A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He wrote that LadyShea. What's so funny about it? Why are you only focusing on form instead of content? The dialogue was only meant to help with the content, but you just love to make this a laughing matter.

A) The dialog is ridiculous and very funny
B) You have been inconsistent as to who wrote it, and as to whether or not the dialogs were actual or fictional-see quotes below for these inconsistent statements

I told you where I added things. I did not take responsibility for anything Lessans wrote in order to protect him because nothing he wrote was silly.

No, you have admitted to adding certain things only after they were criticized. You let us believe he had written the line about homosexuality declining in a no blame environment, for months and months, then later said you had added it. Which is the truth? We can never know!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was just stating that if the environment has anything to do with it, then homosexuality will decline, because what drove someone to this lifestyle will no longer be present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I actually wrote that sentence. Maybe I will take it out. I didn't know it would cause such a problem. He just wrote this:

If there are a certain number of homosexual
relationships that remain, no one will judge or criticize these unions
since this is a first blow which can no longer be justified.

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just being obstinate. Even if I was the one that made this dialogue up because I anticipated the questions that were going to be asked, WHAT DOES THE FORM HAVE TO DO WITH THE CONTENT? YOU DISAPPOINT ME.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dialogue (whether imaginary or not) is a writing style. I chose this as a way to help people understand this work. Funny how good intentions can turn into something else entirely.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Writing the book in dialogue was for the purpose of helping to anticipate the questions the reader may have, and to make the book as reader friendly as possible. It was not meant as some kind of proof. Most of the dialogue (when he was answering questions from his friend) was fictional, although he did talk to rabbis and priests, as well as professors and Ph.'Ds. He did talk to Eric Johnson from the Motion Pictures Association. He did talk to Will Durant on the phone while he was living. He did have a revelation in November of 1959. The guy did go to the exposition and saw a sign that read: The eyes are not a sense organ. I also believe the example he gave regarding Rigel was in an encylopedia, although I can't verify it. So what are you complaining about LadyShea, as if the dialogue format was anything other than a method to get this knowledge across in the easiest and most palatable way possible?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said before, the book is written well enough. It expresses the concepts in a clear and concise way. This is not a memoir. Would it make you feel better if I added that the dialogue is fictional?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. And what does this have to do with the quality of the content anyway? Most of his dialogue was real, by the way. He talked to all these people in real life; the pastor; the rabbi; the professor, etc. Where were there half assed stabs at logical reasoning? Stop accusing him without backing up your statements.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was a true dialogue that Lessans had with this man. Take it or leave it LadyShea. Here come all the werewolves out of their caves to suck the last bit of blood they can get before bringing Lessans down. It can't be done if Lessans turns out to be right, no matter hard you are all trying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that was the dialogue he wrote, and he did have an actual discussion with a rabbi. He also had a discussion with a pastor. He had discussions with professors also. He talked to Will Durant on the phone. He also talked to my friend Dave who went to an expo and saw a sign that read, "Come inside and see why the eyes are not a sense organ." He didn't make these things up. His earlier book was in prose but I liked the dialogue format because I thought it was much easier to grasp the principles, so that's what I used in the compilation.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why were you banned, and weren't you a moderator? Just curious.

If you had ever left the basement you would have realized that the entire place was melting down at that time and many of the staff members including myself quit over some actions of the owners. I had my PM privileges cut off when they read one of mine and saw that I was trying to reach someone for this guy Oolon who was banned and they didn't like it. I pitched a fit in the middle of the Lounge, told everyone else that the admins were reading private messages, added in a few choice words for him that Oolon wrote for me because I suck at good flames and ToM IP banned me on the spot. It had started to get embarrassing that I was the only one that couldn't get myself banned so it was sort of a relief even if someone else had to write my insults.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Hmm. You may have a point that posting is time consuming and someone like me has all of the time in the world right now to do anything that I want with since I'm retired. However I still think that broadening your horizons and seeing how other people defend their positions might be a good learning experience for you. I was spoiled rotten in forum terms when I got to IIDB because it was easy to appear to be very smart on most regular forums without much effort but I really had to get my act together to hold my own there and know when to STFU and not interrupt the experts. It helps to know when you're out of your league and I know that this isn't fun to hear but you're way out of yours on these kind of forums when you talk to scientists and philosophers or even people with a lot of common sense.

