A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Why do you have trouble accepting that light energy, that doesn't encounter matter that absorbs it, can travel forever in a vacuum ?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I see, so you are not trying to actually understand the laws of physics, or research the evidence for them. You just want to project your True Believer status onto the rest of us. I have explained that I am convinced by evidence, not assertions. Science has the best evidence, I can look at that evidence and see how the conclusions were arrived at and ask questions and get them answered, so science wins with me when it comes to these types of claims.

I'm glad for you that you have your way of determining truth, and I hope it works for you. But you are going to miss out. Sorry to say, I'm not invested in trying to convince you otherwise [on a personal level].

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This poses a serious problem for me because there will be some contradiction in what you were taught and what I believe is true. That's why you will continue to discredit Lessans because you start out with a certain premise that you believe is unbreakable. I cannot win, or even attempt to share his claims given your resistance to anything that might shatter the scientific viewpoint.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Violating the laws of physics will pose a problem for you and Lessans with all but the most loony of people, yes.

I thank you for your opinion, which is all that it is. Remember, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

[LadyShea]

You can't even summarize the book, but you think you can evaluate and approve a Chinese translation of it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why do you have trouble accepting that light energy, that doesn't encounter matter that absorbs it, can travel forever in a vacuum ?

Where did I say that? I was asking a question.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm glad for you that you have your way of determining truth, and I hope it works for you. But you are going to miss out. Sorry to say, I'm not invested in trying to convince you otherwise [on a personal level].

Oh that's good, I am glad that trying to convince me for two years isn't a personal investment for you.

And I won't miss out on anything if Lessans is right, because it doesn't matter what I believe, correct?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thank you for your opinion, which is all that it is. Remember, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

Yep, very true.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did I say that? I was asking a question.

When you said this in response to my asking you about your understanding of the discussion you posted

I was just repeating the same mantra that you believe in because it was taught to you. You didn't figure out that light travels forever on your own. You are accepting what scientists tell you because they are the scientists. This poses a serious problem for me because there will be some contradiction in what you were taught and what I believe is true.

What contradiction were you referring to if not the scientific claim/teaching that light energy, that doesn't encounter matter that absorbs it, can travel forever in a vacuum?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop using that as a reason to dismiss what Lessans is positing. This is no more a personal investment for me as it is for you. And don't tell me differently because it will be a lie.

I didn't say that. I said what you believe may be to your detriment if Lessans is right. You will have missed out on a major discovery. I'm just telling it how I see it. I'm not telling you what to do.

I thank you for your opinion, which is all that it is. Remember, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yep, very true.

I'm glad we agree on something.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When you said this in response to my asking you about your understanding of the discussion you posted

What contradiction were you referring to if not the scientific claim/teaching that light energy, that doesn't encounter matter that absorbs it, can travel forever in a vacuum?

In any scientific theory, nothing is held sacred, right? Obviously, that's not true because there are many scientific [theories] that have graduated to fact. Now you tell me who is being deceptive here? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing that science is wrong or right when it comes to my questions. I'm just saying that my questions are just as important as yours.

You might think scientists know all the answers, but light continues to surprise them.

HowStuffWorks "What Is Light?"

[Vivisectus]

This is such bullshit Vivisectus, it's upsetting me to the extent that I feel the need to express my anger. I refuse to talk to you about flat earth theory in reference to this discovery. It's done, over, finished. Do you get that? Don't bring this up again or I will ignore you. You are so cock sure of yourself, it sickens me because you're wrong on every single count when it comes to this book.

I realize you do not like to hear it, but it is exactly what you are doing. You even admitted as much. People who believe that the biblical flood happened about 6000 years ago do the exact same thing.

Rational conclusion, based on what? You are so positive that everything you base your rational conclusion on is right. Have you ever once considered that your conclusions may not be right? Could you ever admit that?

Based on what we can actually observe, of course. Unlike your conclusion, which is based on a claim.

And sure: if you can show me a reason to assume your idea is correct, I have no problem changing my mind. The problem is that there isn't one, and enormous piles of evidence suggesting it is complete hogwash.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I admit I said that. For the last time, I was new at this. I am fallible, but that doesn't make his claim fallible. Get that? So stop trying to ruin it for Lessans on account of me.

The fact that you lied about never having claimed that cameras and eyes work differently doesn't make Lessans' contentions fallible. However, it does make you a liar.

It's just like those times you lied and told people that Lessans was just a friend of the family. The fact that you repeatedly told that lie doesn't make Lessans incorrect. However, it does make you a liar.

