Do you believe in God?

[FoRiZon]

The problem with people having a rather staunch "purpose and meaning" in life is that more often than not it'll involve other people that very often have other "purpose and meaning" and also priorities.

And you know what it leads to....

 

[Rallywagon]

I am not big on the notion of meaning a purpose either. At least not outside of whatever meaning a purpose you find for yourself. Just like all things life is what you make of it.
That said, is the idea here that God somehow conveys this meaning and purpose? Picks your path and passes it down to you in some sort of revelation? If that's the case, then this can be bucketed with one of the other issues I have with sky fairies. What is the purpose and meaning of newborns coming into the world terminal, living a short but tortured life only to die painfully. Where is the meaning and purpose there?
As many BS examples as can be found to try and support the idea of a god, there are equal as many examples of both the lack of, but also to point out that maybe this thing you believe in isn't so good of a being. Things just dont add up to a benevolent and/or omnipotent creature, that's for sure.

 

[Dotini]

A life led with meaning and purpose means nothing more than consciously trying to achieve all that you are capable of. Like getting an education. Like learning a 2nd or 3rd language, like learning a musical instrument, like learning to dance or fence. Like getting a good job. Like starting a successful family or business. If you have what it takes. If you are a low caste beggar in India, it may mean nothing more than treating animals and other people with respect, and everybody needs to treat other people, at least, with respect. It does not mean subjugating other people or doing any of the dumb stuff in the bible. A purpose driven life implicitly rejects errant, mythical and dangerous gods dreamt up in aberrant religious literature. Please do not be afraid of allowing meaning and purpose into your life. It is a wonderful, wonderful thing, and leads to the possibility of direct experience of the best life on Earth has to offer.

@Rallywagon There is no "benevolent or omnipotent creature". Anywhere. None whatsoever. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero-mundo. The much-abused term God, for the benefit of all humans on Earth, can now be redefined simply as the infinite consciousness which created the laws of physics and quantum dynamics of the universe we live in. Brother, go forth and multiply. Maybe even do geometry and calculus.

 

[zzz_pt]

I find Oppenheimer was spot on in the question of meaning. I've listened to his lecture and saved this part on my own notes:

"In every investigation, in every extension of knowledge, we’re involved in action; in every action we’re involved in choice; in every choice we’re involved in a kind of loss, the loss of what we didn’t do. You find it in perception, where the possibility of perceiving is coextensive with ignoring many things that are going on. You find it in speech, where the possibility of understandable speech lies in you paying no attention to the tremendous miscellaneous rachet that I’m making and hearing the words.

Meaning is always attained at the cost of leaving things out. One finds it in action, and it’s of course a recurring theme of the arts and the literature. And one finds it in the idea of complementarity - this trait of atomic physics, where it is firmly recognized that the attempt to make one sort of observation, forecloses and ruins the attempt to make another. We have freedom of choice, but we have no escape from the fact that when we act, we also fail to act. In practical terms, this means of course, that our knowledge is finite and never all-encompassing; and there’s always much we necessarily miss at the cost of perceiving and knowing. There’s always much that we can not hold of because the very act of learning and ordering, and finding unity and meaning, the very power to talk about things, means that we leave out a great deal. I don’t mean this mystically but factually and indeed very modestly. There is every reason to take pride in all that’s been learned about nature; and a little bit, not much, about ourselves. But there’s a very good reason to remember this is always done at the cost of losing information which was there to be had."

J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1961 - University of Colorado

Edit: source of the lecture
___


There's no one meaning above all the other meanings. If someone is religious and finds meaning in that one specific view of the world, he will, simultaneously refuse and ignore a possible infinite number of other meanings and worthwhile purposes. He will leave out information and close his mind to other views, consciously or not.

What I think my life's meaning is, might not necessarily agree with what I think a friend of mine's life meaning is either. And I don't find it contradictory or incompatible.

However, the idea that everyone's purpose in life should/could be "X" is quite absurd to me in fact.