I agree that there is something worthwhile to be said for listening to other people's responses. I actually do that quite often. I often peruse the threads (not just in this forum) and see what people are talking about. I disagree with the second half of your response because, firstly, you're implying that this discovery isn't valid because others who are smarter than me say so. You don't know whether this discovery is valid or not Christina. I asked you if you knew what his first discovery was about and I never got a response. Secondly, you are implying that I don't have what it takes to challenge these philosophers. Actually I do. You're also accusing me of not having common sense. Where do you come off saying this when you hardly know me? You just got a distorted impression of me from the other forum, and now here.

No way. I am stating very clearly that I have a discovery, and this gets people really really angry. They are especially mean to me for this reason.

Originally Posted by Christina

You really need to get over this idea that this stuff is threatening to anyone because it isn't at all. It's just silly and not backed up with either facts or what anyone else thinks of as logic.

But you're wrong here. All you're doing is copying what other people say. Can't you think for yourself? Have you read the book? Have you even read the first three chapters? If you did read it, you would show a lot more interest.

I do appreciate your effort to help me (I believe you are being sincere), and I don't mind hearing more of your tips. This one just didn't suit me.

Originally Posted by Christina

I am being sincere when I try to help you but I'm pretty sure that nothing I've said has suited you so far.

That's not true. Your advice about the letter was well taken. I really don't know what the next marketing step is going to be, and any advice is welcome but I cannot guarantee that I will use it unless I feel comfortable with it. I do thank you for your thoughts, although I wish you knew more about the book. I think you would be much more enthusiastic.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I'd still be wandering around trying to raise my first few hundred dollars if I had refused to take the advice of people with more experience than I had.

Really? What was it you were working on if I may ask?

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

So much is about perception and sometimes we just have to accept that others don't perceive us in the way that we'd like them to and change our style even though we don't think that we should have to. Personally I think that I'm just as competent in a tiedye as I am in a business suit but no one else seems to agree so I put on the damn suit and go get some money.

You're right. We have to follow the dictates of society if we want to succeed, therefore dressing a certain way is a means to an end. The pressure to look a certain way is changing somewhat. Starbucks is very liberal, which I love to see. They aren't losing any money as a result. Perception is a large part of it. If I catch myself judging a person on t.v., or on the street, based on an initial impression, I quickly correct it. I know it's not fair, and I also know it's not fair the way people have perceived me here.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Here come all the werewolves out of their caves to suck the last bit of blood they can get ...

I'm pretty sure that Twilight didn't end that way and that the vampire was the one that knocked her up, not the werewolf.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

If you had ever left the basement you would have realized that the entire place was melting down at that time and many of the staff members including myself quit over some actions of the owners. I had my PM privileges cut off when they read one of mine and saw that I was trying to reach someone for this guy Oolon who was banned and they didn't like it. I pitched a fit in the middle of the Lounge, told everyone else that the admins were reading private messages, added in a few choice words for him that Oolon wrote for me because I suck at good flames and ToM IP banned me on the spot. It had started to get embarrassing that I was the only one that couldn't get myself banned so it was sort of a relief even if someone else had to write my insults.

I totally understand. That's why I won't go back to a moderated forum. I tried it at ProjectReason, and you're treated like a child. The moderators have too much power. As much as I don't like some of the nasty comments made here, it's better than being banned for no good reason. Most of the reasons for banning someone are frivolous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I'm pretty sure that Twilight didn't end that way and that the vampire was the one that knocked her up, not the werewolf.

I know. I was corrected on that. I don't watch a lot of vampire or werewold movies, as you can tell.

[ChristinaM]

I totally understand. That's why I won't go back to a moderated forum. I tried it at ProjectReason, and you're treated like a child. The moderators have too much power. As much as I don't like some of the nasty comments made here, it's better than being banned for no good reason. Most of the reasons for banning someone are frivolous.

I don't mind moderation since I'm usually relatively polite and used to curbing my mouth when I'm modding and finding ways to work around the rules to get my snark fix in. It just pisses me off when it isn't fairly applied, the staff doesn't follow their own rules and they can't get their personal biases out of the way and treat the people that they disagree with the same as they would their friends. Reading private messages is just way, way over the line IMO.