It's also like that time you took "molecules of light" out of the book to make Lessans appear less stupid and ill-informed than he was. You deceit didn't make Lessans wrong. However, it did make you a liar.

The list of examples goes on and on, but the point is well and truly made. As a simple matter of fact, you are a liar.

That's a big problem for Lessantology because so much of the "support" for Lessans' pontifications doesn't actually appear in the book. We have only your word that he based all his conclusions on "astute observations." But you're a liar, and that means your word can't be trusted.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not mean I have deceived anyone, ...

The fact that your lies invariably fail simply means you're a poor liar. Getting caught lying doesn't somehow negate the lie.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... or that I'm a liar.

Your inability to deceive isn't what makes you a liar; your numerous attempts at intentional deception, buffoonishly inept though they are, make you a liar.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that. I said what you believe may be to your detriment if Lessans is right. You will have missed out on a major discovery. I'm just telling it how I see it. I'm not telling you what to do.

Missed out how? If the Golden Age comes about will I be barred from because of my beliefs? How is what I believe a detriment to me personally? If I believed differently how would that benefit me, personally?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, I wonder. If you have this much trouble editing the book and explaining Lessans work in English, how do you plan to evaluate and approve any translations? After all, the Golden Age will require all 6 billion people in the world to be on board with the principles. There are over 6500 languages in the world, the most spoken being Mandarin Chinese, how do you plan to get the book to everyone?

lol Chinese. Now you're just making shit up, Lady Shea.

There's no need for translation. If you actually take time to read the book you'd know that the only human beings on earth are English-speaking lily-white suburban middle-class Americans who need to work for a living but still have plenty of leisure time to read Will Durant and cogitate on English-speaking lily-white suburban middle-class American issues like what's for dinner, how to ask for sex, mathematical impossibility of marital beds, etc.

The existence of human beings who speak "Mandarin Chinese" () is just another of your scientific sacred cows.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Energy does not go on forever if it isn't fueled. I just don't get that.

Peacegirl, Light is energy, and I believe this is you claiming that light/energy does not go on forever, and also claiming that it needs to be refueled as it travels. page 1145, post #28607.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't even summarize the book, but you think you can evaluate and approve a Chinese translation of it?

I don't know Chinese, but with help I think I could get the concepts across. There are translators in every language. Most leaders know English and it's the leaders who are going to become our first citizens. Also, we now have the technology to set up the economic system in such a way that everyone in the world would receive their guarantee once they become a citizen. It really is amazing how the economic system wipes out poverty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Light is energy, and I believe this is you claiming that light/energy does not go on forever, and also claiming that it needs to be refueled as it travels. page 1145, post #28607.

I was just asking a question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Missed out how? If the Golden Age comes about will I be barred from because of my beliefs? How is what I believe a detriment to me personally? If I believed differently how would that benefit me, personally?

I'm not talking about the benefits of becoming a citizen. There are a lot of interesting concepts in this book that don't just apply to the new world, but of course you believe you have learned all there is to know. It's your loss. This knowledge has taught me so much. It has been a guiding light my whole life. I am so grateful for having been given the opportunity to learn these principles, and to pass them on.

[Vivisectus]

I love how PG has refused to change her mind in the face of heaps of evidence, backpedalled, appealed to evidence that does not exist yet and on occasion outright lied...

But it is everyone else who is biased, or who just accept whatever they have been taught.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would need help because I don't know Chinese, but with help I think I could get the concepts across. Why are you always trying to put me down LadyShea?

Peacegirl, You would need to be able to explain the concepts to someone who could then write them in Chinese, and the same would go for any other language, And yet you can't even explain the concepts in English and haven't been able to do so for over 10 years. When someone asks what a passage in the book means, you just tell them to read the book again but can't explain it yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I admit I said that. For the last time, I was new at this. I am fallible, but that doesn't make his claim fallible. Get that? So stop trying to ruin it for Lessans on account of me.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

The fact that you lied about never having claimed that cameras and eyes work differently doesn't make Lessans' contentions fallible. However, it does make you a liar.

It's just like those times you lied and told people that Lessans was just a friend of the family. The fact that you repeatedly told that lie doesn't make Lessans incorrect. However, it does make you a liar.

It's also like that time you took "molecules of light" out of the book to make Lessans appear less stupid and ill-informed than he was. You deceit didn't make Lessans wrong. However, it did make you a liar.

The list of examples goes on and on, but the point is well and truly made. As a simple matter of fact, you are a liar.

