not interested in understanding the faults of your views - what, precisely, makes you different from the views of common religionists?

Again, to say a universal negative cannot be proven is a gross misunderstanding of logic. Logic itself is a process of weeding out contradictions from our thought - would be rather odd if it couldn't disprove things, wouldn't you say?

Lazarus

If your thinking is equivalent to theirs...

Then why would occam bother talking to you...
You are the mouthpiece for others ideas.
Did you have those ideas first?
Occam thinks not.

You have little idea of what occam is interested in.

What universal negative is that?
Reason/logic does not disprove negatives...

It gives example of where positives [thoeries of what is] do not hold true to observation.
If there is such an example. Then a theory must be revised, or abandoned.


Occam
lol - oh please, and every single idea that you hold is entirely original, huh? Give me a break. When I say that my thinking is the same as their's, I mean that I support everything that they are saying.

The more important question is rather why I should bother talking to you, when you have such a gross misunderstanding of logic. Obviously you did not read the links I provided, otherwise you wouldn't continue standing by this idiocy.

Firstly, a universal negative can be proven if that thing under consideration contradicts itself. Contradictions cannot exist. Secondly, a universal negative can be proven if an idea comes into conflict with what we already know is true - and in that case, it does not correspond with what has been established as reality, and may be rejected. Thirdly, we can prove a negative via route of hypothesis - a good example of this would be phlogiston. And lastly we can disprove a universal negative by "carefully looking and observing" - as said by the II.

Once again - the role of logic is to weed out contradictions from our thinking. To say that a universal negative cannot be proven is to go against the very nature of logic. Before you run around spouting nonsense such as this, I recommend you read a thing or two (perhaps the links I provided before, since if you had read them, you wouldn't have responded back with something so retarded).

- Laz

[BlackGuardXIII]

lol - oh please, and every single idea that you hold is entirely original, huh? Give me a break. When I say that my thinking is the same as their's, I mean that I support everything that they are saying.

The more important question is rather why I should bother talking to you, when you have such a gross misunderstanding of logic. Obviously you did not read the links I provided, otherwise you wouldn't continue standing by this idiocy.

Firstly, a universal negative can be proven if that thing under consideration contradicts itself. Contradictions cannot exist. Secondly, a universal negative can be proven if an idea comes into conflict with what we already know is true - and in that case, it does not correspond with what has been established as reality, and may be rejected. Thirdly, we can prove a negative via route of hypothesis - a good example of this would be phlogiston. And lastly we can disprove a universal negative by "carefully looking and observing" - as said by the II.

Once again - the role of logic is to weed out contradictions from our thinking. To say that a universal negative cannot be proven is to go against the very nature of logic. Before you run around spouting nonsense such as this, I recommend you read a thing or two (perhaps the links I provided before, since if you had read them, you wouldn't have responded back with something so retarded).

- Laz
You sound like one that would do very well as a philosophy major. There is little I can say that I find fault with in your post except the tone, which I find classless. I like your grasp of the methodology of scientific experimentation, and logical deduction re: disproving through contradiction.
Critical thinking skills will take you far in life, and are far too rare amongst the general population.
Occam is a wise person. I agree with most all that he has posted, and this is comforting to me. Logic is a very important quality to have a strong grasp of, but it has its limitations. In my world, anyway. For example, I have had precognitive dreams more than once. Logic dictates that this cannot be so, yet it is. I have found that my life experiences have often defied logical explanation.
I should have been killed a couple of times at least, yet walked away unharmed. Also, I have a strong belief in the power of love to overcome anything. It is only my belief, and I expect no one to change their beliefs except by their own research and decisionmaking.
If you and I disagree, I feel we can both still be right, so I have no wish to make others believe as I do.

[Razorofoccam]

Lazarus

Logic is all around us.
Occam learns from it..
More so than the formal logic of human books..
They give some insight...
But are not LAW.
Just human perspective. [on law]

Yes..MOST of occams understanding is from others.Their efforts,
their thinking...
And he assumes that as rational beings...
They would be happy to have occam use their understanding as he saw fit.
And he does..
His understanding is a collation/deduction of all he has read and experienced.
And he fears not the saying of it..
He never said his ideas are original...ever.
Just that his ideas may be valid variations of others thought.

What occam was commenting on..Was that YOU should speak the words.
Your words..For the concepts others devise.
And put your stamp of variation on them.
By saying them.

Occam will not read OTHERS words..to find out what you think...
You have to work ...
You have to make an effort to compile and propose...
Otherwise..you are a mouthpiece.

Your statement
"A universal negative can be proven if that thing contradicts itself"
and
" to say a universal negative cannot be proven is to go against the very nature of logic."

You must first...
Understand the TOTALLITY OF REALITY.
To prove a negative...
Only with total understanding and knowledge.
Can it be done.

Occam is a pragmatist...he does not think such is possible for any individual or race..or god..
For any to know ALL..they must be greater than ALL
A contradiction :)
Thus to prove a negative is a contradiction...hmmmmm?

Logic/reason and the scientific method...
Is about invalidating theoritical propositions [positives] by introduction of invalidating phenomena. [where they do not hold true.]

