# you're god does not exist



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 5, 2012)

how would you respond to this ?


----------



## hotrodharley (Oct 5, 2012)

Sure He does and He even has a wicked sense of humor. He made you didn't He?


----------



## hotrodharley (Oct 5, 2012)

And learn to spell. He made teachers too.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 5, 2012)

It is simple. If your claim is that God does not exist, the burden of proof falls to you.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 5, 2012)

i dont , i have yet to come upon any evidence any god any human has claimed to exist , does exist .


----------



## lokie (Oct 5, 2012)

Why do you care?


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 5, 2012)

if i was presented with the evidence a god exists i would except it , and believe in a god , but up untill now no one has ever come up wid a good reason to believe in a god ? anyone out there got any good reasons ?


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 5, 2012)

lokie said:


> Why do you care?


because i hate to see my fellow human beings mislead in such an evil way .


----------



## lokie (Oct 5, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> because i hate to see my fellow human beings mislead in such an evil way .


then you wish to be the guiding light?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 5, 2012)

people should guide themselves

or find real roll models in life to try to attain to be like


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 5, 2012)

lokie said:


> then you wish to be the guiding light?


not really a guiding light but more a 'slap in the cake hole ' kinda ting , quit believing in bullshit , and use logical reasoning to decide wether that mo fucker in the cukoo clouds actualy exists .


----------



## Dwezelitsame (Oct 5, 2012)

you could be right that your god does not exist 

but my god does exist i am 62 an 1/2 an i get reminded ofeten of my creators existance 
but i hahve also learned that the devil exists as well there are two energys you can follow the dark side if you chose 

basically is up to you almost like the crtoon wit angel on one shoulder an devil on other speaking in your ear 
you can listen to whichever you choose 



I an I 
Rastafari


----------



## hotrodharley (Oct 5, 2012)

Religion - the opiate of the masses. Certainly many here can relate to that.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 5, 2012)

Dwezelitsame said:


> you could be right that your god does not exist
> 
> but my god does exist i am 62 an 1/2 an i get reminded ofeten of my creators existance
> but i hahve also learned that the devil exists as well there are two energys you can follow the dark side if you chose
> ...


please share what it is that makes you disregard everything you have ever learned throughout those 60+ years on earth , that cements in your mind that this god exists , coz im being honest in 30 years on this planet ive not come across one single piece of evidence that any god any human has ever mentioned actualy exists , all i hear is 'god talks to me ' 'there is things god does to remind me 'its all nonsense ,.


----------



## lokie (Oct 5, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> not really a guiding light but more a 'slap in the cake hole ' kinda ting , quit believing in bullshit , and use logical reasoning to decide wether that mo fucker in the cukoo clouds actualy exists .


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 5, 2012)

lokie said:


> Why do you care?


why dont you care ? that your own species is being tricked and lied to ?


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 5, 2012)

There is no logical argument or objective evidence anyone can offer for the existence of a god. It all comes down to faith, which can be demonstrated to be wishful thinking in disguise, or to personal experience, i.e. intuition, which can be demonstrated to be highly unreliable. 

So it comes down to...

I believe in god because I want it to be true

I believe in god because I feel it to be true

The question then becomes one of inconsistency. Why does God get granted belief based on either of these qualifications, when other important areas of life do not. Would you give a drug to your child with only the reassurance that doctors 'feel' it will not harm him, or they wish that it doesn't? Would you invest your savings into something because it 'feels' like you will get a return, or would you want evidence and demonstration?

I have never heard a good answer for the inconsistency, leading me to conclude that belief in God is actually a widely accepted yet indefensible delusion.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 5, 2012)

why is it people use logic and evidence in every day life and are completely happy with that , ie , a jumbo jet will stay in the air and land safely ,yet when it comes down to something very important like the existance of a god they let it be dcided by a meaningless word 'faith '


----------



## ProfessorPotSnob (Oct 5, 2012)

[video=youtube;jrtTeVWVzIE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrtTeVWVzIE[/video]God is dead and no one cares . If there is a hell , I ll see you there !


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 5, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> because i hate to see my fellow human beings mislead in such an evil way .


...one thing (for everyone) to remember is that those thoughts say a lot about where we are at in our own development. I'm not slagging you Sat, but those 'fellow intellectual animals' you talk about are your own. Same goes for me. I'm quite flawed, but it's alright. That's the 'whole' point. People are led astray by their own desires. Very simple. Religions do not promote it, reason tells me that.

Here's what matters (imho) - when a church talks about a metaphysical 'fact', some people (those driven by their own desires - "instinctual mind") will see what they want to see. They read into the idea at an animal-minded level. The religious affiliation they claim makes no difference in where they are operating from.


----------



## Geronimo420 (Oct 5, 2012)

God doesn&#8217;t exist what you believe to be a god its actually a devil that suffer from multiple personality disorder.


----------



## marc88101 (Oct 5, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> It is simple. If your claim is that God does not exist, the burden of proof falls to you.


Wow! I have read some dumb stuff but this might take the cake. The claim falls on the people who say he DOES exist. there is no possible way some magical God created us and is pulling the strings. Think about how insane that is! I'm also sure that if people really believed that he did exist, they wouldn't do most of the shit they do. I think most people say they believe as a buffer, just to be safe. But if you really think about it.....its nonsense! God is no different then the pink elephant in my closet!


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 5, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> Wow! I have read some dumb stuff but this might take the cake. The claim falls on the people who say he DOES exist. there is no possible way some magical God created us and is pulling the strings. Think about how insane that is! I'm also sure that if people really believed that he did exist, they wouldn't do most of the shit they do. I think most people say they believe as a buffer, just to be safe. But if you really think about it.....its nonsense! *God is no different then the pink elephant in my closet*!


things you keep in your closet

showme God

show me Pink elephant ding ding ding ding


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 5, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> Wow! I have read some dumb stuff but this might take the cake. The claim falls on the people who say he DOES exist. there is no possible way some magical God created us and is pulling the strings. Think about how insane that is! I'm also sure that if people really believed that he did exist, they wouldn't do most of the shit they do. I think most people say they believe as a buffer, just to be safe. But if you really think about it.....its nonsense! God is no different then the pink elephant in my closet!



*notions for you to re-read Heis' post - the edit button is this way --->*


----------



## marc88101 (Oct 5, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> *notions for you to re-read Heis' post - the edit button is this way --->*


Ummmmm yea, ok!


----------



## Amaximus (Oct 5, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> how would you respond to this ?


I look up and see the Sun everyday.... _MY _god is right there in plain sight.


----------



## smokebros (Oct 5, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> how would you respond to this ?


I would agree, God does not exist. 

Until someone can show me proof, then God remains as real as the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy.


----------



## marc88101 (Oct 5, 2012)

Amaximus said:


> I look up and see the Sun everyday.... _MY _god is right there in plain sight.


pssssst..(wisper) the sun is a planet.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 5, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> Wow! I have read some dumb stuff but this might take the cake. The claim falls on the people who say he DOES exist. there is no possible way some magical God created us and is pulling the strings. Think about how insane that is! I'm also sure that if people really believed that he did exist, they wouldn't do most of the shit they do. I think most people say they believe as a buffer, just to be safe. But if you really think about it.....its nonsense! God is no different then the pink elephant in my closet!


I happen to be atheist but that does not mean I can ignore the rules of logic and evidence. The burden of proof falls to the party making the claim. It does not matter if you claim that god does exist, or you claim he doesn't, the burden falls to the claimer. If you simply say "I am not convinced therefore I do not believe", you are making no claim, and so you need no proof.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, it works both ways. If someone wants to say god does not exist, they need to provide proof. Otherwise they are stating a conclusion based on some element of faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 5, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Oct 5, 2012)

Amaximus said:


> I look up and see the Sun everyday.... _MY _god is right there in plain sight.


see i can buy this in a kind of way . it makes sense to worship the sun as an object ,(not a god ) afterall the sun gives life to everything on this planet .


----------



## Amaximus (Oct 5, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> pssssst..(wisper) the sun is a planet.


Whisper* and the sun is a _star_. And stop changing your remarks. ^^^None of _that _was what you originally wrote.


----------



## Amaximus (Oct 5, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> see i can buy this in a kind of way . it makes sense to worship the sun as an object ,(not a god ) afterall the sun gives life to everything on this planet .


^^This guy gets it... Besides I was being tongue and cheek with my reply...


----------



## Scrotie Mcboogerballs (Oct 5, 2012)

I worship the sun. lol It's called faith for a reason. It's a hope system and for some people it works. I don't care for a lot of different things but I get over it. Just be comfortable in your own skin, that's really hard to do when you concern yourself with other people too much.


----------



## UncleBuck (Oct 5, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> how would you respond to this ?


"you're" grammar does not exist.


----------



## fitzgib (Oct 5, 2012)

all the biggest brains on this planet can not say with conviction how the universe works, how large it is, how it started, what was here before, why its here. so how can anyone know anything about a god whether one exists or not. we will never know. the the closest solar system to ours is 10000 years travelling to get there with current technology. how the fuck are we ever gonna know anything other then what we make up to make us feel intelligent.

get on with your life give and receive love and be happy with that

peace


----------



## Scrotie Mcboogerballs (Oct 5, 2012)

fitzgib said:


> all the biggest brains on this planet can not say with conviction how the universe works, how large it is, how it started, what was here before, why its here. so how can anyone know anything about a god whether one exists or not. we will never know. the the closest solar system to ours is 10000 years travelling to get there with current technology. how the fuck are we ever gonna know anything other then what we make up to make us feel intelligent.
> 
> get on with your life give and receive love and be happy with that
> 
> peace


It's that kind of thinking that gets people absolutely nowhere. Maybe you should look at the evolution of technology before you decide to dismiss space travel and how long it's going to take before we can reach new areas of space. There are senior citizens shitting their pants everyday at the things that we can do now.


----------



## marc88101 (Oct 5, 2012)

Amaximus said:


> Whisper* and the sun is a _star_. And stop changing your remarks. ^^^None of _that _was what you originally wrote.


Pssst,, stars are plantes too.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> Pssst,, stars are [planets] too.


By what definition? cn


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 5, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> how would you respond to this ?


"You are god does not exist" is difficult to parse because of the misapplication of grammar. The way i see it, there are two statements here:
1) You are a god.
2) God does not exist.
(Here the temptation is to complete the syllogism: Therefore, you do not exist.)

And yet you ask for a response. 
Does receiving one not intrinsically refute the thesis? cn


----------



## Straightjacket (Oct 5, 2012)

God and religion are two different things. Religion is man made hocus-pocus, used to intimidate and manipulate. It has nothing to do with God. God if you will is a personal thing. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. It's when I try to get you to stop believing what you believe and start believing what I believe when the trouble starts. Some of the most hideous acts of humanity have been done in the name of religion. All in the name of God. The folly of these zealots who can't see past their own beliefs, miss the whole wonderful structure of this universe. We all can see what we are ready to see. No more. What is the real journey of Human. Can we learn to travel the stars using some meta-physical powers or will we develop a science that allows space travel to be a reality? I don't know, all I can do is look around me at the folly of man and wait for my body to be shed so that I can see the next chapter. In the mean time I'm gonna take another hit and be the best me I can.


----------



## Amaximus (Oct 5, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> Pssst,, stars are plantes too.


Planets* and no.