That's a big problem for Lessantology because so much of the "support" for Lessans' pontifications doesn't actually appear in the book. We have only your word that he based all his conclusions on "astute observations." But you're a liar, and that means your word can't be trusted.

If you believe I'm a liar, then I agree you shouldn't trust me. I'm not counting on you for anything, so it doesn't matter to me what you think. You have had a nasty word to say from day one. Bottom line: I'm not a liar. I may have weaseled here and there, changed the goalposts unintentionally, and even gotten histrionic out of sheer frustration, but lie for the purpose of deception? NO.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not mean I have deceived anyone, ...

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

The fact that your lies invariably fail simply means you're a poor liar. Getting caught lying doesn't somehow negate the lie.

How can a lie fail when it was never a lie in the first place?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... or that I'm a liar.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

Your inability to deceive isn't what makes you a liar; your numerous attempts at intentional deception, buffoonishly inept though they are, make you a liar.

There has never been an intentional attempt to deceive. I am entitled to express my worldview in an open forum. If you don't like it, leave.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But it is everyone else who is biased, or who just accept whatever they have been taught.

That just about sums it up, Peacegirl is right, and the rest of the world are just mean, closed minded, biased people who will not accept new knowledge based on one mans say-so.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may have weaseled here and there, changed the goalposts unintentionally, and even gotten histrionic due to frustration.

This is an interesting statement that should be remembered by everyone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, You would need to be able to explain the concepts to someone who could then write them in Chinese, and the same would go for any other language, And yet you can't even explain the concepts in English and haven't been able to do so for over 10 years. When someone asks what a passage in the book means, you just tell them to read the book again but can't explain it yourself.

I can't do anymore than I'm doing thedoc. People have prematurely criticized just about everything. The dialogue that I chose was criticized to the point where LadyShea didn't believe this friend of the family actually went to an expo and saw the sign that said "Come inside and let us show you that the eyes are not a sense organ." It's unbelievable how this book has been torn apart in the worst way. Most of the criticism had to do with form, not content. Lessans has been portrayed as someone that doesn't resemble him at all. It's all fabrication. I understand the problem with his claim regarding the eyes. Only time will tell. But this isn't his most important discovery. I don't care whether we see the past or the present, although this also has a bearing on his discovery regarding death and why we're born again and again. The only people who will not open their minds even a little bit are the ones who have all kinds of conflicting theories crammed in their head to the point where they are criticizing this knowledge based on these other theories, which don't hold water. Believe me, his first discovery is not a modal fallacy, nor is it a tautology, not is it an assertion. These are all false charges.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is an interesting statement that should be remembered by everyone.

I admitted that I felt backed against the wall at times, and to get out of it I might not have answered a question directly, or may have unintentionally moved the goalposts. But nothing I said was meant to deceive. I never said to myself, "I really tricked them this time."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I admitted that I felt pushed against the wall at times, and to get out of it I might not have answered a question directly, or may have unintentionally moved the goalposts. But nothing I said was meant to deceive. I never said to myself, "I really tricked them this time."

Then you really, really need to look back at your posts again.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In any scientific theory, nothing is held sacred, right? Obviously, that's not true because there are many scientific [theories] that have graduated to fact.

That's another blatant lie on your part, and you know it. This has been explained to you many, many times before.


In any event, that your one and only determinant of "Truth" is Lessans and that you treat his writings as Holy Writ is easily demonstrated. Your change of opinion regarding eyes versus cameras, for instance. When you thought that Lessans had claimed that eyes and cameras see differently, you stoutly insisted this was so -- you ignored all evidence to the contrary, and insisted that anyone who disagreed was just too stupid or close-minded to accept this "fact."

But then you discovered that Lessans had said the opposite. Immediately, you switched positions and started arguing that eyes and cameras both see in "real time." The evidence didn't change; rather, you discovered that you had misinterpreted the Holy Book, and so you immediately and thoughtlessly changed your argument. But not your tactics. Where moments earlier you had been implying that anyone who couldn't see the "evidence" that "proved" cameras and eyes see differently was stupid or close-minded, now you were insisting that the evidence "clearly" indicated that both cameras and eyes see in "real time[/i]."

The evidence didn't change. The only thing that changed was your understanding of the Holy Book. And like any good Fundamentalist, since you couldn't tolerate any disagreement with the Holy Book, you vehemently denied that you had ever said that cameras and eyes see differently (after all, that would have put you into direct conflict with Lessans), even though you had been arguing just that for the past several pages.