When I was younger, I thought pretty much just like you. Religion was something other people did, it made no sense and seemed like a waste of time. TV was way better than anything in a Church. Who needed social time and BBQ's after Church service? TV was teaching me so much more than some old book ever could. I did not have lazy parents, my dad passed away when I was rather young and mom just had little time.
During my time in the Military, I stumbled on to Philosophy, and found some very amazing questions. TV tried to feed me answers to these questions, but the answers they provided made no sense once I knew how to understand the questions, and the proposed answers. The TV tried to tell me the puzzles were all solved, yet there are no solution possible. Philosophers will teach you that much, assuming you will take the time to listen and learn.
I have spent literally nearly two decades trying to answer the questions, and unravel the fallacy people keep throwing in the way of the question. They are many, and complex, and from every side that claims to know an answer. After years of work I came to the same conclusion the vast majority of Philosophers have, which is that there is probably a creator. I realize that this is my opinion, but will point out that it's an opinion which is educated and backed by logical thought. I frequently sift through mountains of data in an effort to challenge my own philosophy. New Science claims to have solved things, and I at least have to test the water. I have yet to change my opinion and see a solution.
Debating with atheists, I was surprised to find that even though they claimed that "science denies the need for a creator" there was no fact in those statements. It's fallacy in varying form over and over. I also found that most atheists have never looked in to the question. They simply agree with a fallacy that someone has presented them, and repeat those fallacies to claim they are correct. Truth be told, they are no better than a book shaking zealot they claim to despise. The only difference is the which book they shake to tell everyone they are correct, the fallacies are identical.
With all that precursor work, here is what is important. If you take the time to try and answer the question for yourself, you may be surprised at how low the probability there is for the Universe not needing a creator. If you decide the Universe needs a creator, Theology becomes important. I can't say I agree a lot of things that occur in the name of Theology, but I'm educated and logical enough to recognize propaganda.
Assuming you tackle the question and decide that perhaps some Theology has some significance, and assuming some very basic thoughts common to nearly all Theology have some validity: Evil does not have to convert a person to evil to harm them permanently, they simply need to fool people in to not believing. It's at least an interesting perspective if you begin recognizing the fallacies used to evangelize atheism.
But the truth is that atheists will not challenge their faith in atheism, any more than someone believing in an older book would change their faith. All of us have our belief systems, and all of us are biased to our own beliefs. I'm probably as biased as anyone else, and perhaps more so since I have studied the question for a very long time. The difference to me is that I admit my belief is an opinion. The Catholic and Atheist won't usually do that same thing.
I teach my kid Philosophy as well, so the he can actually search for himself and find answers. That is something the TV never did, and quite frankly can not do. He's old enough to have formed a very solid opinion, and challenges his own opinion just like I do mine.
What you state is roughly what I have argued for the last two decades. Atheists will refuse to believe anything other than atheism, just like the people that believe the literal translation of Genesis refuse to believe in evolution.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of money to be made pushing a purely atheist religion. Most atheists refuse to acknowledge that Kraus, Hawking, and countless others get paid truck loads of money to publicly claim there is no God. Just like people of certain faiths refuse to acknowledge that people in Religions often do things for profit, not truth.
I don't know if Nye made any money from his perspective, the title does not match the speech so it could be other people trying to capitalize on the speech.
Most Philosophers have concluded that we need a creator. Atheists simply deny it, even to the point where I have seen them claim that Philosophers should be exterminated.
If a person names themselves a term, and acts a certain way, it is safe to assume that there is a collision. Is it possible that there is more than one meaning to the name? Of course there is, and actually I believe that to be more common that I know. But one should not discount one meaning in favor of another. Seriously, with a name like Onika Marage why not Niki Mirage or something without the sexual innuendo? And if there is no sexual reference intended in the name, why is there so much sex in her act? Why the satanic props?
I do appreciate the knowledge reference for the term however. Learning is good. Perhaps we are more in agreement than I know, but I don't perceive your messages that way.
I believe that you actually went a bit further than you should have in the logic. There is no math required, and here is the extrapolation: Part of the proof that you exist (to yourself) should be investigating all of the possibilities you have to think. We learn that we have both a conscious and unconscious mind in that process. Dreams must be evaluated in the proof for existence correct? When we dream, we are not completely in control of our thoughts. However, we do have some control over both our bodies and minds while dreaming. The opposite is true when we are awake. We are perfectly conscious when awake, however there are some parts of the mind we don't have to actively control.
As a guess, I'm gathering that you and I are not looking at the same issue. It seems that you are hinting at both motive and consciousness, where the two should be separated. I may not understand your thoughts completely either, ahh the joys of text conversation..
You are in the pit of having your emotions played to. On TV, there was very little footage of the Pentagon or Penn crash. What you remember is the NYC buildings. This is why I emphasized going and looking at images. What you would remember from TV is emotionally biased, and probably not the truth. This is a normal psychological issue, it's how your brain copes. Don't take my word for it, go look at images. If you refuse, I'll assume you are just instigating propaganda and nothing more. If you don't understand how the mind deals with trauma, I'm sure a book or a friend in psychology can help you with information.
What I stated regarding physics is exactly true. The requirements for the Government models do not match what happened given all of the information we have on the crash. Thousands of computer simulations have been run, and the results don't even come close to the Government answer. As with above, go investigate for yourself instead of simply denying information. As mentioned previously, nobody is passing blame. They want to know what really happened so that they can make buildings without catastrophic failures. You instigating "conspiracy crap" is all in your mind.