(I don't agree with his view on free will, but that's secondary to the matter of meaning)

A life led with meaning and purpose means nothing more than consciously trying to achieve all that you are capable of. Like getting an education. Like learning a 2nd or 3rd language, like learning a musical instrument, like learning to dance or fence. Like getting a good job. Like starting a successful family or business

I don't think that's true. A Buddhist warrior monk will find great meaning living in a temple, without family, learning no new language and creating no business. There are countless examples of what a meaningful life can look like.

What you suggested is nothing more than a routine for most people and lots of those who fulfill those steps don't do it because it's their purpose, but because it's the culture norm / pressure.

 

[Imari]

That's not a bad question. I don't mind HAVING A CONVERSATION. That means give and take. It's not having a conversation when one party is shouting NO NO NOPE! NO!! It's not a conversation when the premise or the grounds are ruled out at the beginning.

And it means that you actually have to clearly establish the premise before any discussion can take place. And a respectful way to do that wouldn't include requiring hours of study when you could simply summarise some starting points. Bring people into the subject gently instead of throwing them in the deep end.

Supply some reasoning, and then you can knock people for dismissing your argument without valid counter-reasoning. You've previously admitted that some of what you've been saying is essentially entertaining stories not meant to be taken seriously, and so "NO NO NOPE NO" seems like all the response that's required for that.

That said, I'm off to my fencing class for the evening. If you want a conversation, think of one good question to work on. I'll check back tomorrow.

I don't have questions because it's still unclear what the specifics of what you're claiming are. Take your signature. It claims that it is a scientifically testable proposition that the universe has a"super-conscious cosmic mind". That's an interesting idea, but doesn't contain anything like enough information for anyone to have an informed opinion about the statement. Yet you've avoided making any effort to elaborate on this in the past. Maybe start with that, and then people can form some coherent questions around the specifics of what you're describing.

I tend to agree with @Danoff, I doubt your sincerity in wanting an open discussion about "this" given your past behaviour and that you've handballed again instead of simply getting started. But I can't know what "this" is until you actually make the effort to describe it and your supporting reasoning in clear language. You want a discussion around your hypothesis, it starts with you explaining your hypothesis. I can't ask questions about what you think until you tell me what you think.

 

[Dotini]

And it means that you actually have to clearly establish the premise before any discussion can take place. And a respectful way to do that wouldn't include requiring hours of study when you could simply summarise some starting points. Bring people into the subject gently instead of throwing them in the deep end.

Supply some reasoning, and then you can knock people for dismissing your argument without valid counter-reasoning. You've previously admitted that some of what you've been saying is essentially entertaining stories not meant to be taken seriously, and so "NO NO NOPE NO" seems like all the response that's required for that.



I don't have questions because it's still unclear what the specifics of what you're claiming are. Take your signature. It claims that it is a scientifically testable proposition that the universe has a"super-conscious cosmic mind". That's an interesting idea, but doesn't contain anything like enough information for anyone to have an informed opinion about the statement. Yet you've avoided making any effort to elaborate on this in the past. Maybe start with that, and then people can form some coherent questions around the specifics of what you're describing.

I tend to agree with @Danoff, I doubt your sincerity in wanting an open discussion about "this" given your past behaviour and that you've handballed again instead of simply getting started. But I can't know what "this" is until you actually make the effort to describe it and your supporting reasoning in clear language. You want a discussion around your hypothesis, it starts with you explaining your hypothesis. I can't ask questions about what you think until you tell me what you think.

Great, Let's start with my post #21963 above.

@zz_pt

A Buddhist warrior monk will find great meaning living in a temple, without family, learning no new language and creating no business. There are countless examples of what a meaningful life can look like.

Very, very true. A Buddhist warrior monk has high abilities and long, rigorous training, so may experience great power and influence. People will have differing abilities and interests, so may follow differing paths to their life experience.

 

[Rallywagon]

A life led with meaning and purpose means nothing more than consciously trying to achieve all that you are capable of. Like getting an education. Like learning a 2nd or 3rd language, like learning a musical instrument, like learning to dance or fence. Like getting a good job. Like starting a successful family or business. If you have what it takes. If you are a low caste beggar in India, it may mean nothing more than treating animals and other people with respect, and everybody needs to treat other people, at least, with respect. It does not mean subjugating other people or doing any of the dumb stuff in the bible. A purpose driven life implicitly rejects errant, mythical and dangerous gods dreamt up in aberrant religious literature. Please do not be afraid of allowing meaning and purpose into your life. It is a wonderful, wonderful thing, and leads to the possibility of direct experience of the best life on Earth has to offer.

