Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Law of Attraction
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 32   Go Down

Author Topic: Law of Attraction  (Read 90539 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Njal

  • Anarcho-Rodent
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 986
  • Being better than you for 30 years!
    • View Profile
    • High North Alliance
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #330 on: February 09, 2009, 02:40:46 PM »

Yeah, I see your confusion.  It is your intention that the universe is responding to.  You are the universe experiencing itself.
[/quote]

I am the universe experiencing itself......

God DAMN I hate reductionism!

Ian, clarify for me:

1. Does reality exist in an objective form?
2. As Rill asked before, when did humans evolve the power to control the universe?

I would LOVE for all this to be a misunderstanding....
Logged
Don't be that guy.

Dylboz

  • What a deal! A few bucks a month makes me an
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2283
  • Only Anarcho-Capitalism is consistent with the NAP
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #331 on: February 09, 2009, 02:42:26 PM »

Am I experiencing the universe wrong?
Logged
Religion is metaphysical statism. I will be ruled by no man on earth, nor by any god in heaven.

Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #332 on: February 09, 2009, 02:53:22 PM »

It is your intention that the universe is responding to.  
And how does it do that? 
Fuck if I know or care.

Well, I guess that explains why nobody here finds this kind of thinking at all convincing.  We do  care, because otherwise there's no reason to believe it.

Scientist, to a Native American doing a rain dance: "Why do you do this?"
Native American: "Because it brings the rain."
Scientist: "And how does it do that?"
Native American: "Fuck if I know or care."
Scientist: "Why don't you care?"
Native American: "I just know it works for me.  I'm not a scientist.  I just think it's empowering." 

All that you, Sam and Mark were doing on that show was one big long rain dance.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 02:55:40 PM by Rillion »
Logged

Njal

  • Anarcho-Rodent
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 986
  • Being better than you for 30 years!
    • View Profile
    • High North Alliance
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #333 on: February 09, 2009, 02:58:14 PM »

It is your intention that the universe is responding to.  
And how does it do that? 
Fuck if I know or care.

Well, I guess that explains why nobody here finds this kind of thinking at all convincing.  We do  care, because otherwise there's no reason to believe it.

Scientist, to a Native American doing a rain dance: "Why do you do this?"
Native American: "Because it brings the rain."
Scientist: "And how does it do that?"
Native American: "Fuck if I know or care."
Scientist: "Why don't you care?"
Native American: "I just know it works for me.  I'm not a scientist.  I just think it's empowering." 

All that you, Sam and Mark were doing on that show was one big long rain dance.

Rill, you said not to have heroes, as they have feet of clay. Still, you are mine!
Logged
Don't be that guy.

The ghost of a ghost of a ghost

  • Owned by Brasky. Deal with it.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
SERIOUS QUESTION
« Reply #334 on: February 09, 2009, 03:03:03 PM »

I agree, Rillion is a great thinker and so is Dylboz, Brede the Androgyne, DanPatrick, and so on and so on.  I've learned a lot from reading these last 300 or so posts.  It was common sense to me but all of your explanations using logic helped progress my thinking.   Thank you all for your time and detailed answers.

So the real question is in the face of overwhelming reason, why do some people hold on to illogical concepts. Is it merely cognitive dissonance or is there something else here more important to take away from this series of posts?  Or more directly, why is reason failing to persuade a smart person (Ian) away from a false belief?
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 03:57:41 PM by parcgreene »
Logged

Dylboz

  • What a deal! A few bucks a month makes me an
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2283
  • Only Anarcho-Capitalism is consistent with the NAP
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #335 on: February 09, 2009, 04:16:17 PM »

I admire her ability, which I don't posses, and which I have found even rarer in women generally, to remain focused on the logical underpinnings of an argument and form succinct and incisive responses to those things, even when the other party does not recognize they have revealed the weakness in their position. I get personally incensed with silly non-logic and superstitiousness, all the time. I am often emotionally invested in my position and sort of fly off the handle, though not violently, just with a huge barrage of words that are not always relevant, and often needlessly offensive. It's my style, I guess. Sometimes funny, sometimes not so much.

Anyway, cheers, Rill, you are a first-class debater and very, very bright. Well done. I have a lot of respect for you, not just for this thread, but how you comport yourself on this board generally, and I admire your superior intellect.
Logged
Religion is metaphysical statism. I will be ruled by no man on earth, nor by any god in heaven.

Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

DanPatrick

  • Guest
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #336 on: February 09, 2009, 05:03:51 PM »

Parcgreene,

I'm not here to please the atheists by being completely in line with their belief system.  I understand it must be frustrating that we agree on so much except when it comes to this metaphysical stuff.  I once felt as you do, and don't want to feel that way anymore.

I like believing that I'm part of all-that-is, (or if you like, god) - it's far more empowering than my old atheistic belief system.


I like believing in LoA - I've seen evidence that it's real.  Can I scientifically prove it?  Nope.  Do I care to spend my time proving what I know to be true?  Nope.

Finally, in regards to credibility, do you really believe that the message of liberty cannot stand on its own as credible separate from the communicator's religious beliefs?

So why not believe that you ARE all-that-is instead of just a part?  Wouldn't this be even more empowering?  Why don't you believe that you ARE the one and only god?
Logged

DanPatrick

  • Guest
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #337 on: February 09, 2009, 05:12:08 PM »

You are the universe experiencing itself.