I work with hundreds of Engineers and Architects every day, it was some of those guys that showed me the movement and requests to have the Government re-open the case.
I stated no BS, I stated what is real. There are so many photos' available, there is no point in me giving you links. The data is free, and simply requires a search in Google images.
You deny facts, invent statements, and attack ad hominem while admitting to go look at nothing. Are you by chance paid to spread propaganda? I do feel my question is very valid considering your responses.
Since the person posted anonymously, I have no idea who the person is. Since the post appears to be propaganda, I assume the worst. My use and the English definition match very well considering that there are at least 3 lies in that post. Two could technically be classified as poor logic, however, as just mentioned when people post what appears to be propaganda I assume it's not poor logic. I assume that it is intentionally misleading information.
Where we differ, is that you assume innocence in these type of posts and I do not. Some one had pointed out long ago, with a serious of threads, how agents post propaganda. Who's "agents" is a valid question for which I have no answer. What is true is that there is a tremendous amount of propaganda on sites like Slashdot, and I have a very low tolerance for those that intentionally mislead people.
The way I read the post I replied to, it was not innocent. It's carefully crafted in a way to sway opinion using both fallacy and lies. As stated previously, it's posted anonymously so I have no way of seeing who actually made the post, what their history is, or try and guess their intent.
If the post I replied to was you, and you made errors, then admit that you made the post. I would apologize for the brash treatment, and we would move on. If it was not you that made the post, then we have a vast difference on how we perceive the intent of these types of posts. I don't find anything positive in trying to coddle propaganda, and you perceive there is no propaganda.
Oh, and I do stand corrected. I did reread my post and I did call the person a liar. If it's factually correct then it is not an Ad Hominem, it's a logical fact.
It's a good guess, since they seemed to be perfectly offended and interject statements I never said. Of course I could be wrong, but this is pretty normal psychology for the most part.
I'm guessing American English is not your native language? For the question to work in English, you would need to flip your two terms. The subject is always assumed first in American English. This is different I know from German, I always have to translate German two times. First for words and second for context:D
I never called you a "liar", I stated that you had typed a blatant lie. My statement is factual, go read the definitions for "blatant" and "lie". If you are personally offended or assume name calling, this is your short coming.
This has nothing to do with being US or from Europe. If you don't tell the truth, it's a lie. If you use poor logic to come to a false conclusion, it's a fallacy. You did both, and I pointed out both. If I spoke something factually untrue in Germany, I would receive the exact same treatment as you did. I would be told that I spoke a lie. Why? Because it is factually correct. Of course the German word is "liegen".
And hey, guess what? I was in Germany for years and have relatives from Germany. There is no magic cultural divide as you propose that changes how someone is corrected when telling something that is not true.
If you are called out for speaking something not true, and chose not to read the logic.. that is another severe short coming on your part. Perhaps if you read the middle you would learn "why?" instead of simply opening up to repeat the same mistakes over time.
Um, yes, quite a few though we don't know actual numbers yet. The US Government was recently found to be putting people in to mental institutions after arresting them, instead of prison. Go ahead and Google search that, there was a discussion Friday regarding that same issue here on/. 2 cases confirmed so far, another 20,000 alleged in just VA.
While this may sound interesting and logical to someone uneducated, this is simply a nice fallacy with no scientific backing that could not be countered by other scientific data. Simply put, you are full of shit.
While numerous studies show that often we make decisions by calculations, there is also a tremendous amount of proof to things like instinct, precognition, and premonition. We don't understand it, it's extremely complex to measure, but it is most definitely real.
You have a very blatant lie hidden in your statements as well. " What you perceive as blue doesn't actually exist, what actually exists is just a wavelength range". We define the color blue by the specific wave length (or filtered wave length if you prefer) so know exactly what "Blue" is. So a person can perceive "blue", "red", "violet" or any other color defined in the spectrum. You are a liar, the end.
Before you get that far, one must look to Descartes work (also Aquinas) to know that they exist without question. If you do not know you exist, the question of being conscious is not relevant. If you know you exist, being conscious is just an extrapolation of that same principle.
This is the foundation for critical thought, which in my opinion everyone should be trained in.
The Socratic method also requires that we learn numerous fields of study. This is something else often complained about by many. In my ever so humble (hah!) opinion, the real meaning of that requirement is lost today. For example few in college study Philosophy, Logic, Symbolic Logic, Rhetoric, and Ethics. Most people take "Humanities" as their Liberal Arts objective, which teaches no real skills but is glorified "Social Studies". People whine about taking Communications and Algebra if it's not related to their degree, ignoring the far reaching implications of the learned skills.
In my opinion, the more you learn the better off you are. It's interesting to me how much knowledge begins to correlate to other knowledge as you learn more and more. Having basics like Rhetoric and Logic mean you can convey thoughts and usually make sound decisions. Math is required for just about everything, Physics helps you make sense of the world.
Even back when I was in College most of those things were not required, now even less are required. I took lots of extra classes because I enjoyed learning, and still do, not because I had to. Since I could afford it, it made it easier to do. Someone on a tight budget in College would not have the same luxury, and would still get a degree.
At the Pentagon? Sorry, no.. there was a few scraps of aluminum in the yard. Hell while the fire was going they had about 50 guys in suits and ties sweeping the yard in a line looking for small objects, there was no 757 debris. There were no seats, no luggage, no engines, no massive wheels, no bodies, no clothing, nothing that resembles every other passenger plane crash in history. The Penn. crash has the same exact issues. There was a smoking crater (which showed on satellite data years prior) and some small parts, but nothing like a passenger jet liner crash. Again, look at every other passenger plane crash in history and compare.