----------



## 420IAMthatIAM (Oct 5, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> how would you respond to this ?


if you dont believe, then for you he doesnt exist...we are in a time period that is not to convince people to believe, but to get believers to understand that all religion have bits of truth,and that no one religion is the truth.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 5, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I happen to be atheist but that does not mean I can ignore the rules of logic and evidence. The burden of proof falls to the party making the claim. It does not matter if you claim that god does exist, or you claim he doesn't, the burden falls to the claimer. If you simply say "I am not convinced therefore I do not believe", you are making no claim, and so you need no proof.
> 
> That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, it works both ways. If someone wants to say god does not exist, they need to provide proof. Otherwise they are stating a conclusion based on some element of faith.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


Technically, I agree. That said, my 'proof' is one by induction. I can clearly say that the Christian god does not exist. He cannot, too many contradictions. However, saying any god does not exist becomes much harder but is always going to be based on the definition. So first, before I can say god does not exist, we must first clarify what kind of god, because as pointed out, one could worship the sun, which clearly does exist (so far as we can say anything exists). Regarding the point well made about what we don't know based on looking honestly at mankind's ignorance, we still should be able to say that a god that alters physical laws, cannot exist if we are to continue to accept the most basic premises about causality. This type of god would undermine much of what we believe about how the universe works, if cause-effect can be altered, all of physics would come toppling down like a house of cards. This is what Hawking proposed when he said information could be lost in a black hole evaporating, imagine how things would change if we found out a black hole can be created by a magic being? So in spite of the insistence by some scientists that it must remain silent on this issue, i. e. non-overlapping magisteria, I cannot disagree more. Now get a new definition of a god that only has "metaphysical" effects on our physical world, I would then be unable to prove such a being does not exist, but then I have to ask what good does it do if it is something that cannot be explicitly described? Then we devolve into questions about the nature of the metaphysical, spirit, etc., something I have honestly sought from posters like CWE and ee, and the answers, if you can call them that, are typically self-serving and lacking real defining characteristics, eerily similar to the way people define anything subjective.
"I know it when I see it." SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart, describing his threshold test for obscenity, which is not protected speech.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 6, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Technically, I agree. That said, my 'proof' is one by induction. I can clearly say that the Christian god does not exist. He cannot, too many contradictions. However, saying any god does not exist becomes much harder but is always going to be based on the definition. So first, before I can say god does not exist, we must first clarify what kind of god, because as pointed out, one could worship the sun, which clearly does exist (so far as we can say anything exists). Regarding the point well made about what we don't know based on looking honestly at mankind's ignorance, we still should be able to say that a god that alters physical laws, cannot exist if we are to continue to accept the most basic premises about causality. This type of god would undermine much of what we believe about how the universe works, if cause-effect can be altered, all of physics would come toppling down like a house of cards. This is what Hawking proposed when he said information could be lost in a black hole evaporating, imagine how things would change if we found out a black hole can be created by a magic being? So in spite of the insistence by some scientists that it must remain silent on this issue, i. e. non-overlapping magisteria, I cannot disagree more. Now get a new definition of a god that only has "metaphysical" effects on our physical world, I would then be unable to prove such a being does not exist, but then I have to ask what good does it do if it is something that cannot be explicitly described? Then we devolve into questions about the nature of the metaphysical, spirit, etc., something I have honestly sought from posters like CWE and ee, and the answers, if you can call them that, are typically self-serving and lacking real defining characteristics, eerily similar to the way people define anything subjective.
> "I know it when I see it." SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart, describing his threshold test for obscenity, which is not protected speech.


My original post was in response to a post that has since been changed. It said "your god does not exist, prove me wrong. it should be easy". Classic shift of burden of proof.

I agree. The more specific the description of God, the easier it is to rule God out. I like Hitchens take on this when he says he is an a-deist. We can not be thought of as atheist until the theist has justified the jump from deism to theism, which they never do and often get a pass on. The theist often argues for deism and then expects you to conclude from his arguments theism. They do not get the satisfaction of calling us atheist until they have addressed our a-deism. Of course logically any a-deist would have to be an atheist by extension, but it's absurd for the word atheist to exist in the first place, so no surprise the term a-deist is also absurd. Something else pointed out by Hitchens is the theist likes to have it both ways when it comes to the immutable laws of the universe. If the laws are constant and never change, they want to claim evidence of fine tuning and therefore God. If the laws are not constant and get subverted in the case of miracles, this also gets claimed as evidence of God.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 6, 2012)

this is my god


----------



## marc88101 (Oct 6, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> this is my god


Praise the lord!


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 6, 2012)

It's been so long since I've seen a theist vs. atheist thread here, it almost seems fresh. Good to see you Sativa! You can start shit like no one else


----------



## marc88101 (Oct 6, 2012)

Amaximus said:


> Planets* and no.


Do you really not know that stars are considered planets or are you joking? I think they teach us that at age 5.


----------



## marc88101 (Oct 6, 2012)

samwell seed well said:


>


lol!........


----------



## Seedling (Oct 6, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> Do you really not know that stars are considered planets or are you joking? I think they teach us that at age 5.


You have to define your terms. 

Think of an object, such as a ball. The ball is considered an object, which is comprised of smaller objects. The ball is made of smaller particles. Those smaller particles are also made of smaller particles, and so on and so forth. 

In terms of moons, planets, stars, galaxies, and universes, the same holds true of the hierarchy of the ball. The solar system can be considered "the ball" as a single object orbiting the black hole at the center of our galaxy. So the object the galaxy has a core (black hole) and orbiting objects (solar systems). The object the solar system also has a core (our sun), and orbiting objects (planets). The object the Earth-moon has a core (earth) and orbiting object (moon). 

Every object has a core and orbiting object(s). 

The universe is too an object, which orbits a core, along with many other universes orbiting that core at the same time, all the while that entire object (core object and orbiting universes) orbit their core, etc......

The universe is a hierarchy of different scale objects comprised of cores and orbiting objects.

The earth came from the sun!


God is a spirit that resides in people that believe.


----------



## marc88101 (Oct 6, 2012)

Seedling said:


> You have to define your terms.
> 
> Think of an object, such as a ball. The ball is considered an object, which is comprised of smaller objects. The ball is made of smaller particles. Those smaller particles are also made of smaller particles, and so on and so forth.
> 
> ...


I'm really high right now and can't make heads or tails of much at the moment, its 3:52am and i'm not even sure why i'm awake. but yea, what you said sounds pretty good! My chick is asleep next to me and I just tried to get some titty, it didn't go well...


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 6, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> Do you really not know that stars are considered planets or are you joking? I think they teach us that at age 5.


Yes, because that's why we call it the planetary system instead of the solar system... A "Planet" is a body orbiting a star, that is not a star. There are a few more specifics, to be fair. However, unless the sun went out, was generally round, and dropped into an observable orbit around a star, and reflected the light of said star; it would most definitely not be a planet. You probably shouldn't be using kindergarten as a reference, just a suggestion.


----------



## Geronimo420 (Oct 6, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> this is my god


That means I am not atheist anymore because I also pray this goddess


----------



## gaztron3030 (Oct 6, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> Do you really not know that stars are considered planets or are you joking? I think they teach us that at age 5.


LOL dude are you serious? Glad i didn't go to school where you grew up! Is the sun a planet? Stars are like our sun not like earth, a few of them are closer planets but most are distant suns!


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 6, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> Do you really not know that stars are considered planets or are you joking? I think they teach us that at age 5.


You had some bad/misinformed teachers. Stars are not planets. Our sun is a star, not a planet.


----------



## Amaximus (Oct 6, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> Do you really not know that stars are considered planets or are you joking? I think they teach us that at age 5.


LOL. Really? You sure that is your stance? Is that your final answer?


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 6, 2012)

"Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around." - Penn Jellette

"Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have." - Penn Jillette


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 6, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> Do you really not know that stars are considered planets or are you joking? I think they teach us that at age 5.


I think you might have grounds to sue your kindergarten teacher. Planets are nonstellar satellites of stars. Small stars can orbit larger stars, but this is then called a double/multiple star. A star cannot be a planet, the way we use the term. cn


----------



## Trolling (Oct 6, 2012)

hotrodharley said:


> And learn to spell. He made teachers too.


Teachers must not have told you 'he' is not capitalized after the period.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 6, 2012)

Trolling said:


> Teachers must not have told you 'he' is not capitalized after the period.



...for me, it's usually 'a week before, and during'


----------



## Trolling (Oct 6, 2012)

Bah I worded that wrong lol...it was suppose to say, there is no need to keep capitalizing 'he' after the first word.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 6, 2012)

Trolling said:


> Bah I worded that wrong lol...it was suppose to say, there is no need to keep capitalizing 'he' after the first word.


...I didn't know that, thanks. Saves a lot of shifting


----------



## lokie (Oct 6, 2012)

Trolling said:


> Bah I worded that wrong lol...it was suppose to say, there is no need to keep capitalizing 'he' after the first word.


[video=youtube;29BoqCMRBFk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29BoqCMRBFk[/video]


----------



## Ringsixty (Oct 6, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> how would you respond to this ?


Answer : Maybe God does exists and maybe he doesn't.
Be a good person in this life and everything will be OK.


----------



## Trolling (Oct 6, 2012)

This guy gets it. ^


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 7, 2012)

God doesn't exist?! I'm gonna go on a murder spree.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 7, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> how would you respond to this ?


That's a knowledge statement. Since you're making a knowledge statement, not a belief statement, it's safe to say you have proof that god doesn't exist?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


----------



## dtp5150 (Oct 7, 2012)

Last night I told my grandma to grow up and stop worshiping a comic book character. i told her i wish we could take psycadelic mushrooms together and that when I move out of this country and start an organic farm, there will be no place for a shrine. She says catholics are nothing but people that hide homosexuals, lol. People are naturally spiritual.


----------



## dtp5150 (Oct 7, 2012)

Evil has a serious advantage.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 7, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> people should guide themselves
> 
> or find real roll models in life to try to attain to be like


i see what you did there... 

instead of role models, you subverted my expectations with a homonym so it's models who roll (and in this contexts, the rolling is probably Joints!) which is highly relevant to my interests and extremely sexy, while most ROLE models are not sexy at all. 

the commonly celebrated role model madeline albright killed more boners than viagra has created. she's like joseph mengele for wood. 

huh? 

oh yeah... boners.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 7, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I didn't know that, thanks. Saves a lot of shifting


Apple researchers are perfecting the automatic keyboard ... cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 7, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> "Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around." - Penn Jellette
> 
> "Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have." - Penn Jillette





" ".~Teller.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 7, 2012)

^Telling. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 7, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> ^Telling. cn


yeah it looked funnier with some empty spaces between the quotes.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 7, 2012)

I think the one empty space is perfect. No point in a whole lotta nothing. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 7, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I think the one empty space is perfect. No point in a whole lotta nothing. cn


but so little nothing leaves the nothing feeling unsatisfying. i prefer my nothing to have more substance. 

like harpo marx.


----------



## Trolling (Oct 7, 2012)

dtp5150 said:


> Last night I told my grandma to grow up and stop worshiping a comic book character. i told her i wish we could take psycadelic mushrooms together and that when I move out of this country and start an organic farm, there will be no place for a shrine. She says catholics are nothing but people that hide homosexuals, lol. People are naturally spiritual.


That wasn't very nice, everyone has the right to believe in what they want, telling someone that (especially your grandmother) is very disrespectful. Not that I do or don't believe in a god, you can't prove that there is one or not, so even just by saying "stop believing in a comic book character" is flawed.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 7, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> but so little nothing leaves the nothing feeling unsatisfying. i prefer my nothing to have more substance.
> 
> like harpo marx.


