The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Mayor Maximus on September 02, 2008, 04:29:57 PM
-
... FTL_Ian on August 21, 2008, 09:21:36 PM
"Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?"
Indeed i am. In my estimation, the pantheism thing is a complete cop-out that Ian is using to smooth out conversations with potential liberty lovers. I am very impressed with the success of this approach from what I have heard of his interactions from religious callers. They see him as less of a threat to that particular part of their world view and thus are more accepting to his other views. I get it. I still think it's a bad approach because it's a failure to acknowledge that the fight against religion is a fight against government at a basic level.
Mark, however, does believe his rhetoric (at least on this one issue).
-
Sellout Ian is a Sellout. :D
-
Someone told you atheism is a religion. Get ready for the atheist/pantheist wars.
-
Indeed i am. In my estimation, the pantheism thing is a complete cop-out that Ian is using to smooth out conversations with potential liberty lovers.
bitch, bitch, bitch...
-
Sellout Ian is a Sellout. :D
When is he going to start whoring out to Robert Redford?
-
When is he going to start whoring out to Robert Redford?
Hey, the sauce is good at least. Better product than a lot of that holistic nonsense crap that gets air time.
Oh wait, that's Newman. :P
-
When is he going to start whoring out to Robert Redford?
Hey, the sauce is good at least. Better product than a lot of that holistic nonsense crap that gets air time.
Oh wait, that's Newman. :P
I threw up a little at the thought of Ian doing "Ian's Own" sort of tripe.
-
I threw up a little at the thought of Ian doing "Ian's Own" sort of tripe.
IAN"S OWN KOOSH BALL DICK GRABBING EXTRAVAGANZAAAAAAAAAAH!
I like Ian. I like him a lot. But he's a total goofenheimer.
-
I threw up a little at the thought of Ian doing "Ian's Own" sort of tripe.
IAN"S OWN KOOSH BALL DICK GRABBING EXTRAVAGANZAAAAAAAAAAH!
I like Ian. I like him a lot. But he's a total goofenheimer.
I know. He's like my long lost more out going half-brother. (Hint: Star Trek 5)
-
I know. He's like my long lost more out going half-brother. (Hint: Star Trek 5)
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/justinorde/acidtest/page0_blog_entry18_1.jpg)
-
I know. He's like my long lost more out going half-brother. (Hint: Star Trek 5)
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/justinorde/acidtest/page0_blog_entry18_1.jpg)
(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/3135/sybokag8.jpg)
-
I only point it out because he seems more emotional compared to me in regards to considering the implications of the anarchist view point.
-
I only point it out because he seems more emotional compared to me in regards to considering the implications of the anarchist view point.
I think that Ian's knowledge begins and ends with Mary Ruart and the NAP.
At least he acts like it sometimes.
-
I think that Ian's knowledge begins and ends with Mary Ruart and the NAP.
-
I think that Ian's knowledge begins and ends with Mary Ruart the Tannehills and the NAP.
FTFY
-
Oh noes, a pantheist.
Quick, summon some Christians, Jews, and Muslims to burn the pagan!
-
... FTL_Ian on August 21, 2008, 09:21:36 PM
"Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?"
Indeed i am. In my estimation, the pantheism thing is a complete cop-out that Ian is using to smooth out conversations with potential liberty lovers. I am very impressed with the success of this approach from what I have heard of his interactions from religious callers. They see him as less of a threat to that particular part of their world view and thus are more accepting to his other views. I get it. I still think it's a bad approach because it's a failure to acknowledge that the fight against religion is a fight against government at a basic level.
Mark, however, does believe his rhetoric (at least on this one issue).
I could be wrong of course, but I don't believe that Ian thinks that there is God in everything -- at least not a conscious God. So my theory is that Ian is just trying to avoid the word 'atheism', like he avoids many other words which he believes aren't understood by the general populace in a way that he agrees. He also avoids the words anarchist, libertarian, capitalist, and anarcho-capitalist. So, instead of being an atheist, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, he thinks of himself as a pantheist voluntarist.
Craig
-
the fight against religion is a fight against government at a basic level.
HUH? That doesn't make any sense at all! Religion is voluntary, government is not. There's no correlation.
... FTL_Ian on August 21, 2008, 09:21:36 PM
"Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?"
Indeed i am. In my estimation, the pantheism thing is a complete cop-out that Ian is using to smooth out conversations with potential liberty lovers. I am very impressed with the success of this approach from what I have heard of his interactions from religious callers. They see him as less of a threat to that particular part of their world view and thus are more accepting to his other views. I get it. I still think it's a bad approach because it's a failure to acknowledge that the fight against religion is a fight against government at a basic level.
Mark, however, does believe his rhetoric (at least on this one issue).
I could be wrong of course, but I don't believe that Ian thinks that there is God in everything -- at least not a conscious God. So my theory is that Ian is just trying to avoid the word 'atheism', like he avoids many other words which he believes aren't understood by the general populace in a way that he agrees. He also avoids the words anarchist, libertarian, capitalist, and anarcho-capitalist. So, instead of being an atheist, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, he thinks of himself as a pantheist voluntarist.
Craig
Many religious people believe that there is God in everything, or that God IS everything and that there is not a conscious God making our decisions for us. Most Jews think that way even though most of us would not consider ourselves Pantheist per-se. Pantheism makes a lot more sense to me than militant atheism. It also makes a lot more sense to me than believing in religious Determinism like some Christians and Muslims and Buddhists believe. At least Pantheism doesn't clash with the belief in Free Will nor does it leave a big gaping hole for Luddites to suppress science.
-
Yes, it does make me a little upset. Pantheism is mystical unscientific illogical unreasonable stoner hippie bullshit. It goes against the whole idea of rational, logical thought. "Good things happen to you when you think positively, not because of rational scientific reasons, but because there's a magical positive energy unicorn flying around in the sky!" :roll:
-
Yes, it does make me a little upset. Pantheism is mystical unscientific illogical unreasonable stoner hippie bullshit. It goes against the whole idea of rational, logical thought. "Good things happen to you when you think positively, not because of rational scientific reasons, but because there's a magical positive energy unicorn flying around in the sky!" :roll:
Huh? It doesn't have to be unscientific or illogical. The way you put it certainly makes it seem ridiculous, but I don't think that's what Pantheism is about. Pantheists believe that God is the universe in totality. It's just another way of explaining creation, except that this one doesn't violate anything we know about science. It doesn't negate free will nor scientific pursuit. Learning science is learning the laws of God in Pantheism. How is that illogical or unscientific?
-
Yes, it does make me a little upset. Pantheism is mystical unscientific illogical unreasonable stoner hippie bullshit. It goes against the whole idea of rational, logical thought. "Good things happen to you when you think positively, not because of rational scientific reasons, but because there's a magical positive energy unicorn flying around in the sky!" :roll:
Huh? It doesn't have to be unscientific or illogical. The way you put it certainly makes it seem ridiculous, but I don't think that's what Pantheism is about. Pantheists believe that God is the universe in totality. It's just another way of explaining creation, except that this one doesn't violate anything we know about science. It doesn't negate free will nor scientific pursuit. Learning science is learning the laws of God in Pantheism. How is that illogical or unscientific?
It's illogical in this sense: If the God that is in everything is not a conscious God, then you're using a meaningless term. And if the God IS a conscious God, then you're accepting the idea of a conscious God without evidence.
More importantly, the rules of science and logic demand that all assertions be backed with evidence, and that all existents have an identity. A God without identity is a non-entity and a contradiction.
Craig
-
Yes, it does make me a little upset. Pantheism is mystical unscientific illogical unreasonable stoner hippie bullshit. It goes against the whole idea of rational, logical thought. "Good things happen to you when you think positively, not because of rational scientific reasons, but because there's a magical positive energy unicorn flying around in the sky!" :roll:
Huh? It doesn't have to be unscientific or illogical. The way you put it certainly makes it seem ridiculous, but I don't think that's what Pantheism is about. Pantheists believe that God is the universe in totality. It's just another way of explaining creation, except that this one doesn't violate anything we know about science. It doesn't negate free will nor scientific pursuit. Learning science is learning the laws of God in Pantheism. How is that illogical or unscientific?
It's illogical in this sense: If the God that is in everything is not a conscious God, then you're using a meaningless term. And if the God IS a conscious God, then you're accepting the idea of a conscious God without evidence.