The 11 frames of footage finally released after people were asking questions regarding plane debris did not help either. There is no image of a 757 anywhere to be seen. It's a very small white object releasing white smoke, and has caused more people to ask questions than the released footage helps.
Look, it's easy to let your emotions over take your logic. Check every single image of the Pentagon crash you can find. There was no plane debris. The hole in front of the Pentagon where the impact happened is about 1/2 the diameter of a 757, and there are no wing imprints. The exit hole has office debris, but again no plane debris. There is 1 image of an engine rotor, however the rotor is way to small to be that of a 757's engine. Last I checked, a 757 has 4 engines also, and not 1.
Interestingly, I work with a guy who lived in New Jersey and had a friend that witnessed what crashed in to the Pentagon. He described it as looking like a small private jet but flying much faster than it should be flying. The guy died 2 years later from Legionnaires disease. This was about the time more people were over the emotional aspects of the events and started asking harder questions.
As mentioned, people want to know what happened and not receive silence or bullshit answers. People like you that deny the actual evidence don't help with either side. Don't take my word for anything, go look for yourself. There are plenty of images available through Google Search. Again, compare these passenger crashes to every other passenger crash in history.
Absolutely false! "Intellectual Property" is not part of the Constitutional law. Intellectual property did not exist until Reagon passed the business process patent laws in the 1980s (I'm to lazy to go look for the exact date at the moment).
Patent Law according to the Constitution deal with Physical invention only, and cites all of the criteria required for an invention to become patented. One of the requirements was that a working blue print must be provided, which you may be confusing with "IP" but it's not. A person could not submit a patent with just a blue print, the model had to be functional to receive the patent.
Idea Patents are illegal, and are currently being used illegally. Because you see some way that people benefit financially does not make it magically legal, any more than claiming people make money selling drugs illegally so it should be okay.
Go read the original Laws regarding Patents, especially the text regarding the spirit of a Patent. Patent's can not be used to stifle invention, must be used for the benefit or society, and should never be used to create monopolies. Patent's on "ideas" follow absolutely none of those points, and absolutely do everything that patents are not supposed to do. Most importantly, "Idea" patents by think tanks regarding future technology can not even make the basic criteria for a working invention.
He claims that his military experience gave him access to the same classified information allegedly leaked by Bradley Manning to Wikileaks and now verified. He says none of us could possibly believe some of ths shit he witnessed over there, and the horrors reported by the media and even by Wikileaks are only the tip of the iceberg. He's not mentally ill, he has just seen too much blood and misery to process it all and return to living a "normal" life.
Your last sentence is a complete contradiction. He's telling you what he saw, told you it was verified by a Wikileaks dump, and you believe it's all "his" mental problems and that there is no truth in any of the conspiracies?
Look, I get that some are pretty far fetched.. but most of them also provide a whole lot of factual data. Example: Demand letters 1-3 factually show that Operation Fast and Furious had a primary goal of attacking the 2nd amendment and trying to get gun control laws passed.
If people's guess at a motive is wrong, the facts being provided don't magically vanish. We should be looking to find out what the real motives are, and resolving issues that these facts do bring up. Such as why no criminal charges have been brought upon anyone involved in Fast and Furious. Perhaps these people are not as crazy as you think either.
False dichotomy! You neglect the role models people are shown on TV and told to worship. Paris Hilton received more air time than even the President of the USA did at the during the same 4 year time span. We have 5-6 hours a night of incest, murder, rape, teen pregnancy, robbery, sexual perversion, drug abuse and sales, spousal abuse, etc.. etc.. Hell even the Police, Judges, and often the Clergy sleep around, do illegal drugs, and commit crime.
In the mornings for the last week on ABC and NBC kids get to see Niki Menaj (or what ever that tramps name is) paraded around and praised by the TV anchors. Parents are shown how their kids should be idolizing someone very obviously satanic, with 3-some in her name, and some rather extreme mental disorders (they themselves admit to having).
I'm not ignorant enough to blame a few religious people for today's problems, and it's very sad that people like you are. A Religious idiot does not have the ability to reach millions of people simultaneously, they can only reach a handful. What we see today is on a massive scale, and brought to you by media with a reach to millions of people.
So if a neighbor calls the police and says you are crazy, they should just come put you in to an institution? We are not discussing someone that was doing something other than talking poorly about the Government on Facebook. Great, you dislike his theory. It's not like he said he was going to harm anyone, he was simply sharing his theories.
This case is not unique, over 20,000 cases of the same exact thing have been reported in Virginia, this is just the first that hit your ears. Ohio had a similar case today. Warrant for a persons arrest, privately owned guns confiscated under the guise of "protecting the public", and the person was attempted to be committed to a mental institution because of Facebook posts.
So yeah, it can be abused and is quite possibly being abused already. Keep thinking "it can't happen here", it may already be happening.
Hand on a second here: You have over 20,000 Architects and Engineers that have been requesting the US re-open the 9/11 files because what they provided as answers are not possible in physics. Those people are just crazy and insane? The Government ignores them, media ignores them, and most people don't know that they are even asking. This is not to pass blame, but to find out what really happened since what the Government stated is impossible based on facts and they want to architect buildings to avoid similar failures. Other questions regarding how Building 7 crumbled makes no sense? The fact that no plane debris was found at the Pentagon crash makes no sense? Look, if the Government has a super weapon that melted the plane a split second before impact, most people would accept that answer instead of the silence given currently.