@Rallywagon There is no "benevolent or omnipotent creature". Anywhere. None whatsoever. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero-mundo. The much-abused term God, for the benefit of all humans on Earth, can now be redefined simply as the infinite consciousness which created the laws of physics and quantum dynamics of the universe we live in. Brother, go forth and multiply. Maybe even do geometry and calculus.

I've multiplied and will leave the maths to those with a better head for it. I also am not stating my own personal belief in a sky fairy. I'll also leave that nonsense to those with a mind for it. I think, in fact, that you completely missed my point. That was simply there is no need for the presence of a god to find meaning and purpose, and there is no need to even have meaning or purpose to lead and quality life. I try to live my life in the moment. That's not to say I dont have goals plans, but that I find it much more enjoyable to live a life were the problems and pleasures in life are right in front of me, not in the past or future. None of it hinges on finding meaning. None of it is dependent on purpose.
Edit:
To loosely quote, well, someone whom I cant remember at this moment. Maybe Chomsky, idk, someone will correct me I'm sure. "The past is anxiety, the future is fear." Meaning and purpose, they aren't required to live a fulfilling life in the present.
Edit 2:
Also, I dont capitalize god on purpose. For this, god can be anything. Cosmic consciousness, an all mighty jinni, a singular creator, a pantheon of gods. Whatever shoe you want to put on.

 

[Dotini]

I've multiplied and will leave the maths to those with a better head for it. I also am not stating my own personal belief in a sky fairy. I'll also leave that nonsense to those with a mind for it. I think, in fact, that you completely missed my point. That was simply there is no need for the presence of a god to find meaning and purpose, and there is no need to even have meaning or purpose to lead and quality life. I try to live my life in the moment. That's not to say I dont have goals plans, but that I find it much more enjoyable to live a life were the problems and pleasures in life are right in front of me, not in the past or future. None of it hinges on finding meaning. None of it is dependent on purpose.

That is very interesting and instructive. Thank you. Maybe I'd better forget this whole idea of meaning and purpose. Do I understand you to say that you are mainly seeking or actually living a life devoted to experiencing physical pleasure in the moment? I share some of those same tendencies: sloth, lust and gluttony. I understand heroin works quite well, but have never had the guts to try it. I used to get my compulsions satisfied by climbing mountains and racing karts. Now I have to be satisfied with fishing and fencing. Rubber boots and cross-training shoes are my minor gods.

 

[UKMikey]

To loosely quote, well, someone whom I cant remember at this moment. Maybe Chomsky, idk, someone will correct me I'm sure. "The past is anxiety, the future is fear." Meaning and purpose, they aren't required to live a fulfilling life in the present.

I'm not sure who said that but Wikiquotes attributes this one to Junia Bretas (Brazilian motivational speaker): "Depressão é excesso de passado em nossas mentes. Ansiedade excesso de futuro. O momento presente é a chave para a cura de todos oa males mentais"

If you're depressed, you're living in the past. If you're anxious, you're living in the future. If you're at peace, then you're living in the present.

 

[Danoff]

The much-abused term God, for the benefit of all humans on Earth, can now be redefined simply as the infinite consciousness which created the laws of physics and quantum dynamics of the universe we live in.

What evidence do you have that a consciousness created the laws of physics?

 

[Rallywagon]

That is very interesting and instructive. Thank you. Maybe I'd better forget this whole idea of meaning and purpose. Do I understand you to say that you are mainly seeking or actually living a life devoted to experiencing physical pleasure in the moment? I share some of those same tendencies: sloth, lust and gluttony. I understand heroin works quite well, but have never had the guts to try it. I used to get my compulsions satisfied by climbing mountains and racing karts. Now I have to be satisfied with fishing and fencing. Rubber boots and cross-training shoes are my minor gods.