More importantly, the rules of science and logic demand that all assertions be backed with evidence, and that all existents have an identity. A God without identity is a non-entity and a contradiction.
Craig
The evidence is that the universe exists.
-
The evidence is that the universe exists.
Oooh no you don't JB!
Did a conscious god "create" this universe?
-
It's illogical in this sense: If the God that is in everything is not a conscious God, then you're using a meaningless term. And if the God IS a conscious God, then you're accepting the idea of a conscious God without evidence.
More importantly, the rules of science and logic demand that all assertions be backed with evidence, and that all existents have an identity. A God without identity is a non-entity and a contradiction.
Great post, I think you summed up the flaws of Pantheism/"god is everything" fallacy pretty concisely, although I'm sure it won't cut any ground with the Pantheists here. Unfortunately people just seem to caught up in mysticism, and the need to feel part of something greater than themselves to let this go.
Pantheism really was the natural evolution from the old world gods. People like to believe in shit, maybe believe when they die that isn't the end, or that theres something magical and supernatural going on, but with the old world gods, you really have to fuck your logic centers to buy into it, mostly because the people who invented them knew fuck all about the universe, and where often bigoted and supported slavery.
If you actually read what it says in the holy books, and not what the followers want to pick and choose and "interpret", most religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) have really dumb ass miracle stories, like floods that encompass the entire earth, people coming back to life, people being miraculously cured, when we know this stuff is impossible, and the only way people can actually buy it is because it happened in the way old past, and they can come up with some nicely fitting bullshit about why those things don't happen any more, and why god was happy to show himself to people in the past but not anymore.
Also there are alot of backward claims about the earth being the center of the universe, and the sun and the stars being different things, light being made before stars, and the heaven being in the sky, hell being in the center of the earth. There are plenty abhorrent commands in old god holy books too, like kill homosexuals, or its okay to stone kids to death or own slaves, so you get to avoid that aswell.
With Pantheism you get to keep all the warm fuzzy mysticism, without having to acknowledge any concrete claims about the universe or follow bullshit "morals". you're totally free to make up whatever religion you want and claim it to be true without reality getting in the way, and if you make it as nebulous as "god is existence" or "god is math and science", then you have nothing to claw at your intelligence to tell you to stop buying into the bullshit.
As of yet I still haven't seen a single Pantheist on this board actually define what claims they actually believe, although usually it includes some vague bullshit about order/spirituality of the universe, and handily includes/supports and personal preferences and desires the person may have.
-
Oh noes, a pantheist.
Quick, summon some Christians, Jews, and Muslims to burn the pagan!
I'll bring the marshmallows! :D
-
Oh noes, a pantheist.
Quick, summon some Christians, Jews, and Muslims to burn the pagan!
HEY, We can have an Inquisition.
CONFESS! CONFESS!
-
As of yet I still haven't seen a single Pantheist on this board actually define what claims they actually believe,
I'm a pantheist, and I believe the claim that you are a douche.
-
Doesn't all of that noodly goodness have to permeate into government bureaucrats if you believe it's everywhere?
-
... FTL_Ian on August 21, 2008, 09:21:36 PM
"Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?"
Indeed i am. In my estimation, the pantheism thing is a complete cop-out that Ian is using to smooth out conversations with potential liberty lovers. I am very impressed with the success of this approach from what I have heard of his interactions from religious callers. They see him as less of a threat to that particular part of their world view and thus are more accepting to his other views. I get it. I still think it's a bad approach because it's a failure to acknowledge that the fight against religion is a fight against government at a basic level.
Mark, however, does believe his rhetoric (at least on this one issue).
Good point, but that's not the reason. I've seen and continue to see thr Law of Attraction work, and that drew me to pantheism. I'd loved atheism because it was all about believing in yourself instead of some deity. Pantheism is also about believing in yourself, but moreso. The pantheistic view doesn't stifle like monotheistic religions; it encourages expansion. It doesn't hold judgement over your actions. There is nothing to worship.
There is nothing false about me proclaiming my pantheism.
We can all be Neo, if we choose it.
-
Good point, but that's not the reason. I've seen and continue to see thr Law of Attraction work, and that drew me to pantheism. I'd loved atheism because it was all about believing in yourself instead of some deity. Pantheism is also about believing in yourself, but moreso. The pantheistic view doesn't stifle like monotheistic religions; it encourages expansion. It doesn't hold judgement over your actions. There is nothing to worship.
There is nothing false about me proclaiming my pantheism.
We can all be Neo, if we choose it.
Good on you for sticking to you guns. What you choose to believe in is a fundamental aspect of the freedom lovers way. That said, if it starts becoming a regular part of what you're pitching on your show, you can count me the fuck out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
-
That said, if it starts becoming a regular part of what you're pitching on your show, you can count me the fuck out.
I wouldn't worry about that. He hardly ever talks about it.
-
I wouldn't worry about that. He hardly ever talks about it.
Oh I know. I was just volunteering an individualized market indicator. :-P
-
... FTL_Ian on August 21, 2008, 09:21:36 PM
"Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?"
Indeed i am. In my estimation, the pantheism thing is a complete cop-out that Ian is using to smooth out conversations with potential liberty lovers. I am very impressed with the success of this approach from what I have heard of his interactions from religious callers. They see him as less of a threat to that particular part of their world view and thus are more accepting to his other views. I get it. I still think it's a bad approach because it's a failure to acknowledge that the fight against religion is a fight against government at a basic level.
Mark, however, does believe his rhetoric (at least on this one issue).
I converted to pantheism too
-
Good point, but that's not the reason. I've seen and continue to see thr Law of Attraction work, and that drew me to pantheism. I'd loved atheism because it was all about believing in yourself instead of some deity. Pantheism is also about believing in yourself, but moreso. The pantheistic view doesn't stifle like monotheistic religions; it encourages expansion. It doesn't hold judgement over your actions. There is nothing to worship.
There is nothing false about me proclaiming my pantheism.
We can all be Neo, if we choose it.
Good on you for sticking to you guns. What you choose to believe in is a fundamental aspect of the freedom lovers way. That said, if it starts becoming a regular part of what you're pitching on your show, you can count me the fuck out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
He's too stoned to understand logic, friend. :(
-
I don't mind pantheism, but I do mind the so-called "Law of Attraction".
Human brains are designed to be efficient and lazy (same thing, really) and as a certain synaptic pathway is used it becomes easier to use. This is true of complex sets of pathways which correlate to our general outlook on life.
When we think positively, our brains begin building a positive pattern, making positivity more easy to identify. The same is true of negativity. So I very much agree that "that you think is important".
Where my issue with the "Law of Attraction" comes from is the belief that thoughts CREATE reality. This is utter bull. One example Ian gave on the show was oil, which was once considered a nuisance until human thought made it useful. No, oil was useful before that moment for the same reasons it is useful today, but that potential was unrealized. The "usefulness" capacity existed prior to a human thinking it was useful.
That distinction is important to me. I think it does a huge discredit to the ideas of positive thinking and personal achievement to wrap it up in some metaphysical BS.
-
I'm disappointed in Ian. What else can I say...
-
We can all be Neo, if we choose it.
Show me a "Neo" and I may believe.
-
We can all be Neo, if we choose it.
Show me a "Neo" and I may believe.
Maybe it was Jesus, but people grossly misunderstood what Jesus was talking about ...
-
We can all be Neo, if we choose it.
Show me a "Neo" and I may believe.
Maybe it was Jesus, but people grossly misunderstood what Jesus was talking about ...
I know there has been a lot of hyperbole on the subject, but the concepts of Christ and Neo are distinctly separate. Show me someone who can dodge bullets and all the crazy, frivolous things Neo does.
-
This whole "Law of Attraction" thing really bothers me on the show. I've been meaning to call in or start on thread about it for a while now, but I guess I'll just rant here.
As I see it, as lovers of freedom and liberty, we have all used the tools of rational thought and logic to strip the veil of legitimacy away from coercive government.
Reason and logic are strongly on liberty's side, and we have all sharpened our mental tools by defending it as such. With our tools we have broken down the pseudosciences of not just government, but democracy and collectivism as well.