We have a Government that has lied rather chronically for a very long time about a multitude of issues. Fast and Furious is the easiest target, but also we have the FBI that was found to be creating false terrorist plots and reporting them to be real. That's really just the tip of the iceberg (I'll preempt your citation requests and ask you to use Google, at least for now nothing is hidden.)
We have the DHS purchasing over a billion rounds of ammo 2 weeks ago, and none of it's target ammo. When people started asking why, they pulled the orders and redacted the quantities (which is illegal).
We have a Government that is openly funding a rebellion in Syria, and has been extremely tight lipped about the Governments roles in the various colored revolutions in the middle east, even amid numerous reports that the CIA and other Government agencies were funding and training militants responsible for starting the revolutions.
So a guy looking at all the various information starts to come to conclusions on motives and that makes him a loony person?
People not asking questions at this point in time in my opinion are the loony ones. People ignoring illegal acts by the Government are loony in my opinion, and people rallying for continuation of these illegal activities are the loony ones. Those not asking why the Government is asking for people to be classified as psychopaths by tweets and Facebook posts are loony. A Government asking that DNA be used to determine preemptive criminal activities should scare the piss out of you!
If there are no answers to critical questions, it's very normal to draw parallels and conclusions from all of the various activities. And if you don't know about the various activities you are ignorant and should quickly educate yourself. If what he assigns as a motive is incorrect, does that make all of these things not exist? Sorry, that is not a logical conclusion.
Oh, and have you seen the creepy Denver International Airport in Colorado? People are upset, have asked for who requested the bizarre and sickening art work, asked who the "New World Airport Commission" is that is credited with the design, etc.. etc.. and the government refuses to answer questions. The satanic nature of the airport is blatantly obvious. Go look at it!
The idea that "Intellectual Property" exists is illegal, plain and simple. It needs to be resolved in court (and should have been over 15 years ago), and the only reason it has not been there is because people are making a metric ass load of money suing each other. Courts make money, Law firms make money, and businesses that "win" make money. It's all ILLEGAL!
Stop and think about how backwards, draconian, and medieval the concept is. Ideas are not free and only certain people can have them? Because you think up an idea, you can own the idea and nobody else can implement an idea that they thought up just like yours? Even when technology does not exist, you can own ideas that you pay people to sit and dream up? Really, a patent on something currently impossible? Yes folks, that is the current system.
I'm all for copyright laws, assuming they are permissible to everyone and fairly legislated. 100 year copyrights are not fairly legislated are they? Trademarks sure, those can be for a lifetime assuming again that common sense applies. A logo can be a trademark, a string of text can not be a trademark.
To continue the belabor the point of how fair a "Patent Troll" is, is completely ludicrous. If a judge ever rules that patents can be granted on ideas, they need to be fired from their jobs and judges need to be place on to benches that have knowledge of the words and spirit of the US Constitution, and works for the interests of Society and not a select few (including their own benefit).
Nothing changes if we continue on the same path. The system as it sits stifles innovation and ingenuity and causes harm to everyone. Tell me how the Honeywell vs. Nest law suit and C&D order has helped anyone but Honeywell? This is explicitly against the spirit of the Laws providing Patents.
Naw, I understand very well. You take this one point very literally and ignore completely other statements I make in the same section to change the message. What I state is that evolution from one species to another is not proven, it's a theory.
What most people do is completely ignore the fact that this step in evolution something other than theory. Whether it's a "good" theory or "bad" theory is not the point. Claiming evolution is "proven to be true" is an obvious and blatant lie. We lack an incredible amount of evidence to show it's true. We have proven that evolution within a species (variations) is true, but anything else is theory.
Perhaps my point is over exaggerated to you, which is part of the point. The document is not intended as a scientific paper, but for general consumption. Hence I will discuss questions with people, but I'm not going to re-write a section with much more detail since it becomes useless to laymen at that point.
To me, the question you should probably be considering is not how much I know about the theory of evolution, but rather "Why are people taking a "theory" and claiming it's "proven" when it's not?" If you read the responses to my post here in this thread, you will see it's quite common. This is not scientific, and not intelligent. Alleged proof by "belief" is the same exact thing that atheists claim Theology are guilty of, and it happens all the time.
The whole "evolution is proven" argument is an appeal to probability fallacy.
Your last statement is a paradox for sure, but resolvable philosophically. I have spent a very long time trying to answer the question of whether or not the Universe needs a creator (more than 20 years) and the answer I have is the same that the overwhelming majority of people that investigate the question comes to. Yes, we need a creator. Note that this has nothing to do with Theology, and one of the hardest things to do while trying to investigate is to remove Theology and other human biases.
Note in my work, just like nearly every other Philosopher has concluded I admit that we can not know an answer. We can only measure what exists, and at the point the Universe was created, there is nothing to measure. It's impossible to answer the question definitively, so we look to logic to come to a conclusion. It's the only possible way of proof, though many are so biased they won't admit the same fact.
Here is a link to many of my thoughts on the subject. Note that I'm bothered all biases introduced into the discussion. Atheists tend to be the worst at having bias and ignoring their own bias, to I am a bit harsh on their evangelism rather intentionally. It's not perfect by any means, I work on improving it from time to time.
Another point may not be clear in that work. Which is that once you believe that we need a creator, one would start to investigate Theology. Theology is not important to someone that does not believe we need a creator, but it does become important if you believe we do.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was younger, I thought pretty much just like you. Religion was something other people did, it made no sense and seemed like a waste of time. TV was way better than anything in a Church. Who needed social time and BBQ's after Church service? TV was teaching me so much more than some old book ever could. I did not have lazy parents, my dad passed away when I was rather young and mom just had little time.