I guess that's something. cn


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 8, 2012)

Trolling said:


> That wasn't very nice, everyone has the right to believe in what they want, telling someone that (especially your grandmother) is very disrespectful. Not that I do or don't believe in a god, you can't prove that there is one or not, so even just by saying "stop believing in a comic book character" is flawed.


I learned that lesson by essentially doing the same thing with my dad. After, I felt really guilty, some people at that age just kind of _need_ it to be content with their lives. Not that it affected his belief, but questioning it seemed wrong after I did it. 

and that goes completely against my own beliefs.. 

interesting...


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 8, 2012)

Trolling said:


> That wasn't very nice, everyone has the right to believe in what they want, telling someone that (especially your grandmother) is very disrespectful. Not that I do or don't believe in a god, you can't prove that there is one or not, so even just by saying "stop believing in a comic book character" is flawed.


I would agree that it is not tactful, but I am not so sure it is disrespectful. This is assuming that it was the topic of conversation and he didn't just blurt it out as a random attack. I think it can be demonstrated that religion fosters delusions rather than beliefs. Beliefs arise from the mechanism of our brains trying to distinguish what information we gather is true and which is false, as it would be a waste of time and energy to act on false information, not to mention dangerous. Beliefs are therefore based on some sort of reasoning, in fact the better the reasoning, the more solid the belief. Religious ideas subvert the very intention of a belief system by operating on the opposite sentiment; That which is reasoned against is still important to pay attention to. Religion, belief in god, can not offer one shred of logical reasoning or objective evidence, yet still wants to be called a belief. When we hold an idea in the same regards as a belief, yet that idea lacks the fundamental properties of a belief, we call it a delusion.

So when a religious person asks you to respect their beliefs, they are operating under a false premise. We are not required to respect delusions.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 8, 2012)

Is it disrespectful to disrespect a belief of someone we respect? Or are we not really 'disrespecting' it or them by disagreeing with their belief?


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 8, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Is it disrespectful to disrespect a belief of someone we respect? Or are we not really 'disrespecting' it or them by disagreeing with their belief?


Calling Jesus a comic book character is disrespectful, but only in the sense that it would be disrespectful to say Matlock is an idiot to an old person.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 8, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Calling Jesus a comic book character is disrespectful, but only in the sense that it would be disrespectful to say Matlock is an idiot to an old person.



I agree, but I don't think any old people would

Should _that_&#8203; matter?


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 8, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I agree, but I don't think any old people would
> 
> Should _that_&#8203; matter?


As my grandpa has said to me many times "Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should.". You have to weigh the costs against the benefits in those situations. "Is the havoc this is going to cause on my relationship with this person worth the potential outcome?"


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 8, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I agree, but I don't think any old people would
> 
> Should _that_&#8203; matter?


It depends on the context. As I said, it isn't tactful, but that doesn't mean it is a reason to censor. It is not disrespectful to challenge, it is not disrespectful to disagree, and if I was being told that Jesus was sending me to hell if I don't accept him, I don't think it would be disrespectful to call him a comic book character. If someone is talking about Jesus walking on water or coming back from the dead, I don't think it's disrespectful to call him a comic book character.

Now if grandma was saying grace and I interrupted her, that would be disrespectful. If grandma was simply saying she loves and admires Jesus, it would be disrespectful. ect.


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 8, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> It depends on the context. As I said, it isn't tactful, but that doesn't mean it is a reason to censor. It is not disrespectful to challenge, it is not disrespectful to disagree, and if I was being told that Jesus was sending me to hell if I don't accept him, I don't think it would be disrespectful to call him a comic book character. If someone is talking about Jesus walking on water or coming back from the dead, I don't think it's disrespectful to call him a comic book character.
> 
> Now if grandma was saying grace and I interrupted her, that would be disrespectful. If grandma was simply saying she loves and admires Jesus, it would be disrespectful. ect.


Totally agree, context is important. Also agree with the other point too. You can't expect me to leave your beliefs alone when you're trying to convert me. If you tell me a near-eastern zombie can absolve me of "sins" based on a rather oppressive set of rules that run counter to human nature, I am fully within my rights to tell you that is the most absurd thing I've heard all week.

That's why I like the Socratic method. If someone gets mad, I just say "But, I was only asking questions!".


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 8, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> It depends on the context. As I said, it isn't tactful, but that doesn't mean it is a reason to censor. It is not disrespectful to challenge, it is not disrespectful to disagree, and if I was being told that Jesus was sending me to hell if I don't accept him, I don't think it would be disrespectful to call him a comic book character. If someone is talking about Jesus walking on water or coming back from the dead, I don't think it's disrespectful to call him a comic book character.
> 
> Now if grandma was saying grace and I interrupted her, that would be disrespectful. If grandma was simply saying she loves and admires Jesus, it would be disrespectful. ect.


OK, that pretty much answered my question. It all depends on context..

So what if a person, or a relative, was on their death bed praying and asking you to pray with them, in your opinion, do you believe it would be disrespectful to hold their hand and 'pray' with them, even though you don't believe? Would it be disrespectful to tell them why? Would you just hold their hand and put politics aside for that moment to comfort them in their time of need?


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 8, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> OK, that pretty much answered my question. It all depends on context..
> 
> So what if a person, or a relative, was on their death bed praying and asking you to pray with them, in your opinion, do you believe it would be disrespectful to hold their hand and 'pray' with them, even though you don't believe? Would it be disrespectful to tell them why? Would you just hold their hand and put politics aside for that moment to comfort them in their time of need?


I tried to bring this up in your other thread.

[video=youtube;txiW0Q4_Qsw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txiW0Q4_Qsw[/video]

By lying to his grandfather, was his integrity weakened? strengthened? Did he harm his Grandfather? Would he harm his Grandfather by not lying?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 8, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I tried to bring this up in your other thread.
> 
> [video=youtube;txiW0Q4_Qsw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txiW0Q4_Qsw[/video]
> 
> *By lying to his grandfather, was his integrity weakened? strengthened? Did he harm his Grandfather? Would he harm his Grandfather by not lying?*


Good questions. Imo, his integrity was not weakened because he understood and appreciated his grandfathers values, and dismissed his own in favor of support in a moment of vulnerability. That is nothing short of admirable. 

I'm not sure if expressing your own personal beliefs _harms_ those close to the end of their life, I think it would depend on how they lived their life. 

Randi never ceases to impress me. 

But..

..and I hate to bring this up, as it's the definition of scumbag mentality..

Why bother? Nobody else does. 

I realize 'nobody' is my subjective opinion, but the more and more I look around, it seems like nobody else gives a fuck about where we're headed, or how we get there. They're in it for themselves.

I also realize this mentality only harms everyone else, because there are plenty of people who DO give a fuck.

It's just so hard to realize, so hard to see and so hard to get on board with a world that, in my view, really _doesn't _care.

From my vantage point, it looks like more and more people are tired of paying higher taxes, even if it supports the less fortunate or education, because they're viewed and portrayed as 'moochers', education is fine and dandy according to the gov., why bother with changing it? (ridiculous!) The corruption is so rampant it's unbelievably difficult to have faith in anything they do, even if they came out and said "LETS END HOMELESSNESS!", I'd be skeptical of their motivations, and I know I'm not alone..

Education is embarrassing in this country, pitiful, your average 5th grader doesn't have any kind of grasp on history, science, and literature is there to enforce reading comprehension. _WHY_ reading, _WHY_ mathematics, _WHY_ history is so important is never discussed. I remember my history teacher telling me "history is important because those that don't understand it are doomed to repeat it", and that's it. No explanation, no follow up, nothing..


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 8, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Good questions. Imo, his integrity was not weakened because he understood and appreciated his grandfathers values, and dismissed his own in favor of support in a moment of vulnerability. That is nothing short of admirable.
> 
> I'm not sure if expressing your own personal beliefs _harms_ those close to the end of their life, I think it would depend on how they lived their life.
> 
> ...


Straight from the texas GOP platform: "Knowledge-Based Education &#8211; We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values
clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based
Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging
the student&#8217;s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." Scary, no?


----------



## lokie (Oct 8, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Is it disrespectful to disrespect a belief of someone we respect? Or are we not really 'disrespecting' it or them by disagreeing with their belief?


Respect can be won or lost without the need to be rude. people disagree all of the time and can
conduct themselves in a civil manner without respect coming into question, however being intentionally
rude is often anti productive and can escalate a non-issue to the ranks of pandemonium in the blink of an eye.

To engage someone and call their deity a comic book figure could certainly be construed as
disrespectful or rude or both depending on the context of the situation and maturity of the parties involved.

To agree to disagree is an example of respect and disbelief. Respect is not equal to belief.

When the dialog gets broken down to base emotion things tend get worse.
Once ATTITUDE shows up progress is severely crippled until one side capitulates, both concur or one is conquered.


----------



## Amaximus (Oct 8, 2012)

marc88101 said:


> Do you really not know that stars are considered planets or are you joking? I think they teach us that at age 5.


Any luck researching what a sun is? Or you still think it's a planet?


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Is it disrespectful to disrespect a belief of someone we respect? Or are we not really 'disrespecting' it or them by disagreeing with their belief?


No. Just because you respect someone as a person doesn't mean all their beliefs get a free pass.

What if instead of jesus your grandfather worshipped zues? Would you feel the need to respect that belief, even though you know it is false?

Fuck that. You don't get a free pass for respect for any belief.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 8, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Good questions. Imo, his integrity was not weakened because he understood and appreciated his grandfathers values, and dismissed his own in favor of support in a moment of vulnerability. That is nothing short of admirable.
> 
> I'm not sure if expressing your own personal beliefs _harms_ those close to the end of their life, I think it would depend on how they lived their life.
> 
> ...


You do it because of personal satisfaction and to derive meaning from contributing to life. You do it because it reflects your personal convictions and follows the principals you use to anchor your life. Do not worry about those who have never bothered to define principals and so float around on a divine raft. You do it because the universe (you) has given to you via intelligence the opportunity to make the universe (you) a better place. Nothing else in the universe has that option.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No. Just because you respect someone as a person doesn't mean all their beliefs get a free pass.
> 
> What if instead of jesus your grandfather worshipped zues? Would you feel the need to respect that belief, even though you know it is false?
> 
> Fuck that. You don't get a free pass for respect for any belief.


Zues?or Zeus? ..... I suppose it doesn't matter what you call him.

I don't give a fig, whether people respect my beliefs or not. As long as they treat 'me' with respect. That only involves leaving me to have my beliefs as all Humans have the right to do.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Is it disrespectful to disrespect a belief of someone we respect? Or are we not really 'disrespecting' it or them by disagreeing with their belief?


I can see this two ways, depending on the semantic spin on "belief".

On the one hand, the atheists (including the odd Recursive Agnostic) among us consider religion to be a colossal and at times injurious fraud. So we don't respect the belief as a corpus.

On the other, we respect this person. That means we have a high regard for that person's virtues, and (as a natural consequence of the human sense of loyalty) a certain forgiveness, even affection, for their quirks. Add to this that a religious/philosophical belief is at or near what we consider the core of our being. So to openly snipe at someone's belief can and often does get interpreted as an attack on that person's, uhm, person.

We can disrespect the belief. But for our respect of that person to be a whole, honest thing, it becomes our duty to respect that person's _believing_. Jmo. cn


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

For me ... there are three options in how to treat anothers belief.

Respect, Disrespect, and Indifference.

I tend to feel indifference towards others belief. Why should I care what people believe? I'm more interested in what I'm having for dinner.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

Shades of W.C. Fields. "A man has to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink." cn


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Shades of W.C. Fields. "A man has to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink." cn


I was going to reply "Great minds think alike" ... but that wouldn't be accurate.