We are skeptics of government. But my skepticism doesn't stop there. I use the same tools that have led me to believe that government is not valid to weigh the validity of many other things, including big foot, chem trails, lizard men, and the law of attraction.
It saddens me on a personal level to see someone like Ian, who I know has the tools to see through such nonsense, fall into the so-called "law of attraction". If it is something Ian believes in, that's fine with me, I just don't really like hearing about it, and I certainly don't like Ian professing it as truth to people on the radio who trust him and believe what he says.
"Seeing it work in your own life" isn't proof enough for anything to be considered truth. I wish Ian would raise his standard of evidence in regards to the law of attraction and maybe apply some of those logical fallacies he (and I) seem to love.
I'd love to get your thoughts on this Ian. Thanks.
-
"Seeing it work in your own life" isn't proof enough for anything to be considered truth. I wish Ian would raise his standard of evidence in regards to the law of attraction and maybe apply some of those logical fallacies he (and I) seem to love.
Here here.
The same bullshit anecdotal experience is used to "prove" magnet therapy, chiropody, homeopathy, faith healing, and countless other bullshit.
"It works for me" is not scientific or logical, and you can use it to justify virtually anything so long your only measuring stick is your own feeling on the issue
-
Ian is not a rationalist. He is an emotionalist Libertarian. Very rare. His arguments begin and end with the NAP with zero interest or logical ties to anything else. It is inevitable that an adopted view with zero logical underpinnings will flounder over the sea of irrational shit. Ian doesn't have a rational philosophical base...
"Seeing it work in your own life"
...Which is why this is all he needs. Anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
I'd love to get your thoughts on this Ian. Thanks.
He's gonna say the same thing he's been saying. He doesn't need evidence. He believes it anyway and that should be good enough, and he doesn't care what you think.
-
We can all be Neo, if we choose it.
Show me a "Neo" and I may believe.
Maybe it was Jesus, but people grossly misunderstood what Jesus was talking about ...
I know there has been a lot of hyperbole on the subject, but the concepts of Christ and Neo are distinctly separate. Show me someone who can dodge bullets and all the crazy, frivolous things Neo does.
Super Saiyan Jesus could do it.
-
If something works for you, that should be good enough.
-
Pantheism doesn't clash with monotheism.
That said, I think the "Law of Attraction" is BS too. Free Will is where its at, but you still have to obey the known laws of science in this universe.
-
If something works for you, that should be good enough.
I don't think anyone is actually disagreeing on that point. It's just that I don't think I'd like to listen to a show about that shit.
-
The only problem I have with the Law of Attraction stuff is that he seems to attribute it to some kind of metaphysical force when it really seems to just be....psychology. The more you think about something, it's probably more likely that you'll subconsciously make choices according to that thing. That being said, I don't care if he believes in dancing fairies that created the world with mystical play-doh as long as he doesn't ramble on about it on the show. Which he doesn't seem to, so, well, whatever.
-
The only problem I have with the Law of Attraction stuff is that he seems to attribute it to some kind of metaphysical force when it really seems to just be....psychology. The more you think about something, it's probably more likely that you'll subconsciously make choices according to that thing. That being said, I don't care if he believes in dancing fairies that created the world with mystical play-doh as long as he doesn't ramble on about it on the show. Which he doesn't seem to, so, well, whatever.
Oh, it's total bullshit magical thinking. He has the right to believe it though, of course.
Law of Attraction can always be summed up with this:
[youtube=425,350]RV-p51fvYLc[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV-p51fvYLc
-
God, I love him in that movie.
-
God, I love him in that movie.
Me too. I like that he pretty much sums up Aristotelian Metaphysics in a one sentence joke. Way more fun than "A is A".
-
The only problem I have with the Law of Attraction stuff is that he seems to attribute it to some kind of metaphysical force when it really seems to just be....psychology. The more you think about something, it's probably more likely that you'll subconsciously make choices according to that thing. That being said, I don't care if he believes in dancing fairies that created the world with mystical play-doh as long as he doesn't ramble on about it on the show. Which he doesn't seem to, so, well, whatever.
Same here on the Law of Attraction stuff.
-
I don't see a whole lot of conflict between pantheism, atheism, and agnosticism. In fact, I see a lot of overlap between all three. I consider myself to basically be agnostic. I don't believe in the absence of a god or gods strongly enough to call myself atheist and I'm also not sure I believe that "god is everywhere/thing", etc. but I'm not really opposed to the idea either. Just leave me alone about it and I'm happy :)
-
I'm becoming more accepting of this notion, not for myself but in others. I see it as a gradual rejection of traditional religions, which is a positive action to me. As more people overcome the burden of self subjugation to various idols, perhaps more progress can be made in mental capacities- now that some energy has been freed up on spiritual matters.
The downside is the possibility (and likelihood) that many "pantheists" will develop hysterics and obsessive/compulsive habits in the name of their "non-god", therefore becoming cult like all over again.
-
If something works for you, that should be good enough.
I don't think anyone is actually disagreeing on that point. It's just that I don't think I'd like to listen to a show about that shit.
Yeah. The other part of that point would be something like...Just because something works for you doesn't mean it will work for anyone else.
-
That said, I think the "Law of Attraction" is BS too. Free Will is where its at, but you still have to obey the known laws of science in this universe.
What are you talking about? I can fly! All I need is some LSD. :p
All kidding aside, even when you take science to the outer limits it gets really really weird (quantum physics, black holes, other dimensions, etc). Science allows us to shave off a layer of abstraction in reality. I would not be surprised if we shave off layers of abstraction forever.
[youtube=425,350]IJirmdU2McE[/youtube]
-
That said, I think the "Law of Attraction" is BS too. Free Will is where its at, but you still have to obey the known laws of science in this universe.
What are you talking about? I can fly! All I need is some LSD. :p
All kidding aside, even when you take science to the outer limits it gets really really weird (quantum physics, black holes, other dimensions, etc). Science allows us to shave off a layer of abstraction in reality. I would not be surprised if we shave off layers of abstraction forever.
[youtube=425,350]IJirmdU2McE[/youtube]
Oh of course, we only know a few of the laws of science, I'm sure there's plenty still left to uncover, but psychic mysticism doesn't really seem to fit into any rational scientific system to me.
-
"Seeing it work in your own life" isn't proof enough for anything to be considered truth. I wish Ian would raise his standard of evidence in regards to the law of attraction and maybe apply some of those logical fallacies he (and I) seem to love.
Here here.
The same bullshit anecdotal experience is used to "prove" magnet therapy, chiropody, homeopathy, faith healing, and countless other bullshit.
"It works for me" is not scientific or logical, and you can use it to justify virtually anything so long your only measuring stick is your own feeling on the issue
Right. And Ian used to point this out to callers all the time. I havn't heard him say it in a while, but he used to refute "fringers" with the anecdotal evidence all the time. It's a shame he's now accepting such weak evidence to support his own beliefs.
-
"It works for me" is not scientific or logical, and you can use it to justify virtually anything so long your only measuring stick is your own feeling on the issue
What's wrong with "it works for me"?
-
"It works for me" is not scientific or logical, and you can use it to justify virtually anything so long your only measuring stick is your own feeling on the issue
What's wrong with "it works for me"?
Well, nothing really. And it could very well be true for all I know. All I'm saying is that "it works for me, therefor it will work for everyone/others" is an unscientific statement and a perfect example of anecdotal evidence. The statement is also a red flag that the person saying it might be suffering from confirmation bias.
I'm pointing it out in the hopes that Ian will re-examine his stance on the issue of the "law of attraction". Because we all know the longer held the belief, the harder it is to change one's mind on the matter. I think he should look into all the possible logical short-fallings before this belief becomes so entrenched that it cannot be uprooted.
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life". - Leo Tolstoy, 1897
-
Ultimately, other people's religion doesn't matter when it doesn't affect you. I've met religious zealots who were far, far less harmful to me than the so-called "science" socialists, global warming and all. :x
-
Well, nothing really. And it could very well be true for all I know. All I'm saying is that "it works for me, therefor it will work for everyone/others" is an unscientific statement and a perfect example of anecdotal evidence. The statement is also a red flag that the person saying it might be suffering from confirmation bias.
I'm pointing it out in the hopes that Ian will re-examine his stance on the issue of the "law of attraction". Because we all know the longer held the belief, the harder it is to change one's mind on the matter. I think he should look into all the possible logical short-fallings before this belief becomes so entrenched that it cannot be uprooted.