During my time in the Military, I stumbled on to Philosophy, and found some very amazing questions. TV tried to feed me answers to these questions, but the answers they provided made no sense once I knew how to understand the questions, and the proposed answers. The TV tried to tell me the puzzles were all solved, yet there are no solution possible. Philosophers will teach you that much, assuming you will take the time to listen and learn.
I have spent literally nearly two decades trying to answer the questions, and unravel the fallacy people keep throwing in the way of the question. They are many, and complex, and from every side that claims to know an answer. After years of work I came to the same conclusion the vast majority of Philosophers have, which is that there is probably a creator. I realize that this is my opinion, but will point out that it's an opinion which is educated and backed by logical thought. I frequently sift through mountains of data in an effort to challenge my own philosophy. New Science claims to have solved things, and I at least have to test the water. I have yet to change my opinion and see a solution.
Debating with atheists, I was surprised to find that even though they claimed that "science denies the need for a creator" there was no fact in those statements. It's fallacy in varying form over and over. I also found that most atheists have never looked in to the question. They simply agree with a fallacy that someone has presented them, and repeat those fallacies to claim they are correct. Truth be told, they are no better than a book shaking zealot they claim to despise. The only difference is the which book they shake to tell everyone they are correct, the fallacies are identical.
With all that precursor work, here is what is important. If you take the time to try and answer the question for yourself, you may be surprised at how low the probability there is for the Universe not needing a creator. If you decide the Universe needs a creator, Theology becomes important. I can't say I agree a lot of things that occur in the name of Theology, but I'm educated and logical enough to recognize propaganda.
Assuming you tackle the question and decide that perhaps some Theology has some significance, and assuming some very basic thoughts common to nearly all Theology have some validity: Evil does not have to convert a person to evil to harm them permanently, they simply need to fool people in to not believing. It's at least an interesting perspective if you begin recognizing the fallacies used to evangelize atheism.
But the truth is that atheists will not challenge their faith in atheism, any more than someone believing in an older book would change their faith. All of us have our belief systems, and all of us are biased to our own beliefs. I'm probably as biased as anyone else, and perhaps more so since I have studied the question for a very long time. The difference to me is that I admit my belief is an opinion. The Catholic and Atheist won't usually do that same thing.
I teach my kid Philosophy as well, so the he can actually search for himself and find answers. That is something the TV never did, and quite frankly can not do. He's old enough to have formed a very solid opinion, and challenges his own opinion just like I do mine.
What you state is roughly what I have argued for the last two decades. Atheists will refuse to believe anything other than atheism, just like the people that believe the literal translation of Genesis refuse to believe in evolution.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of money to be made pushing a purely atheist religion. Most atheists refuse to acknowledge that Kraus, Hawking, and countless others get paid truck loads of money to publicly claim there is no God. Just like people of certain faiths refuse to acknowledge that people in Religions often do things for profit, not truth.
I don't know if Nye made any money from his perspective, the title does not match the speech so it could be other people trying to capitalize on the speech.
Most Philosophers have concluded that we need a creator. Atheists simply deny it, even to the point where I have seen them claim that Philosophers should be exterminated.
If a person names themselves a term, and acts a certain way, it is safe to assume that there is a collision. Is it possible that there is more than one meaning to the name? Of course there is, and actually I believe that to be more common that I know. But one should not discount one meaning in favor of another. Seriously, with a name like Onika Marage why not Niki Mirage or something without the sexual innuendo? And if there is no sexual reference intended in the name, why is there so much sex in her act? Why the satanic props?
I do appreciate the knowledge reference for the term however. Learning is good. Perhaps we are more in agreement than I know, but I don't perceive your messages that way.
I believe that you actually went a bit further than you should have in the logic. There is no math required, and here is the extrapolation: Part of the proof that you exist (to yourself) should be investigating all of the possibilities you have to think. We learn that we have both a conscious and unconscious mind in that process. Dreams must be evaluated in the proof for existence correct? When we dream, we are not completely in control of our thoughts. However, we do have some control over both our bodies and minds while dreaming. The opposite is true when we are awake. We are perfectly conscious when awake, however there are some parts of the mind we don't have to actively control.
As a guess, I'm gathering that you and I are not looking at the same issue. It seems that you are hinting at both motive and consciousness, where the two should be separated. I may not understand your thoughts completely either, ahh the joys of text conversation..
You are in the pit of having your emotions played to. On TV, there was very little footage of the Pentagon or Penn crash. What you remember is the NYC buildings. This is why I emphasized going and looking at images. What you would remember from TV is emotionally biased, and probably not the truth. This is a normal psychological issue, it's how your brain copes. Don't take my word for it, go look at images. If you refuse, I'll assume you are just instigating propaganda and nothing more. If you don't understand how the mind deals with trauma, I'm sure a book or a friend in psychology can help you with information.
What I stated regarding physics is exactly true. The requirements for the Government models do not match what happened given all of the information we have on the crash. Thousands of computer simulations have been run, and the results don't even come close to the Government answer. As with above, go investigate for yourself instead of simply denying information. As mentioned previously, nobody is passing blame. They want to know what really happened so that they can make buildings without catastrophic failures. You instigating "conspiracy crap" is all in your mind.
I work with hundreds of Engineers and Architects every day, it was some of those guys that showed me the movement and requests to have the Government re-open the case.
I stated no BS, I stated what is real. There are so many photos' available, there is no point in me giving you links. The data is free, and simply requires a search in Google images.