I was just teasing about Twilight. I never saw the movies but my friend's granddaughter goes on about them all the time. AFAICT it's soft porn for teenage girls.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I disagree with the second half of your response because, firstly, you're implying that this discovery isn't valid because others who are smarter than me say so. You don't know whether this discovery is valid or not Christina. I asked you if you knew what his first discovery was about and I never got a response. Secondly, you are implying that I don't have what it takes to challenge these philosophers. Actually I do. You're also accusing me of not having common sense. Where do you come off saying this when you hardly know me? You just got a distorted impression of me from the other forum, and now here.

Well, obviously this is all a matter of opinion and we each have the right to our own. I believe that I do have as good an understanding as anyone else who has read it does but you'll notice that I haven't said one word about determinism, free will or vision. That's because this is a thread full of people who have studied those subjects far more than I have, certainly don't need my help and I'm way out of my league when it comes to that stuff so I keep quiet about it and try to learn something. I think that maybe one of the biggest differences between you and me is that I'm perfectly comfortable accepting the consensus of scientists when it comes to things that I don't know in the same way that I trust my mechanic to know more about cars than I do. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the expertise of others. I've got expertise in things too but they are almost never the subject of discussions on these boards and I don't expect anyone to take my musings on science or philosophy very seriously because I haven't earned that right.

No way. I am stating very clearly that I have a discovery, and this gets people really really angry. They are especially mean to me for this reason.

Honestly, I don't think that we're mean because you have what you feel is an important discovery. I think that the teasing comes because you won't give an inch on anything in the book which means that there isn't any hope of a real discussion with you that isn't just "yes, I believe".

But you're wrong here. All you're doing is copying what other people say. Can't you think for yourself? Have you read the book? Have you even read the first three chapters? If you did read it, you would show a lot more interest.

I'm not going to respond to this because it's worded in a very rude way and I've already answered this before. I might have given it some more thought if you hadn't pissed me off by the second sentence. Can you see at all why it's difficult to sustain a pleasant conversation with you? I guess that we're both switching back and forth in tone but this is making my head spin when it's all in one post.

Really? What was it you were working on if I may ask?

I ran a homeless shelter for a decade and by the end I had to raise about 1.5 million a year in government and private grants and donations. After that I sat on a few Boards of Directors and raised some money for a battered women's shelter and the local animal shelter. Personally I would rather write a 200 page grant proposal to the feds than take a rich person to lunch to beg for money but sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do to get what you need. The first time I did that the poor guy finally asked me if I was ever going to get to the part where I asked him for money because he had a life to live and I had been rattling on for an hour. I was terrified. You aren't really supposed to make them pay just to get out of the restaurant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A) The dialog is ridiculous and very funny

It's not meant to be funny, so I don't know why you're laughing. You're not even paying attention to the meat of the conversation. You are purposely trying to make this book a joke.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

B) You have been inconsistent as to who wrote it, and as to whether or not the dialogs were actual or fictional-see quotes below for these inconsistent statements

I believe he had conversations with these people. But it really doesn't matter whether he did or didn't because it has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his observations. If this knowledge brings about global peace, do you think people are going to begrudge him because some of the characters in the dialogue were fictional?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is unknown is whether she actually wrote them, or if she merely took responsibility for some of the sillier parts to protect Lessans.

I told you where I added things. I did not take responsibility for anything Lessans wrote in order to protect him because nothing he wrote was silly.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, you have admitted to adding certain things only after they were criticized. You let us believe he had written the line about homosexuality declining in a no blame environment, for months and months, then later said you had added it. Which is the truth? We can never know!

I never deceived anyone purposely. I admitted that I added that sentence when it was brought up, but after talking to you I realized it might turn people off so I took it out. The friend who went to the expo was true. Calling Durant was true. Talking to the guy from the motion picture association was true. Giving a math problem to the student was true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was just stating that if the environment has anything to do with it, then homosexuality will decline, because what drove someone to this lifestyle will no longer be present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I actually wrote that sentence. Maybe I will take it out. I didn't know it would cause such a problem. He just wrote this:

If there are a certain number of homosexual
relationships that remain, no one will judge or criticize these unions
since this is a first blow which can no longer be justified.