And also..dont make assumptions about how much occam has read...
It may backfire.
You are 19 yes...
A great age.. [but any age is a great age]
Occam has read more books than you have had meals. at 3 a day.
And he has NO reason to brag...reading is... a bloody slow way to get information. Occam knows this..empirically. And he is a speed reader.
And somewhat idetic.
And you might call this personal?
Occam would recall
Your statement
"Before you run around spouting nonsense such as this...I reccomend you read a thing or two"

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

reading is... a bloody slow way to get information. Occam knows this..empirically. And he is a speed reader.

lol

how true. I have found the same.
Wouldn't it be nice to get it from the source, ie: God, which it appears happened with a friend of mine. She reads little becuz she is a poor reader. Can't spell, and has not finished highschool.
Yet, she has described many things to me that I only learned from years of study.

Oh well, we all have our own path......

I agree with what you say about totality of reality too. Any time I was certain of something, I was proved wrong. Nothing is for certain, nothing is 'fact'......to me.

[Razorofoccam]

reading is... a bloody slow way to get information. Occam knows this..empirically. And he is a speed reader.

lol

how true. I have found the same.
Wouldn't it be nice to get it from the source, ie: God, which it appears happened with a friend of mine. She reads little becuz she is a poor reader. Can't spell, and has not finished highschool.
Yet, she has described many things to me that I only learned from years of study.

Oh well, we all have our own path......

I agree with what you say about totality of reality too. Any time I was certain of something, I was proved wrong. Nothing is for certain, nothing is 'fact'......to me.
Blackguard

Yah...Occam has met those who have little education..and do not read...
Yet they are wise of the ways of us...

They have a gift to understanding...
Not of events..but of humans,,,ands subsequently the causes of human events..
A different perspective

Occam takes the long path..He tries to understand us..By learning what we were and may be..

Information is benign
People are volatile..unpredictable..

As he said before...There is nothing to fear in reality..But people.

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

I do not fear people. For over 15 years I thought I feared nothing. I was wrong. When my fiance was clinging to life, and her survival was unknown, I was terrified. More than ever in my life. What a wake up call.
People seem to try to scare me, but it has no effect on me, to some of them quite a surprise. One man grabbed my throat while describing a fight to me, and I could see his confusion in his eyes when I did not respond. It did not raise my pulse one beat. Though he was a stranger, he went on to tell me I was now a good friend of his.

Occam has met those who have little education..and do not read...
Yet they are wise of the ways of us...

They have a gift to understanding...
Not of events..but of humans,,,ands subsequently the causes of human events..
A different perspective

I agree, but the case I referred to was one where a woman described in quite specific detail, scenes from the Tibetan Book of the Dead. She also described other historical events quite clearly, though did not know the names of the characters involved. I told her their names.
I just wanted to clarify what I meant.

Information is benign, unless it is presented in a manner to instill hatred.
In Israeli and Palestinian primary schools, the curriculum is mostly the same, but where it differs, the information is biased and anything but benign.

I agree that people are unpredictable, yet, I feel not as much so as they would like to believe. Skinner's conditioning research does have some merit.

[Razorofoccam]

I do not fear people. For over 15 years I thought I feared nothing. I was wrong. When my fiance was clinging to life, and her survival was unknown, I was terrified. More than ever in my life. What a wake up call.
People seem to try to scare me, but it has no effect on me, to some of them quite a surprise. One man grabbed my throat while describing a fight to me, and I could see his confusion in his eyes when I did not respond. It did not raise my pulse one beat. Though he was a stranger, he went on to tell me I was now a good friend of his.

Occam has met those who have little education..and do not read...
Yet they are wise of the ways of us...

They have a gift to understanding...
Not of events..but of humans,,,ands subsequently the causes of human events..
A different perspective

I agree, but the case I referred to was one where a woman described in quite specific detail, scenes from the Tibetan Book of the Dead. She also described other historical events quite clearly, though did not know the names of the characters involved. I told her their names.
I just wanted to clarify what I meant.

Information is benign, unless it is presented in a manner to instill hatred.
In Israeli and Palestinian primary schools, the curriculum is mostly the same, but where it differs, the information is biased and anything but benign.

I agree that people are unpredictable, yet, I feel not as much so as they would like to believe. Skinner's conditioning research does have some merit.
Blackguard

Well said.

As to fear...Occam said in an earlier post a few weeks back
[antiquity :)]
That human evil can strike at the ones he loves and cares for..
That is fear.

As to your friends abillity to describe details from such a book.
Another in a HUGE list of unexplained phenomena that humans have
experienced..
This list is a potent reminder that we dont know it all.

Occam supports totally your refference to information taught in schools that is not impartial. The teaching of 'opinion' or outright lies to children.
Dressing it as fact...
Is abhorrent..
And also,,must agree that infomation shaped by MIND as it also shapes bullets..can be just about as benigh as one of those bullets.
He badly expressed the concept that MIND is what chooses to harm.
The method of doing so is then of small issue...

Correct ;)
Should have been
people 'can be' volatile, unpredictable....
Or do a 180..
'mostly halmless' ....[d.Adams]

Have to sleep now...