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life". - Leo Tolstoy, 1897
All kidding aside, even when you take science to the outer limits it gets really really weird (quantum physics, black holes, other dimensions, etc). Science allows us to shave off a layer of abstraction in reality. I would not be surprised if we shave off layers of abstraction forever.
I agree, it's not good to impose your beliefs on others. What do you think of what I said above?
-
Well, nothing really. And it could very well be true for all I know. All I'm saying is that "it works for me, therefor it will work for everyone/others" is an unscientific statement and a perfect example of anecdotal evidence. The statement is also a red flag that the person saying it might be suffering from confirmation bias.
I'm pointing it out in the hopes that Ian will re-examine his stance on the issue of the "law of attraction". Because we all know the longer held the belief, the harder it is to change one's mind on the matter. I think he should look into all the possible logical short-fallings before this belief becomes so entrenched that it cannot be uprooted.
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life". - Leo Tolstoy, 1897
All kidding aside, even when you take science to the outer limits it gets really really weird (quantum physics, black holes, other dimensions, etc). Science allows us to shave off a layer of abstraction in reality. I would not be surprised if we shave off layers of abstraction forever.
I agree, it's not good to impose your beliefs on others. What do you think of what I said above?
I like and agree with what you said. There are plenty of things science currently cannot prove or disprove. And as I said, I'm not saying the "law of attraction" is not a real thing. As far as I know, there is no way to absolutely disprove it. It's very tied in with quantum mechanics, something we know very little about. My problem with the "law of attraction" is how it seems to be followed like a religion; absolutely, yet with no proof.
Also, there appears to be a paradox inherit within the laws of attraction that, in my opinion, goes against the non-aggression principle.
For example, if I were to "think positively" about a job I wanted at the local grocery store, that had no openings, and through the power of the "law of attraction" I get the job. Now surely there are plenty of reasons why a position at the store could have opened up, but let's say that, for sake of argument, the person who's job I now have was hit by a bus. Or arrested for drug possession. Or some other negative event that caused the job to become available occurred.
Am I responsible, since it was my thoughts that transformed into action in the physical world that somehow caused another person harm? By just thinking positively about the desire for a job, have I inadvertently aggressed against my neighbor? Or I am mistaken, and somehow the law of attraction can only manifest things through virtuous and noble actions?
-
He's gonna say the same thing he's been saying. He doesn't need evidence. He believes it anyway and that should be good enough, and he doesn't care what you think.
Yep. I would have laughed at LoA as of a few years ago, so I know where you guys are coming from.
-
He's gonna say the same thing he's been saying. He doesn't need evidence. He believes it anyway and that should be good enough, and he doesn't care what you think.
Yep. I would have laughed at LoA as of a few years ago, so I know where you guys are coming from.
That's a pretty close-minded stance though, don't you think? I mean, if you were having a conversation about liberty with someone and they said, "I don't need evidence. I believe in coercive government anyway and that should be good enough, and I don't care what you think."
Wouldn't you think less of that person's ability to reason? Wouldn't you question everything else they believe?
Also Ian, could you please comment on the LoA-non-aggression paradox question I posted earlier in this thread?
-
Someday Ian will snap out of Mark's cultish influence.
-
Someday Ian will snap out of Mark's cultish influence.
The LoA (thanks for the acronym, Ian) is too crack-pot fringe, even for Mark.
-
I find the belief system empowering, so you are asking me to remove that from my life - for what reason? I used to think that way, and I don't want to anymore.
I like the idea that I'm on the leading edge of the expansion of the universe and that my intentions and subsequent action are contributing to that expansion. I like the idea that what I'm wanting and thinking about is what I'm getting. I like the idea that I can create my own reality.
Thinking positive is fine. I'm just more deliberate about it, and have attached a few metaphysical beliefs to it. What's wrong with that?
-
This whole "Law of Attraction" thing really bothers me on the show. I've been meaning to call in or start on thread about it for a while now, but I guess I'll just rant here.
As I see it, as lovers of freedom and liberty, we have all used the tools of rational thought and logic to strip the veil of legitimacy away from coercive government.
Reason and logic are strongly on liberty's side, and we have all sharpened our mental tools by defending it as such. With our tools we have broken down the pseudosciences of not just government, but democracy and collectivism as well.
We are skeptics of government. But my skepticism doesn't stop there. I use the same tools that have led me to believe that government is not valid to weigh the validity of many other things, including big foot, chem trails, lizard men, and the law of attraction.
It saddens me on a personal level to see someone like Ian, who I know has the tools to see through such nonsense, fall into the so-called "law of attraction". If it is something Ian believes in, that's fine with me, I just don't really like hearing about it, and I certainly don't like Ian professing it as truth to people on the radio who trust him and believe what he says.
"Seeing it work in your own life" isn't proof enough for anything to be considered truth. I wish Ian would raise his standard of evidence in regards to the law of attraction and maybe apply some of those logical fallacies he (and I) seem to love.
I'd love to get your thoughts on this Ian. Thanks.
Definitely don't call in if you don't like hearing about it, as that will give us an excuse to discuss it. 8)
It's truth to me. I have surprised myself with some of the things I've seen. No need to share them with you, as they are personal, unscientific, and will not be persuasive to you in the least. I'll instead generally describe the circumstances surrounding them:
I have intended certain unlikely things to happen as "tests", fully prepared to never see them occur (yes, that skeptical voice still yells at me in my head), but then they do. They are things that would be semi to unlikely to occur, but they do, and I'm quite surprised and pleased by them when they do.
So, for me and many others, this is not nonsense at all. Please don't be sad for me, I'm not!
-
For example, if I were to "think positively" about a job I wanted at the local grocery store, that had no openings, and through the power of the "law of attraction" I get the job. Now surely there are plenty of reasons why a position at the store could have opened up, but let's say that, for sake of argument, the person who's job I now have was hit by a bus. Or arrested for drug possession. Or some other negative event that caused the job to become available occurred.
Am I responsible, since it was my thoughts that transformed into action in the physical world that somehow caused another person harm? By just thinking positively about the desire for a job, have I inadvertently aggressed against my neighbor? Or I am mistaken, and somehow the law of attraction can only manifest things through virtuous and noble actions?
I think many of you talk about the Law of Attraction without really knowing too much about it. The Law of Attraction states that like attracts like. What you focus on, you attract. Focus on the positive, you get more of that. On the negative, more of that.
The job example could be answered in different ways. You don't know what the guy who lost his job was focusing on, if anything at all. Most live life by default and are not deliberate creators. These are the "paycheck to paycheck" rat race people. You needn't be concerned as to why the opportunity presented itself. It could have been any number of factors.
Or, perhaps in an alternate universe, he is still alive/out of jail, and that "you" never gets his job. Who knows?
All I know is that if you focus on what you want, the universe seems to set up opportunities for you. It's up to you to "open the door" however, and seize the opportunity. Action is always a factor, but your intentions are the biggest factor. I think some people believe that if you just want, things will happen, and that's LoA, but that's not it at all.
-
I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that positive thinking can help someone achieve their goals. I think the problem that most people have with it is that you're assigning a metaphysical explanation to something that can be explained, at least a little bit, through logic. It makes sense that when one keeps their goals at the forefront of their mind, it is easier for them to anticipate and identify potential opportunities, and that one will probably be more likely to make choices that fall in line with these goals. You state, however, that "the universe lines up opportunities for you".
I mean, sure, you can believe that if you want, and I understand it's completely subjective, but people are having trouble with the lack of logic in the position, understandably.
-
I find the belief system empowering, so you are asking me to remove that from my life - for what reason? I used to think that way, and I don't want to anymore.
I like the idea that I'm on the leading edge of the expansion of the universe and that my intentions and subsequent action are contributing to that expansion. I like the idea that what I'm wanting and thinking about is what I'm getting. I like the idea that I can create my own reality.
Thinking positive is fine. I'm just more deliberate about it, and have attached a few metaphysical beliefs to it. What's wrong with that?
Okay I can agree with all of that, except for the metaphysical aspects to it. LoA is probably empowering and probably gives its believers more confidence in their daily lives which would help to prove that its true. But I think it is probably simple psychology. If you're a confident person, you're more likely to get what you want. I don't see anything metaphysical there.