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

That's why I took it out. If people want to use it against me, nothing has stopped them yet.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just being obstinate. Even if I was the one that made this dialogue up because I anticipated the questions that were going to be asked, WHAT DOES THE FORM HAVE TO DO WITH THE CONTENT? YOU DISAPPOINT ME.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dialogue (whether imaginary or not) is a writing style. I chose this as a way to help people understand this work. Funny how good intentions can turn into something else entirely.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with this dialogue. You're just looking for things to criticize.

p. 28 “The other day when I was in Temple a rabbi, during the course
of his sermon, made it very clear that man has free will. Professors,
doctors, lawyers, and just about everybody I know, agree that man’s
will is free. If this is a theory you would never know it by talking to
them. Well, is it a theory, or is this established knowledge?”

“Of course it is a theory,” I answered, “otherwise there would be
no believers in determinism. Is it possible for a person to believe that
the earth is flat now that we have mathematical proof of its circular
shape? The only reason we still have opinions on both sides of this
subject is because we don’t know for a mathematical fact whether the
will of man is, or is not, free.”

“But these theologians don’t agree with you; they say that man’s
will is definitely free. Look, here comes a rabbi; ask him if man’s will
is free just for the heck of it and you will see for yourself how dogmatic
he responds.”

“Rabbi, we have been discussing a subject and would appreciate
your opinion. Is it true, false, or just a theory that man’s will is free?”

“It is absolutely true that man’s will is free because nothing
compels an individual to choose evil instead of good; he prefers this
only because he wants to partake of this evil, not because something
is forcing him.”

“Do you mean, Rabbi, that every person has two or more
alternatives when making a choice?”

“Absolutely; that bank robber last week didn’t have to rob the
bank, he wanted to do it.”

“But assuming that what you say is true, how is it possible to prove
that which cannot be proven? Let me illustrate what I mean.”

“Is it possible for me not to do what has already been done?”

“No, it is not possible for me not to do what has already been done
because I have already done it.”

“This is a mathematical or undeniable relation and is equivalent
to asking is it possible for anyone not to understand four as an answer
to two plus two. Now if what has been done was the choosing of B
instead of A, is it possible not to choose B which has already been
chosen?”

“It is impossible, naturally.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible (this is the reasoning of
mathematics, not logic, which gives rise to opinions) not to choose B
instead of A once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A
in this comparison of possibilities when in order to make this choice
you must not choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“Again I must admit it is something impossible to do.”

“Yet in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the
impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has
already been done, and then show that A — with the conditions being
exactly the same — could have been chosen instead of B. Since it is
utterly impossible to reverse the order of time which is absolutely
necessary for mathematical proof, free will must always remain a
theory. The most you can say is that you believe the bank robber had
a choice, but there is absolutely no way this can be proven.”

“I may be unable to prove that he was not compelled to rob that
bank and kill the teller, but it is my opinion that he didn’t have to do
what he did.”

“I’m not in the mood to argue that point but at least we have
arrived at a bit of knowledge that is absolutely undeniable, for we have
just learned that it is mathematically impossible for any person to
prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the will of man is free yet a
moment ago you made the dogmatic statement that man’s will is
definitely free.”

“My apology, dear sir; what I meant to say was that it is the
consensus of opinion that the will of man is free.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following. If
it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that
something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something
false?”

“Yes, it is possible.”

“No, Rabbi, it is not possible.”

“That my friend is your opinion, not mine.”

“Let me show you it is not an opinion. If you could prove that
determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the
opposite of determinism, true; and didn’t we just prove that it is
mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that it
is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”

“I see what you mean and again I apologize for thinking this was
a matter of opinion.”

“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical
knowledge and that is — although we can never prove free will true or
determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving
determinism true, or free will false. Now tell me, Rabbi, supposing
your belief in free will absolutely prevents the discovery of knowledge
that, when released, can remove the very things you would like to rid
the world of, things you preach against such as war, crime, sin, hate,
discrimination, etc., what would you say then?”

“If this is true and you can prove it, all I can say is that God’s
ways are mysterious and surpass my understanding. I enjoyed talking
with you, son, and perhaps I shall live to see the day when all evil will
be driven from our lives.”

“Even if you don’t live to see it, please rest assured the day is not
far away and that it must come about the very moment certain facts
pertaining to the nature of man are brought to light, because it is
God’s will.”

“I must leave now but thank you for sharing your insights with
me.”

After the rabbi left, our conversation continued...

“Boy, that was really something to see; you almost sound like old
Socrates himself. Just imagine, you actually got the rabbi to admit
that free will is nothing other than an opinion. But you weren’t
serious about getting rid of all the evil in the world, were you?”

“I was never more serious in all my life.”