Bye

[J_Lazarus]

Lazarus

Logic is all around us.
Occam learns from it..
More so than the formal logic of human books..
They give some insight...
But are not LAW.
Just human perspective. [on law]

Yes..MOST of occams understanding is from others.Their efforts,
their thinking...
And he assumes that as rational beings...
They would be happy to have occam use their understanding as he saw fit.
And he does..
His understanding is a collation/deduction of all he has read and experienced.
And he fears not the saying of it..
He never said his ideas are original...ever.
Just that his ideas may be valid variations of others thought.

What occam was commenting on..Was that YOU should speak the words.
Your words..For the concepts others devise.
And put your stamp of variation on them.
By saying them.

Occam will not read OTHERS words..to find out what you think...
You have to work ...
You have to make an effort to compile and propose...
Otherwise..you are a mouthpiece.

Your statement
"A universal negative can be proven if that thing contradicts itself"
and
" to say a universal negative cannot be proven is to go against the very nature of logic."

You must first...
Understand the TOTALLITY OF REALITY.
To prove a negative...
Only with total understanding and knowledge.
Can it be done.

Occam is a pragmatist...he does not think such is possible for any individual or race..or god..
For any to know ALL..they must be greater than ALL
A contradiction :)
Thus to prove a negative is a contradiction...hmmmmm?

Logic/reason and the scientific method...
Is about invalidating theoritical propositions [positives] by introduction of invalidating phenomena. [where they do not hold true.]

And also..dont make assumptions about how much occam has read...
It may backfire.
You are 19 yes...
A great age..
Occam has read more books than you have had meals. at 3 a day.
And he has NO reason to brag...reading is... a bloody slow way to get information. Occam knows this..empirically. And he is a speed reader.
And somewhat idetic.
And you might call this personal?
Occam would recall
Your statement
"Before you run around spouting nonsense such as this...I reccomend you read a thing or two"

Occam Logic is not an entity that it may be "all around us" - rather, it is a system of laws which describe the things around us, and helps us to discard irrational ideas.

Further, to say "You cannot prove a universal negative" is a universal negative. Your position is self-defeating.

Secondly, no, omniscience is not necessary to realize that something is a contradiction. To say "My first name is James and not James both simultaneously" is not a statement that requires one to know what kind of music Occam likes in order to reject it as false. To say "New Zealand is both South and not South of China" is not a statement that requires one to know the colour of BlackGuard's shoes in order to recognize it as false.

"Logic/reason and the scientific method...
Is about invalidating theoritical propositions [positives] by introduction of invalidating phenomena. [where they do not hold true.]"

What is this, if not proving a negative? That's precisely what proving a negative is - disproving an idea or a proposition as untrue.

Obviously you have *not* read much on logic at all, considering that if you did you wouldn't be holding to such an absurd idea. Your claim that you read often is irrelevant to my recommendation that you read something on [b]this particular topic. You can read tens of thousands of books on the philosophical views of the Vienna Circle, and not know one thing about the life of Ayn Rand. Similarly, you can read all the books you like on any number of topics - but if they are not about logical process, then your statement is irrelevant to this discussion.

The point of my post was not to tell you "what I think" about any particular issue - but rather to provide you information so you could recognize yourself as wrong and then correct yourself. Once again - if you have no desire to do this, then you are no different than the common religionist.

So, once again, I find myself recommending you read a thing or two - like the links that I originally provided.

BlackGuard - you might have found my post "classless", which is fine. But I have no patience for an individual who holds to a common myth and then discards attempts to help him, continuing to spout nonsense. You might have the tolerance to bear their company - I don't.

- Laz

[Razorofoccam]

Lazarus

The method of science
It is invalidating a proposed positive... or dont you believe that is possible?

And my friend..get of the
"you have not read much logic' wagon

Do you suggest logic only exists in books?
That books are the only way to understand logic...

Logic IS the human interpretation of the process of reality.
It existed in human minds FIRST

Not in books. They are just interpretave perspectives on human logic..
Not the thing itself
[conceptual structure underpinned by observed reality]

The more you tell occam to read the links you forward..
The less likely he is to do it...
For if you cannot say it yourself...in your own words
Then you obviously dont understand it.
Or have so little faith in YOU..that you cannot trust yourself to speak the words you say are truth.

In the 10th book occam read..was a character such as yourself.
10thousand books latter..that character had popped up here and there...

The sycophant to the written word.

Occam

[J_Lazarus]

The method of science
It is invalidating a proposed positive... or dont you believe that is possible?
Duh. If you invalidate an idea you are establishing it's negation. To invalidate the idea that the sun is green is to establish that the sun is NOT green - a negative. You're already conceding my point.

And my friend..get of the
"you have not read much logic' wagon

Do you suggest logic only exists in books?
That books are the only way to understand logic... No - you can gain an understanding of what logic is by observing reality - but actually reading about the system itself formally goes a long way in weeding out your misunderstandings of logic - and this is obviously something you need to do - so no, I'm not "getting off that wagon" - because you actually need to do it.

If you don't want to read the links I provided - that's your problem. I don't have to suffer your life as an idiot, only you do.

For if you cannot say it yourself...in your own words
Then you obviously dont understand it.
Or have so little faith in YOU..that you cannot trust yourself to speak the words you say are truth.
Thank you for conveniently ignoring half of my writing on this page of this thread. I've already said it "in my own words" a million times over. Here:

Firstly, a universal negative can be proven if that thing under consideration contradicts itself. Contradictions cannot exist. Secondly, a universal negative can be proven if an idea comes into conflict with what we already know is true - and in that case, it does not correspond with what has been established as reality, and may be rejected. Thirdly, we can prove a negative via route of hypothesis - a good example of this would be phlogiston. And lastly we can disprove a universal negative by "carefully looking and observing" - as said by the II.

