[Hendricks266]

Robman, on 26 February 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” – Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1952

>I can't refute your points so I'll just keep reposting this quote implying your entire thought process is being manipulated by forces from science fiction.

To prove an assertion that something is "psychologically impossible", you would need to enumerate every viewpoint that I hold and identify that literally all of them align with your claim.

Ready? Go.

[Hendricks266]

Robman, on 24 February 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

Pull your dick out of the beaker.

Robman, on 20 February 2015 - 08:22 PM, said:

oh .. and chip implants that let you buy or sell. The Bible called it the Mark of the beast .. but you know, the Bible doesn't make sense, right?

"I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its Churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world." -- Bertrand Russell

[Fox]

Robman, on 20 February 2015 - 08:22 PM, said:

oh .. and chip implants that let you buy or sell. The Bible called it the Mark of the beast .. but you know, the Bible doesn't make sense, right?

In this case it's not even a matter of questioning the Bible, but what you think is in the Bible. The mark of the beast was a manner of speaking against the Roman emperor without the authorities knowing.

[Wienerhole]

Hendricks266, on 26 February 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

"I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its Churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world." -- Bertrand Russell

"as organized in its Churches"

In case you've missed it, Rob isn't a fan of organized religion either... and I don't subscribe to his particular thread of theology... yet we both see the same "pattern" in play.

The techniques the organized church used in the past to keep man's potential limited so it could be harnessed for their purposes have simply been adapted to a new mythology. You know... that organized church that people were escaping from... that organized church which quickly sought to regain control through top down hierarchical structures via obscure fingers in government.

Let me put this as gently as possible because I know it's going to sting in a few years when you realize it's true: You are a proud member of the "other" hand of the organized Christian church.

You don't think The Pope is coming around to reason do you? He's executing the long running process of blending the two groups back together under one umbrella.

You are a member of a church. We are the heretics.

[Radar]

It's ironic that he mentions the Bible.

Regarding my point about quality of life being better than it used to be:

"Do not say, 'Why were the former days better than these?' For you do not inquire wisely concerning this." - Ecclesiastes 7:10



Regarding my point about fear:

"The fear of man brings a snare." - Proverbs 29:25a



Regarding trying to answer:

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." - Proverbs 26:4-5

[Robman]

Yep... You know when the leader of your opposition can't correctly identify the shape or use of his own penis, things are pretty bad.

- And I entertain arguments from these people.



Yes Radar. Out of context Bible quotes, slow clap for you. Thankgosh we have the internet, so kids can mock the Bible even faster yet still not understand it.

Gee, I wish I could spout random junk and garner Fox's upvotes. Unfortunately things I say actually have a coherent point.

[TerminX]

No--you are in fact the entertainment here.

[Robman]

Proverbs 26:7

Like the legs which are useless to the lame,
So is a proverb in the mouth of fools.

[Robman]

TerminX, on 26 February 2015 - 12:32 PM, said:

No--you are in fact the entertainment here.

You do know I could consider that a good thing right? ... I mean. How many hours of your lives have you spent in front of a computer? Attempt to quantify please.

Must take quite a few hours to learn how to code eh? Not to mention the hours of actually coding that would ensue.

If I ever need an expert opinion on the nicest flat panel bezel to stare at, you'll be the first to call.

[ReaperMan]

Robman, on 25 February 2015 - 01:59 PM, said:

So is Holden owned by Chevrolet?

Holden is owned by GM. GM also owns Chevrolet, as Chevrolet is a division of GM.

[TerminX]

I think my brain just melted. For a second there I thought some lunatic who spends his time posting bible quotes just tried to insinuate that honing skills was some kind of a waste.

[Robman]

TerminX, on 26 February 2015 - 01:05 PM, said:

I think my brain just melted. For a second there I thought some lunatic who spends his time posting bible quotes just tried to insinuate that honing skills was some kind of a waste.

So then you do not refute, ample or excessive computer time, you see that's fine. But it's time spent focusing on 1 topic or area of life.
Therefore making you .... narrow-minded.

Are you overweight? ... I'm getting an overweight computer guy vibe on the other end.

