 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:30:05 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ultimately, all acts are selfish ones.
>>> I disagree. Talk to anyone who has gone into a burning building to
>>> save others - no amount of money compensates for that.
>> This is a debate that has been around since before Shakespeare. Would
>> you do it if it didn't make you feel good to have succeeded? Would you
>> give money to the poor if you didn't get a glow out of helping the poor?
>> Etc.
>
> Fair point, for firefighters reportedly there is a bit of a "rush" - but
> I wonder how many of those who went into the towers on 9/11 (and I hate
> using 9/11 as an example) went in knowing they were probably not coming
> out.
>
>>> "Either you agree with me or you're stupid"?
>> You know, I was wondering what that fallacy is called. There has to be
>> a name for "if only you agreed with me, you'd see that I'm right."
>
> There does....Whatever it's called, taking that approach
> overemotionalizes the issue and attempts to conflate facts with
> opinions. It's almost gotta be a kind of baiting, kinda like "no one has
> a relevant challenge? Guess it would be like challenging the Sun." - the
> implication being that if nobody has "a relevant challenge", then "I must
> be right".
>
> It's a common trolling tactic, but I have to admit to being surprised to
> see Patrick use it - I don't often see his posts as falling in that
> category.
>
> Jim
Wasn't intentional. But, sometimes you just have to state facts, and
sadly, in this case, the facts, much as with the case of Poe's Law, tend
to reflect a similar sentiment to what the other side employs as a
tactic. Example, just because someone else says you are "like" a
murderer, and references a known one, it doesn't follow that, since its
a fallacy to make the argument, its also a fallacy to claim that the
known murderer was a murderer.
It may not be nice. But the truth is, there are common psychological
traits to people that believe in supernatural explanations, and one of
them is a refusal to see anything that doesn't support their own
position, or to interpret some aspect of what "is" said, as supporting
them, even when it doesn't. e.g. trying to claim that the existence of
love isn't "explained" without god, and therefor god -> love -> Good.
Doesn't matter what argument you might try to derail that, everything
you come up with will be "reinterpreted" to fit the original premise anyway.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:05:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Ultimately, all acts are selfish ones.
>>
>> I disagree. Talk to anyone who has gone into a burning building to
>> save others - no amount of money compensates for that.
>>
>>> The people that say otherwise are
>>> in denial, or have been taught to say otherwise, and almost manage to
>>> believe it.
>>
>> "Either you agree with me or you're stupid"?
>>
>> Jim
> Statement of where the evidence leads. If you can show evidence
> otherwise, I will be happy to change my position. Not so sure about the
> person it was directed towards.
That's a pretty good straw man, I have to admit.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:12:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Wasn't intentional. But, sometimes you just have to state facts, and
> sadly, in this case, the facts, much as with the case of Poe's Law, tend
> to reflect a similar sentiment to what the other side employs as a
> tactic.
A fair point. I was just surprised at the source - had to double check
to see if it was in fact you. :-)
> Example, just because someone else says you are "like" a
> murderer, and references a known one, it doesn't follow that, since its
> a fallacy to make the argument, its also a fallacy to claim that the
> known murderer was a murderer.
? The known murderer *was* a murderer. I don't follow here.
> It may not be nice. But the truth is, there are common psychological
> traits to people that believe in supernatural explanations, and one of
> them is a refusal to see anything that doesn't support their own
> position, or to interpret some aspect of what "is" said, as supporting
> them, even when it doesn't. e.g. trying to claim that the existence of
> love isn't "explained" without god, and therefor god -> love -> Good.
Well, I wouldn't say all people who believe in a God (NB difference from
"supernatural explanations") refuse to see things that don't support that
position. There are quite a few people in the scientific community who
believe in "god(s)" and who acknowledge that there is a bit of a strange
dichotomy there. They generally rationalize this by saying that what
they believe in is that there is more to the universe than we know, and
that there may well be something (or indeed someone) there that (who) has
a bigger view.
> Doesn't matter what argument you might try to derail that, everything
> you come up with will be "reinterpreted" to fit the original premise
> anyway.
Now that I have seen, time and again.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:03:04 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Truth is, there isn't a "nice" liberal Christian alive that doesn't
> fundamentally deny nearly 100% of the OT, and gloss over parts of the
> NT.
That's a bit of a straw-man as well, since an example could be provided,
but when provided it would be easily refuted by "no, I said
*liberal*". ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:17:59 -0700, Tim Attwood wrote:
>
> > I didn't say that belief in God makes you good. I said that good people
> > do good things, and that love motivates you to do good things.
>
> Well, I think Patrick might've been saying that the rest of you wrote
> just feeds the trolls.
>
> But I don't think love motivates you to do good things. I think
> selflessness does. Love comes with the baggage of some sort of
> expectation for your efforts.
>
> But I guess that also depends on how you define "love".
>
> Jim
yes exactly, "how YOU define it", as you speak of it you only "define" your
perception of it revealing little details of yourself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So we SHOULD define it in a very real sense leaving out all human perception of
it.
Lets at least TRY to gain perception of it, reread the lesson of the first post,
processing out your anger before attempting any reply.
Now first understand the law of physics of hate and love, that the 2 cannot
exist in the same place like night and day. And a difficult fact for some is
this. If you aren't doing one you ARE doing the other, but I think that it only
applies to those capable of love, unlike dark souls who cannot and never will.
