A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so out the door, it's hard for me to contain myself. This knowledge is exactly what puts these horrors to end, but you don't see it LadyShea. You are blind because you want to be the one that does it. You are a phony.

Blah blah blah. You think your butthurt is akin to being burned at the stake.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His writings were not that of a humble man and that's all I have to go on. If he was humble, it sure didn't show in his book. I am not going to apologize, I am just describing what I see.

Guess why? Because you didn't take the time to read the book. If you had done this, you would have had a different point of view. This is coming from a person who is telling me that my father was arrogant, when I know he was HUMBLE. This is an insane conversation and I don't want to have anything to do with it!!! If this is all I get, I will find another home for this knowledge, but this time David and NA will not find it.

[naturalist.atheist]

In your delusional dreams peacegirl. You can no more stop coming here to get your abuse than a bear can stop shitting in the woods. Get help peacegirl.

And as long as you keep flailing Lessans crap on the web anyone will be able to locate your latest dumping ground. Your big mistake is staying in one place long enough to create a following of people concerned for your mental health.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

In your delusional dreams peacegirl. You can no more stop coming here to get your abuse than a bear can stop shitting in the woods. Get help peacegirl.

And as long as you keep flailing Lessans crap on the web anyone will be able to locate your latest dumping ground. Your big mistake is staying in one place long enough to create a following of people concerned for your mental health.

This is coming from a guy who has put me down since day one, and accused me of being mentally ill (which is disgusting), which is abhorrent. He obviously knows how to knock someone down without blinking an eye as long as it elevates him. He is targeting me because it's easy.

[naturalist.atheist]

Actually peacegirl, my first post defended you. But then I got to know you, and became concerned for you because forums are no place for someone as crazy as you are.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Blah blah blah. You think your butthurt is akin to being burned at the stake.

Maybe she has really, really bad hemroids.

[Dennis Campbell]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Maybe she has really, really bad hemroids.

Located at the other end of the body.

[traumaturgist]

Apologies for what may very well be a duplicate posting, but I chanced an amazon.com search on Seymour Lessans' work, and there is a review of Decline and Fall of all Evil:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Seymour Lessans: 9781553953302: Amazon.com: Books

Guess he just didn't understand...

And for what it's worth at this stage, and for the record, and without namecalling or vulgar insults: Peacegirl, I would really honestly love to be able to believe what you seem to believe in. I mean, who wouldn't? Who wouldn't love to have as consolation the idea that the end of all war and crime is inevitable and will come someday, and to have that belief shine on and edify one's life? But that just isn't the way the world is. I'm not telling you what to believe, and I would never presume to tell anybody that...but overstating humanity's conscious control of both itself and the Nature within which it moves, live and dies has never made a difference to a Being that just goes on its merry way without caring a damn for our hopes, dreams and desires. While it is these hopes, dreams and desires that move us "forward" (in a non-teleological, non-valued sense), we could just as easily be moving "forward" off a proverbial cliff. And that, too, has its lessons and potentially edifying experience(s).

We need war and crime (as if we have a choice!); we need "evil" to show us what to struggle against (and all life is conflict, struggle and angst). To believe that they can be ended is just that - a belief. And no system of knowledge or beliefs is completely commensurate with the world in which we live. To attain that would be to attain to absolute knowledge, and humans will never be "absolute" in that sense. So believe what you want - nothing that has been said here is going to change your mind, as we all know; but I won't buy what you're selling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Blah blah blah. You think your butthurt is akin to being burned at the stake.

This word fits perfectly in the context it was used. Once again, you're way too uppity for your own good.

witch-hunt also witch hunt (wchhnt)
n.
An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Actually peacegirl, my first post defended you. But then I got to know you, and became concerned for you because forums are no place for someone as crazy as you are.

You feigned being friendly in the beginning but it didn't take long for your true colors to come out.

[Dennis Campbell]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Apologies for what may very well be a duplicate posting, but I chanced an amazon.com search on Seymour Lessans' work, and there is a review of Decline and Fall of all Evil:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Seymour Lessans: 9781553953302: Amazon.com: Books

Guess he just didn't understand...

And for what it's worth at this stage, and for the record, and without namecalling or vulgar insults: Peacegirl, I would really honestly love to be able to believe what you seem to believe in. I mean, who wouldn't? Who wouldn't love to have as consolation the idea that the end of all war and crime is inevitable and will come someday, and to have that belief shine on and edify one's life? But that just isn't the way the world is. I'm not telling you what to believe, and I would never presume to tell anybody that...but overstating humanity's conscious control of both itself and the Nature within which it moves, live and dies has never made a difference to a Being that just goes on its merry way without caring a damn for our hopes, dreams and desires. While it is these hopes, dreams and desires that move us "forward" (in a non-teleological, non-valued sense), we could just as easily be moving "forward" off a proverbial cliff. And that, too, has its lessons and potentially edifying experience(s).