"It is only those who have not thought that appear to agree" _Thomas Paine (1792)_


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

One of my favorite quips (and to my knowledge, an original) is "Great minds think alike ... and so do ours!!" cn


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> For me ... there are three options in how to treat anothers belief.
> 
> Respect, Disrespect, and Indifference.
> 
> I tend to feel indifference towards others belief. Why should I care what people believe? I'm more interested in what I'm having for dinner.


Because their beliefs affect you. Do you care if creationism is taught side by side with evolution? Or if evolution is thrown out of the classroom all together? Some people believe it should. A lot of people actually.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Because their beliefs affect you. Do you care if creationism is taught side by side with evolution? Or if evolution is thrown out of the classroom all together? Some people believe it should. A lot of people actually.


Belief's don't affect me, actions do.

edit:
regarding creationism, I don't mind if creationism is taught, as long as its not taught as fact but as a 'belief' system.

I'm not a Muslim or Buddhist but have studied the faiths with genuine interest.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Belief's don't affect me, actions do.


Beliefs are principals of action.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Beliefs are principals of action.


not necessarily.

They could be principals of in-action. and more often are.

i.e .. I don't believe in murder, so I don't do it.

edit:
LOL ... If 'in-action' is a word.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

Murder is very real. How can you not believe in it? 

LOL, yes I know what you meant.


----------



## fitzgib (Oct 8, 2012)

Scrotie Mcboogerballs said:


> It's that kind of thinking that gets people absolutely nowhere. Maybe you should look at the evolution of technology before you decide to dismiss space travel and how long it's going to take before we can reach new areas of space. There are senior citizens shitting their pants everyday at the things that we can do now.



in the grand scheme of things, the evolution of technology has got us nowhere closer to understanding anything, apart from letting us know that we know fuck all


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Belief's don't affect me, actions do.
> 
> edit:
> regarding creationism, I don't mind if creationism is taught, as long as its not taught as fact but as a 'belief' system.
> ...


Why don't you mind? I think it's outrageous we would teach that to impressionable young people. Let's stick to real facts only and not bullshit beliefs.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Why don't you mind? I think it's outrageous we would teach that to impressionable young people. * Let's stick to real facts only and not bullshit beliefs*.


They said something similar to Copernicus.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> not necessarily.
> 
> They could be principals of in-action. and more often are.
> 
> ...


Without the hyphen (inaction) it's definitely a word. cn


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Without the hyphen (inaction) it's definitely a word. cn


Yeah, I know. ... I'm a real heavy smoker and when stoned I temporarily forget my shit.

edit:

Which paradoxically is one of the reasons I smoke so much  lol


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> not necessarily.
> 
> They could be principals of in-action. and more often are.
> 
> ...


That in-action sparks action though. If you don't believe in murder, you must have some other means of dealing with your conflict. You could look at it as "I don't believe in murder, so instead I talk things out with people.", a bit of an extreme example. haha My point is that you almost never are truly "in-active", that inaction forces another action elsewhere generally.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> They said something similar to Copernicus.


There is a fundamental difference between a new theory backed with observation and evidence, and a fairy tale. I have absolutely no problem with new theories being introduced and taught in schools, but I must insist they have evidence backing them.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Yeah, I know. ... I'm a real heavy smoker and when stoned I temporarily forget my shit.
> 
> edit:
> 
> Which paradoxically is one of the reasons I smoke so much  lol


I have had real trouble spelling when i sampled psychedelics. I usually don't post here when I'm properly hempstruck. Last night was an exception, i think. i have half a memory of leaving a somewhat disjoint haiku someplace. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> not necessarily.
> 
> They could be principals of in-action. and more often are.
> 
> ...



The reason you do not commit murder is not because you deny it's existence. It's because you believe it is wrong. That belief is a result of experience and reasoning, and reinforced by empathy, IOW evidence. The belief governs your actions. Why hasn't a tree developed a belief system? It would be a waste of energy, as it can not perform any significant action. It doesn't need to believe fire is bad because it can not get out of the way. When you become capable of action, it is now essential to develop a belief system. A belief system is a way of discerning which information to pay attention to and what to ignore among all the input we receive. Not only is it helpful to realize fire is bad and avoid it, but it is dangerous to act on a faulty idea; fire is warm so lets run to it. That is why beliefs are based on some sort of evidence. The stronger the evidence, the more sound the belief, the more likely the belief is to be beneficial, and the less likely it is to cause harm. Perfect delusion leads to a stagnant, unenlightened mind, perfect belief leads to prudence.

I am of course not saying we should ban certain beliefs from people's minds, but separating beliefs from actions is a mistake. Beliefs are principals of action.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> There is a fundamental difference between a new theory backed with observation and evidence, and a fairy tale. I have absolutely no problem with new theories being introduced and taught in schools, but I must insist they have evidence backing them.


Who are you to insist anything?

You're 'insistence' on what should or should not be taught IMO puts you into the same realm as some rather unsavory characters.

btw ... fairy tales are taught to young minds and I don't care.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

All trees are Wooddhists. cn


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 8, 2012)

fitzgib said:


> in the grand scheme of things, the evolution of technology has got us nowhere closer to understanding anything, apart from letting us know that we know fuck all


Just on a medical level, I have to disagree. We have come a long way from the "4 humors" method of medical treatment. You can't have modern medicine without understanding how the human body works to some extent. Provided, there's always more to learn. To dismiss everything humanity has accomplished as getting us "...nowhere closer to understanding anything..." is a bit sweeping and unfair. The problem is, every time we answer a question, it generates several new questions as a result. We aren't clueless, but the harder we look the more there is to discover.


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> They said something similar to Copernicus.


"_There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth._" -Martin Luther, regarding Copernicus' heliocentric theory. 

Yes, "they" did. However, they did it disregarding alot of mathematical evidence to the contrary.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Who are you to insist anything?
> 
> You're 'insistence' on what should or should not be taught IMO puts you into the same realm as some rather unsavory characters.
> 
> btw ... fairy tales are taught to young minds and I don't care.


A concerned and active participant in society, and as such I don't like seeing false information and false beliefs being taught as facts. It is harmful to society.

Why is insistence in and of itself a problem? Do you not see a fundamental difference between heliocentricity and creationism?


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I have had real trouble spelling when i sampled psychedelics. I usually don't post here when I'm properly hempstruck. Last night was an exception, i think. i have half a memory of leaving a somewhat disjoint haiku someplace. cn


I would like to take a spelling test on Ketamine. 

Would make for an amusing YouTube vid.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> A concerned and active participant in society, and as such I don't like seeing false information and false beliefs being taught as facts. It is harmful to society.
> 
> Why is insistence in and of itself a problem? Do you not see a fundamental difference between heliocentricity and creationism?


I don't really want to get into a circular discussion on this. ... I'll leave it with what Ive already said.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

post#103



Moebius said:


> Belief's don't affect me, actions do.
> 
> edit:
> regarding creationism, *I don't mind if creationism is taught, as long as its not taught as fact but as a 'belief' system*.
> ...




Post #120



guy incognito said:


> A concerned and active participant in society, and as such *I don't like seeing false information and false beliefs being taught as facts.* It is harmful to society.
> 
> Why is insistence in and of itself a problem? Do you not see a fundamental difference between heliocentricity and creationism?


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 8, 2012)

Creationism is not a belief system. Beliefs are based on evidence, not counter evidence. A creation myth is one thing, creationism pretends to be science. There is not a single shred of logical argument or objective evidence creationism can offer. There is nothing the creationist can point to that distinguishes their beliefs from fantasy. This is the point where the service of faith is brought in. Simply have faith that this bit of information is different from fantasy, even though it can not be grounded in reality. When your belief system permits you to deny real world data, it can no longer be said to tell you what is accurate about the world. It no longer delivers beliefs, but delusions.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Creationism is not a belief system. Beliefs are based on evidence, not counter evidence. A creation myth is one thing, creationism pretends to be science. There is not a single shred of logical argument or objective evidence creationism can offer. There is nothing the creationist can point to that distinguishes their beliefs from fantasy. This is the point where the service of faith is brought in. Simply have faith that this bit of information is different from fantasy, even though it can not be grounded in reality. When your belief system permits you to deny real world data, it can no longer be said to tell you what is accurate about the world. It no longer delivers beliefs, but delusions.


IMO ... Fascistic ^

edit:
With such certainty its ironic your user name is Heisenberg.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> IMO ... Fascistic ^


"Totalitarian" might be more apt. It's about controlling the means of cognition. cn


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

How do you even differentiate between something being taught as "fact" and a "belief system" though? There is no difference. I have no problem with a school exploring christian beliefs in a religious history class, the same as I have no problem with a mythology class. A science class is a different animal.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> IMO ... Fascistic ^


 If you believe it should not be taught as fact, and instead should be labeled, why not label it accurately? What is the point of distinguishing only to mislabel? If science is a fact-based system, creationism is a faith-based system.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> *Creationism is not a belief system*.





Heisenberg said:


> If you believe it should not be taught as fact, and instead should be labeled, why not label it accurately? What is the point of distinguishing only to mislabel? If science is a fact-based system, *creationism is a faith-based system*.


How do YOU reconcile these seemingly contradicting statements.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> How do YOU reconcile these seemingly contradicting statements.


By suggesting you re-read my posts. No contradiction has occurred.

An evidence based system delivers beliefs, a faith based system delivers delusions. So far I have not objected to creationism being taught, I have just said that if you are going to distinguish it from science you should do so accurately by pointing out the properties that make it distinguishable. Separating 'facts' from 'beliefs' does nothing to convey distinction.

It just seems odd to say that creationism is okay to include in school IF we distinguish it, but then to say that accurately distinguishing it is fascism. If you feel I mischaracterized creationism then I am willing to listen, but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying.


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> How do YOU reconcile these seemingly contradicting statements.


A belief is when you hold something as fact. Therefore, if you believe something, it is proven to you. If it is unproven, then the belief is invalid. Faith carries no presupposition of fact, it is merely wishful thinking at it's core. If you say you believe creationism is true, then you are stating it as fact. Therefore, you have to substantiate your belief in order for it to remain valid. If you were to say "I have faith in creationism, even though I know there is no empirical evidence for it." then that would be, well, faith. The two statements aren't contradictory, unless you start overlapping "belief" and "faith", which have distinct differences in their application and meaning.


----------



## lokie (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> A concerned and active participant in society, and as such I don't like seeing false information and false beliefs being taught as facts. It is harmful to society. Why is insistence in and of itself a problem? Do you not see a fundamental difference between heliocentricity and creationism?


 it is a fact that beliefs exist in abundance. By not teaching something of that fact then you do a disservice by omitting some truths.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

Which truths, lokie? cn


----------



## lokie (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Which truths, lokie? cn


 In most beliefs there is some grain of truth.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

lokie said:


> In most beliefs there is some grain of truth.


I won't dispute that, but I also don't see that as sufficient cause to teach them. National Socialism was about 50% sound, but I for one don't want it championed, or even talked about nicely. 