Once again - the role of logic is to weed out contradictions from our thinking. To say that a universal negative cannot be proven is to go against the very nature of logic. Before you run around spouting nonsense such as this, I recommend you read a thing or two (perhaps the links I provided before, since if you had read them, you wouldn't have responded back with something so retarded). And here:

Further, to say "You cannot prove a universal negative" is a universal negative. Your position is self-defeating.

Secondly, no, omniscience is not necessary to realize that something is a contradiction. To say "My first name is James and not James both simultaneously" is not a statement that requires one to know what kind of music Occam likes in order to reject it as false. To say "New Zealand is both South and not South of China" is not a statement that requires one to know the colour of BlackGuard's shoes in order to recognize it as false.

"Logic/reason and the scientific method...
Is about invalidating theoritical propositions [positives] by introduction of invalidating phenomena. [where they do not hold true.]"

What is this, if not proving a negative? That's precisely what proving a negative is - disproving an idea or a proposition as untrue. So it seems that not only are you not reading the links I provided, but you're not reading my posts sufficiently either, and you're still spouting nonsense.

I also note with interest that you haven't responded to a single criticism I've provided of your support for this myth. You haven't responded to my pointing out that you don't need omniscience to disprove something, you haven't responded to my pointing out that your position is self-defeating, and you haven't responded to the numerous ways I've shown that it is possible to prove a negative.

- Laz

[Kharakov]

Truth! Ha! You think that your buddy christ over here is putting that gun in your hand, telling you to kill, you my friend are fucked in the head. Hard. I've never heard of a real christian who believes that, besides the infamous killers. God makes fools too (because they are necessary).
You are in complete control. Isn't this why catholics go confess sins? Definately. God doesn't sin. God is no hyprocrite. Logic (or lack thereof) determines your response to a situation like that. You have no clue. Thoughts happen like breathing, or any other automated process. Actions that you contemplate arise like breathing as well. Consciousness of breathing allows us to control our rate of breathing to a certain extent, however this consciousness is a directed process as well. Are you in control of the neurons in your brain? Are you in control of the molecules in your veins? Are you in control of the thoughts in your mind? No. However, as the mind develops and becomes more fully functional it becomes more aware of the automation it experiences and is designed to experience.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Well, if you know God made you, and you draw the logical conclusion that you are going to do what you were made to do, and then you kill someone, the blood is on God's hands, not yours.


Occam, I am not God. God is the only one who can teach you this. I can tell you the truth, but I do not give you everything that you need to understand it- only God does this.
Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel.
God helps those who help themselves.

I dislike the notion that I can foist the punishment for my sins off onto the messiah so he can pay the price. I refuse to agree to that, I will accept the punishment myself thank you. And I also will not excuse my acting improperly by stating that it was God's will, or the devil made me do it. I did it, and I want to take the blame, the blood is on my hands. If God wants to argue with me about it, by all means, but he better have a better reason than he made me.

[Kharakov]

Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel.
God helps those who help themselves.God helps those who can't help themselves as well.

I dislike the notion that I can foist the punishment for my sins off onto the messiah so he can pay the price.I didn't say the messiah, I said God. (don't know if you are starting a tangent here... the messiah is not responsible for the messiahs message, God is)

I refuse to agree to that, I will accept the punishment myself thank you. And I also will not excuse my acting improperly by stating that it was God's will, or the devil made me do it.God is responsible for the shaping and molding of our will. The actions of our will (that we deem 'bad') are part of the flow of will God has caused and guided.
If God wants to argue with me about it, by all means, but he better have a better reason than he made me.That's sorta silly. :)

[lostblackdog]

How do you really know anything? Just because you can sense it, is it real? What defines reality? How to you explain life in a positive way? That is to say... how do you explain life without saying "Life is NOT.... (something)," and instead say "Life IS... (whatever...)."

With those few questions in mind, how do you NOT know something, or know something does NOT exist? Show me someone who knows something for certain, and I'll show you a fool. Show me someone who knows nothing, and I'll show you a genius. Knowledge of existence isn't any more relevant to life than knowledge of the mechanics of a soap bubble. In fact, I would say it's less. Now unlearning all that you thought you knew? Perhaps that's the real value of Knowledge... I wouldn't know, but that's my own idea as of this time...

You don't know anything about God even if you can "prove" that God does or does not exist. I seriously doubt anyone can prove anything beyond their own experience in the world, and just because something is or isn't real for you, doesn't necessarily mean something is or isn't real for someone else. Don't claim to know anything... especially about something so infinitely vast as God. It makes God's followers angry and people get hurt over things like that... The same is true for people who try to convert non-believers by telling them that God does exist... Like it or not, believe in it or not, the idea of God holds truth for some people out there. Then again, so does the idea that God doesn't exist. Neither one is in the right to try and convert the other. Perhaps it is better to simply accept a difference in perception, and then to move on from such trivial arguments? I can't claim to really know any of this, but for now I believe that the questions we seek answers for aren't in the existence of a God or not, rather they deal more with understanding our own place in the greater scheme of things. Like I said though... I really don't know, but that's my guess...