Wow, what exactly is your reading comprehension level, or do you just go out of your way to misconstrue people meanings so you can work in some quasi metaphysical word vomit?
How you got to "physical pleasure" from my statement of living in the moment, I cant even begin to fathom.

 

[Dotini]

What evidence do you have that a consciousness created the laws of physics?

First, understand that I renounce everything I have ever said about the value of purpose and meaning. I now accept pleasure seeking as the true way I live, thanks to the epiphany received from @Rallywagon.

With regard to creating the laws of physics, there are only so many possibilities discussed by cosmologists that I know of, mainly two.

The most widely accepted is that the laws and constants of physics and quantum phenomena are created at random, with there being more random universes than there are atoms in our own universe. There is no hard, physical evidence of this that I know of, as other universes are by definition not part of our own, and none have even been identified that I know of.

The other idea, a very old one but one supported by a small but enthusiastic list of very notable astronomers, cosmologists and physicists, has it that these laws were created prior to the creation of our universe (and quite possibly others) by an infinite intelligent consciousness. There is precisely zero hard, physical evidence for this, either. So it boils down to which you would prefer to accept as a premise. Due to the long history of the conscious creation viewpoint subjectively documented by visionaries, shaman, Greek philosophers and near-death-experiencers, this possibility is attractive to some.

Due to the ferocity of the internet resistance to the startlingly weird idea of consciousness creating physical matter, I now completely let go of this idea with the comforting thought that it's in the past and doesn't matter. I need to go shopping and see the dentist. Goodby for now.

 

[Danoff]

The other idea, a very old one but one supported by a small but enthusiastic list of very notable astronomers, cosmologists and physicists, has it that these laws were created prior to the creation of our universe (and quite possibly others) by an infinite intelligent consciousness. There is precisely zero hard, physical evidence for this, either. So it boils down to which you would prefer to accept as a premise.

I prefer to have evidence before I accept something as true. I'm not in the habit of believing things which I have no reason to believe.

Due to the ferocity of the internet resistance to the startlingly weird idea of consciousness creating physical matter, I now completely let go of this idea with the comforting thought that it's in the past and doesn't matter. I need to go shopping and see the dentist. Goodby for now.

How does it help? You're wondering where physical laws and matter come from, how does it help to presume something which then requires the same questions asked, but then also raises tons of new questions? You're complicating the picture with no basis for doing so.

 

[Dotini]

How does it help? You're wondering where physical laws and matter come from, how does it help to presume something which then requires the same questions asked, but then also raises tons of new questions?

Sorry, I don't understand your questions. How does what help?

If you are still wondering about the creation of the laws of physics, it still seems there are two possible presumptions; randomness and created. Either way there is no hard physical evidence, except for subjective, which we should qualify. But as @Rallywagon has pointed out, either is in the past and no longer matters. We should live in the moment, without purpose and without meaning. Either way, there is no God as you would define it.

 

[Rallywagon]

You really are a grand smoke blower Dot. full of elegent prose with as much substance as thin air and you clearly take no issue with twisting up someones words to keep your fluffy nonsense going.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry, I don't understand your questions. How does what help?

How does the assumption of a consciousness help address the questions of why things exist? It just presupposes that other thing (consciousness) exists and raises questions about where that came from. It gets you no closer to an answer - which would be fine if we had a reason to think it was correct. But given that we don't, it doesn't seem to solve any problems to assume it.

If you are still wondering about the creation of the laws of physics, it still seems there are two possible presumptions; randomness and created.

Or a non-random process.

You don't have to pick an option though. You can just not try to answer a question you don't have an answer for. My biggest complaint is that the consciousness answer doesn't answer it. The question is "why something", saying "something else" just kicks the can down the road.

 

[Dotini]

How does the assumption of a consciousness help address the questions of why things exist? It just presupposes that other thing (consciousness) exists and raises questions about where that came from. It gets you no closer to an answer - which would be fine if we had a reason to think it was correct. But given that we don't, it doesn't seem to solve any problems to assume it.



Or a non-random process.