I thought that perhaps you had specific "true things" in mind. cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I won't dispute that, but I also don't see that as sufficient cause to teach them. National Socialism was about 50% sound, but I for one don't want it championed, or even talked about nicely.
> 
> I thought that perhaps you had specific "true things" in mind. cn


ummmm... the Sound part was impassioned masses shouting Heil Hitler and the screams of jewish people in their special showers... and the glockenspiel. 

i for one find all socilaism (including the internationalist ones, the anarcho-flavoured ones and the ones based on Iron Ricebowls) to be distateful, wasteful and based on a flawed, almost religious faith in the teachings of marx. with the fun communist bits at the end chopped off.

socialism is all the sweet talking , schmoozing, wining, dining, and seduction, followed by all the effort, sweating grunting and exhaustion of a good one night stand, but you dont get to cum. 

its 60 years of foreplay and blueballs before the bitch packs up her sexy ass and goes back to wilmington to live with her lesbian life partner. 

and you get left with your dick in your hand.

oh yeah, and she had no less than 6 orgasms and tore my best sheets to ribbons, and im pretty sure she drank my last beer too.

and she bit me a couple times. hard. 

but im ok with that.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> ummmm... the Sound part was impassioned masses shouting Heil Hitler and the screams of jewish people in their special showers... and the glockenspiel.
> 
> i for one find all socilaism (including the internationalist ones, the anarcho-flavoured ones and the ones based on Iron Ricebowls) to be distasteful, wasteful and based on a flawed, almost religious faith in the teachings of marx. with the fun communist bits at the end chopped off.


Dang, dude, you're an even bigger frivolity slut than I am! And since I populate the very frontier of acceptable taste, that leaves you tasting a bit weird ...  cn


----------



## lokie (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I won't dispute that, but I also don't see that as sufficient cause to teach them. National Socialism was about 50% sound, but I for one don't want it championed, or even talked about nicely. I thought that perhaps you had specific "true things" in mind. cn


 Jesus and Mohammad lived. Christianity and Islam exist. By not teaching that others may believe something different than what you do, knowledge is lost and then the first free thinking person will have hell to pay only because of intolerance. 

Knowledge is power. 

Beliefs exist, based in fact or not. not teaching that they exist leaves one unprepared for the future. 

I see nothing wrong in teaching what does exist, not so much what people believe. people should be free to believe in what they wish. 

Many would have us believe MMJ is just a myth. should the knowledge of "Mary Jane" be erased and pushed out of existence? The plant will still be a plant and people will still argue over its useful purposes.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> ummmm... the Sound part was impassioned masses shouting Heil Hitler and the screams of jewish people in their special showers... and the glockenspiel.
> 
> i for one find all socilaism (including the internationalist ones, the anarcho-flavoured ones and the ones based on Iron Ricebowls) to be distateful, wasteful and based on a flawed, almost religious faith in the teachings of marx. with the fun communist bits at the end chopped off.
> 
> ...


Have you read anything on Dialectics or Dialectical Materialism? Almost religious faith? LOL ... you gotta be kidding (or ignorant).


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I won't dispute that, but I also don't see that as sufficient cause to teach them. *National Socialism was about 50% sound, but I for one don't want it championed, or even talked about nicely.
> *
> I thought that perhaps you had specific "true things" in mind. cn


Agreed, and I feel the same way about Capitalism too.

A system where people make chemical weapons for money but keep it quiet. ... the horrors are too much to list. <_sigh_>

At least Fascism was/is in your face. Capitalism hides behind a ultra thin veneer of respectability. Bunch of c***s.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

lokie said:


> Jesus and Mohammad lived. Christianity and Islam exist. By not teaching that others may believe something different than what you do, knowledge is lost and then the first free thinking person will have hell to pay only because of intolerance. Knowledge is power. Beliefs exist, based in fact or not. not teaching that they exist leaves one unprepared for the future. I see nothing wrong in teaching what does exist, not so much what people believe. people should be free to believe in what they wish. Many would have us believe MMJ is just a myth. should the knowledge of "Mary Jane" be erased and pushed out of existence? The plant will still be a plant and people will still argue over its useful purposes. edit: i have attempted to format this post more than once. the wall of letters is not by design.


I do agree that teaching the history of religion(s) is a valuable part of teaching history. Religion has been a major influence on society as far back as we can see or remember. I had gotten a different vibe from your earlier post ... something about teaching certain truths, which suggested teaching certain beliefs. I probably misindexed on that. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Agreed, and I feel the same way about Capitalism too.
> 
> A system where people make chemical weapons for money but keep it quiet. ... the horrors are too much to list. <_sigh_>
> 
> At least Fascism was in your face. Capitalism hides behind a ultra thin veneer of respectability. Bunch of cunts.


National Socialism was an ideology (complete with a homegrown mythology or "theory of everything") however. Capitalism isn't and never was an ideology or political movement afaik, even though it's routinely (and incorrectly imo) held up as the converse of Socialism. cn


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> National Socialism was an ideology (complete with a homegrown mythology or "theory of everything") however. Capitalism isn't and never was an ideology or political movement afaik, even though it's routinely (and incorrectly imo) held up as the converse of Socialism. cn


Capitalism isn't and never was an ideology .... No? tell that to Romney and his other GOP goons.

Straight up, Capitalism is as disgusting as Fascism. Leave it to the free-marketeers and we'll all be living on a dust bowl fighting for the last scrap of bread.

edit:

sorry, I'm beginning to loose perspective. I find it that abhorrent.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Capitalism isn't and never was an ideology .... No? tell that to Romney and his other GOP goons.
> 
> Straight up, Capitalism is as disgusting as Fascism. Leave it to the free-marketeers and we'll all be living on a dust bowl fighting for the last scrap of bread.


Their ideology is authoritarianism. They say capitalism, but not properly. Jmo. cn


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

Russian pope


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Their ideology is authoritarianism. They say capitalism, but not properly. Jmo. cn


True capitalism means there's no such thing as a bank "too big to fail", or any other company for that matter. That's the problem with our "capitalism" today, it's a system where you can buy your success from government. The regulation is good, but the government handouts are bad. Too many conflicts of interest these days. That's what happens when you dub money "protected speech" (Not a bad idea, in some applications.), and then say that companies are "people too" (I honestly can't think of any time this is good.).


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 8, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Russian pope


...that's ezekiel's chariot on his head.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...that's ezekiel's chariot on his head.


I might attach one to my hoody.

I wonder what that stick he's holding can do.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

Never mind the stick ... his dudeship has a folding head ornament! Now which rapper will be first to imitate? cn


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Never mind the stick ... his dudeship has a folding head ornament! Now which rapper will be first to imitate? cn


Lil wayne, that dude has even less style than most of them.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

lokie said:


> In most beliefs there is some grain of truth.


Then why not extract the grain of truth and teach that? And if the truth can't be extracted and identified, then what good is it anyway?



lokie said:


> Jesus and Mohammad lived. Christianity and Islam exist. By not teaching that others may believe something different than what you do, knowledge is lost and then the first free thinking person will have hell to pay only because of intolerance.
> 
> Knowledge is power.
> 
> ...


No one is saying we should deny the existance of jesus, christianity, or other religions. What I am saying is that the theory of intelligent design and creationism is bullshit and should not be taught as a viable explanation.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> [...]What I am saying is that the theory of intelligent design and creationism is bullshit and should not be taught as a viable explanation.


...hi. Do you think it is fair to say that all of your surroundings were thought of first, before 'becoming the things that are around you'?


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...hi. Do you think it is fair to say that all of your surroundings were thought of first, before 'becoming the things that are around you'?


No. No one thought of a tree before it happened.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

I think that I shall never see 
a post as lovely as a tree. 
cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No. No one thought of a tree before it happened.


...if the tree fell in the forest, would all of the squirrels freak out?


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...if the tree fell in the forest, would all of the squirrels go nuts?


Litely edited. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No. No one thought of a tree before it happened.


...is there intelligence in nature?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Litely edited. cn


...perfected, really. Thanks!


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...is there intelligence in nature?


In the design no. Some animals posses intelligence.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Some animals posses intelligence.


...the rest we call 'human'


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

And they post on riu


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> And they post on riu


..."incognito"


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 8, 2012)

Guys ... !! cn


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I think that I shall never see
> a post as lovely as a tree.
> cn


There are no trees in the fortress of solitude.

or squirrels.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

There are plenty of trees in the forest of solitude.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...hi. Do you think it is fair to say that all of your surroundings were thought of first, before 'becoming the things that are around you'?


I would say thats fair.

A 'tree' only became a tree after it was thought of. 'We' define the object with our perceptions. Before this its a collection of atoms indistinguishable from the other atoms. It is our minds that shape the object, give it colour and meaning.

(i think)

edit:
I define 'we' as 'life'.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

It got the name tree after we assigned it, but the tree itself was a tree before we were around. Dinosaurs knew about trees.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> It got the name tree after we assigned it, but the tree itself was a tree before we were around. Dinosaurs knew about trees.


Dinosaurs are 'we'. For the purposes of this discussion, plants are 'we' too. All carbon-based life share a common ancestry and DNA. 

The colour 'green' does not exist in the objective universe. ..... Take out the empty space from atoms and the entire human race would barely fill a tea-spoon. It's our minds that give meaning to mass.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 8, 2012)

Green is a specific wave length of light. Those wave lengths predated us, and they very much existed before we were around to observe them.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Green is a specific wave length of light. Those wave lengths predated us, and they very much existed before we were around to observe them.


'Green' is the subjective interpretation of the wavelength. ... Some animals would perceive it as 'blue'. Even within life-forms there is ambiguity.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 8, 2012)

Another example would be 'heat'.

Heat does not exist outside of our perception. There is merely Infra-red radiation exciting molecules. We may perceive something as hot, something else may perceive it as cold.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

*[SIZE=+3]Perception and Reality[/SIZE]* 
*[SIZE=+1]Jorge Martins de Oliveira, MD, PhD[/SIZE]* 
[SIZE=+1]Our perception does not identify the outside world as it realy is, but the way we are allowed to recognize it, as a consequence of transformations performed by our senses. Thus, we transform photons into images, vibrations into sounds and noises and chemical reactions into specific smells and tastes. Actually, the universe is colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent.

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n04/opiniao/percepcao_i.htm
[/SIZE]


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

*source http://www.peterrussell.com/SCG/ideal.php

No Matter?*

Although we may not know the external world directly, we can draw conclusions from our experience as to what it might be like. This, in essence, has been the focus of our scientific endeavors. But to our surprise, the world "out there" has turned out to be quite unlike our experience of it. 

*Consider our experience of the color green. In the physical world there is light of a certain frequency, but the light itself is not green. Nor are the electrical impulses that are transmitted from the eye to the brain. No color exists there. The green we see is a quality appearing in the mind in response to this frequency of light. It exists only as a subjective experience in the mind*.

The same is true of sound. I hear the music of a violin, but the sound I hear is a quality appearing in the mind. There is no sound as such in the external world, just vibrating air molecules. The smell of a rose does not exist without an experiencing mind, just molecules of a certain shape.

The same is also true of the solidness we experience in matter. Our experience of the world is certainly one of solidness, so we assume that the "thing in itself" must be equally solid. For two thousand years it was believed that atoms were tiny solid balls&#8212;a model clearly drawn from everyday experience. Then, as physicists discovered that atoms were composed of more elementary, subatomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, and suchlike) the model shifted to one of a central nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons&#8212;again, a model based on experience.

An atom may be small, a mere billionth of an inch across, but subatomic particles are a hundred thousand times smaller still. Imagine the nucleus of an atom magnified to the size of a golf ball. The whole atom would then be the size of a football stadium, and the electrons would be like peas flying round the stands. *As the early twentieth-century British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington put it, "Matter is mostly ghostly empty space." To be more precise, it is 99.9999999% empty space.
With the development of quantum theory, physicists have found that even subatomic particles are far from solid. In fact, they are nothing like matter as we know it.* They cannot be pinned down and measured precisely. Much of the time they seem more like waves than particles. They are like fuzzy clouds of potential existence, with no definite location. Whatever matter is, it has little, if any, substance.