You deny facts, invent statements, and attack ad hominem while admitting to go look at nothing. Are you by chance paid to spread propaganda? I do feel my question is very valid considering your responses.
The English definition is as follows:
liar [la]
n
a person who has lied or lies repeatedly
Since the person posted anonymously, I have no idea who the person is. Since the post appears to be propaganda, I assume the worst. My use and the English definition match very well considering that there are at least 3 lies in that post. Two could technically be classified as poor logic, however, as just mentioned when people post what appears to be propaganda I assume it's not poor logic. I assume that it is intentionally misleading information.
Where we differ, is that you assume innocence in these type of posts and I do not. Some one had pointed out long ago, with a serious of threads, how agents post propaganda. Who's "agents" is a valid question for which I have no answer. What is true is that there is a tremendous amount of propaganda on sites like Slashdot, and I have a very low tolerance for those that intentionally mislead people.
The way I read the post I replied to, it was not innocent. It's carefully crafted in a way to sway opinion using both fallacy and lies. As stated previously, it's posted anonymously so I have no way of seeing who actually made the post, what their history is, or try and guess their intent.
If the post I replied to was you, and you made errors, then admit that you made the post. I would apologize for the brash treatment, and we would move on. If it was not you that made the post, then we have a vast difference on how we perceive the intent of these types of posts. I don't find anything positive in trying to coddle propaganda, and you perceive there is no propaganda.
Oh, and I do stand corrected. I did reread my post and I did call the person a liar. If it's factually correct then it is not an Ad Hominem, it's a logical fact.
It's a good guess, since they seemed to be perfectly offended and interject statements I never said. Of course I could be wrong, but this is pretty normal psychology for the most part.
I'm guessing American English is not your native language? For the question to work in English, you would need to flip your two terms. The subject is always assumed first in American English. This is different I know from German, I always have to translate German two times. First for words and second for context :D
I never called you a "liar", I stated that you had typed a blatant lie. My statement is factual, go read the definitions for "blatant" and "lie". If you are personally offended or assume name calling, this is your short coming.
This has nothing to do with being US or from Europe. If you don't tell the truth, it's a lie. If you use poor logic to come to a false conclusion, it's a fallacy. You did both, and I pointed out both. If I spoke something factually untrue in Germany, I would receive the exact same treatment as you did. I would be told that I spoke a lie. Why? Because it is factually correct. Of course the German word is "liegen".
And hey, guess what? I was in Germany for years and have relatives from Germany. There is no magic cultural divide as you propose that changes how someone is corrected when telling something that is not true.
If you are called out for speaking something not true, and chose not to read the logic.. that is another severe short coming on your part. Perhaps if you read the middle you would learn "why?" instead of simply opening up to repeat the same mistakes over time.
Um, yes, quite a few though we don't know actual numbers yet. The US Government was recently found to be putting people in to mental institutions after arresting them, instead of prison. Go ahead and Google search that, there was a discussion Friday regarding that same issue here on /. 2 cases confirmed so far, another 20,000 alleged in just VA.
While this may sound interesting and logical to someone uneducated, this is simply a nice fallacy with no scientific backing that could not be countered by other scientific data. Simply put, you are full of shit.
While numerous studies show that often we make decisions by calculations, there is also a tremendous amount of proof to things like instinct, precognition, and premonition. We don't understand it, it's extremely complex to measure, but it is most definitely real.
You have a very blatant lie hidden in your statements as well. " What you perceive as blue doesn't actually exist, what actually exists is just a wavelength range". We define the color blue by the specific wave length (or filtered wave length if you prefer) so know exactly what "Blue" is. So a person can perceive "blue", "red", "violet" or any other color defined in the spectrum. You are a liar, the end.
Before you get that far, one must look to Descartes work (also Aquinas) to know that they exist without question. If you do not know you exist, the question of being conscious is not relevant. If you know you exist, being conscious is just an extrapolation of that same principle.
This is the foundation for critical thought, which in my opinion everyone should be trained in.
The Socratic method also requires that we learn numerous fields of study. This is something else often complained about by many. In my ever so humble (hah!) opinion, the real meaning of that requirement is lost today. For example few in college study Philosophy, Logic, Symbolic Logic, Rhetoric, and Ethics. Most people take "Humanities" as their Liberal Arts objective, which teaches no real skills but is glorified "Social Studies". People whine about taking Communications and Algebra if it's not related to their degree, ignoring the far reaching implications of the learned skills.
In my opinion, the more you learn the better off you are. It's interesting to me how much knowledge begins to correlate to other knowledge as you learn more and more. Having basics like Rhetoric and Logic mean you can convey thoughts and usually make sound decisions. Math is required for just about everything, Physics helps you make sense of the world.
Even back when I was in College most of those things were not required, now even less are required. I took lots of extra classes because I enjoyed learning, and still do, not because I had to. Since I could afford it, it made it easier to do. Someone on a tight budget in College would not have the same luxury, and would still get a degree.
At the Pentagon? Sorry, no.. there was a few scraps of aluminum in the yard. Hell while the fire was going they had about 50 guys in suits and ties sweeping the yard in a line looking for small objects, there was no 757 debris. There were no seats, no luggage, no engines, no massive wheels, no bodies, no clothing, nothing that resembles every other passenger plane crash in history. The Penn. crash has the same exact issues. There was a smoking crater (which showed on satellite data years prior) and some small parts, but nothing like a passenger jet liner crash. Again, look at every other passenger plane crash in history and compare.