[Kharakov]

With those few questions in mind, how do you NOT know something, or know something does NOT exist? Show me someone who knows something for certain, and I'll show you a fool. Show me someone who knows nothing, and I'll show you a genius. Plato ("Socrates") is fucking with your head. Show me someone who can be convinced that they know nothing and I will show you a moron.

[lostblackdog]

And you know everything? If you want to show me a moron, I'll gladly accept your personal photographs...

[Kharakov]

And you know everything? No.
If you want to show me a moron, I'll gladly accept your personal photographs... My comment wasn't an ad hominem bent on making you feel bad. I just pointed out that your idea was moronic, and quite possible a joke that plato liked to pull on his 'students', convincing them to proudly say they know nothing (which is obviously negated by this statement, claiming you know nothing is essentially claiming that you have knowledge that you know nothing (duhhh)).

I'm gonna drool on my keyboard for about 15 minutes....

[thumontico]

"Show me someone who knows something for certain, and I'll show you a fool. Show me someone who knows nothing, and I'll show you a genius"

Seems trite and a quick way to look wise and intellectual.

To know nothing is to be open to everything. To know something for certain does not create a fool, knowing something for certain and blocking out other information is the action of a fool. Misinterpreted, perhaps, as in its literal sense, as Kharkov explains, is erroneous.

lostblackdog
because my experience is subjective in no way degrades its actuality. Perhaps it is not your reality, but within my abilities I will define and observe MY reality.

Also why does observing what life is NOT invalidate one's valuation of life?

What I sense is real. How do you define reality without your senses? What I percieve is real enough anyways to base my beliefs upon it. Perceptions of reality are invariable to the collective of whom experience it. But MY reality is not invariable (aside from stoned or sober). My reality is what it is and I feel I have the obligation to understand it as best I can.

[Razorofoccam]

Lazarus
Duh. If you invalidate an idea you are establishing it's negation. To invalidate the idea that the sun is green is to establish that the sun is NOT green - a negative. You're already conceding my point.

Lazarus...
So sorry ..occam conceeds nothing
Occam did not include the rest because he thought it was obvious.

The rest is..

" And when humans CANNOT invalidate a proposed positive.
It becomes a human fact"


Occam

Ps.
Occam is a patient person.
But such as
[quote you]
"I dont have to suffer your life as an idiot..you do"

Are not the comments of wounded ego?

If occam is an idiot,,,then why argue with him?
Finding your level?

[J_Lazarus]

Lazarus
Duh. If you invalidate an idea you are establishing it's negation. To invalidate the idea that the sun is green is to establish that the sun is NOT green - a negative. You're already conceding my point.

Lazarus...
So sorry ..occam conceeds nothing
Occam did not include the rest because he thought it was obvious.

The rest is..

" And when humans CANNOT invalidate a proposed positive.
It becomes a human fact"


Occam

Ps.
Occam is a patient person.
But such as [quote you]
"I dont have to suffer your life as an idiot..you do"

Are not the comments of wounded ego?

If occam is an idiot,,,then why argue with him?
Finding your level? Your additional point is irrelevant. The very fact that we can invalidate an idea is what I'm talking about - that's what proving a negative is. You've already conceded my point but you refuse to recognize it.

As for why I'm arguing with you: I can't stand listening to idiocy without responding - I'm too passionate about philosophy to do that, and I especially can't stand listening to idiocy which is in direct response to something I myself have said.

Wounded ego my ass. Your comments are getting shorter and shorter because you refuse to address any of my criticisms. Try again - here - I'll even post them again for you:

Firstly, a universal negative can be proven if that thing under consideration contradicts itself. Contradictions cannot exist. Secondly, a universal negative can be proven if an idea comes into conflict with what we already know is true - and in that case, it does not correspond with what has been established as reality, and may be rejected. Thirdly, we can prove a negative via route of hypothesis - a good example of this would be phlogiston. And lastly we can disprove a universal negative by "carefully looking and observing" - as said by the II.

Once again - the role of logic is to weed out contradictions from our thinking. To say that a universal negative cannot be proven is to go against the very nature of logic. Before you run around spouting nonsense such as this, I recommend you read a thing or two (perhaps the links I provided before, since if you had read them, you wouldn't have responded back with something so retarded). And:

Further, to say "You cannot prove a universal negative" is a universal negative. Your position is self-defeating.

Secondly, no, omniscience is not necessary to realize that something is a contradiction. To say "My first name is James and not James both simultaneously" is not a statement that requires one to know what kind of music Occam likes in order to reject it as false. To say "New Zealand is both South and not South of China" is not a statement that requires one to know the colour of BlackGuard's shoes in order to recognize it as false.

"Logic/reason and the scientific method...
Is about invalidating theoritical propositions [positives] by introduction of invalidating phenomena. [where they do not hold true.]"

What is this, if not proving a negative? That's precisely what proving a negative is - disproving an idea or a proposition as untrue. And:

No - you can gain an understanding of what logic is by observing reality - but actually reading about the system itself formally goes a long way in weeding out your misunderstandings of logic - and this is obviously something you need to do - so no, I'm not "getting off that wagon" - because you actually need to do it.