7x7 Matrix of Love
Love does 7 things(!) to provide 7 feelings(*) (Action!/Awareness*)
Love...
1} Gives
2} Responds
3} Respects
4} Knows
5} Has the humility to be intimate
6} Has courage to make a commitment
7} Love cares
And for specific reasons, to provide...
1} Safety and security
2} Pleasure
3} Honesty and the ability to be vulnerable
4} Trust
5} Reduced fear of loss
6} Intimacy and caring
7} Wonder of being known
Love is not perfect, love is not god, it just IS what it is, and if you can't do
it, you will not recognize this definition.
With a real definition tho, you can then tell if you are doing it or not.
What is truth? Can you recognize it when you hear it? Claudia could apparently,
and when asked how, she replied, if you will not hear the truth, no one can
tell it to you.
At this point you cannot imagine what have not yet brought to the table but
still may if only you can be the scientists and get your need to fight about it
in check.
Geeze no wonder they told me, "we don't wanna talk to everybody".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Posting the process doesn't do it justice. The discussion of processing anger
takes some 30-40 minutes to really gain a perception of it. Therefore I want to
include at least one or more critical details of the process.
If your angry with someone you don't need to express the anger to them
personally. You can talk about it with them but only if you're NOT angry,
because no one hears angry words. And if they are a friend they will listen if
you're talking, and if they wont listen they are not a friend worth having.
If you have processed it and find yourself taking back the anger after you
thought it was gone, back to step one.
The ideal method is to express the anger to them in your imagination, (those
that have some imagination of course) then you are speaking directly to their
more real self. This is of course inexplicable in a physical sense. Not
everyone has a more real self as it were, so if don't make contact in the real
sense, why bother even talking to the illusion.
Is reality eternal or is it created? Only that which is real is eternal,
creation is a temporary reality.
Dang should have spent more time on that one. But when discussing REALITY words
eventually fail anyway so I'm letting it go.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Go back a little over 2,000 years and you will find people already
> shooting holes in this idea that "god" has anything to do with piety,
> love, or other such things. Even then "some" of them where able to
> figure out that either god's ideas where arbitrary, and therefor
> claiming that good came from them was absurd, or that good existed
> without them, and therefor all the gods where really doing was stealing
> it, then claiming that they made up the whole idea themselves. You are
> not proving to anyone by such assertions that love, never mind justice,
> or other similar concepts *only* exist do to any god, instead of all the
> other "reasonable" explanations that exist, most of which can be pointed
> out to exist in "any" social animal, simply because, well, its "social".
>
> So, sorry, but if you are actually claiming that you "must" have a god
> for love to exist somehow, and that good derives from that, then you
> **are** in fact claiming on some level, that belief in something "godly"
> makes you good, even if you are willing to waffle a lot more than most
> theists about if you have to believe in Mr. Robes too.
Maybe there's some social reason that any mention of
God makes otherwise rational people angry and confrontational?
If you don't believe in God, why do you blame him for so much?
I really wasn't trying to prove anything.
I just figured AQ needs a hug.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Attwood" <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote:
> Maybe there's some social reason that any mention of
> God makes otherwise rational people angry and confrontational?
> If you don't believe in God, why do you blame him for so much?
> I really wasn't trying to prove anything.
> I just figured AQ needs a hug.
Woke to your post, and yes you bet. I don't try to wiggle out of hugs anymore, I
am grown now.
Might we now ponder the words of Offspring:
Show me how to lie
You're getting better all the time
And turning all against the one
Is an art that's hard to teach
Another clever word
Sets off an unsuspecting herd
And as you get back into line
A mob jumps to their feet
Now dance, f||cker, dance
Man, he never had a chance
And no one even knew
It was really only you
And now you steal away
Take him out today
Nice work you did
You're gonna go far, kid
With a thousand lies
And a good disguise
Hit 'em right between the eyes
Hit 'em right between the eyes
When you walk away
Nothing more to say
See the lightning in your eyes
See 'em running for their lives
Slowly out of line
And drifting closer in your sights
So play it out I'm wide awake
It's a scene about me
There's something in your way
And now someone is gonna pay
And if you can't get what you want
Well it's all because of me
Now dance, f||cker, dance
Man, I never had a chance
And no one even knew
It was really only you
And now you'll lead the way
Show the light of day
Nice work you did
You're gonna go far, kid
Trust, deceived!
With a thousand lies
And a good disguise
Hit 'em right between the eyes
Hit 'em right between the eyes
When you walk away
Nothing more to say
See the lightning in your eyes
See 'em running for their lives
Now dance, f||cker, dance
He never had a chance
And no one even knew
It was really only you
So dance, f||cker, dance
I never had a chance
It was really only you
With a thousand lies
And a good disguise
Hit 'em right between the eyes
Hit 'em right between the eyes
When you walk away
Nothing more to say
See the lightning in your eyes
See 'em running for their lives
Clever alibis
Lord of the flies
Hit 'em right between the eyes
Hit 'em right between the eyes
When you walk away
Nothing more to say
See the lightning in your eyes
See 'em running for their lives
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And that of Emerson:
hobgoblin of little minds
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