“But how is it possible for you, just with your reasoning, nothing
else, to put an end to all war, crime, sin, hate, etc.? If I must say so,
this sounds completely contrary to reason.”

“Are you asking if it is possible, or telling me that you know it is
impossible?”

“After what you just demonstrated to the rabbi I certainly would
never tell you it is impossible when I don’t know if it is, but it seems
so incredible to hear someone say he is going to remove all evil from
the entire earth, that I cannot help but be in disbelief. Well what is
your first step? How do you go about making a start?”

“The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt,
and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is
not free.”

“But if you plan to use the knowledge that man’s will is not free
as a point from which to start your chain of reasoning, couldn’t you
get the same results without demonstrating that man’s will is not free,
simply by showing what must follow as a consequence?”

“Yes I could, and that was a very sharp question, but my purpose
in proving that man’s will is not free is not so much to have a sound
basis from which to reason, but to show exactly why the will of man is
not free.”

[peacegirl]

Intermission: Love this!

Sweet Dog Cries for Joy in His Soldier Daddy's Lap - Heartwarming Video

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Well, obviously this is all a matter of opinion and we each have the right to our own. I believe that I do have as good an understanding as anyone else who has read it does but you'll notice that I haven't said one word about determinism, free will or vision. That's because this is a thread full of people who have studied those subjects far more than I have, certainly don't need my help and I'm way out of my league when it comes to that stuff so I keep quiet about it and try to learn something.

That's all well and good Christina, but these people are not out of my league when it comes to a discussion on determinism. I grew up with this knowledge and have something to offer them. Why do you assume I don't know what I'm talking about? I understand the problem with the eyes. It appears I don't know enough about physics or optics to answer intelligently, but that's also unfair because this finding did not come from the study of physics or astronomy. That does not mean he automatically must be wrong.

Originally Posted by Christina

I think that maybe one of the biggest differences between you and me is that I'm perfectly comfortable accepting the consensus of scientists when it comes to things that I don't know in the same way that I trust my mechanic to know more about cars than I do. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the expertise of others. I've got expertise in things too but they are almost never the subject of discussions on these boards and I don't expect anyone to take my musings on science or philosophy very seriously because I haven't earned that right.

But I have earned the right to talk about this discovery, subjects that I am familiar with. I did not ask for this responsibility, but I have it, so I need to do what I can to bring this knowledge to light. I am fine with letting other people teach me things that I don't have knowledge about. In fact, it's nice not to have to have all the answers.

No way. I am stating very clearly that I have a discovery, and this gets people really really angry. They are especially mean to me for this reason.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Honestly, I don't think that we're mean because you have what you feel is an important discovery. I think that the teasing comes because you won't give an inch on anything in the book which means that there isn't any hope of a real discussion with you that isn't just "yes, I believe".

I don't know how to answer you. What does give an inch mean? Surrender? Tell people he was wrong? Say I'm not sure if he is right? That's what people want to hear but I can't say that, or I would be lying.

But you're wrong here. All you're doing is copying what other people say. Can't you think for yourself? Have you read the book? Have you even read the first three chapters? If you did read it, you would show a lot more interest.

Originally Posted by Christina

I'm not going to respond to this because it's worded in a very rude way and I've already answered this before. I might have given it some more thought if you hadn't pissed me off by the second sentence. Can you see at all why it's difficult to sustain a pleasant conversation with you? I guess that we're both switching back and forth in tone but this is making my head spin when it's all in one post.

I was going to take that sentence out. I agree I shouldn't have said that. Now will you respond?

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I'd still be wandering around trying to raise my first few hundred dollars if I had refused to take the advice of people with more experience than I had.

Really? What was it you were working on if I may ask?

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I ran a homeless shelter for a decade and by the end I had to raise about 1.5 million a year in government and private grants and donations. After that I sat on a few Boards of Directors and raised some money for a battered women's shelter and the local animal shelter. Personally I would rather write a 200 page grant proposal to the feds than take a rich person to lunch to beg for money but sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do to get what you need. The first time I did that the poor guy finally asked me if I was ever going to get to the part where I asked him for money because he had a life to live and I had been rattling on for an hour. I was terrified. You aren't really supposed to make them pay just to get out of the restaurant.

Funny! You certainly have done a lot of fundraising. You're the expert here, I'm not. I would value your opinion in this area. I'm really not that hard to get along with.