-
I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that positive thinking can help someone achieve their goals. I think the problem that most people have with it is that you're assigning a metaphysical explanation to something that can be explained, at least a little bit, through logic. It makes sense that when one keeps their goals at the forefront of their mind, it is easier for them to anticipate and identify potential opportunities, and that one will probably be more likely to make choices that fall in line with these goals. You state, however, that "the universe lines up opportunities for you".
I mean, sure, you can believe that if you want, and I understand it's completely subjective, but people are having trouble with the lack of logic in the position, understandably.
Of course the universe lines up opportunities for you! But that doesn't mean there's any silly metaphysical bullshit that causes it. All day long you're presented with new opportunities...they are "Lined Up" for you in a sense and thinking positively and having confidence will help you exploit the opportunities you wish to pursue. But none of this has anything to do with some metaphysical underlying cause. The cause is you, because you're taking the actions you need to exploit the opportunities you see and like. That's it.
-
I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that positive thinking can help someone achieve their goals. I think the problem that most people have with it is that you're assigning a metaphysical explanation to something that can be explained, at least a little bit, through logic. It makes sense that when one keeps their goals at the forefront of their mind, it is easier for them to anticipate and identify potential opportunities, and that one will probably be more likely to make choices that fall in line with these goals. You state, however, that "the universe lines up opportunities for you".
I mean, sure, you can believe that if you want, and I understand it's completely subjective, but people are having trouble with the lack of logic in the position, understandably.
Of course the universe lines up opportunities for you! But that doesn't mean there's any silly metaphysical bullshit that causes it. All day long you're presented with new opportunities...they are "Lined Up" for you in a sense and thinking positively and having confidence will help you exploit the opportunities you wish to pursue. But none of this has anything to do with some metaphysical underlying cause. The cause is you, because you're taking the actions you need to exploit the opportunities you see and like. That's it.
Well...the universe doesn't actively "line up" anything. Opportunities are simply conditions that favor your situation. It is up to the person to recognize and take advantage of those opportunities. That's really just semantics, though.
Opportunities don't come into existence solely because of positive thinking and some kind of metaphysical reaction it creates. Opportunities can, however, come into existence because of actions taken by the person as a result of positive thinking. That's my whole point.
-
Am I to understand that "carpe diem" has been transformed from optimistic advice into flying pasta?
-
Guess I don't understand how you all can be so sure about what the universe doesn't do. Perhaps there is more to it than you realize. :P
-
Guess I don't understand how you all can be so sure about what the universe doesn't do. Perhaps there is more to it than you realize. :P
Is everyone in here familiar with the double split experiment?
[youtube=425,350]DfPeprQ7oGc[/youtube]
-
Guess I don't understand how you all can be so sure about what the universe doesn't do. Perhaps there is more to it than you realize. :P
We're not saying that it's not possible, we're just saying that it's not the most logical conclusion, and that there are other explanations that are more logical. Like I said, we aren't trying to get to you change or anything, I just think you should understand more where we're coming from before you make such a statement. ;)
-
Guess I don't understand how you all can be so sure about what the universe doesn't do. Perhaps there is more to it than you realize. :P
Is everyone in here familiar with the double split experiment?
[youtube=425,350]DfPeprQ7oGc[/youtube]
I LOVE that. That always blew my mind.
-
Guess I don't understand how you all can be so sure about what the universe doesn't do. Perhaps there is more to it than you realize. :P
Is everyone in here familiar with the double split experiment?
[youtube=425,350]DfPeprQ7oGc[/youtube]
I LOVE that. That always blew my mind.
Proof that we're in The Matrix and computing power is only allocated to active processes? Hehe.
-
I know where you're coming from, as I used to be there. :P
-
Ok, now my world view is melting... Will somebody please provide some perspective to this? That experiment basically means that just because the tree is there when we observe it, it may or may not be there when we aren't.
-
Guess I don't understand how you all can be so sure about what the universe doesn't do. Perhaps there is more to it than you realize. :P
Is everyone in here familiar with the double split experiment?
[youtube=425,350]DfPeprQ7oGc[/youtube]
I LOVE that. That always blew my mind.
If you don't understand this, you need to take basic physics. It's not really all that mind blowing. Electrons travel in a wave pattern OMG.
-
Well i guess we aren't all as smart and talented as you. Stop being a pompous ass for no reason.
-
Guess I don't understand how you all can be so sure about what the universe doesn't do. Perhaps there is more to it than you realize. :P
Is everyone in here familiar with the double split experiment?
[youtube=425,350]DfPeprQ7oGc[/youtube]
I LOVE that. That always blew my mind.
If you don't understand this, you need to take basic physics. It's not really all that mind blowing. Electrons travel in a wave pattern OMG.
Just because you understand how something works, doesn't make it not cool. Wave-particle duality, like all of physics, is fascinating to me.
Like he said, no need to be a pompous ass.
-
Well i guess we aren't all as smart and talented as you. Stop being a pompous ass for no reason.
There will be plenty more. For some reason the "smart" people can't resist going on a message board and insulting the rest of the users.
-
Guess I don't understand how you all can be so sure about what the universe doesn't do. Perhaps there is more to it than you realize. :P
Is everyone in here familiar with the double split experiment?
[youtube=425,350]DfPeprQ7oGc[/youtube]
I LOVE that. That always blew my mind.
If you don't understand this, you need to take basic physics. It's not really all that mind blowing. Electrons travel in a wave pattern OMG.
Just because you understand how something works, doesn't make it not cool. Wave-particle duality, like all of physics, is fascinating to me.
Like he said, no need to be a pompous ass.
Sorry, I thought it was mind blowing too... until I took physics in college.
-
Guess I don't understand how you all can be so sure about what the universe doesn't do. Perhaps there is more to it than you realize. :P
Is everyone in here familiar with the double split experiment?
[youtube=425,350]DfPeprQ7oGc[/youtube]
I LOVE that. That always blew my mind.
If you don't understand this, you need to take basic physics. It's not really all that mind blowing. Electrons travel in a wave pattern OMG.
Just because you understand how something works, doesn't make it not cool. Wave-particle duality, like all of physics, is fascinating to me.
Like he said, no need to be a pompous ass.
Sorry, I thought it was mind blowing too... until I took physics in college.
Meaning? I mean, you may be perfectly innocent, but I know full well how the experiment works, but I still find it mind blowing. It has nothing to do with me not being able to understand.
Sorry if that's not what you were implying, but I just wanted to be clear.
-
Guess I don't understand how you all can be so sure about what the universe doesn't do. Perhaps there is more to it than you realize. :P
Is everyone in here familiar with the double split experiment?
[youtube=425,350]DfPeprQ7oGc[/youtube]
I LOVE that. That always blew my mind.
If you don't understand this, you need to take basic physics. It's not really all that mind blowing. Electrons travel in a wave pattern OMG.
Just because you understand how something works, doesn't make it not cool. Wave-particle duality, like all of physics, is fascinating to me.
Like he said, no need to be a pompous ass.
Sorry, I thought it was mind blowing too... until I took physics in college.
Meaning? I mean, you may be perfectly innocent, but I know full well how the experiment works, but I still find it mind blowing. It has nothing to do with me not being able to understand.
Sorry if that's not what you were implying, but I just wanted to be clear.
I guess most stuff in physics stopped being mind blowing when I learned relativity and quantum mechanics. It's still interesting, but it all just stopped "blowing my mind"
-
I guess most stuff in physics stopped being mind blowing when I learned relativity and quantum mechanics. It's still interesting, but it all just stopped "blowing my mind"
I understand "blow my mind" to mean, "it is beautiful". This changes over time. For example, I could think of the Internet as a beautiful thing, but since I grew up with it and use it every day, it's not so beautiful. I remember I used to think that astronomy was beautiful, until I took a course on it. It seems that whenever I take a government education course on something, it makes it seem not so interesting. :/
-
Interesting discussion.
My understanding is that pantheism is different to atheism in a very small way - pantheists may, for example, see 'god' in nature, but not an identifiable 'god' or personal 'god.'
It seems to me that pantheists are not claiming there definitely IS an entity which could be called 'god' and that it had a definite and active role in, say, the origin of life... but that there MAY be some things which we are unable to understand about the universe, and for the purposes of rhetoric, we could attribute such things as the work of 'god' until we know different.