You don't have to pick an option though. You can just not try to answer a question you don't have an answer for. My biggest complaint is that the consciousness answer doesn't answer it. The question is "why something", saying "something else" just kicks the can down the road.

Agreed. Dennett and others assert consciousness is merely an illusion, and doesn't exist at all. They may be right!

@Rallywagon What!? I'm trying to agree with you. To repeat, there is no purpose or meaning intrinsic to the universe or to human life. It is only what we make of it in the moment.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Rallywagon]

Agreed. Dennett and others assert consciousness is merely an illusion, and doesn't exist at all. They may be right!

@Rallywagon What!? I'm trying to agree with you. To repeat, there is no purpose or meaning intrinsic to the universe or to human life. It is only what we make of it in the moment.

Which you first twisted to mean only physical pleasure, the twisted to mean we shouldn't seek more info about our world. You shift goal posts like you're in a Fast and Furious movie.

 

[Dotini]

Which you first twisted to mean only physical pleasure, the twisted to mean we shouldn't seek more info about our world. You shift goal posts like you're in a Fast and Furious movie.

I honestly thought that was what you meant. I'm happy to apologize.

My whole life has been about seeking the experience of pleasure and achievement above meaning and purpose, and I was a fool to momentarily think otherwise.

 

[evldave333]

Nothing authentic can be gleaned from dogma, only original experience is the truth

I'm not sure if the question is directed to @TenEightyOne in particular or if it's a general question. In any case, I do not believe there is inherent meaning or purpose to life.

It seems to me that many people cannot accept that for whatever reason, and concoct all sorts of things such as religion as justification.

Egotists love religion as it makes it all about them...

 

[Rallywagon]

Maybe the confusion came because of my statement:
"That's not to say I dont have goals plans, but that I find it much more enjoyable to live a life were the problems and pleasures in life are right in front of me, not in the past or future. None of it hinges on finding meaning. None of it is dependent on purpose."
Perhaps I should apologize if my meaning was not clear.in this case, problems and pleasure can be interchanged with bad and good. It definitely wasn't meant as an endorsement for or against meaning and purpose or that the only pleasure that should be sought is physical. And it definitely wasn't mean as a reason to put critical thinking aside and not contemplate our existence or the universe as a whole or in part.

 

[Imari]

Great, Let's start with my post #21963 above.

A post with two parts, which makes it hard to know which you meant. I'm going to assume the second section, as that sort of makes more sense in reference to the discussion so far. Also, you've apparently renounced purpose and meaning in life, so the first section seems to relate to something you no longer support.

@Rallywagon There is no "benevolent or omnipotent creature". Anywhere. None whatsoever. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero-mundo. The much-abused term God, for the benefit of all humans on Earth, can now be redefined simply as the infinite consciousness which created the laws of physics and quantum dynamics of the universe we live in. Brother, go forth and multiply. Maybe even do geometry and calculus.

OK, but that doesn't put forth any reasoning in support of this idea.

You claim that you're quite old, and so you must know from experience that when you make an odd statement the first thing that anyone over the age of three will ask is "but why?". On a discussion forum on the internet, particularly an opinion forum, that response can be easily anticipated. Supplying some reasoning up front could save everyone some time, because as it stands my only sensible response to your post can be:

"OK. Why do you think so?"

Do you see why you appear to be very, very reluctant to have a conversation? I'm basically having to drag information out of you piece by piece while explaining how conversations work.

The most widely accepted is that the laws and constants of physics and quantum phenomena are created at random, with there being more random universes than there are atoms in our own universe. There is no hard, physical evidence of this that I know of, as other universes are by definition not part of our own, and none have even been identified that I know of.

The many universes hypothesis is not necessarily part of the idea that the physical constants were created at random. There could only be one universe and the constants of that universe were created at random.

The attractiveness of the randomness hypothesis basically comes back to Occam's Razor. It's about as simple an answer to the question of "why are the constants what they are?" as it gets, and while it's almost certainly wrong it has the distinct advantage of being eminently disprovable. It's ideal as the null hypothesis. The moment any idea with even a modicum of experimental support comes along, that will replace the idea of random constants. Any new idea should be tested against the null hypothesis, and if it's not better (in the sense of more accurately describing observed phenomena) then it should be discarded.