* Our notion of matter as a solid substance is, like the color green, a quality appearing in consciousness. It is a model of what is "out there", but as with almost every other model, quite unlike what is actually out there.*


----------



## Seedling (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Another example would be 'heat'.
> 
> Heat does not exist outside of our perception. There is merely Infra-red radiation exciting molecules. We may perceive something as hot, something else may perceive it as cold.


So basically what you're saying is that if a volcano erupted and there was no life form to perceive the heat, then the lava wouldn't "cool" and become "rock" after a duration of time? 

You are confusing how we perceive motion in this universe compared to the actual motion. 

There is heat, as evidence of lava flowing across the ground and burning up trees and changing them into ash, whether there is someone there to observe it or not. Entropy exists whether we are here to observe the effects or not.

Of course things are relative, that's all you're saying.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 9, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So basically what you're saying is that if a volcano erupted and there was no life form to perceive the heat, then the lava wouldn't "cool" and become "rock" after a duration of time?
> 
> You are confusing how we perceive motion in this universe compared to the actual motion.
> 
> ...


Unless those things are in the preferred frame


----------



## Seedling (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> *As the early twentieth-century British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington put it, "Matter is mostly ghostly empty space." To be more precise, it is 99.9999999% empty space.
> With the development of quantum theory, physicists have found that even subatomic particles are far from solid. In fact, they are nothing like matter as we know it.*


There is no "solid" in this universe, there is objects, and those objects are comprised of smaller objects. All of those objects are in motion. Everything is made of motion. 

The difference between a solid, liquid, gas, and plasma is the volume, which is 3 dimensional distance. Do you know what volume is?


----------



## Seedling (Oct 9, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Unless those things are in their preferred frame


All objects travel in the preferred frame, and they also have relative velocities to other objects at the same time.

Case in point, you are riding on a bus traveling down the road. You can sit in your seat on the bus and consider yourself motionless on the bus, and at the same time consider yourself in motion relative to the road.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Seedling said:


> *So basically what you're saying is that if a volcano erupted and there was no life form to perceive the heat, then the lava wouldn't "cool" and become "rock" after a duration of time?
> *
> You are confusing how we perceive motion in this universe compared to the actual motion.
> 
> ...


Thats a chemical reaction too. burning trees etc .... and where did I mention Entropy?

The flow part is physics.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Seedling said:


> *There is no "solid" in this universe*, there is objects, and those objects are comprised of smaller objects. All of those objects are in motion. Everything is made of motion.
> 
> The difference between a solid, liquid, gas, and plasma is the volume, which is 3 dimensional distance. Do you know what volume is?


That quote you quoted me on said just that. .....'*With the development of quantum theory, physicists have found that even subatomic particles are far from solid. In fact, they are nothing like matter as we know it.'*


----------



## lokie (Oct 9, 2012)

Temperature is relative to the individual experiencing the temperature change.

My mother in law used to keep her house set at 80 and would still 
put a sweater on at times in the summer and she lived in Florida.





and my wife likes it cold enough to grow icebergs in the toilet.
She has been known to open a window in the winter and turn the ceiling fan on.


----------



## Seedling (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Thats a chemical reaction too. burning trees etc .... and where did I mention Entropy?


Chemical reactions can produce heat without your presence, correct? You can't talk about heat unless you mention entropy.


----------



## Seedling (Oct 9, 2012)

lokie said:


> Temperature is relative to the individual experiencing the temperature change.


Temperature exists whether there is an individual there to experience it or not.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

'Heat' as we experience it is simply IR. 

What makes it become 'Heat' is our subjective experience.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Temperature exists whether there is an individual there to experience it or not.


Now read what lokie actually said. .... errr where did he say it didn't exist? He said it was relative ... I certainly didnt say 'temperature' didnt exist, only heat (outside of experience).



lokie said:


> Temperature is relative to the individual experiencing the temperature change.


...........



Seedling said:


> Chemical reactions can produce heat without your presence, correct? You can't talk about heat unless you mention entropy.


Incorrect! A chemical reaction can raise temperature. Our subjective experience makes it heat.



Seedling said:


> Temperature exists whether there is an individual there to experience it or not.


Sorry Yes . But I never mentioned Temperature, I said heat. Theres a subtle difference you know.


----------



## Seedling (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> 'Heat' as we experience it is simply IR.
> 
> What makes it become 'Heat' is our subjective experience.


Again, you insist on saying there is no heat without experience, which is simply false. Lava changes trees into ashes whether there is someone there to experience the heat or not.


----------



## lokie (Oct 9, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Temperature exists whether there is an individual there to experience it or not.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

In a world populated by Robots, They will never feel HOT (Heat) but they can MELT (Temperature)


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Again, you insist on saying there is no heat without experience, which is simply false. Lava changes trees into ashes whether there is someone there to experience the heat or not.


AGREED ... but that's Temperature. ... as measure in Kelvin or whatever. The heat is what a brain perceives.


----------



## Seedling (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> In a world populated by Robots, They will never feel HOT (Heat) but they can MELT (Temperature)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat



> *Heat is energy transferred from one system to another by thermal interaction.* In contrast to work, heat is always accompanied by a transfer of entropy. Heat flow is characteristic of macroscopic objects and systems, but its origin and properties can be understood in terms of their microscopic constituents.


The definition of heat lacks the perception that you speak of...


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> AGREED ... but that's Temperature. ... as measure in Kelvin or whatever. The heat is what a brain perceives.


This is what we called half baked, and we didn't need heat to get it there.


----------



## Seedling (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> The heat is what a brain perceives.


Wrong! Heat exists in the absence of a brain.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Wrong! Heat exists in the absence of a brain.


I have 20 minutes left of the film Looper. Will get back on this one.


----------



## Seedling (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> I have 20 minutes left of the film Looper. Will get back on this one.


K, take your time, and study and understand the Wiki definition of heat that I posted.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> This is what we called half baked, and we didn't need heat to get it there.


go on . . im having a luagh at this subjective talk as well . . 

heat being subjective is a conditional truth that your experience of the event is all that matter to quantify it as truth or have happened

heat is, when im welding a plate of aluminum if i set it on pulse(basically auto as long as trigger is depressed), on like a automatic miller, the break down of atoms that produces the high heat from welding will still disipate and are still reacting with everything around it weather im there or not

just because no one is there to be burned is not a logical assumption to assume it is not happening , as the heat from the welding and break down of atoms happens no matter what

this is a hella funny argument . and is kinda scary

that there are people so self absorbed that they think that they are required to be effected in order for something to have happened

heat is term

feeling pain from being burned is a synapse response to produce pain chemicals(im not a scientist) when nerves are triggered or die, im not a biologist but i assume its pretty basic, nerve send signal, brain response with , oww, get the fuck away from that

pain response has nothing to do with what is happening, other then a reactionary symptom +


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

My movies not done yet but I just had to reply.

Thanks for the source. >>>

[h=2]Usage of words[/h] The strictly defined physical term 'quantity of energy transferred as heat' has a resonance with the ordinary language noun 'heat' and the ordinary language verb 'heat'. This can lead to confusion if ordinary language is muddled with strictly defined physical language. In the strict terminology of physics, heat is defined as a word that refers to a process, not to a state of a system. In ordinary language one can speak of a process that increases the temperature of a body as 'heating' it, ignoring the nature of the process, which could be one of adiabatic transfer of energy as work. But in strict physical terms, a process is admitted as heating only when what is meant is transfer of energy as heat. Such a process does not necessarily increase the temperature of the heated body, which may instead change its phase, for example by melting. In the strict physical sense, heat cannot be 'produced', because the usage 'production of heat' misleadingly seems to refer to a state variable. Thus, it would be physically improper to speak of 'heat production by friction', or of 'heating by adiabatic compression on descent of an air parcel' or of 'heat production by chemical reaction'; instead, proper physical usage speaks of conversion of kinetic energy of bulk flow, or of potential energy of bulk matter,[SUP][44][/SUP] or of chemical potential energy, into internal energy, and of transfer of energy as heat. Occasionally a present-day author, especially when referring to history, writes of "adiabatic heating", though this is a contradiction in terms of present day physics.[SUP][45][/SUP] * Historically, before the concept of internal energy became clear over the period 1850 to 1869, physicists spoke of "heat production" where nowadays one speaks of conversion of other forms of energy into internal energy.[SUP][[/SUP]
*


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

so now apply what that means to what you perceive the word heat to be . . . .. . . but in the end what produces heat is not subjective, what is are the effects of the, reaction or particles, and even that is conditional to how that inanimate or animate objects tissues/elements react to siad particle reastion

heat from a match is not the same as heat from uranium . . . . and so forth

ya we are learning !

now if i could only learn to spell and proof read . . so i could be taken seriously


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2012)

All grown up and no place to go
Psych 1, Psych 2
What do you know?
All your life is Channel 13
Sesame Street
What does it mean?


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 9, 2012)

I understand what you are getting at. In what way is this information useful to me though? Yes, my perception of heat is solely based on my experiencing it; however it has no bearing on anything, does it? The production of the heat still occurs, regardless of my ability to recognize it as such. What part of this am I missing?



Moebius said:


> My movies not done yet but I just had to reply.
> 
> Thanks for the source. >>>
> 
> ...


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

the part where the universe revolves around this dude

you forgot that


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> I understand what you are getting at. In what way is this information useful to me though? Yes, my perception of heat is solely based on my experiencing it; however it has no bearing on anything, does it? The production of the heat still occurs, regardless of my ability to recognize it as such. *What part of this am I missing?*


I'm not sure tbh. ... but... It might be the difference between heat and temperature.

I can't do it all in this thread. Google it.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> the part where the universe revolves around this dude
> 
> you forgot that


You can cut the Trolling out Sam. I don't respond to personal attacks. If you wish to talk about this further please show some basic respect.

edit:

Although, since the universe is infinite, I am technically at its center.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Now back to Looper. Cheerio.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2012)

To say that before consciousness was around to produce a subjective experience of heat, there was no subjective experience of heat, is a redundancy, not an insight.


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> I'm not sure tbh. ... but... It might be the difference between heat and temperature.
> 
> I can't do it all in this thread. Google it.


Ahhh...sarcasm, always a fun thing to try and figure out in text. Seriously though, they need a font for that. 

Anyways, let me try this again. I get the semantics debate. However, I was asking what relevance there was to you primary point. Which is summed up in this bit you stated:


> *'*Heat' as we experience it is simply IR. What makes it become 'Heat' is our subjective experience.


Just because you do not perceive something the same way as me, it does not really carry any special relevance on its own. Why is how we experience "heat" important? It does not change the fact that these IR waves are produced. It doesn't really change any fundamental concept I can think of. Please though, feel free to enlighten me if I'm missing something important here. I am really trying to figure out what the purpose to your points are.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> You can cut the Trolling out Sam. I don't respond to personal attacks. If you wish to talk about this further please show some basic respect.
> 
> edit:
> 
> *Although, since the universe is infinite, I am technically at its center.*


sig worthy logic fail

par for the course


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

you and your word games . . . . . heat is in the end a measurement, some things measure contrast others , newer temp inferred guns use a signal received through the inferred that is interpreted as a temperature . . .kinda like our burn response except we go ow and it goes 400 . .or something

the energy that makes measuring heat as a temperature has nothing to do with our perception or reaction to it

word smith BS, doesnt change that the energy that is measured by heat exist outside of experiencing the effects of it

your mincing of words doesn't change the issue with your perception of what heat/energy/temperature . .. or so it seems

maybe you are just a super troll, on stupid pills

what exactly do you think that is contrasting to what i have said, can you use words to explain yourself or just copy and paste and then provide no anecdotal opinions or i think statements


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> Ahhh... "...google it..." it has been too long since I saw you last. Seriously though, what is the point here? What the hell do I even "google" for that? Perhaps something like "What relevance does my perception of heat, relative to other things, have to do with anything applicable to my life?" would sum up what I'm trying to glean from what you've said. However, I don't see that getting me many answers from you: The person who stated this as if it had some relevance, but then does not care to say what this relevance is.