[peacegirl]

So true: One man's trash is another man's treasure!

Watch The First 54 Seconds. That’s All I Ask. You’ll Be Hooked After That, I Swear.

[Dragar]

Look, here comes a...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

“Do you mean, Rabbi, that every person has two or more
alternatives when making a choice?”

“Absolutely; that bank robber last week didn’t have to rob the
bank, he wanted to do it.”

“But assuming that what you say is true, how is it possible to prove
that which cannot be proven? Let me illustrate what I mean.”

“Is it possible for me not to do what has already been done?”

“No, it is not possible for me not to do what has already been done
because I have already done it.”

“This is a mathematical or undeniable relation and is equivalent
to asking is it possible for anyone not to understand four as an answer
to two plus two. Now if what has been done was the choosing of B
instead of A, is it possible not to choose B which has already been
chosen?”

“It is impossible, naturally.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible (this is the reasoning of
mathematics, not logic, which gives rise to opinions) not to choose B
instead of A once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A
in this comparison of possibilities when in order to make this choice
you must not choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“Again I must admit it is something impossible to do.”

“Yet in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the
impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has
already been done, and then show that A — with the conditions being
exactly the same — could have been chosen instead of B. Since it is
utterly impossible to reverse the order of time which is absolutely
necessary for mathematical proof, free will must always remain a
theory.

Wrong! It is not necessary to go back in time and reverse the choice, it is only necessary that either A or B could have been chosen at the time the choice was made. The nonsense about going back in time is just a smoke screen to obscure the real meaning of free will, and that is that at the time of choosing either a or B could have been chosen.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following. If
it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that
something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something
false?”

“Yes, it is possible.”

“No, Rabbi, it is not possible.”

“That my friend is your opinion, not mine.”

“Let me show you it is not an opinion. If you could prove that
determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the
opposite of determinism, true; and didn’t we just prove that it is
mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that it
is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”

“I see what you mean and again I apologize for thinking this was
a matter of opinion.”

“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical
knowledge and that is — although we can never prove free will true or
determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving
determinism true, or free will false. Now tell me, Rabbi, supposing
your belief in free will absolutely prevents the discovery of knowledge
that, when released, can remove the very things you would like to rid
the world of, things you preach against such as war, crime, sin, hate,
discrimination, etc., what would you say then?”

This is just another assertion by Lessans that Free Will and Determinism are opposites and has not been proven or accepted by everyone. It is also only an unproven assertion that proving Determinism will disprove Free Will, facts not in evidence, as they say.

It is interesting how the non-thinking boot-licker in these imagined conversations concedes so easily to Lessans arguments. No real thought on the other side. It's a pity that Peacegirl didn't learn to be as polite and conceding as they are.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

If you had ever left the basement you would have realized that the entire place was melting down at that time and many of the staff members including myself quit over some actions of the owners. I had my PM privileges cut off when they read one of mine and saw that I was trying to reach someone for this guy Oolon who was banned and they didn't like it. I pitched a fit in the middle of the Lounge, told everyone else that the admins were reading private messages, added in a few choice words for him that Oolon wrote for me because I suck at good flames and ToM IP banned me on the spot. It had started to get embarrassing that I was the only one that couldn't get myself banned so it was sort of a relief even if someone else had to write my insults.

Interisting bit of common experience here, I believe we are about the same vintage with granchildren, retired and it seems sometimes very tired. I was on another forum that seemed to be a bit of an experiment, in that they made anyone a moderator, and even though I didn't want it, I was bumped up to moderator and some time later an adminstrator. Another member was also an adminstrator and was pounding his chest against me and some other users and I called bullshit on him. He got pissed off and deleted my account, apparently admin was no protection. This site had one forum open to guests, so I would get on and bust his chops about what he had done. Later I registered with another user ID and then later with my original ID, by then the other admin. had appologized and I said it was OK and that we were good.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I ran a homeless shelter for a decade and by the end I had to raise about 1.5 million a year in government and private grants and donations. After that I sat on a few Boards of Directors and raised some money for a battered women's shelter and the local animal shelter. Personally I would rather write a 200 page grant proposal to the feds than take a rich person to lunch to beg for money but sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do to get what you need. The first time I did that the poor guy finally asked me if I was ever going to get to the part where I asked him for money because he had a life to live and I had been rattling on for an hour. I was terrified. You aren't really supposed to make them pay just to get out of the restaurant.