The other idea, a very old one but one supported by a small but enthusiastic list of very notable astronomers, cosmologists and physicists, has it that these laws were created prior to the creation of our universe (and quite possibly others) by an infinite intelligent consciousness. There is precisely zero hard, physical evidence for this, either. So it boils down to which you would prefer to accept as a premise. Due to the long history of the conscious creation viewpoint subjectively documented by visionaries, shaman, Greek philosophers and near-death-experiencers, this possibility is attractive to some.

But if we're seeking actual truth, we don't choose answers based on how much we like them. We choose them based on how likely we think they are to actually represent reality, whatever that might be. If you're choosing based on preference, then you're researching human psychology, not creation physics.

 

[Dotini]

A post with two parts, which makes it hard to know which you meant. I'm going to assume the second section, as that sort of makes more sense in reference to the discussion so far. Also, you've apparently renounced purpose and meaning in life, so the first section seems to relate to something you no longer support.



OK, but that doesn't put forth any reasoning in support of this idea.

You claim that you're quite old, and so you must know from experience that when you make an odd statement the first thing that anyone over the age of three will ask is "but why?". On a discussion forum on the internet, particularly an opinion forum, that response can be easily anticipated. Supplying some reasoning up front could save everyone some time, because as it stands my only sensible response to your post can be:

"OK. Why do you think so?"

Do you see why you appear to be very, very reluctant to have a conversation? I'm basically having to drag information out of you piece by piece while explaining how conversations work.



The many universes hypothesis is not necessarily part of the idea that the physical constants were created at random. There could only be one universe and the constants of that universe were created at random.

The attractiveness of the randomness hypothesis basically comes back to Occam's Razor. It's about as simple an answer to the question of "why are the constants what they are?" as it gets, and while it's almost certainly wrong it has the distinct advantage of being eminently disprovable. It's ideal as the null hypothesis. The moment any idea with even a modicum of experimental support comes along, that will replace the idea of random constants. Any new idea should be tested against the null hypothesis, and if it's not better (in the sense of more accurately describing observed phenomena) then it should be discarded.



But if we're seeking actual truth, we don't choose answers based on how much we like them. We choose them based on how likely we think they are to actually represent reality, whatever that might be. If you're choosing based on preference, then you're researching human psychology, not creation physics.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

― Aristotle

Above I entertained a few ideas and presented my best case for discussion. I deservedly got ripped a new asshole for my efforts, and found not a whisker of interest or support from the forum. I have no remaining ideas to defend.

 

[Danoff]

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

― Aristotle

Above I entertained a few ideas and presented my best case for discussion. I deservedly got ripped a new asshole for my efforts, and found not a whisker of interest or support from the forum. I have no remaining ideas to defend.

Are we supposed to "support" ideas because they exist? You're advocating for some sort of weird intellectual charity. Like poor ideas deserve to be propped up because they're poor or something.

 

[Imari]

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

― Aristotle

Ironic, because you appear to accept ideas wholly right up until the point that you don't. Whereas you get angsty with people like me and Danoff who do not immediately accept your ideas without further explanation. We entertain that you might have interesting things to say, pending further information.

Above I entertained a few ideas and presented my best case for discussion. I deservedly got ripped a new asshole for my efforts, and found not a whisker of interest or support from the forum.

You call this "ripped a new asshole"? Are you suggesting by replying to me with this that I ripped you a new asshole? Seriously? I can't control what other people do, if you have problems with them then take it up with them directly.

Not a whisker of interest, despite me continually encouraging you to share your ideas in a format that others might actually be able to engage with? Even you have to be able to see that you're just being dramatic now.

Your best case for discussion? If you really believe that what you've presented so far is the best presentation of your ideas, then perhaps it's for the best that you're done. For all your ideas, you apparently have no interest in how the mechanisms they describe might function or affect things in the real world. What you've presented so far is all sparkle, no substance.