We need war and crime (as if we have a choice!); we need "evil" to show us what to struggle against (and all life is conflict, struggle and angst). To believe that they can be ended is just that - a belief. And no system of knowledge or beliefs is completely commensurate with the world in which we live. To attain that would be to attain to absolute knowledge, and humans will never be "absolute" in that sense. So believe what you want - nothing that has been said here is going to change your mind, as we all know; but I won't buy what you're selling.

Read the one review posted below that on Amazon.com

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by Dennis Campbell

Read the one review posted below that on Amazon.com

The link to the specific discussion is down, but you can eventually make your way to Talk Atheism and The Secular Web...neither of which return search results for "Janis Rafael."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How disappointing. You said you were willing to discuss this with me, but so far you're still just avoiding the question. I didn't ask you for the timeframe for when the Sun's photons would become bright enough to meet your requirements. That was not the question. We already know that (according to Lessans) the Sun will be big and bright enough to be seen instantly at the very moment it is turned on. You have said that at this very instant (12:00) there will be photons at the retina on Earth which were previously located at the Sun. I'm asking you when they were so located. Obviously you don't know. But I am asking you to work with me to find an answer. Here are the only possibilities:

a) Before 11:52.
b) Between 11:52 and 12:00
c) At 12:00
d) Sometime after 12:00

Obviously your claims (along with efferent vision) must be incorrect if none of these answers can be made to work. So choose the one that you think is most plausible. If it turns out not to work then we can cross it off the list and you can try another answer. But if we end up crossing them all off, then we will have discovered and proven that these photons either did not come from the Sun, or cannot be there at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited. Please answer this time instead of evading.

Those photons, Peacegirl. You said we would discuss this. So let's do so.

[Dennis Campbell]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

The link to the specific discussion is down, but you can eventually make your way to Talk Atheism and The Secular Web...neither of which return search results for "Janis Rafael."

The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.

Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.

However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.

His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

These are without a doubt one of the most poorly reasoned proofs I've ever seen collected in one book. Save your money.

Above was the single published review on Amazon

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Apologies for what may very well be a duplicate posting, but I chanced an amazon.com search on Seymour Lessans' work, and there is a review of Decline and Fall of all Evil:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Seymour Lessans: 9781553953302: Amazon.com: Books

Guess he just didn't understand...

I have explained in the past that this guy did not like Lessans' second discovery, and he went behind my back and wrote a fake review because he never read the book. He misrepresented it by saying there was force when there is no mention of force in the book.

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

And for what it's worth at this stage, and for the record, and without namecalling or vulgar insults: Peacegirl, I would really honestly love to be able to believe what you seem to believe in. I mean, who wouldn't? Who wouldn't love to have as consolation the idea that the end of all war and crime is inevitable and will come someday, and to have that belief shine on and edify one's life?

Everything was fine until you added that last sentence..."shine on and edify one's life." This is not about me; I just happen to be in the position to pass this knowledge on.

Originally Posted by traumaturist

But that just isn't the way the world is. I'm not telling you what to believe, and I would never presume to tell anybody that...but overstating humanity's conscious control of both itself and the Nature within which it moves, live and dies has never made a difference to a Being that just goes on its merry way without caring a damn for our hopes, dreams and desires. While it is these hopes, dreams and desires that move us "forward" (in a non-teleological, non-valued sense), we could just as easily be moving "forward" off a proverbial cliff. And that, too, has its lessons and potentially edifying experience(s).

Ironically, by understanding that humanity has no conscious control of itself and the Nature within which it moves, will ultimately be that which allows this law of man's Nature to operate at its highest capacity.

Originally Posted by traumaturist

We need war and crime (as if we have a choice!); we need "evil" to show us what to struggle against (and all life is conflict, struggle and angst). To believe that they can be ended is just that - a belief. And no system of knowledge or beliefs is completely commensurate with the world in which we live. To attain that would be to attain to absolute knowledge, and humans will never be "absolute" in that sense. So believe what you want - nothing that has been said here is going to change your mind, as we all know; but I won't buy what you're selling.

I guess that's why so many people are angry. They think I'm selling snake oil, and they resent it. But it's not snake oil.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eight: Until Death Do They Part

p. 344 To balance this
equation during our years of development God was compelled to have
good and evil and the balance was perfect. Now that we have
developed sufficiently to see His laws which reveal Him by observing
the harmony in the mankind system that was never understood until
now, He snips off the evil and attaches good so that the balance still
remains perfect.