I kinda stopped off at pantheism on my way to atheism, I guess.
-
... at the core of which always lies positive thinking, which can be assigned to any number of theological or spiritual belief structures.
You could remove 'assigned' and insert 'exploited' of course, were you to think like the Pat Condells of this world :D
To change the direction of discussion, a little, I'm always fascinated (even coming from N. Ireland!) by how much politicians in America are expected to be christian - both Obama and McCain were encouraged to present their pastors to the voting public, I hear?
In the UK, of course, the current leader of the opposition - David Cameron (Conservatives) is an atheist. No deal of this has been made by the media, to my knowledge. In fact, the only time I heard of it was when a rather exasperated UK correspondent, John Snow, was talking to the Huckabee camp about the obsession of religion within US presidential campaigns... Snow's point being that it didn't matter a damn within European politics.
-
... at the core of which always lies positive thinking, which can be assigned to any number of theological or spiritual belief structures.
You could remove 'assigned' and insert 'exploited' of course, were you to think like the Pat Condells of this world :D
To change the direction of discussion, a little, I'm always fascinated (even coming from N. Ireland!) by how much politicians in America are expected to be christian - both Obama and McCain were encouraged to present their pastors to the voting public, I hear?
In the UK, of course, the current leader of the opposition - David Cameron (Conservatives) is an atheist. No deal of this has been made by the media, to my knowledge. In fact, the only time I heard of it was when a rather exasperated UK correspondent, John Snow, was talking to the Huckabee camp about the obsession of religion within US presidential campaigns... Snow's point being that it didn't matter a damn within European politics.
Eh I dunno, there are plenty of nontheists here, but I think the general consensus is that "we" don't want a Muslim for president.
-
Eh I dunno, there are plenty of nontheists here, but I think the general consensus is that "we" don't want a Muslim for president.
[/quote]
Really? What about a moderate muslim?
Or would a fundamentalist xian president be more palatable to non-theists than a moderate muslim?
-
This can of worms has been opened a million times. Religion is the absolute worst thing you can mix into government. It tramples rights, instills fear, causes racism, stirs up anger, draws lines, and allows a candidate to shelter himself behind flimsy excuses.
here here! Religion is a socially driven form of exclusionary government. It like a belief club that tells you what to think.
So this is my new understanding of Pantheism and I'd like to know if I'm on the right page with Pantheists' general ideas.
Pantheism is just a way of semi-explaining that one does not believe in the traditional idea that most people attribute the word "God", and instead uses that name to identify the nameless 'order' that the completely interwoven universe is or may be following.
-
Thinking positive is fine. I'm just more deliberate about it, and have attached a few metaphysical beliefs to it. What's wrong with that?
Firstly, you're welcome to believe what you want. I'm not saying don't stop. I'm simply pointing out why I find the idea to be a bit frightening and fantastical.
The reason I don't like the Law of Attraction (or very specifically the "thoughts create reality" aspect of it) is that once someone's thoughts can alter reality, it eliminates personal responsibility. If me thinking about a thing makes that thing, then my thoughts are creating, destroying or altering YOUR reality. If your thoughts create the universe, and anyone "can be Neo" then it is THEORETICALLY possible to use the law of attraction to alter someone else's thoughts or at least their possible choices. For some reason, that idea just feels like it's taking a well-aged, putrid shit right on the face of liberty.
With the metaphysical, I always have to go back to one of history's greatest philosophers... Homer J. Simpson. "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it?". Can the Law of Attraction cause another person to think differently? Act in a way they wouldn't normally want to? If yes, the idea that I may not be responsible for my own thoughts and actions, and others may not, is alarming. If the Law of Attraction is NOT capable of doing those things, then you're truly not capable of controling the universe unless you posit that human thought is somehow outside of the universe. If there are limits to what a person can do with the Law of Attraction, I don't see how it really is of any benefit beyond those which come from positive thinking.
Then again, like I said, I really don't care. It's crackpottery, and you're welcome to think as you want and do what you want. I like knowing my universe has rhyme and reason, and that there are logical and predictable (if largely complex) outcomes to actions. There's a certain kind of cheapness that comes from the idea that thinking about a thing, rather than taking actions and making choices, makes that thing happen.
-
The reason I don't like the Law of Attraction (or very specifically the "thoughts create reality" aspect of it) is that once someone's thoughts can alter reality, it eliminates personal responsibility. If me thinking about a thing makes that thing, then my thoughts are creating, destroying or altering YOUR reality. If your thoughts create the universe, and anyone "can be Neo" then it is THEORETICALLY possible to use the law of attraction to alter someone else's thoughts or at least their possible choices. For some reason, that idea just feels like it's taking a well-aged, putrid shit right on the face of liberty.
Are you familiar with the idea of parallel universes? Theoretical physicists have the notion that every time you make a decision you create a parallel universe, one where the decision went to either reality. You would have a universe for every possible decision that can be made. There could even exist a universe where the South won the civil war.
If you think about it this way, then Ian's decisions can't possibly go against another's ambitions, because both Ian and the other person will soon part in parallel universes.
-
The reason I don't like the Law of Attraction (or very specifically the "thoughts create reality" aspect of it) is that once someone's thoughts can alter reality, it eliminates personal responsibility. If me thinking about a thing makes that thing, then my thoughts are creating, destroying or altering YOUR reality. If your thoughts create the universe, and anyone "can be Neo" then it is THEORETICALLY possible to use the law of attraction to alter someone else's thoughts or at least their possible choices. For some reason, that idea just feels like it's taking a well-aged, putrid shit right on the face of liberty.
Are you familiar with the idea of parallel universes? Theoretical physicists have the notion that every time you make a decision you create a parallel universe, one where the decision went to either reality. You would have a universe for every possible decision that can be made. There could even exist a universe where the South won the civil war.
If you think about it this way, then Ian's decisions can't possibly go against another's ambitions, because both Ian and the other person will soon part in parallel universes.
I have heard of this theory and I don't know enough to make any objections, but I do have a question. In this theory, is it believed that all beings' decisions will create different parallel universes or have they left out non-humans? And what then exactly would constitute a decision?
-
Pantheism is just a way of semi-explaining that one does not believe in the traditional idea that most people attribute the word "God", and instead uses that name to identify the nameless 'order' that the completely interwoven universe is or may be following.
No.
-
The reason I don't like the Law of Attraction (or very specifically the "thoughts create reality" aspect of it) is that once someone's thoughts can alter reality, it eliminates personal responsibility. If me thinking about a thing makes that thing, then my thoughts are creating, destroying or altering YOUR reality. If your thoughts create the universe, and anyone "can be Neo" then it is THEORETICALLY possible to use the law of attraction to alter someone else's thoughts or at least their possible choices. For some reason, that idea just feels like it's taking a well-aged, putrid shit right on the face of liberty.
Are you familiar with the idea of parallel universes? Theoretical physicists have the notion that every time you make a decision you create a parallel universe, one where the decision went to either reality. You would have a universe for every possible decision that can be made. There could even exist a universe where the South won the civil war.
If you think about it this way, then Ian's decisions can't possibly go against another's ambitions, because both Ian and the other person will soon part in parallel universes.
I have heard of this theory and I don't know enough to make any objections, but I do have a question. In this theory, is it believed that all beings' decisions will create different parallel universes or have they left out non-humans? And what then exactly would constitute a decision?
Yeah, pretty much, I think whoever came up with this was smokin' a bit too much peyote and staring at his calculus books for far too long.
-
Are you familiar with the idea of parallel universes?
Yes, at one point I had this mega fascination with that concept, and I happened to be doing my philosophy course in college. Parallel universii and the "flame concept" of human awareness pretty much sums up my view of how "everything" works.
When you light a candle, you see the flame burning. But flames aren't really "things", they're a process. The flame is actually a chain reaction as the molecules oxidize rapidly, this process is the flame, but the actual parts of the flame (molecules) are different every second yet we STILL conceptualize it as a single thing.
In kind of the same way, humans are "processes" and not things. The body that is "me" today isn't the same as the one when I was a 2 year old. My brain isn't the same, my experiences not the same yet I can still use the pronoun "I" without causing my brain to collapse in confusion.