If its not relevant to you,thats ok. I don't know you so how would I know? 

I wasn't even discussing this with you until YOU questioned my postings. However, if interested watch this. (or not)

Richard Feynman

[video=youtube;Bgaw9qe7DEE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgaw9qe7DEE[/video]


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> you and your word games . . . . . heat is in the end a measurement, some things measure contrast others , newer temp inferred guns use a signal received through the inferred that is interpreted as a temperature . . .kinda like our burn response except we go ow and it goes 400 . .or something
> 
> the energy that makes measuring heat as a temperature has nothing to do with our perception or reaction to it
> 
> ...


I won't be talking to you again Sam. .. Theres no need for you to address me again.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

kinda ironic that you posted a learning things is fun video . . .what a joke

you couldn't explain yourself out of a 6 foot tunnel

no wonder you turn your back and scurried away, wiki hero . . whats your wiki level 36?


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Thats a chemical reaction too. burning trees etc .... and where did I mention Entropy?
> 
> The flow part is physics.


Nobody picked me up on this but ... its technically an exothermic chemical reaction.

Now i better get of this computer and get some work done, deadline to meet.


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> If its not relevant to you,thats ok. I don't know you so how would I know?
> 
> I wasn't even discussing this with you until YOU questioned my postings. However, if interested watch this. (or not)
> 
> ...


I was not aware that things posted in a forum were immune to comment from the member of said forum. Not trying to be a dick, but I really can't think of a better response to your bit about me asking questions. From what I have seen, this is pretty common practice on RUI. Requiring people to defend their points, I mean. 

In your defense; the question I asked initially was badly phrased and didn't encompass everything I was trying to ask, so I shall try again. My apologies for messing it up the first few times. Bear with me, and I shall eventually find a way to convey everything that I'm wondering. I am not a genius by any means, so it may take me a while to get all the way to my point correctly. That being said, on to my query!!!

Take, for example, a tree and a person who are both on fire. The person feels "heat" as you are using the term. However, your previous statements assume you know what the tree is feeling as it is lit on fire as well. Now that begs a certain question: "Have you ever been something other than human?". That is really the only way you can say our perceptions differ. To my recollection, we have never been able to link our perceptions to the perceptions of other organisms in any exact sense. You cannot really say something is "subjective" unless you have other perspectives to draw from. The ultimate truths of life do not change based upon who is viewing them.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 9, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> Ahhh...sarcasm, always a fun thing to try and figure out in text. Seriously though, they need a font for that.


...oh hell yeah!


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> AGREED ... but that's Temperature. ... as measure in Kelvin or whatever. The heat is what a brain perceives.


Heat is very real and measurable though. Heat will transfer from a hot body to a cold one. I am pretty sure this happened long before humans were around. Heat does not need my subjective experience of it to validate its existence.

Those sources you posted sound to me like mumbo jumbo bullshit. 



> *[SIZE=+1]Does a sound exist when a tree falls in a forest, if nobody is present to hear it ? No, the fall of the tree only creates vibrations. The sound occurs if vibrations are perceived by a living being.*


*[/SIZE]* 

I am trying to wrap my head around this. I consider the vibrations to be the actual sound, and what you hear is your brains interpretation of those vibrations. But those vibrations exist whether I am their to interpret the data or not. If humans didn't exist, but you had an audio recorder it would record those vibrations because they would still exist.


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 9, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Heat is very real and measurable though. Heat will transfer from a hot body to a cold one. I am pretty sure this happened long before humans were around. Heat does not need my subjective experience of it to validate its existence.
> 
> Those sources you posted sound to me like mumbo jumbo bullshit.
> 
> ...


He's trotting out that tired old subjective reality bit again is all. It's nothing new, as I'm sure you've noticed by now. haha


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

One of my favourite Einstein Quotes ......_'Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.'


_A fun experiment that might demonstrate my point.

Take 2 bowls of water. One 'Hot' , the other 'Cold'. ..... Place one hand in the Hot bowl and the other in the Cold bowl. Now get a third bowl containing tepid or luke warm water and place both hands into the bowl ......The hand which was previously in the cold water now feels Hot, whilst the hand that was in the Hot water now feels Cold.

The simple experiment demonstrates the subjectivity of the experience we call 'heat'.


----------



## kpmarine (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> One of my favourite Einstein Quotes ......_'Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.'
> 
> 
> _A fun experiment that might demonstrate my point.
> ...


Yet, it does not change the meaningful factor: Even if you can't feel the temperature of the water, it doesn't change the temperature of the water. Put a thermometer into cold water, then put it into hot water; check temp after it stabilizes. Then put that same thermometer into the same hot water from room temp. and let it stabilize. Now you understand why we use a thermometer and not out hands to tell the temperature.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> *I am trying to wrap my head around this. I consider the vibrations to be the actual sound, and what you hear is your brains interpretation of those vibrations. But those vibrations exist whether I am their to interpret the data or not.* If humans didn't exist, but you had an audio recorder it would record those vibrations because they would still exist.


What if I was to tell you that those same vibrations could be perceived not as sound but as colour or smell.

Its called 'Synesthesia'. People who experience this are not wrong, its just that their brains are wired differently. The vibrations remain true, but the interpretation is different that ours.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> Yet, it does not change the meaningful factor: Even if you can't feel the temperature of the water, it doesn't change the temperature of the water. Put a thermometer into cold water, then put it into hot water; check temp after it stabilizes. Then put that same thermometer into the same hot water from room temp. and let it stabilize. Now you understand why we use a thermometer and not out hands to tell the temperature.


_Again_ .... I'm not talking temperature ... so please stop insisting that I am.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> He's trotting out that tired old subjective reality bit again is all. It's nothing new, as I'm sure you've noticed by now. haha


If you tire so of this discussion why would you continue to engage in it? 

That, I do not understand.

Now I know thats how you feel, I won't expend the calories in attempting to explain.

Edit:
Anyone else you wishes to discuss further, let me know. Until then, I'm done.
I'm a lay person who is only discussing this for fun.

Many of these ideas are counter intuitive. They require a particular type of mind to get ones head around the concepts. I have to be open to the possibility that some people will remain unconvinced, Im ok with that.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> If you tire so of this discussion why would you continue to engage in it?
> 
> That, I do not understand.
> 
> ...


I don't see much of a discussion. You are saying there is a subjective element to the way we experience heat. Others are saying yes, but a person who can not feel can still get third degree burns. The subjective element only matters to the subject. This is why we have a 1-10 scale for pain that will be different for each person, and a standardized scale for burn damage which is relatively consistent for each person. I do not see you denying that, so I am not sure why further discussion is needed.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I don't see much of a discussion. You are saying there is a subjective element to the way we experience heat. Others are saying yes, but a person who can not feel can still get third degree burns. The subjective element only matters to the subject. This is why we have a 1-10 scale for pain that will be different for each person, and a standardized scale for burn damage which is relatively consistent for each person. I do not see you denying that, so *I am not sure why further discussion is needed.*


Yet you continue to discuss. An interesting Paradox.

Shall we discuss the 'ego', 'super ego' and the 'id'?

or maybe the 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal'?


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Yet you continue to discuss. An interesting Paradox.
> 
> Shall we discuss the 'ego', 'super ego' and the 'id'?
> 
> or maybe the 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal'?



No thanks.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> What if I was to tell you that those same vibrations could be perceived not as sound but as colour or smell.
> 
> Its called 'Synesthesia'. People who experience this are not wrong, its just that their brains are wired differently. The vibrations remain true, but the interpretation is different that ours.


I would say you are spouting nonsense. So if I am 100% blind, does green still exist? I won't be able to perceive it, or have any subjective twist on it. I could however measure the wavelength and determine it to be 530 nm. And you could look at it, and so could anyone else. I'm not saying everyones subjective experience of "green" will be identical, but the light has a specific wavelength.

And if you had no feeling in either hand and you placed them hot and cold water, would you say heat does not exist because there is no subjective difference between the two? If you had no tactile feeling at all you would be unaware of the concept of heat, or the subjective feeling of difference in heat, but the heat is very real and exists.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> *I would say you are spouting nonsense.* So if I am 100% blind, does green still exist? I won't be able to perceive it, or have any subjective twist on it. I could however measure the wavelength and determine it to be 530 nm. And you could look at it, and so could anyone else. I'm not saying everyones subjective experience of "green" will be identical, but the light has a specific wavelength.
> 
> And if you had no feeling in either hand and you placed them hot and cold water, would you say heat does not exist because there is no subjective difference between the two? If you had no tactile feeling at all you would be unaware of the concept of heat, or the subjective feeling of difference in heat, but the heat is very real and exists.


I have absolutely no problem with that. Shall we leave it there then?

my lights come on in 30 min anyway and I got watering to do.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

Does your light come on if you aren't their to experience it though?


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Does your light come on if you aren't their to experience it though?


Is this an attempt to lure me back into debating with you or is it rhetorical?


----------



## Seedling (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius knows he's wrong, he's just unwilling to admit it. He realized his mistake when I posted the definition of heat.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Is this an attempt to lure me back into debating with you or is it rhetorical?


Depends who you ask. It's subjective really.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Moebius knows he's wrong, he's just unwilling to admit it. He realized his mistake when I posted the definition of heat.


Seedling, no way dude. Im more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, and engage with others who disagree. Although you disagree, re-reading your posts you've remained polite. I'm happy to discuss further if you so wish.

I didn't make these ideas up out of thin air. They've come through reading and considering. 

This is what Mark Zemansky (American physicist) said about it.

Zemansky's plea.

_Don't refer to the "heat in a body", or say "this object has twice as much heat as that body". He also objects to the use of the vague term "thermal energy" and to the use of the word "heat" as a verb, because they feed the misconceptions, but it is hard to avoid those terms. He would counsel the introduction and use of the concept of internal energy as quickly as possible.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html


_


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Now I maybe wrong (i don't think) because i'm no physicist. but lets not get personal here.

lets take the _heat _out of the debate.


----------



## er0senin (Oct 9, 2012)

he no here!!


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

er0senin said:


> View attachment 2366902
> he no here!!


hmmm ... Mildly racist humour to lighten the tone.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> Seedling, no way dude. Im more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, and engage with others who disagree. Although you disagree, re-reading your posts you've remained polite. I'm happy to discuss further if you so wish.
> 
> I didn't make these ideas up out of thin air. They've come through reading and considering.
> 
> ...


Be careful what you read online. Anyone can post anything. Peter Russel sounds like retard to me. Mashing up god and spirituality into his discussions.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

If any of my posts come across as impolite ignore it. I have a cold, and can be a bit assholey anyway. I harbor no ill will with anyone here.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Be careful what you read online. Anyone can post anything. Peter Russel sounds like retard to me. Mashing up god and spirituality into his discussions.


Mark Zemansky was one of the foremost important American physicist in the 20th century. but i'll heed your warning none-the-less.

Peter Russell ...maybe i agree with you on that one.