Have you ever watched 'Vicar of Dibley'? The episode "The Window and The Weather", along with being one of my favorites, had the vicar raising money to replace a window. She used some interesting techniques.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand the problem with the eyes. It appears I don't know enough about physics or optics to answer intelligently, but that's also unfair because this finding did not come from the study of physics or astronomy. That does not mean he automatically must be wrong.

No, but when you insist that pretty-much everything we know of physics, astronomy, Relativity theory, visual anatomy, and neurophysiology must be wrong, because they conflict with Lessans' wholly unsupported claims -- while demonstrating that you understand exactly nothing about any of those fields -- you look like an idiot and world-class hypocrite.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all well and good Christina, but these people are not out of my league when it comes to a discussion on determinism.

I have no problem at all with admitting that you're more conversant when it comes to determinism than I am and probably about lots of other philosophical concepts too. I think that I've posted in about 4 Philosophy threads in my life and they were all lightweight ones. I like to think about it but not talk about it. I'm only speaking about myself obviously and not anyone else in the thread.

I understand the problem with the eyes. It appears I don't know enough about physics or optics to answer intelligently, but that's also unfair because this finding did not come from the study of physics or astronomy. That does not mean he automatically must be wrong.

We've been through this one too. No matter how many times I told you that the sky was purple you wouldn't believe me because when you look up the evidence of your own senses would tell you that I was obviously wrong. I could say it a thousand times and swear that it was revealed to me by god on high and you still wouldn't believe me, right? We're both observing as best we can and reporting what we see but wouldn't you be more likely to believe everyone else in the world and what you see with your own eyes instead of just me? Maybe I'm just colorblind. That's how it is with you and scientists when it comes to vision. You're telling them that the sky is purple and they're never going to believe it. Even most Christians are willing to admit that the Bible isn't literally true but find truth in it despite its inconsistencies and mythologies.

Originally Posted by Christina

But I have earned the right to talk about this discovery, subjects that I am familiar with. I did not ask for this responsibility, but I have it, so I need to do what I can to bring this knowledge to light.

Why do you feel like you have this responsibility and can't put it down? I don't like poking at people's personal lives so is it rude to ask why you feel that you must while your kids, siblings and other relatives don't?

I don't know how to answer you. What does give an inch mean? Surrender? Tell people he was wrong? Say I'm not sure if he is right? That's what people want to hear but I can't say that, or I would be lying.

Don't you see that you're asking that very thing of everyone here? Do you expect them to surrender? Tell the world that everything that they and the scientific community know is wrong without any evidence? If they did that they would be lying.

"I'm not sure" is one of my favorite phrases in the English language so don't go picking on it. Knowing what you don't know and figuring out what you'll have to learn in order to know it is a very useful skill. I would be willing to bet that if your dad were alive today and saw the tremendous backlash against his ideas about vision he would have rethought them using current levels of knowledge and found another path through a softer science to get to the next chapter.

Funny! You certainly have done a lot of fundraising. You're the expert here, I'm not. I would value your opinion in this area. I'm really not that hard to get along with.

Fundraising is kind of subject matter dependent and I really only know how to do it for human services and housing and high drama emotional and politically charged moments of opportunity with guilty politicians. I'm not sure what Kickstarter is but people seem to be able to raise money for all sorts of odd things there.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Interisting bit of common experience here, I believe we are about the same vintage with granchildren, retired and it seems sometimes very tired.

We're probably close in age but I have no kids or grandkids and hence have absolutely nothing to be tired about. Dogs and cats aren't all that exhausting.

I was on another forum...

This was a huge drama on a gigantic secular forum (IIDB) and the least of their worries was me and my little PM tantrum in the Lounge. The diaspora drama of IIDB bores the shit out of almost everyone at this point and even I can't bring myself to type about it. I'm sure that they're still fighting about it somewhere though because we atheists seem to love our drama just as much as the kiddies on the christian forums do.

I've never seen that show but I'll have to check it out on Netflix if it's there.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not meant to be funny, so I don't know why you're laughing.

Unintentionally funny is still funny. I am laughing at the funny.

You're not even paying attention to the meat of the conversation.

The meat of which conversation? My conversation with you, or Lessans fake conversations with a bunch of imaginary sycophants?

You are purposely trying to make this book a joke.

I a not trying to do anything except offer my opinions.