In essence, I believe that at "the moment of creation" (however you define it) all possible universes, as well as all possible moments in "time" are created and exist as snapshots forever still. It is not the "passage of time" that's happening per se, but our awareness moving from one snapshot to another. When we imagine, we're simply viewing "snapshots" from another universe/time and when we "remember" we're simply looking back to a different snapshot.
But here's the thing. If that's true, it doesn't matter because I am still "me" and confined to the track of my thoughts. Perhaps making one choice allows the other choice the shift into another universe or progression, but since I am trapped by this universe (and presumably, everyone else in this universe) it doesn't matter. It's incidentally why I rejected the notion of God. I hold open the possibility that there is a God, but it's clear he's not interacting with the world and that he's decreed that humans are unable to detect him/it. Because of this, true or not, it's entirely irrelevant.
If you think about it this way, then Ian's decisions can't possibly go against another's ambitions, because both Ian and the other person will soon part in parallel universes.
And if you think about it this way, you can kill someone because there exists a theoretical person who was not killed. I'm not calling or implying that either your or Ian are or will be killers but this is the extreme progression of the idea. If a person doesn't limit someone's options because those options exist in some theoretical universe then what's wrong with government or violence (but I repeat myself)? Either you recognize that there is a single universe, in which you are responsible for your actions, or you recognize there are multiple universes and the existence of them are entirely irrelevant in every way which matters to your life.
-
This can of worms has been opened a million times. Religion is the absolute worst thing you can mix into government. It tramples rights, instills fear, causes racism, stirs up anger, draws lines, and allows a candidate to shelter himself behind flimsy excuses.
here here! Religion is a socially driven form of exclusionary government. It like a belief club that tells you what to think.
Amen, brothers! PREACH IT! :D
-
I have heard of this theory and I don't know enough to make any objections, but I do have a question. In this theory, is it believed that all beings' decisions will create different parallel universes or have they left out non-humans? And what then exactly would constitute a decision?
Probability can be measured as a wave of potentials. If I flip a coin onto my palm and cover it with my hand, the coin is on BOTH heads and tails at the same time (and one or the other, and neither!). All of these potentials can all be mapped as a wave. When I actually observe which side of the coin is facing up I collapse the wave function, and it becomes definite.
I don't know if other beings create different parallel universes because I was never anything but human. Decisions go on forever, because you make a decision to make a decision, and so on.
-
I have heard of this theory and I don't know enough to make any objections, but I do have a question. In this theory, is it believed that all beings' decisions will create different parallel universes or have they left out non-humans? And what then exactly would constitute a decision?
Probability can be measured as a wave of potentials. If I flip a coin onto my palm and cover it with my hand, the coin is on BOTH heads and tails at the same time (and one or the other, and neither!). All of these potentials can all be mapped as a wave. When I actually observe which side of the coin is facing up I collapse the wave function, and it becomes definite.
I don't know if other beings create different parallel universes because I was never anything but human. Decisions go on forever, because you make a decision to make a decision, and so on.
What is a 'decision'? Does it have to be a conscious thought or would these universes also be created (we can get to this one in a bit) by actions completed by memory or which are otherwise involuntary mechanisms within your body?
-
Guess I don't understand how you all can be so sure about what the universe doesn't do. Perhaps there is more to it than you realize. :P
Is everyone in here familiar with the double split experiment?
[youtube=425,350]DfPeprQ7oGc[/youtube]
The video is wrong. Electrons and photons never split. What happens is that the probability shifts for each particle shot through, which cancels out when one measures at the slits as well.
-
The video is wrong. Electrons and photons never split. What happens is that the probability shifts for each particle shot through, which cancels out when one measures at the slits as well.
The video is not wrong, it is only trying to "dumb down" the information for the audience.
-
The video is wrong. Electrons and photons never split. What happens is that the probability shifts for each particle shot through, which cancels out when one measures at the slits as well.
The video is not wrong, it is only try to "dumb down" the information for the audience.
It *is* wrong because no electron ever splits.
-
The video is wrong. Electrons and photons never split. What happens is that the probability shifts for each particle shot through, which cancels out when one measures at the slits as well.
The video is not wrong, it is only try to "dumb down" the information for the audience.
It *is* wrong because no electron ever splits.
Prove it.
-
The video is wrong. Electrons and photons never split. What happens is that the probability shifts for each particle shot through, which cancels out when one measures at the slits as well.
The video is not wrong, it is only try to "dumb down" the information for the audience.
It *is* wrong because no electron ever splits.
Prove it.
We can by the single electron (actually it's several electrons) experiment. In the case of that experiment, which it was actually done, they found that each particle actually acted like a particle, but the interference pattern doesn't emerge until a certain number of hits are made. Prior to that it looks simply like a random shot of particles. What this means is that there's a potential that's built up by the electron which swings it one way or the other way, but it never ever actually splits.
-
One factor ignored by the video is the fact that we can't see electrons. They're too damn small. The way we "see" things like that is watch for echos of their existance. We've never seen a black hole, but can theorize they exist because the properties of a certain kind of space do things that would happen if that thing were there.
We might be wrong though. Invisible Pink Unicorns might exhibit properties exactly like "black holes".
The same has to be admitted when using "echos" to study electrons. This is what the "change the outcome by observing" means. That has to be factored into every "fact" gleaned from science. Skepticism and critical thinking are important parts of the scientific process.
-
Are you familiar with the idea of parallel universes?
Yes, at one point I had this mega fascination with that concept, and I happened to be doing my philosophy course in college. Parallel universii and the "flame concept" of human awareness pretty much sums up my view of how "everything" works.
When you light a candle, you see the flame burning. But flames aren't really "things", they're a process. The flame is actually a chain reaction as the molecules oxidize rapidly, this process is the flame, but the actual parts of the flame (molecules) are different every second yet we STILL conceptualize it as a single thing.
In kind of the same way, humans are "processes" and not things. The body that is "me" today isn't the same as the one when I was a 2 year old. My brain isn't the same, my experiences not the same yet I can still use the pronoun "I" without causing my brain to collapse in confusion.
In essence, I believe that at "the moment of creation" (however you define it) all possible universes, as well as all possible moments in "time" are created and exist as snapshots forever still. It is not the "passage of time" that's happening per se, but our awareness moving from one snapshot to another. When we imagine, we're simply viewing "snapshots" from another universe/time and when we "remember" we're simply looking back to a different snapshot.
But here's the thing. If that's true, it doesn't matter because I am still "me" and confined to the track of my thoughts. Perhaps making one choice allows the other choice the shift into another universe or progression, but since I am trapped by this universe (and presumably, everyone else in this universe) it doesn't matter. It's incidentally why I rejected the notion of God. I hold open the possibility that there is a God, but it's clear he's not interacting with the world and that he's decreed that humans are unable to detect him/it. Because of this, true or not, it's entirely irrelevant.
If you think about it this way, then Ian's decisions can't possibly go against another's ambitions, because both Ian and the other person will soon part in parallel universes.
And if you think about it this way, you can kill someone because there exists a theoretical person who was not killed. I'm not calling or implying that either your or Ian are or will be killers but this is the extreme progression of the idea. If a person doesn't limit someone's options because those options exist in some theoretical universe then what's wrong with government or violence (but I repeat myself)? Either you recognize that there is a single universe, in which you are responsible for your actions, or you recognize there are multiple universes and the existence of them are entirely irrelevant in every way which matters to your life.
Kevin, I'm not sure how many times I have to say that action plays a critical role. Looking at your belief system, I'd say it melds perfectly with the idea of law of attraction. You can call it "positive thinking and action", and it's still the same concept.
No one has suggested abdicating responsibility. Law of attraction and deliberate creation is about accepting responsibility for what you are putting into the universe, and hopefully constantly improving on it.
-
Kevin, I'm not sure how many times I have to say that action plays a critical role. Looking at your belief system, I'd say it melds perfectly with the idea of law of attraction. You can call it "positive thinking and action", and it's still the same concept.
No one has suggested abdicating responsibility. Law of attraction and deliberate creation is about accepting responsibility for what you are putting into the universe, and hopefully constantly improving on it.
I still don't understand why you choose to use the word "god" when describing such beliefs. Given the typical use of the word, and what it stands to mean to the majority of the population, I find it bewildering that you would attach it to yourself in any way. Albert Einstein often use the word "god" to mean the laws of nature and now many years later it is used by religious folk to as "evidence" to back up their creationist garbage. See Einstein believed in god, see see!