----------



## Luv2H8Me (Oct 9, 2012)

Religion is necessary but it just isn't real. Is this really even a question anymore. Life exists accidentally. The basic elements that make up our solar system are evidence of a massive nuclear or radioactive blast. The evidence of evolution, the scientific study of behaviors across species within the same genus, and more importantly the complete lack of any evidence at all of truth in religion are clear. Religion requires belief without proof. That's called faith. I can believe in something without imperical evidence however I cannot believe in something without evidence when contrary evidence exists. Chew on that one. If God made how come he only made 2. If Xenu enslaved our theta and left us all to be undead for thousands of years then why do we have proof of primitive man and ape like beings that no longer exist. If we just existed as we do today with no explanation then I'm cool with religion. But the explanation exists, has been proven, and cannot be disproven. All that equals win for Darwin in my book.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

Mark Zemanskis plea sounds like symantics.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Mark Zemanskis plea sounds like symantics.


With respect .. maybe to your ear but not to me.

This is why Einstein said Reality was a *persistent *illusion. It goes against much of what we subjectively experience. I'm unable to do the required Math myself, my Calculus is basic at best but I find the ideas interesting.

Anyways, Its a real shame this got caught on thermodynamics, my point was much larger.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

I don't understand what misconception is being fed by using heat as a verb. You can either apply a warm body to transfer the energy to it, or you can apply work to raise the internal energy. I understand the different mechanism, but as he points out the end result is indistinguishable from each other. They seem to be interchangeable. Energy is energy.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> I don't understand what misconception is being fed by using heat as a verb.  You can either apply a warm body to transfer the energy to it, or you can apply work to raise the internal energy. I understand the different mechanism, but as he points out the end result is indistinguishable from each other. They seem to be interchangeable. Energy is energy.



tbh I'm not 100% clear on the misconception, maybe 70% there. but this is what I understand as relevant.

_In ordinary language one can speak of a process that increases the temperature of a body as 'heating' it, ignoring the nature of the process, which could be one of adiabatic transfer of energy as work. But in strict physical terms, a process is admitted as heating only when what is meant is transfer of energy as heat. *Such a process does not necessarily increase the temperature of the heated body, which may instead change its phase, for example by melting.
*

_IMO its ok not to fully understand immediately, I don't. Understanding only comes with time, reading and contemplation. For me, whats important is the journey and not the destination.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

It takes energy to transform from ice to water at the same temperature. So you can heat up ice at 32*F, and end up with water at 32*F. That can be done by placing it next to warmer body, or by adding mechanical heat, such as rubbing ice cubes together to create friction. I think that is what the bolded section of text means.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 9, 2012)

Exactly. You need as much heat energy to melt a block of ice (going from zero ºC to zero ºC) as it takes to raise the zero-degree melt to a toasty eighty C. 

Being heated but not getting hotter. cn


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Does your light come on if you aren't their to experience it though?


ahhah . . . . . .real comedy as in tragedy because this is tragic

dont ask guy to apply his logic to other scenarios, that's not fair


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> It takes energy to transform from ice to water at the same temperature. So you can heat up ice at 32*F, and end up with water at 32*F. That can be done by placing it next to warmer body, or by adding mechanical heat, such as rubbing ice cubes together to create friction. I think that is what the bolded section of text means.


That is what I understand of that highlighted text.

All of the sources and wiki stuff I literally speed readed through. I have not read any thermo-dynamics for many years but rather than fully understanding have a vague appreciation of the concepts.

................

I can't spend too much time on threads, I have a garden to maintain which will soon have 150 small plants. On top of that, I've got bullshit sales targets to meet at work atm ... plus I smoke a lot of Ganja. ... I just have no energy these days and much of the time struggle to keep my eyes open. 

Thanks for everyone who put me through my paces but i'll have to leave this for the mo. Anyways, its more fun talking Ganja than the existence of God.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Oct 9, 2012)

have a good one mr.Subjective, better go get in that room so it reaches temp

god knows if you were not there to experience it , they would die from the lack of temperature, heat, energy . . . .lol


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 9, 2012)

...Moebius, something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_mundi


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...Moebius, something like this?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_mundi


I just read through the Axis Mundi description, I have to confess to knowing absolutely nothing about the ideas expressed in these world religions. I have heard some on these terms on my travels but have not delved deeper into it.
WOW ..... Its very rare for me to come across an idea for which I have a zero reference point, its great, reading that I feel excited at the possibility of exploring completely new concepts to me.

Thankyou for the link, Ive got a day off today/tomorrow so I can visit my local library and pick up more literature on these enlightening Eastern philosophies. I'm in the mood for some existential thinking and was planning to do some more reading on Jean Paul Satre anyway.

Much respect and peace


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> I just read through the Axis Mundi description, I have to confess to knowing absolutely nothing about the ideas expressed in these world religions. I have heard some on these terms on my travels but have not delved deeper into it.
> WOW ..... Its very rare for me to come across an idea for which I have a zero reference point, its great, reading that I feel excited at the possibility of exploring completely new concepts to me.
> 
> Thankyou for the link, Ive got a day off today/tomorrow so I can visit my local library and pick up more literature on these enlightening Eastern philosophies. I'm in the mood for some existential thinking and was planning to do some more reading on Jean Paul Satre anyway.
> ...


...likewise  It was a hunch to post that.

Here's my very favorite part of the link:

"The symbol originates in a natural and universal psychological perception: that the spot one occupies stands at "the center of the world". This space serves as a microcosm of order because it is known and settled. Outside the boundaries of the microcosm lie foreign realms that, because they are unfamiliar or not ordered, represent chaos, death or night.[SUP][7][/SUP] From the center one may still venture in any of the four cardinal directions, make discoveries, and establish new centers as new realms become known and settled."

...as a model, does this serve as a way to stay in that space of potentiality, to be able to garner a new idea? I say, oui.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

When I first read it I immediately thought, is this to do with the 'Mappa Mundi'? which is a medieval English map. Mundi being Latin for 'World'. ... 

but not really, apart from anything else Im now interested on the etymology of the phrase as well as the underlying concepts.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...likewise  It was a hunch to post that.
> 
> Here's my very favorite part of the link:
> 
> ...


I would suggest it does too. More reading for me, as my brain is too rooted in the here and now and the drudgery of daily life to fully appreciate the ideas. atm. ..... Time for a paradigm shift in thinking for me, I think.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> That is what I understand of that highlighted text.
> 
> All of the sources and wiki stuff I literally speed readed through. I have not read any thermo-dynamics for many years but rather than fully understanding have a vague appreciation of the concepts.
> 
> ...


I have a degree in chemical engineering and have taken much thermodynamics, so maybe I just don't see the misconception since I understand what it means. It still seems to me like he is simply playing semantics with the word.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> I have a degree in chemical engineering and have taken much thermodynamics, so maybe I just don't see the misconception since I understand what it means. It still seems to me like he is simply playing semantics with the word.


OK, can't argue with that.

anyways .. apart from anything else, semantics help shape our understanding of the world.

not only our world but also our minds where would we be without it.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> OK, can't argue with that.
> 
> anyways .. apart from anything else, semantics help shape our understanding of the world.


I think if you are not careful your semantic ambiguity will be mistaken for sophistry.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I think if you are not careful your semantic ambiguity will be mistaken for sophistry.


sophistry no. I'm quite happy to share anything I know, or think I know. Evident by the energy and time i've spent discussing in this thread.

posting sources, video etc. .. see Richard Feynman link.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

I'm weary of discussing anything with you Heisenberg because I know without doubt, its just a matter of time before you start making personal remarks and insults.

Its not a good place to start debate.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> I'm weary of discussing anything with you Heisenberg because I know without doubt, its just a matter of time before you start making personal remarks and insults.
> 
> Its not a good place to start debate.


Poisoning the well is not a good place to start either, especially among a crowd which knows me well.

What I was trying to say is, I believe you were simply exploring the semantic implications and how they relate to reality, and not trying to deceive or muddy the waters. I think you got such blowback because it sounded similar to new age woo, which has earned a special sort of ire around here. I am simply suggesting that you can avoid being mistaken as disingenuous and deceitful if you are less ambiguous with your semantics.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

So, Im guessing from your ability to edit my posts, that you (Heisenberg) are a forum Moderator?

Great


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> So, Im guessing from your ability to edit my posts, that you (Heisenberg) are a forum Moderator?
> 
> Great


Correct except that I actually didn't edit your post, as I didn't see the need. I simply removed the flame comment you quoted.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Poisoning the well is not a good place to start either, especially among a crowd which knows me well.
> 
> What I was trying to say is, I believe you were simply exploring the semantic implications and how they relate to reality, and not trying to deceive or muddy the waters. I think you got such blowback because it sounded similar to new age woo, which has earned a special sort of ire around here. I am simply suggesting that you can avoid being mistaken as disingenuous and deceitful if you are less ambiguous with your semantics.


I do my best with the tools I have. Apologies if it doesn't come up to your standards. ... I don't really mind people who want to trade in insults, it bores me a little but Ive come to understand its just an expression of egocentrism which ultimately does more harm to the person engaging in such behavior.


and yes, I was exploring the semantic implications and how they relate to our world.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 9, 2012)

Moebius said:


> I do my best with the tools I have. Apologies if it doesn't come up to your standards. ... I don't really mind people who want to trade in insults, it bores me a little but Ive come to understand its just an expression of egocentrism which ultimately does more harm to the person engaging in such behavior.
> 
> 
> and yes, I was exploring the semantic implications and how they relate to our world.


I was clearly giving you take-it-or-leave-it advice. Interesting that you see it as judgment. And where have I insulted you? If you point it out an apology may be in order, but I do not recall throwing any insults at you.


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Correct except that I actually didn't edit your post, as I didn't see the need. I simply removed the flame comment you quoted.



Well for me that's a little disingenuous. ... I thought mods stated they were above the Avatar. JMO.

Anyways .......


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)

Now now children. Shut the fuck up.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 9, 2012)




----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I was clearly giving you take-it-or-leave-it advice. Interesting that you see it as judgment. And where have I insulted you? If you point it out an apology may be in order, but I do not recall throwing any insults at you.


I wasn't really stating you, just referring to the 'blowback' you felt I was getting. Yes, I felt you were part of it but I was getting you mixed up (in my head) with someone else. You haven't insulted me, sorry.

Insulted was my reaction, to accusations of sophistry. On reflection, unwarranted.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 9, 2012)

...in any case, good learnin' materials here. Looks like Sativa's done it again


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...in any case, good learnin' materials here. Looks like Sativa's done it again


Yep good thread... I try and only enter into a Religion or Politics thread once every few weeks, the rest of my time on RIU i'm checking out Bud Porn, since the human kind is kinda old hat.

I also enjoy talking Hempy grows in the W.O.H thread and connecting with others on that basis. I'm surprised because a few people have said that i've inspired them, go figure, me inspiring people. Jokes.

I like the encouragement and bringing together of minds that discussing growing tech can bring.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 9, 2012)

^ browsed w.o.h. earlier, nicely done


----------



## Moebius (Oct 9, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ^ browsed w.o.h. earlier, nicely done


Cheers but my grow is soon to become a lot better. ... I had some setbacks but now i'm going for it again.

The good thing about Weed is that it doesnt matter if youre Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever, we can all enjoy it without any antagonism.

Guess thats why some cultures ritualise the peace pipe. 

edit:
TBH I don't like to discuss contentious topics here, I'm concerned my views may put peeps off from partaking in the W.O.H thread. and thats my favourite place on RIU.


----------