If you don't want to read the links I provided - that's your problem. I don't have to suffer your life as an idiot, only you do. Concluding in:

I also note with interest that you haven't responded to a single criticism I've provided of your support for this myth. You haven't responded to my pointing out that you don't need omniscience to disprove something, you haven't responded to my pointing out that your position is self-defeating, and you haven't responded to the numerous ways I've shown that it is possible to prove a negative.
Waiting. Waiting for days now, in fact.


- Laz

[lostblackdog]

Kharakov: As far as my idea being moronic... I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess that you must be a smarter man than I am, and therefore I should bend over and kiss your genius ass. Did you ever consider that perhaps Plato wanted his students to remain humble and realize that they didn't know everything there is to know... unlike some people out there.....

You never cease to amaze me with your infinite wisdom and your insecure way of always bringing people down... way to go. I hope your mommy's proud.

Thumontico: As far as you saying I'm wrong - who died and made your paradigm king? Who made mine king either? No one. No one knows anything for certain because nothing in this world can be proven. Read some Karl Popper and a lil' Kuhn and call me in the morning.... just kidding. All we have are educated guesses on how reality works. Now then, let's take states of the mind that we might go under when we get drunk or stoned.... what's to say that some of the things you perceive are not real? Yes, that's through your senses, but that's usually something perceived from something other than the five senses.

What can the five senses tell us? Only five things about an object if even that many. Could there be things that transcend the five senses that we do not sense? Are there things of this world that exist but we do not perceive them or cannot perceive them? That's the reason I say I know nothing... I guess I rely on the same senses and empirical data that you do, but then again... what happens when it's internalized and translated in the mind? We don't really know, but we have a good guess. Therefore, we don't really know anything... and by thinking we know something, we all too often close the doors of individual perception and go with what our particular paradigm agrees with. Therefore, we are always closing the doors and blocking other options simply because they don't fit within our paradigms for reality. That's why I made my above statement... not to sound wise at all. I would never claim to be wise at all, rather I would claim to have my eyes opened to different views, although I am unsure of how to interpret most of them based on the paradigms I have grown with that I am continually tearing down.

All in all, I'm agreeing with a lot of what you said, but I'm also calling you to transcend the five senses and look for more within yourself. Perhaps it sounds crazy, but how do you know until you have tried. That is where the metaphysical realm comes into our lives.... That which is "Beyond Physics." Greek root word Meta- Beyond and Physics. You aren't stupid, so don't tell me I'm wrong, and don't tell anyone their wrong... unless that person is our President... in which case I'll forgive you. Instead, tell your opinion and realize that you only know things based upon YOUR paradigm, and to shoot down another paradigm is to be a fool. That blocks information and data that might mean you have to reshape your paradigm, but in the end, you'll begin to gain a better understanding of the truth. To look at something from only one angle is a very egotistical action, and we all know what happens when we allow egotism to controll us... we get baby republicans and slavery... mmmm... injustice!

I'm not saying you're stupid or even trying to call you out and be a jackass like some of the people here, and I'm sorry if I might have hinted at that earlier, but this is all in good fun because I like debating egotism and paradigms. I'm just asking you to take that extra step and transcend what you think you know, and look for answers to the questions you know you don't know.

As far as why I don't accept negative explanations of things, I simply want to know what you think something IS rather than what it ISN'T. For instance... tell me what freedom IS rather than what it ISN'T and you'll be one of the first in a long time...

Peace.

As far as the atheists go... you guys keep doing your own thing. I don't understand why you would want to live that way, and I'm not going to discredit you, but I will say that I find it funny that while atheism is on the rise, it's also the path that loses the most members each year. I wonder if my kids will be atheists because they believe in it, or because all the cool kids are doing it... oh well... it's just a phase.

[Razorofoccam]

Lazarus

Fair enough

Occam does not exist.
a universal negative?

Quote you
"A universal contradiction can be proven if that thing under consideration contradicts itself"

If it is,, then why not simply call it what it is ,, a contradiction.
If universal neatives can only be contradiction.

Then 'proving a universal negative' is a big way of saying 'contradiction'.
Maybe you are 'too' passionate about philosophy.
And are impressed by big sounding concepts that are actually
simple.

Also,, occam points out that 'i reason therefore i exist'
Is the only "absolute fact" known to humans.
Thus ' i do not exist' is the only absolute contradiction.
Or, 'universal negative' as you like to call it..

So occam will conceed that there is one absolute contradiction
one 'universal negative' that can be proven.

But ,, as nothing beyond 'i reason therefore i exist'
Can be shown logically to be an absolute fact...
Then it cannot be shown to be an contradiction.
[universal negative]

Occam

PS..Sorry if you had to wait for 'days' for reply..
Occam has 3 lifetimes worth of things to do.
And only one lifetime to do them in..
So if talking to you on hairsplit definitions gets shoved down the list of what is important.
Then he hopes you understand.
;)

[thumontico]

That blocks information and data that might mean you have to reshape your paradigm, but in the end, you'll begin to gain a better understanding of the truth.
To know nothing is to be open to everything. To know something for certain does not create a fool, knowing something for certain and blocking out other information is the action of a fool.
That is pretty much what I am saying. I would not say that someone knows something for certain is a fool, necessarily, however. Because no matter how certain one claims to be, their credibility is ultimately reliant on the invariability of subjective observation. Which is not all that reliable when you reduce it to its core. But to my point, to rely on something, and to be certain of it, is possible for all intents and purposes of a given situation. And most importantly to be certain does not imply, necessarily, the blocking out other information or possibilities. So to be certain is to rely on a guess or estimation or some other subjective valuation to begin with. The man that labels himself certain is only certain to a reducible degree, and therefore, logic and reason applied, only possesses the knowledge of a probability.