Run while you can TX ... this thread will scramble your brain and consume more of your time.

I'm personally getting tired of it, and about time too I suppose.

[Mblackwell]

Robman, on 26 February 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

Proverbs 26:7

Like the legs which are useless to the lame,
So is a proverb in the mouth of fools.

Psalms 92:1
A man who be most foolish is one given say thine words
though without context, misguided and meaningless

[Radar]

Robman, on 26 February 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

Yep... You know when the leader of your opposition can't correctly identify the shape or use of his own penis, things are pretty bad.

- And I entertain arguments from these people.



Yes Radar. Out of context Bible quotes, slow clap for you. Thankgosh we have the internet, so kids can mock the Bible even faster yet still not understand it.

Gee, I wish I could spout random junk and garner Fox's upvotes. Unfortunately things I say actually have a coherent point.

Not at all. I've read the whole entire Bible from beginning to end (minus the Chronicles, which I'm reading through now), and I've read the New Testament and Old Testament wisdom books many times. What I wrote down were verses from memory.

You obsess over the book of Revelations, because it's critical of people in the future, yet you ignore what is written before it, because everything else in the Bible is critical of the reader. The purpose of the Bible isn't to stress about the end times, to argue with others who you think are less "wise", and to ultimately take pride in your own opinions and belittle everyone else's. If you truly understood scripture, you'd find that the purpose of the Bible is to describe the events leading up to the life of Jesus and to promote his ideas. What were his ideas? Well, he himself said that everything can be summed up with "love your neighbor as yourself". If you truly understood the Bible, you'd love others, respect others, and sacrifice for others. Instead, within your first post in the General Discussion section of this forum, you attacked others who didn't believe your oh-so-wise-and-knowledgeable opinions, and then used the Bible to defend yourself. I don't know how authentic you are, but if you really consider yourself a Christian, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[The Commander]

Robman, on 25 February 2015 - 01:59 PM, said:

So is Holden owned by Chevrolet?

Seems your car is similar to the Pontiac G8 or Chev Lumina?

3.6 L (3,564 cc); V6
High Output Alloytec (LY7)
195 kW (261 hp) 340 N·m (250 lb·ft)
5-speed GM 5L40-E automatic 11.3 L/100 km (20.8 mpg-US)
2006–2009

Sound right? Probably nice n speedy and good handling. I like that it's rear wheel drive.

That's pretty much it.

Although my old Altezza/IS200 had much better handling of course.

[Wienerhole]

Well here comes a big no-no...

TLDR: "The adherents of any currently dominant religion never view themselves as being particularly religious. They are just "right" about the reality of the world around them."

Quote

- GetHyped
I'm not exactly seeing the parallels here.

- ErgoTheMirror
I believe you.

They've done an excellent job haven't they?

- GetHyped
It seems more like you're projecting your own prejudices. If you honestly think that Cosmos and/or science is somehow a religion then you need a new dictionary.

- ErgoTheMirror
Oh?

I'm supposed to submit to a specific authority that you believe in for the definition of The Word?

Interesting

- GetHyped
No, rather you're supposed to stick to commonly understood definitions of words if you wish to have a productive and logically consistent conversation.

- ErgoTheMirror
Yes I know what you think I'm supposed to do.

The commonly understood definition of "religion" you've proposed is one which is pushed for a very specific reason. Obfuscation of the underlying mindset so it can continue to be exploited on those who believe they are its most ardent opponents.

Quote

- GetHyped
My left foot is a religion. Why? Because I said so.

This is about the intellectual integrity of your argument.

- Aphorism
Just curious, but why did you not quote the entire definition?

religion |riˈlijən|
noun

• the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
  
• a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great religions.
  
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism is the new religion.

Speaking of intellectual integrity...

- ErgoTheMirror
Is it?

"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

"Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe."

"The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith, belief system or sometimes set of duties; however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social"."

"In his book The Varieties of Religious Experience, the psychologist William James defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine". By the term "divine" James meant "any object that is godlike, whether it be a concrete deity or not" to which the individual feels impelled to respond with solemnity and gravity."