The 11 frames of footage finally released after people were asking questions regarding plane debris did not help either. There is no image of a 757 anywhere to be seen. It's a very small white object releasing white smoke, and has caused more people to ask questions than the released footage helps.
Look, it's easy to let your emotions over take your logic. Check every single image of the Pentagon crash you can find. There was no plane debris. The hole in front of the Pentagon where the impact happened is about 1/2 the diameter of a 757, and there are no wing imprints. The exit hole has office debris, but again no plane debris. There is 1 image of an engine rotor, however the rotor is way to small to be that of a 757's engine. Last I checked, a 757 has 4 engines also, and not 1.
Interestingly, I work with a guy who lived in New Jersey and had a friend that witnessed what crashed in to the Pentagon. He described it as looking like a small private jet but flying much faster than it should be flying. The guy died 2 years later from Legionnaires disease. This was about the time more people were over the emotional aspects of the events and started asking harder questions.
As mentioned, people want to know what happened and not receive silence or bullshit answers. People like you that deny the actual evidence don't help with either side. Don't take my word for anything, go look for yourself. There are plenty of images available through Google Search. Again, compare these passenger crashes to every other passenger crash in history.
Yeah, until you see her stage show, the bondage simulations, etc.. Keep thinking that, it's okay to be socially acceptable instead of honest.
And if you say it one time about Obama, you end up in Jail! (See teen arrested in Florida for Facebook post in case you are unfamiliar)
Absolutely false! "Intellectual Property" is not part of the Constitutional law. Intellectual property did not exist until Reagon passed the business process patent laws in the 1980s (I'm to lazy to go look for the exact date at the moment).
Patent Law according to the Constitution deal with Physical invention only, and cites all of the criteria required for an invention to become patented. One of the requirements was that a working blue print must be provided, which you may be confusing with "IP" but it's not. A person could not submit a patent with just a blue print, the model had to be functional to receive the patent.
Idea Patents are illegal, and are currently being used illegally. Because you see some way that people benefit financially does not make it magically legal, any more than claiming people make money selling drugs illegally so it should be okay.
Go read the original Laws regarding Patents, especially the text regarding the spirit of a Patent. Patent's can not be used to stifle invention, must be used for the benefit or society, and should never be used to create monopolies. Patent's on "ideas" follow absolutely none of those points, and absolutely do everything that patents are not supposed to do. Most importantly, "Idea" patents by think tanks regarding future technology can not even make the basic criteria for a working invention.
He claims that his military experience gave him access to the same classified information allegedly leaked by Bradley Manning to Wikileaks and now verified. He says none of us could possibly believe some of ths shit he witnessed over there, and the horrors reported by the media and even by Wikileaks are only the tip of the iceberg. He's not mentally ill, he has just seen too much blood and misery to process it all and return to living a "normal" life.
Your last sentence is a complete contradiction. He's telling you what he saw, told you it was verified by a Wikileaks dump, and you believe it's all "his" mental problems and that there is no truth in any of the conspiracies?
Look, I get that some are pretty far fetched.. but most of them also provide a whole lot of factual data. Example: Demand letters 1-3 factually show that Operation Fast and Furious had a primary goal of attacking the 2nd amendment and trying to get gun control laws passed.
If people's guess at a motive is wrong, the facts being provided don't magically vanish. We should be looking to find out what the real motives are, and resolving issues that these facts do bring up. Such as why no criminal charges have been brought upon anyone involved in Fast and Furious. Perhaps these people are not as crazy as you think either.
False dichotomy! You neglect the role models people are shown on TV and told to worship. Paris Hilton received more air time than even the President of the USA did at the during the same 4 year time span. We have 5-6 hours a night of incest, murder, rape, teen pregnancy, robbery, sexual perversion, drug abuse and sales, spousal abuse, etc.. etc.. Hell even the Police, Judges, and often the Clergy sleep around, do illegal drugs, and commit crime.
In the mornings for the last week on ABC and NBC kids get to see Niki Menaj (or what ever that tramps name is) paraded around and praised by the TV anchors. Parents are shown how their kids should be idolizing someone very obviously satanic, with 3-some in her name, and some rather extreme mental disorders (they themselves admit to having).
I'm not ignorant enough to blame a few religious people for today's problems, and it's very sad that people like you are. A Religious idiot does not have the ability to reach millions of people simultaneously, they can only reach a handful. What we see today is on a massive scale, and brought to you by media with a reach to millions of people.
So if a neighbor calls the police and says you are crazy, they should just come put you in to an institution? We are not discussing someone that was doing something other than talking poorly about the Government on Facebook. Great, you dislike his theory. It's not like he said he was going to harm anyone, he was simply sharing his theories.
This case is not unique, over 20,000 cases of the same exact thing have been reported in Virginia, this is just the first that hit your ears. Ohio had a similar case today. Warrant for a persons arrest, privately owned guns confiscated under the guise of "protecting the public", and the person was attempted to be committed to a mental institution because of Facebook posts.
So yeah, it can be abused and is quite possibly being abused already. Keep thinking "it can't happen here", it may already be happening.
Hand on a second here: You have over 20,000 Architects and Engineers that have been requesting the US re-open the 9/11 files because what they provided as answers are not possible in physics. Those people are just crazy and insane? The Government ignores them, media ignores them, and most people don't know that they are even asking. This is not to pass blame, but to find out what really happened since what the Government stated is impossible based on facts and they want to architect buildings to avoid similar failures. Other questions regarding how Building 7 crumbled makes no sense? The fact that no plane debris was found at the Pentagon crash makes no sense? Look, if the Government has a super weapon that melted the plane a split second before impact, most people would accept that answer instead of the silence given currently.