Which leads into:


What can the five senses tell us? Only five things about an object if even that many. Could there be things that transcend the five senses that we do not sense? Are there things of this world that exist but we do not perceive them or cannot perceive them? That's the reason I say I know nothing... I guess I rely on the same senses and empirical data that you do, but then again... what happens when it's internalized and translated in the mind? We don't really know, but we have a good guess. Therefore, we don't really know anything... and by thinking we know something, we all too often close the doors of individual perception and go with what our particular paradigm agrees with. Therefore, we are always closing the doors and blocking other options simply because they don't fit within our paradigms for reality. That's why I made my above statement... not to sound wise at all. I would never claim to be wise at all, rather I would claim to have my eyes opened to different views, although I am unsure of how to interpret most of them based on the paradigms I have grown with that I am continually tearing down.
Yes we all function under presupositions. The line between them is probablity and improbability. I say I am certain this chair exists I am merely recognizing that the neural input I recieve (touch, sight, perhaps hearing, perhaps any of them really) is probably accurate in its portrayal of what I have been conditioned to recognize as a chair. My mind organized the information and formed as my perception what appears to be a chair. I accept that, but I do not deny the possibility that the chair is a dragon, necessarily. And upon stimuli indicating such I would accept its existence as a dragon. However, to say the chair (or dragon) has a soul is presupposing that another realm exists outside our ability to percieve. However, I presuppose that the chair does not have a soul (as I presuppose I do not). So we both presuppose something with no epistemological grounding. I presuppose my understanding of my surrounding to what I percieve, while I understand the probability does exist that something I cannot percieve, in fact, exists. So essentially, I presuppose a non spiritual world (subjective observation) and will continue to until given reason otherwise. But that is not to say when I experience something strange (spiritual) I will immediately accept the epistemologically unfounded valuations of those who experienced something similar in the past. The likelihood is that instead of there actually existing another realm (spiritual, perhaps), in fact, I or whoever, is hallucinating in some fashion. In fact unless it is completely original, the argument can be made that it is likely a hallucination influenced by your already present perceptions what a spiritual experience might be like. Whether they interpret a surge of happiness to be the product of divine presence (or what have you), it is ultimately more likely that the endorphin levels in the person's synapes was induced by an explainable phenomena of this reality. That is to say, in any case, I will accept what can be logically explained to an acceptable degree before I accept spiritual occurence to an illogical degree.

So I accept the possibility that there is something I cannot percieve and leave myself completely open to such an experience. But will not determine necessarily the existence of what the human race has determined the existence of that particular subject(soul, or whatever the unoriginal experience is, assuming it is not original) Yogananda believed (I think), that the connection between the soul or life energy or prana (I don't remember) was some part of the brain. So naturally, presupposing that this is a perceptive organ, would lead one to accept the possibility of such a connection and subsequently a soul. If it was determined true by scientific means, I would then be obligated to realize that IT is a reasonable phenomena, reasonably explained. But assuming an experience with no actual physical evidence is REAL is presupposing dangerously. I presuppose my beliefs on probability, many base their's on improbable phenomena that could be reasonbly and rationaly explained in this reality. But they disreguard that, for they are certain that what they have experienced is necessarily what they describe. And thus presuppose too much, and stake their morality and entire perceptions of reality on said presupposition . So I am not denying the possibility, I am denying the probability.


As far as why I don't accept negative explanations of things, I simply want to know what you think something IS rather than what it ISN'T. For instance... tell me what freedom IS rather than what it ISN'T and you'll be one of the first in a long time...
Perhaps I am over simplifying your point, but would it not be "being able to do what you want to do"?

As far as the atheists go... you guys keep doing your own thing. I don't understand why you would want to live that way, and I'm not going to discredit you, but I will say that I find it funny that while atheism is on the rise, it's also the path that loses the most members each year. I wonder if my kids will be atheists because they believe in it, or because all the cool kids are doing it... oh well... it's just a phase.
I don't know any atheists in my non-internet forum interaction, so I cannot agree necessarily that it is on the rise. However, I do doubt that a real atheist would actually be concerned with the perceptions of others, to the point of renouncing their belief. I would guess that a person may realize the non existence of god, realize how shitty it is without Him, and go back to theism, for it is more comfortable. But I do doubt even that possibility.

[Kharakov]

Kharakov: As far as my idea being moronic... I'm sorry you feel that way.No you aren't and neither am I. Hopefully you don't go around telling people "I know nothing" while feeling intellectually superior to them.

I guess that you must be a smarter man than I am, and therefore I should bend over and kiss your genius ass.Apparently. I won't argue with this.