"Sacred things are not, however, limited to gods or spirits. On the contrary, a sacred thing can be "a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred". Religious beliefs, myths, dogmas and legends are the representations that express the nature of these sacred things, and the virtues and powers which are attributed to them."

We can go on... if you like. Can't get any more "commonly" than dear old Wikipedia. There is no shortage of other definitions out there as well.

Unless of course you wish to identify some Specific Authority that we're all supposed to fall in line with?

Quote

- ErgoTheMirror
The conclusions reached now are built upon the conclusions reached by earlier processes. Without understanding the scientific nature of those people that are now mocked... a great opportunity for self reflection when making the same errors is missed.

Look at the *nature* of the people... not their beliefs. Identify who are the "heretics" that will eventually be identified as looking beyond the "commonly understood conclusions of the time". Identify who are the "priests" who will eventually be identified as working to maintain the "commonly accepted conclusions" of the time.

I'm being scientific about the Culture of Science. I'm stating flat out that the "commonly understood" and defended dogmas that aren't seen as dogmas of today will one day be represented in cartoons the same as the people in the first episode of Cosmos were. The "priests" back then were blinded to their dogmas the same as the "experts" of today.

It is the cartoonish representation of these "stupid theists" of old that is causing people to not recognize when they are in fact being those people now. It is a failure to recognize how those people *really* thought, the processes they were using, and the degree of intellectual effort put into their positions.

Quote

- ErgoTheMirror
Here's the trick for us trying to explore this territory. We must teleport our minds as best we can back to the information available at the time.

It's easy to look at those dismissing Bruno and marvel at how they could be so blind to something "so obvious". But let's take the Cosmos episode at face value where it outright states he didn't *have* evidence... not really. Only his ability to reason things out. The evidence would come later.

Consider the reaction *now* when someone proposes an idea that seems "plausible" yet overthrows everything... but lacks any evidence except their reasoning it out. Cries of "Heresy!" are no different than "Evidence!?!?!" except thankfully the experts in a field no longer have the ability to burn heretics.

They can simply ruin careers or cut off funding.

When we place our state of mind into the appropriate time frame and look at the world as it would have appeared to them... we see the exact same dynamics play then as today and those in the past no longer appear quite so unreasonable. We also start to see how unreasonable we're going to look to others down the road who haven't fully perceived this dynamic.

We see this at play in more modern times. Look back on the history of Lamarckism. It went from plausible... to laughable... to a semi-vindication via Epigenetics. We are quick to dismiss this as "just the way science works"... but if we REALLY look at how we as a "scientific culture" treated this subject as well as many others the pattern becomes clear and it starts to become easy to identify the personas by their traits of behavior in current times regardless of their beliefs.

Looking into the path the "discovery" of meteorites went through where the "laymen" were telling the experts they came from the sky and were dismissed for quite some time. Or Alfred Wegener being dismissed for continental drift. Or any other number of science heroes who died or "failed in the careers" before their expert peers acknowledged their perspectives. In hindsight we applaud their strength in the face of opposition... while being that very opposition today.

Whether the experts wear robes or lab coats... it's the same personalities at play.

When someone reads the writings of people like Thomas Aquinas, the "mad desert saints" of Orthodox Catholicism, the Tao, etc... and contemplate the time, culture, and information they were working within the scientific mind is clearly visible when the surface word biases are pulled aside.

This process of "self correction" from testing and evidence is not unique to "science" as a field of study. It's just what people do across all areas. They refine and iterate their areas of interest as more perspectives become available and understandable. People were using "science" when they were still worshiping animals and rocks and it was the scientific mind that led them to do so in the face of the evidence they did have. It then led to how tools came to be and species were domesticated. The process existed long before someone decided to define it.

Another example I often consider. "Turtles all the way down" is often used as a pejorative when mocking ancient beliefs. But really think about it! Someone who has figured out the repeating fractal nature of reality wants to explain the concept of infinitely repeating patterns in the universe to a person who has possibly never done any math... much less contemplated the Mandlebrot Set. Turtle Shells repeating over and over is a *fantastic* method to communicate this concept.