We have a Government that has lied rather chronically for a very long time about a multitude of issues. Fast and Furious is the easiest target, but also we have the FBI that was found to be creating false terrorist plots and reporting them to be real. That's really just the tip of the iceberg (I'll preempt your citation requests and ask you to use Google, at least for now nothing is hidden.)
We have the DHS purchasing over a billion rounds of ammo 2 weeks ago, and none of it's target ammo. When people started asking why, they pulled the orders and redacted the quantities (which is illegal).
We have a Government that is openly funding a rebellion in Syria, and has been extremely tight lipped about the Governments roles in the various colored revolutions in the middle east, even amid numerous reports that the CIA and other Government agencies were funding and training militants responsible for starting the revolutions.
So a guy looking at all the various information starts to come to conclusions on motives and that makes him a loony person?
People not asking questions at this point in time in my opinion are the loony ones. People ignoring illegal acts by the Government are loony in my opinion, and people rallying for continuation of these illegal activities are the loony ones. Those not asking why the Government is asking for people to be classified as psychopaths by tweets and Facebook posts are loony. A Government asking that DNA be used to determine preemptive criminal activities should scare the piss out of you!
If there are no answers to critical questions, it's very normal to draw parallels and conclusions from all of the various activities. And if you don't know about the various activities you are ignorant and should quickly educate yourself. If what he assigns as a motive is incorrect, does that make all of these things not exist? Sorry, that is not a logical conclusion.
Oh, and have you seen the creepy Denver International Airport in Colorado? People are upset, have asked for who requested the bizarre and sickening art work, asked who the "New World Airport Commission" is that is credited with the design, etc.. etc.. and the government refuses to answer questions. The satanic nature of the airport is blatantly obvious. Go look at it!
The idea that "Intellectual Property" exists is illegal, plain and simple. It needs to be resolved in court (and should have been over 15 years ago), and the only reason it has not been there is because people are making a metric ass load of money suing each other. Courts make money, Law firms make money, and businesses that "win" make money. It's all ILLEGAL!
Stop and think about how backwards, draconian, and medieval the concept is. Ideas are not free and only certain people can have them? Because you think up an idea, you can own the idea and nobody else can implement an idea that they thought up just like yours? Even when technology does not exist, you can own ideas that you pay people to sit and dream up? Really, a patent on something currently impossible? Yes folks, that is the current system.
I'm all for copyright laws, assuming they are permissible to everyone and fairly legislated. 100 year copyrights are not fairly legislated are they? Trademarks sure, those can be for a lifetime assuming again that common sense applies. A logo can be a trademark, a string of text can not be a trademark.
To continue the belabor the point of how fair a "Patent Troll" is, is completely ludicrous. If a judge ever rules that patents can be granted on ideas, they need to be fired from their jobs and judges need to be place on to benches that have knowledge of the words and spirit of the US Constitution, and works for the interests of Society and not a select few (including their own benefit).
Nothing changes if we continue on the same path. The system as it sits stifles innovation and ingenuity and causes harm to everyone. Tell me how the Honeywell vs. Nest law suit and C&D order has helped anyone but Honeywell? This is explicitly against the spirit of the Laws providing Patents.
Naw, I understand very well. You take this one point very literally and ignore completely other statements I make in the same section to change the message. What I state is that evolution from one species to another is not proven, it's a theory.
What most people do is completely ignore the fact that this step in evolution something other than theory. Whether it's a "good" theory or "bad" theory is not the point. Claiming evolution is "proven to be true" is an obvious and blatant lie. We lack an incredible amount of evidence to show it's true. We have proven that evolution within a species (variations) is true, but anything else is theory.
Perhaps my point is over exaggerated to you, which is part of the point. The document is not intended as a scientific paper, but for general consumption. Hence I will discuss questions with people, but I'm not going to re-write a section with much more detail since it becomes useless to laymen at that point.
To me, the question you should probably be considering is not how much I know about the theory of evolution, but rather "Why are people taking a "theory" and claiming it's "proven" when it's not?" If you read the responses to my post here in this thread, you will see it's quite common. This is not scientific, and not intelligent. Alleged proof by "belief" is the same exact thing that atheists claim Theology are guilty of, and it happens all the time.
The whole "evolution is proven" argument is an appeal to probability fallacy.
Your last statement is a paradox for sure, but resolvable philosophically. I have spent a very long time trying to answer the question of whether or not the Universe needs a creator (more than 20 years) and the answer I have is the same that the overwhelming majority of people that investigate the question comes to. Yes, we need a creator. Note that this has nothing to do with Theology, and one of the hardest things to do while trying to investigate is to remove Theology and other human biases.
Note in my work, just like nearly every other Philosopher has concluded I admit that we can not know an answer. We can only measure what exists, and at the point the Universe was created, there is nothing to measure. It's impossible to answer the question definitively, so we look to logic to come to a conclusion. It's the only possible way of proof, though many are so biased they won't admit the same fact.
Here is a link to many of my thoughts on the subject. Note that I'm bothered all biases introduced into the discussion. Atheists tend to be the worst at having bias and ignoring their own bias, to I am a bit harsh on their evangelism rather intentionally. It's not perfect by any means, I work on improving it from time to time.
Another point may not be clear in that work. Which is that once you believe that we need a creator, one would start to investigate Theology. Theology is not important to someone that does not believe we need a creator, but it does become important if you believe we do.