I believe he had conversations with these people.

Then why did you admit they were fictional? Didn't you even put it in the introduction that they were fictional? Why the inconsistency?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it really doesn't matter whether he did or didn't because it has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his observations.

I didn't say it had anything to do with his observations. I said they were funny and self aggrandizing. Also, it matters because it speaks to your and his credibility and honesty. Are they real dialogs or imaginary? Did you write them or did Lessans? We can't ever know now because you have flip flopped so much!

If this knowledge brings about global peace, do you think people are going to begrudge him because some of the characters in the dialogue were fictional?

Probably not, IF that happens, but that doesn't make them less ridiculous and hysterical, nor does it erase your flip flopping and weaseling.

I never deceived anyone purposely. I admitted that I added that sentence when it was brought up

You didn't admit it until MONTHS after it had been brought up multiple times. You deceived us for all that time about who wrote the sentence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was just stating that if the environment has anything to do with it, then homosexuality will decline, because what drove someone to this lifestyle will no longer be present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I actually wrote that sentence. Maybe I will take it out. I didn't know it would cause such a problem. He just wrote this:

If there are a certain number of homosexual
relationships that remain, no one will judge or criticize these unions
since this is a first blow which can no longer be justified.

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just being obstinate. Even if I was the one that made this dialogue up because I anticipated the questions that were going to be asked, WHAT DOES THE FORM HAVE TO DO WITH THE CONTENT? YOU DISAPPOINT ME.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dialogue (whether imaginary or not) is a writing style. I chose this as a way to help people understand this work. Funny how good intentions can turn into something else entirely.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with this dialogue. You're just looking for things to criticize.

It is ridiculous.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

We're probably close in age but I have no kids or grandkids and hence have absolutely nothing to be tired about. Dogs and cats aren't all that exhausting.

I've had children and now grandchildren, I've also had dogs but no cats. If you didn't have children as a conscious choice, I'd say good for you for living your own life. Without over analyzing, it could be that your work with helping others may have been a substitute.

For myself I can't think of anything nicer that holding a young child while they go to sleep. When my younger daughter was born I owned a hobby shop and I would take he along with me in the store. We would stop at a small resuraunt before opening the store and I'd just carry her in in the car seet. Later she would always order a 'short stack of pancakes'. In the shop I sold model trains and had a platform in the one display window with a loop of track so I could run trains for the kids to watch, the platform was low so kids could see without being lifted up. During the day my daughter would take a nap and I would put some blankets on the platform in the middle of the loop and she would sleep in the display window. Sometimes people would walk by and look at the "display" in the window, and then my daughter would move and they would exclaim "Thats a real Baby!" One of the things I regret is that I never took a photo of hwer sleeping there, and I was next door to a photo studio, my neighbor could have done it easily.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm glad you admit that it is abuse.

I keep forgetting that you are deaf to sarcasm unless it is laid on very, very, thick.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His concepts are God's, they are not his Angakuk, and they are perfect because they are not his. You, as a minister, should understand this, but it seems to have eluded you.

I am just waiting for God to confirm this for me. Surely you don't expect me take your, or Lessans', word for this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you assume I don't know what I'm talking about?

This is not an assumption. It is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence you have presented.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was going to take that sentence out. I agree I shouldn't have said that.

Can you not do something that has already been done? Can you unsay what you have said or unwrite what you have written? Can people unhear what they have heard or unread what they have read?

[thedoc]

[quote=Angakuk;1142745]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can you not do something that has already been done? Can you unsay what you have said or unwrite what you have written? Can people unhear what they have heard or unread what they have read?

Peacegirl seems to think that she can unwrite something she has posted by going back and deleting it, but when others quote her post it is preserved and there is nothing she can do. But other users often remember what was posted.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you didn't have children as a conscious choice, I'd say good for you for living your own life. Without over analyzing, it could be that your work with helping others may have been a substitute.

It was a choice that I don't regret. I don't over-analyze it either since homeless people didn't care why I was doing it unless I was going to get all uppity about it but I wouldn't babysit for their kids either. The fact that I've ended up with 6 animals might be a substitute kid thing though but it's not like I dress them up in stupid clothes and talk baby talk to them. I like to play with kids and have fun with them but I don't want any, especially before they can talk and tell me wtf it is that they're wailing about. I'm just not the maternal type and they make me nervous. My motivation for homeless stuff was as much political as anything else.