I don't mean this to be confrontational, I simply don't understand and would like to know your thought process behind it. If you would further explain what it is that you actually believe, maybe this thread could die with everyone's acceptance.
-
Kevin, I'm not sure how many times I have to say that action plays a critical role. Looking at your belief system, I'd say it melds perfectly with the idea of law of attraction. You can call it "positive thinking and action", and it's still the same concept.
No one has suggested abdicating responsibility. Law of attraction and deliberate creation is about accepting responsibility for what you are putting into the universe, and hopefully constantly improving on it.
I still don't understand why you choose to use the word "god" when describing such beliefs. Given the typical use of the word, and what it stands to mean to the majority of the population, I find it bewildering that you would attach it to yourself in any way. Albert Einstein often use the word "god" to mean the laws of nature and now many years later it is used by religious folk to as "evidence" to back up their creationist garbage. See Einstein believed in god, see see!
I don't mean this to be confrontational, I simply don't understand and would like to know your thought process behind it. If you would further explain what it is that you actually believe, maybe this thread could die with everyone's acceptance.
Very much agreed. I have heard you (Ian) on-the-air explaining that you like to disassociate with terms such as "anarchist" and now "libertarian" because of the perception of the negative connotations attached in many peoples' minds. The same should be said for the word "god". Let that dirty old word die.
-
Very much agreed. I have heard you (Ian) on-the-air explaining that you like to disassociate with terms such as "anarchist" and now "libertarian" because of the perception of the negative connotations attached in many peoples' minds. The same should be said for the word "god". Let that dirty old word die.
It's different though. Not believing in God is a much bigger bad than not believing in gooberment. Don't forget for one second that Ian is a propagandist and a pitch man for whatever "ism" he's selling. (Currently Free Marketeerism)
It's WAY unpopular with a whole strata of freedom minded people to not believe in God. Especially a lot of the FSP people.
-
It's WAY unpopular with a whole strata of freedom minded people to not believe in God. Especially a lot of the FSP people.
Kidnapping people who want to have abortions, lol.
-
Very much agreed. I have heard you (Ian) on-the-air explaining that you like to disassociate with terms such as "anarchist" and now "libertarian" because of the perception of the negative connotations attached in many peoples' minds. The same should be said for the word "god". Let that dirty old word die.
It's different though. Not believing in God is a much bigger bad than not believing in gooberment. Don't forget for one second that Ian is a propagandist and a pitch man for whatever "ism" he's selling. (Currently Free Marketeerism)
It's WAY unpopular with a whole strata of freedom minded people to not believe in God. Especially a lot of the FSP people.
I do assume that he's using the pantheist deal to simply not be an ATHEIST due to the public negative opinion of said word. I've never been a fan of using soft language, and would much rather be as "in your face" as possible when it comes to vernacular. I don't say that I am a voluntaryist instead of an ANARCHO-CAPITALIST, just the same as I don't pussy out and call myself an agnostic (which these days has come to mean I'm an atheist but I don't want to fight with you*) instead of an ATHEIST.
If people see you as a good human being, it changes the perceptions of these words. Running away from it doesn't interest me.
The FSP project people are jesus freaks? Well maybe I won't be moving then...
-
The FSP project people are jesus freaks? Well maybe I won't be moving then...
Not all. There's just a big streak of them in the mix. *Shrug* They mind their own business when it comes to that subject, from what I've seen.
-
Very much agreed. I have heard you (Ian) on-the-air explaining that you like to disassociate with terms such as "anarchist" and now "libertarian" because of the perception of the negative connotations attached in many peoples' minds. The same should be said for the word "god". Let that dirty old word die.
It's different though. Not believing in God is a much bigger bad than not believing in gooberment. Don't forget for one second that Ian is a propagandist and a pitch man for whatever "ism" he's selling. (Currently Free Marketeerism)
It's WAY unpopular with a whole strata of freedom minded people to not believe in God. Especially a lot of the FSP people.
I do assume that he's using the pantheist deal to simply not be an ATHEIST due to the public negative opinion of said word. I've never been a fan of using soft language, and would much rather be as "in your face" as possible when it comes to vernacular. I don't say that I am a voluntaryist instead of an ANARCHO-CAPITALIST, just the same as I don't pussy out and call myself an agnostic (which these days has come to mean I'm an atheist but I don't want to fight with you*) instead of an ATHEIST.
If people see you as a good human being, it changes the perceptions of these words. Running away from it doesn't interest me.
The FSP project people are jesus freaks? Well maybe I won't be moving then...
Why the affinity for a word? It's only a word and that is the nature of language; it evolves and words' meanings change. Any attempt to try and salvage them is just as dumb as trying to save a political party.
I am pretty certain that he does believe the LoA thing. Still not certain how this ties to Pantheism or if its the same thing or completely unrelated.
-
They mind their own business when it comes to that subject, from what I've seen.
"During the FSP Liberty Forum 2007 I had the extreme displeasure of sitting at a table full of "new age christian libertarians" who advocated the "pro-life" position...When I asked them how they reconciled their cognitive dissonance with a woman's exclusive 100 percent right to her body, and what is or isn't in it(penis or fetus), and her right to be left completely alone from looters and parasites(both internal and external)...AND...their ADMISSION TO ME VERBALLY RIGHT THEN AND THERE...that they would "tie a woman up until the child was born"...they just became more vicious, insulting, and disgusting..."
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=22524.msg410162;topicseen#msg410162
-
Why the affinity for a word? It's only a word and that is the nature of language; it evolves and words' meanings change. Any attempt to try and salvage them is just as dumb as trying to save a political party.
I am pretty certain that he does believe the LoA thing. Still not certain how this ties to Pantheism or if its the same thing or completely unrelated.
Affinity wouldn't be accurate. I simply think that if we can't change their minds about a damn word, the principals and concepts themselves have zero hope. I know it's smart marketing to use fluff language, but I personally have a difficult time doing it.
-
I am not advocating for the use of "fluff" language. What I am saying is that a word is simply a bunch of letters that are put together to represent something in the real world so that other people that you want to communicate to can receive your message.
So you hold your ground or go to battle against a popular "misconception" of a word's meaning and when you are done and that person finally understands what you mean, theeeeeen you have to begin the persuasion process.
It just sounds like a lot of trouble to go through every time you have that conversation... just to save a word
-
"During the FSP Liberty Forum 2007 I had the extreme displeasure of sitting at a table full of "new age christian libertarians" who advocated the "pro-life" position...When I asked them how they reconciled their cognitive dissonance with a woman's exclusive 100 percent right to her body, and what is or isn't in it(penis or fetus), and her right to be left completely alone from looters and parasites(both internal and external)...AND...their ADMISSION TO ME VERBALLY RIGHT THEN AND THERE...that they would "tie a woman up until the child was born"...they just became more vicious, insulting, and disgusting..."
This is why we can't have nice things.
-
Kevin, I'm not sure how many times I have to say that action plays a critical role. Looking at your belief system, I'd say it melds perfectly with the idea of law of attraction. You can call it "positive thinking and action", and it's still the same concept.
No one has suggested abdicating responsibility. Law of attraction and deliberate creation is about accepting responsibility for what you are putting into the universe, and hopefully constantly improving on it.
I still don't understand why you choose to use the word "god" when describing such beliefs. Given the typical use of the word, and what it stands to mean to the majority of the population, I find it bewildering that you would attach it to yourself in any way. Albert Einstein often use the word "god" to mean the laws of nature and now many years later it is used by religious folk to as "evidence" to back up their creationist garbage. See Einstein believed in god, see see!
I don't mean this to be confrontational, I simply don't understand and would like to know your thought process behind it. If you would further explain what it is that you actually believe, maybe this thread could die with everyone's acceptance.
Answered here:
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=22053.msg436638#msg436638
-
(http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/2464965818_01cef13d96.jpg) (http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/2464965818_01cef13d96.jpg)
-
Necro:
[
(http://rlv.zcache.com/i_was_an_atheist_tshirt-p235448504554225221t5tr_400.jpg)
-
I dabbled in agnostic Judaism until I shifted into pantheistic Judaism. I'm pretty concrete now.