Did you ever consider that perhaps Plato wanted his students to remain humble and realize that they didn't know everything there is to know...No. That wasn't what Plato was doing. I will tell you a story that should shed light on this matter:

There once was a very pious man who became a saint. He lived a good life, did good deeds, and eventually was to make his way to heaven. However, there was a bit a trouble in this mans youth, when he was wild and lustful. One day the man saw a beautiful woman bathing in a stream and said aloud "I would give the soul of my little toe to make love to her for one night". The devil popped out of a bush and said "Done."

In heaven, many years later, this saint was sitting among flowers and angels moaning in pain. Another man walked up to him and said "What is wrong, everything is perfect here, this is the first I have heard anyone cry in pain since I have arrived." The saint said "Well, the devils daughter has the soul of my toe do to a wild act I commited during my youth. Every once in a while she takes out the soul of my toe and squeezes it and forms it into different shapes." Socrates looked over at the saint slyly and said "Give's a whole new meaning to PlayDough, doesn't it?"
You never cease to amaze me with your infinite wisdom and your insecure way of always bringing people down... way to go.Thank you. Are you sure you are not brought down by your own insecurity?

[lostblackdog]

Perhaps I should have posted in the psychic forum because I think everyone who has read Kharakov's genius posts before, was able to predict exactly how he would respond. You're right again though old friend... I'm not sorry at all. Maybe I'll have to spell it out for you now so you don't get confused later, but I was being sarcastic, but then again, so were you... Honestly man, let people shed some light on here without you trying to be all witty and smart, and surprise us all for once. Oh, and one more thing... I never feel intellectually superior to anyone, hell, not even to an infant. Perhaps some of the greatest wisdom is lost rather than gained? I don't know... I simply challenge people to look beyond what they think they know because I've never met someone who can explain everything I want answers for. With that being said, you nor I know the truth of the world, and that's all I'm looking for. You're little anecdote was slightly humerous, but saints and Plato really have nothing to do with each other. I hope santa brings you a firetruck for Christmas because you're going to need one hell of a ladder to get over yourself man... seriously


Thumontico, I think you have a very firm ground for your beliefs, and I am happy that you have found an understanding of the world that works for you. It really is rare to find someone who can actually defend their position so well without getting into petty quarrels like above, and I certainly commend you on that. The only reason I said the thing about Atheists at the bottom of my post (and I almost considered not doing that as I think it would draw away from my central message), was because I am a student of Sociology, and I actually have done research on the acceptance and denial of atheism in today's society. I'll agree with you on a lot of what you said, but I think that perhaps the soul is more than just a physical place, rather I believe it is simply the energy in our bodies... magnetic, electrical... who knows... I think that when we die the energy goes somewhere, but I don't know where... It supposedly can't be created or destroyed, so perhaps there is some sort of metaphysical occurence that happens rather than us simply dying, but I don't know how much I believe in some diety controlling my spirit after death.

Have you ever dabbled in researching Native American or Pagan theology and actually looking at multiple sources? Not saying I want to convert you or anything, but I find that many people tend to only have exposure to the Christian idea of God, and not the gods that other faiths and practices tend to lean to. Even Christians lean to the idea of multiple gods or representations of God... I don't really have a structured faith, rather I just respect and acknowledge the existence of these masculine and feminine energies in our world and in life. I don't really have a name for any God I worship, and I don't really worship, rather I accept the energies and live my life according to how things feel intuitively rather than necessarily how they should work out.

Take my organ I got for instance. I saw it at a house my college bought, and I offered to take it off their hands and pay them $200 for it. I knew the organ would be mine, and I even knew it would be in the room I currently occupy, but did I understand the image that suddenly popped in my mind? Hell no. It was a feminine image with a blue room and my friend Jeffrey was there.... a friend I hadn't heard from in 5 months, and yet he was my best friend... he's just had some issues with parents and cellphones. A few weeks later, they painted the room blue, and I saw the image again, but the organ was gone and they were selling it at an auction I heard. I dismissed the image and then the people in my dorm started using the extra room as "the sex room." Out of the blue, dead serious man, but I'm sure you'll be very speculative of this... my friend Ted came back from Iraq, Jeffrey got lost and ended up down the interstate from the school and he called my phone as soon as I saw Ted show up to surprise me from Iraq, and it was the Autumnal equinox. Jeffrey was a practicing metaphysician and he taught me a lot of his stuff, but man... if you knew this guy you would be in chills to hear what happened next. We all hung out that night, and Jeffrey had a little to drink and smoke, and he ended up wanting to have sex in the sex room with his new girlfriend. They did their thing and Jeffrey was a little weak (about 5'8" and 95 lbs) so he decided to go outside to throw up, but he didn't make it... Jeffrey threw up right across the hall from the sex room, and all over the door of my old roomate who's door he has thrown up on accidentally three times in the last three years.... He had no idea it was that guy's room, but damn, it was hilarious. I got my friend's puke all cleaned up while he took a shower in commons bathroom and disposed of his personal item from his previous activity, and then he had his woman drive him home and he stayed there for two more days.

I got up the next day to find a very troubled suitemate holding Jeffrey's pentagram necklace... one with blue stones embedded into the surrounding astrological symbols. He said Jeffrey had left that along with a soiled condom in the bathroom, but that he had taken care of the condom and he handed me the pentagram so i could give it back to Jeffrey. You have to understand that Jeffrey would find this hilarious to read ba