Oh yeah.........far out man! :roll:
Logged

DanPatrick

  • Guest
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #338 on: February 09, 2009, 05:13:13 PM »

Yeah, I see your confusion.  It is your intention that the universe is responding to.  You are the universe experiencing itself.

I am the universe experiencing itself......

God DAMN I hate reductionism!

Ian, clarify for me:

1. Does reality exist in an objective form?
2. As Rill asked before, when did humans evolve the power to control the universe?

I would LOVE for all this to be a misunderstanding....
[/quote]

I made the evolution argument.  Give me a little credit. :D
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #339 on: February 09, 2009, 05:14:38 PM »

Anyway, cheers, Rill, you are a first-class debater and very, very bright. Well done. I have a lot of respect for you, not just for this thread, but how you comport yourself on this board generally, and I admire your superior intellect.

Thank you.   :oops:  I suck at getting praise, so I'll just say that.   :)
Logged

DanPatrick

  • Guest
Re: SERIOUS QUESTION
« Reply #340 on: February 09, 2009, 05:16:02 PM »

I agree, Rillion is a great thinker and so is Dylboz, Brede the Androgyne, DanPatrick, and so on and so on.  I've learned a lot from reading these last 300 or so posts.  It was common sense to me but all of your explanations using logic helped progress my thinking.   Thank you all for your time and detailed answers.

So the real question is in the face of overwhelming reason, why do some people hold on to illogical concepts. Is it merely cognitive dissonance or is there something else here more important to take away from this series of posts?  Or more directly, why is reason failing to persuade a smart person (Ian) away from a false belief?

Thanks, Parcgreene! :D

So to answer your question, I think that those that arrive at illogical conclusions are operating on false premises or have made a mistake in their application of reason.
Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #341 on: February 09, 2009, 05:22:55 PM »

Is atheism the only logical conclusion regarding religion?

I was wondering when you guys would throw a shit fit about Ian becoming a pantheist.
Logged

Dylboz

  • What a deal! A few bucks a month makes me an
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2283
  • Only Anarcho-Capitalism is consistent with the NAP
    • View Profile
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #342 on: February 09, 2009, 05:23:22 PM »

Or, they just want to believe, because it's so "empowering" and "fuck if [they] know" why.
Logged
Religion is metaphysical statism. I will be ruled by no man on earth, nor by any god in heaven.

Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

fase2000tdi

  • Guest
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #343 on: February 09, 2009, 06:38:21 PM »

Listening to this stuff made my head hurt...
Logged

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: Law of Attraction
« Reply #344 on: February 09, 2009, 06:40:36 PM »

Is atheism the only logical conclusion regarding religion?

Theres no arbitrary position that is a logical conclusion or not.

If evidence of religious entities existing is presented that meets the burden of proof, then you should believe those entities exist till new evidence comes along that disproves the old.

The big gap in nearly all theists beliefs is that their standards of evidence are simply inconsistent. I've never, EVER had anyone make an argument about one religion, that couldn't be applied to nearly every other religion. Prove Jehovah doesn't exist! Oh yeah?!? well prove Ganesha doesn't exist! and so on and so forth. The only ones that aren't like this are the ones that get too specific about the nature of their gods and dates and times so their existence can be disproved without absolute knowledge of the universe.

A huge flaw in theists critical thinking is to believe that you should accept something as true until someone has proved it is not.

All you need to have this kind of belief is an immeasurable entity (i.e. make up anything you want and say it can't be measured or tested so you just have to accept it as true, after all you can't disprove it right?), and if you have an old book that claims a bunch of stuff that can't be historically validated it will go along way to backing up the legitimacy. If your god/soul can't be measured or tested in anyway whatsoever, then that's a whole lot of universe that you can hide your belief in.

Religion as a set of preferences or philosophical persuasions is fine, but when it makes claims of fact about the nature of reality, then it needs to be scientifically testable.

So yeah, there may be some gods somewhere, but so far, no evidence in the history of human civilization has come anywhere close to proving gods, as such its reasonable to lack the belief.

A lot of theists put way too much stock about being certain. Theres no need for me to be certain there are no gods in order not to believe in them. All I need, or rather don't need, is to have not seen any evidence worthy of believing such things exist.

200 years ago, it would have been irrational to believe in the existence of quarks, because at the time there was no evidence support such a claim. Now there is evidence, and it is rational to believe in the existence of quarks.

The rationality of a belief does not rely on its relation to absolute truth, but in relation to the assessment of empirical evidence you have been exposed to. Absolute knowledge is pretty much impossible. I could sit around writing down numbers that may be the number of planets in the universe that have life on them, but it would be irrational to believe in any number but the one I can prove.

I believe in what there is sufficient evidence to believe in, at the moment that doesn't include any gods. The fact that I've never met a theist who's tried to persuade me of their beliefs without urging me to avoid critical thinking, and the fact most theists I meet actually don't really care about proving their beliefs to me, or themselves, goes a long way towards me dismissing nearly all theist claims without even hearing them.

But I won't, and I'll still try to judge every new religious claim I hear as if I had never been exposed to all the previous religious fallacies, and if the new claim has evidence that goes even some way to proving its existence, I'll be happy to reassess my beliefs.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 07:06:09 PM by fatcat »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 32   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Law of Attraction

// ]]>

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 32 queries.