The entire point of the great thinkers of the past was they were going against the commonly understood "facts" and available evidence. Their new evidence was initially sparse and when it did exist was difficult to comprehend to someone who had lived thinking about things a certain way.

The prominent theologians of old in east and west spent a great deal of time running their views of the world through the rigors of reason and verification with the best tools and information available to them.

At one time Catholicism in the west was the safest belief system to subscribe to to avoid ridicule... and most of the best minds were working within that worldview. What is it the safest worldview today? What will it be tomorrow?

Are we absolutely sure we're smarter than the universe that created us? Are we just on mute?

Who knows!?!?

Quote

- GetHyped
So we're playing the game of "dictionary abuse" where we cherry pick the context and meaning of words? Very intellectually dishonest. Let's see what else Wikipedia has to say about the definition of religion:

- ErgoTheMirror
No, we're playing the game of observing reality as it is... not getting trapped in authoritative definitions of the day. "Religion" is a word. The mindset is a reality. Over time words fail to accurately describe reality.

"There are numerous definitions of religion and only a few are stated here. The typical dictionary definition of religion refers to a "belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods"[22] or the "service and worship of God or the supernatural".[23] However, writers and scholars have expanded upon the "belief in god" definitions as insufficient to capture the diversity of religious thought and experience."

What you are missing in my efforts to share an alternative perspective with you... is that the Culture of Science in full force today is very much a religious thought and experience and the "typical" definition is insufficient to capture this reality.

It shows its face in the very style of language you've chosen during our discussion.

Quote

GetHyped
If you drew this conclusion from a popular science TV shoe then you need to lay off the acid.

- ErgoTheMirror
I draw the conclusion by observing the behavior, methods, and mindsets of the ardent adherents of the Culture of Science.

There is a difference between the scientific process and the conclusions of a certain time and place. Currently the Culture of Science has conflated them.

The Cosmos TV show is serving the same purpose as any "religious" play or ceremony. It's not science... it's a celebration of a certain culture and conclusions with a worshipful and reverent tone.

- GetHyped
When you have to bend and abuse language to make your argument appear logically consistent on the surface, you have lost.

- ErgoTheMirror
Language is a tool to communicate about a reality that exists regardless of language. When the language is insufficient or in fact BLINDS the culture to itself... yes... updates are required for more accurate understandings to emerge.

Words play games.
Some reveal.
Some conceal.
In the end, they were never real.

Understand the *mindset* of "religion" regardless of whatever is considered an adequate definition "today" and you'll begin to recognize the *reality* of "religion" in far more places. Best to you.

Quote

- ErgoTheMirror
The Stations of The Cross is not a religion.
It's an activity within a certain cultural religion.

Cosmos is not a religion.
It's an activity within a certain cultural religion.

The adherents of any currently dominant religion never view themselves as being particularly religious. They are just "right" about the reality of the world around them.

[The Commander]

Fuck this thread is really full of bullshit at the moment.

[Robman]

Brony-Aur Stomp, on 26 February 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

If you truly understood the Bible, you'd love others, respect others, and sacrifice for others. Instead, within your first post in the General Discussion section of this forum, you attacked others who didn't believe your oh-so-wise-and-knowledgeable opinions, and then used the Bible to defend yourself. I don't know how authentic you are, but if you really consider yourself a Christian, you should be ashamed of yourself.

So, the act of pissing my time away being caught up explaining sensitive topics with you people, leaving myself open to ridicule while actually providing plenty of evidence and leads, also Chuck's input. The people (you) opposing haven't actually proposed anything to speak quite frankly. Having my "cool-kid" points taken away, lol.

You don't think that's a sacrifice on my end?


... You should be ashamed for getting caught up in shoot the messenger mode. Your Bible quotes certainly were out of context. You're certainly a fluoride encrusted imp... stop talking to me.

[Wienerhole]

Commander Cody, on 26 February 2015 - 01:35 PM, said:

Fuck this thread is really full of bullshit at the moment.

Could use more Tao Te Ching.

[Robman]

rofl.. Charlie, that was awesome.