You're saying "the car is fast because it's got a big engine" on a forum full of mechanics, and when they ask for more detail on the specifics of what makes the engine special you go into your defensive schema. Oh, I never believed that anyway. Oh, you just haven't read this 500 page engineering manual. Oh, you're totally right and I'm totally wrong, how silly of me to think otherwise. You know psychology, you must have come across this sort of behaviour.

I mean, did you ever figure out how the idea that the material universe has a super-conscious mind is actually scientifically testable? That one is basically a gimme given that presumably Sarfatti has done all the work for you and you tote it around in your signature. But the rest of us don't know where in his copious works to find that particular section. It's not easily googleable, not to me at least.

I have no remaining ideas to defend.

As I've said before, if you go in with the idea that you're defending yourself then everything looks like an attack. And since you're posting this to me, I can only assume that you consider my last post to be an attack on your ideas. I still don't understand your ideas enough to attack them, let alone discuss them, which is why I asked for more information. See?

"OK. Why do you think so?"

I've attacked your discussion style because it's infuriating, but I'm still here trying to work with you to present your ideas in a clear and fair manner. My last three paragraphs that you quoted were clarifying what I saw as errors in your post. That's a discussion. That's how it works. You find points that you want to discuss and talk about them. That's not an attack.

If you see that as an attack then no discussion is possible here, because you're so fragile that you're unable to endure other people's opinions. Which is strikingly in contrast to the quote you opened the post with.

 

[Dotini]

Ironic, because you appear to accept ideas wholly right up until the point that you don't. Whereas you get angsty with people like me and Danoff who do not immediately accept your ideas without further explanation. We entertain that you might have interesting things to say, pending further information.



You call this "ripped a new asshole"? Are you suggesting by replying to me with this that I ripped you a new asshole? Seriously? I can't control what other people do, if you have problems with them then take it up with them directly.

Not a whisker of interest, despite me continually encouraging you to share your ideas in a format that others might actually be able to engage with? Even you have to be able to see that you're just being dramatic now.

Your best case for discussion? If you really believe that what you've presented so far is the best presentation of your ideas, then perhaps it's for the best that you're done. For all your ideas, you apparently have no interest in how the mechanisms they describe might function or affect things in the real world. What you've presented so far is all sparkle, no substance.

You're saying "the car is fast because it's got a big engine" on a forum full of mechanics, and when they ask for more detail on the specifics of what makes the engine special you go into your defensive schema. Oh, I never believed that anyway. Oh, you just haven't read this 500 page engineering manual. Oh, you're totally right and I'm totally wrong, how silly of me to think otherwise. You know psychology, you must have come across this sort of behaviour.

I mean, did you ever figure out how the idea that the material universe has a super-conscious mind is actually scientifically testable? That one is basically a gimme given that presumably Sarfatti has done all the work for you and you tote it around in your signature. But the rest of us don't know where in his copious works to find that particular section. It's not easily googleable, not to me at least.



As I've said before, if you go in with the idea that you're defending yourself then everything looks like an attack. And since you're posting this to me, I can only assume that you consider my last post to be an attack on your ideas. I still don't understand your ideas enough to attack them, let alone discuss them, which is why I asked for more information. See?



I've attacked your discussion style because it's infuriating, but I'm still here trying to work with you to present your ideas in a clear and fair manner. My last three paragraphs that you quoted were clarifying what I saw as errors in your post. That's a discussion. That's how it works. You find points that you want to discuss and talk about them. That's not an attack.

If you see that as an attack then no discussion is possible here, because you're so fragile that you're unable to endure other people's opinions. Which is strikingly in contrast to the quote you opened the post with.

Your posts are too often tl/dr for my taste. You need to keep them shorter and simpler. You multi quote too much. My ideas are unpopular. They seldom get likes, but do get a lot of pushback. I'm not a masochist, although I think I often go the extra mile. But I'm done with that.

 

[Danoff]

 

[Dotini]

In this forum it has been clearly established that meaning and purpose are neither necessary nor desirable. So what is the point of further attempts at communication other than jokes and entertainment? "I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure about that."

 

[Famine]

In this forum it has been clearly established that meaning and purpose are neither necessary nor desirable.

[Citation needed]