[Spacemonkey]

Those photons, Peacegirl. You said we could discuss them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those photons, Peacegirl. You said we would discuss this. So let's do so.

I am never going to answer to your satisfaction, so I don't think there's anything more I can add.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am never going to answer to your satisfaction, so I don't think there's anything more I can add.

Didn't you even read my post? I'm not asking you to answer to my satisfaction. I'm asking you to work with me to see if any of the possible answers might be plausible. You said we could discuss this. Why are you being so evasive and uncooperative?

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained in the past that this guy did not like Lessans' second discovery, and he went behind my back and wrote a fake review because he never read the book. He misrepresented it by saying there was force when there is no mention of force in the book.

How does that prove he "never read the book"? Maybe it's a faulty paraphrase or something, but how can you prove he didn't read it?

Everything was fine until you added that last sentence..."shine on and edify one's life." This is not about me; I just happen to be in the position to pass this knowledge on.

I find that extremely difficult to believe, given your participation in this forum. You take all of this incredibly personally.

Ironically, by understanding that humanity has no conscious control of itself and the Nature within which it moves, will ultimately be that which allows this law of man's Nature to operate at its highest capacity.

Again: an uncorroborated statement of belief. No one can predict the future. And what is this (mathematical? - according to my scanning of the first pages on the website) law of "man's Nature" (itself a vague and undefined term)?

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eight: Until Death Do They Part

p. 344 To balance this
equation during our years of development God was compelled to have
good and evil and the balance was perfect. Now that we have
developed sufficiently to see His laws which reveal Him by observing
the harmony in the mankind system that was never understood until
now, He snips off the evil and attaches good so that the balance still
remains perfect.

Sorry...but this would fail any undergraduate university class I teach. The idea of God being "compelled" to do something is in itself a massive philosophical issue which cannot simply be assumed unless you're making a belief-statement. And "harmony"? "Sufficient development"? And the part about "snipping off evil" to keep a perfect balance is simply and utterly incomprehensible.

Educators have this saying: if you really understand something, you can present its main points in a clear, concise and distilled manner. I haven't seen anything like that here. To me, this (and the smattering I've read off the website) read not like science, but like prophecy.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. . . I will find another home for this knowledge . . .

Just curious here -- you've written many times at that you've "learned your lesson" and that you're finished with internet discussion forums. Even so, you started anew at Project Reason. Predictably, goings-on at that forum were about the same as goings-on here.

I say "predictably" since you've been presenting Lessans' work to internet discussion forums since at least 2003. The reactions have been pretty uniform, and you've regularly announced that you won't be bothering with discussion forums again only to start up again somewhere else.

So the question becomes, why? I mean, you know what they call pursuing the same course of action repeatedly and expecting a different result, right?

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

The link to the specific discussion is down, but you can eventually make your way to Talk Atheism and The Secular Web...neither of which return search results for "Janis Rafael."

The Internet Infidels discussions -- epic in size if not in content -- are archived at II's successor discussion board. There's a link here.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by Dennis Campbell

The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.

Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.

However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.

His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

These are without a doubt one of the most poorly reasoned proofs I've ever seen collected in one book. Save your money.

Above was the single published review on Amazon

Oh, yeah...but there's another comment beneath this review, made by the review's author, which refers the reader to a couple of links where Janis Rafael (who is.......?!?) has carried on an extensive Q&A session regarding the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dennis Campbell

The book is presented in an awkward style where the author presents imaginary conversations he's having with people that he readily gets the best of. The other person then gushes enthusiastically about the authors reasoning. The prose and self glorification aren't the only problems with the text though.

Lessan likes to present even his philosophical ideas as scientific validated theories.

However not all of them are even testable hypothesis, and the ones that are testable he never bothered to try testing, or apparently reading any research in the field that was available even at the time the book was written.

His first discovery regarding free will he claims will lead to a world in which no one can hurt another person. The caveat is that these ideas can only been tested when he first has complete compliance from the entire worlds population. This last part even requires a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

These are without a doubt one of the most poorly reasoned proofs I've ever seen collected in one book. Save your money.

Above was the single published review on Amazon

As I said, he misrepresented the book. There is no military action where dissenters are taken care of. There is not even mention of military action whatsoever. This book is about peace. The rest of his review is typical of someone who thinks, by following a thread, he could grasp the full meaning of these concepts and give an overview in one or two sentences. Well, that is not the case. For anyone who reads the book in full will see this, and I expect much more positive reviews.

[Spacemonkey]

Those photons, Peacegirl...

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those photons, Peacegirl...

Spacemonkey, nothing I say is going to change your mind about afferent vision. So why are you pressing me?