[TerminX]

Robman, on 26 February 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

Typical, angry over the top fat computer guy answer. Case and point.

You don't like your life, don't take it out on me.

I have plenty of skills, had plenty of jobs.

From Farming to Computer technician, Petroleum technician, Heavy equipment operater, welder, mechanic, house framer ... lots of jobs. Lots of skills, lots of variety. Don't get me started on hobbies...

I like my life. I know .. kinda rare 'round these parts.

You have it completely backwards. I love my life--that's why I don't have to act like you do to get enjoyment out of it. I'm really sorry yours turned out poorly enough that you have to project so much of your own self-loathing on everyone you come in contact with.

Gentlemen, let us all say a prayer for Robman to help him though his troubled time.

[Mblackwell]

Let's be honest, anyone who follows the bible as the basis for a religion is as much of a shill as anyone. It was designed by committees and governments who didn't have the well being of others in mind: just advancement of their own power.

On the other hand, as a general philosophical guide book that you can pick and choose from it can be interesting.


In that sense one thing that people ignore (in the Old Testament) is a constant theme of disobedience, or rebellion against social tradition. The people in these stories are always the hero throwing out the old order by showing people how ridiculous their rigidity is. This applies to Adonai/God as well, in the sense that the prophets were able to argue with him and even turn his opinion/make him recognize his error. The Old Testament (particularly when seem in the form of the Torah which has a somewhat less obscured translation) says exactly the opposite of what people would image it does: It says that everyone (even God/The Powers That Be) is fallible and rigid dogma is bad for you.

[Robman]

TerminX, on 26 February 2015 - 02:06 PM, said:

You have it completely backwards. I love my life--that's why I don't have to act like you do to get enjoyment out of it. I'm really sorry yours turned out poorly enough that you have to project so much of your own self-loathing on everyone you come in contact with.

Gentlemen, let us all say a prayer for Robman to help him though his troubled time.

Am I projecting anger to everyone? Seems like everyone keeps lining up one by one to have some anger projected onto them. I almost think they like it
Also, please my friends call me Rob.

Yes yes, you're awesome.. my views suck. You win. Now let's have a beer cause dis' shit's gay and I'mma 'bout through wid it.

@Blackwell ... that avatar mod is kinda witty this time .. some nice work there Lou.

An argument with no basis won't go anywhere... Look at how many pages are filled with 1-2 people debating against 10 or so.

[Mblackwell]

I just accidentally ate a bunch of scrabble tiles...























My next shit could spell disaster.

[Wienerhole]

Mblackwell, on 26 February 2015 - 02:07 PM, said:

It was designed by committees and governments who didn't have the well being of others in mind: just advancement of their own power.

In regard to the preceding discussion that sort of commentary smells like... napalm.

Robman, on 26 February 2015 - 02:10 PM, said:

I almost think they like it

No doubt about it.

[Robman]

Hendricks266, on 26 February 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

Deuteronomy 25:11-12
If two men are fighting together, and the wife of one comes to rescue her husband from the grasp of his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes his genitals, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.


I'm still waiting for "haha, spic!".

Yeah, so? Cut the bitches hand off... LOL Gentlemen, I've tossed you the ball I don't know how many times.. I'm done playing catch with you for the time being.

It never occured to me to call you that Hendricks, but it does sound like a good idea. For every downvote you've given me, consider it one round of "spic" calling.

I haven't said f*ck all about races, people love their pre-scripted race debates.. have fun with that.

You wanna make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs. This is what progress looks like:

[Wienerhole]

Robman, on 26 February 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

you people

Now u dun it.

Edit: I just *had* to go see what on earth could get you downvoted in PC Monitor. It was worth the effort.

[Robman]

CharlesT, on 26 February 2015 - 02:41 PM, said:

Now u dun it.

Edit: I just *had* to go see what on earth could get you downvoted in PC Monitor. It was worth the effort.

oh man... that's 2 good laughs this forum has given me today.

[Radar]

LOL THIS IS WHAT PROGRESS LOOKS LIKE








I should be studying for mid-terms.

[Lunick]

I don't know what is worse, religion talk or these fucking pony images again.