peacegirl, Lessans wrote it and you posted it for discussion. If it's irrelevant, don't post it!
I posted it not thinking you were going to get all confused as to who was talking or why I included this in my post. There was rhyme to my reason, and you missed it LadyShea. Shame on you if you think that your interpretation of why I included this was to throw people off or to start a conversation on the existence of God.
Why can't you just post pertinent excerpts and concisely express yourself? Why can't you post a couple lines, include your personal explanation, and answer questions in your own words? You make everything so difficult!
LedyShea, you are asking a mental case to diagnose themselves. It's hardly a fair thing to do.
peacegirl, Lessans wrote it and you posted it for discussion. If it's irrelevant, don't post it!
I posted it not thinking you were going to get all confused as to who was talking or why I included this in my post. There was rhyme to my reason, and you missed it LadyShea. Shame on you if you think that your interpretation of why I included this was to throw people off or to start a conversation on the existence of God.
Why can't you just post pertinent excerpts and concisely express yourself? Why can't you post a couple lines, include your personal explanation, and answer questions in your own words? You make everything so difficult!
LedyShea, you are asking a mental case to diagnose themselves. It's hardly a fair thing to do.
You know what, you're sick NA. You can't stand that you are wrong. And I am not going to put up with this thread if you keep this up. Think about everyone else who is interesting before opening your mouth. You're ruining it for everyone. I will not put you on ignore. I want to see the garbage you are spewing, and I will have to end this thread because of it.
You know what, you're sick NA. You can't stand that you are wrong. And I am not going to put up with this thread if you keep this up. Think about everyone else who is interesting before opening your mouth. You're ruining it for everyone. I will not put you on ignore. I want to see the garbage you are spewing, and I will have to end this thread because of it.
NA is dead right. You are mentally dysfunctional. Sorry, but it's true. This has been everyone's conclusion at every forum you've been to. It is the only rational conclusion which can be reached given your posting behaviour. And as one would expect, you're the only one who can't see it.
Why do you think it is that everywhere you go, different audiences all independently make the exact same objections? Why is it that you've never been able to give a response to any of these objections which is satisfactory to the objector? Why are you the only one who ever finds any of your responses even remotely plausible or satisfactory?
Why is it that you insist upon the same flawed methods of presentation wherever you go? Methods which have failed you every single time? Why is it that you are never able to explain Lessans' work in your own words? Why don't you ever learn from your mistakes?
Last edited by Spacemonkey; 11-06-2011 at 07:39 PM.
Why can't you just post pertinent excerpts and concisely express yourself? Why can't you post a couple lines, include your personal explanation, and answer questions in your own words? You make everything so difficult!
It's obviously at least partly that she doesn't understand any of it well enough to explain it herself. Partly also that she treats his words as Gospel, which means they must be read by all and should be alone sufficient to clear any misunderstandings.
But I suspect that her peculiar method of presentation has itself become part of the content of the faith-based delusion to which she is so attached. As such, she can't really conceive of presenting things differently any more than she can conceive of Lessans possibly being wrong.
Didn't you read the sentence that followed Morrison? Yes he was saying that this world did not come about by chance, especially recognizing that we are controlled by these laws.
Unsupported assertion.
Do "physical laws" or "mathematical laws" control or govern the world, or merely describe the world?
Now, about those infinite trials ... were you planning to tackle that question, or just ignore it?
I don't believe that this world could have ever come about by chance, so I'm ignoring it.
Wow, you don't even understand the question, do you? I think the growing consensus that you are mentally dysfunctional appears to be correct, unfortunately.
Another objection to the 'moving towards greatest satisfaction' premise is the obvious counter-examples: people who commit suicide, and those who self-harm.
Now if you choose to argue that people who self harm are mentally ill, and therefore don't obey the premise, then you've admitted that the premise is not universal - you'd need to put in a clause like this:
People are compelled to move towards the the direction of greatest (expected) satisfaction, except for those people who are not so compelled - whom we shall label 'mentally ill people'.
No, she thinks people who commit suicide or self-harm are moving toward their greatest satisfaction because they are "compelled by their own free will" to do so.
Didn't you read the sentence that followed Morrison? Yes he was saying that this world did not come about by chance, especially recognizing that we are controlled by these laws.
Unsupported assertion.
Do "physical laws" or "mathematical laws" control or govern the world, or merely describe the world?
Now, about those infinite trials ... were you planning to tackle that question, or just ignore it?
I don't believe that this world could have ever come about by chance, so I'm ignoring it.
What you believe is entirely irrelevant. We're discussing what can be shown and proven, especially what, if anything, was shown and proven by Lessans. Neither your personal incredulity regarding the origins of the world and universe nor his are even tangentially related.
I'm in total agreement, so let's move on, or I'm seriously going to end this thread.
You don't get to end a thread, doofus.
Or is another of your dishonest threats to leave if things don't go as you want them to? How many times have you told that lie?
This book is not about the proof of God's existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 38-44
The purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe. By delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt
is removed. Through our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the
evil is not removed to prove that God is not a figment of the
imagination, but only because it is evil. He becomes an epiphenomenon
of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away the evil, and
the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of the evil that
He is now removing through these discoveries which He also caused;
and no person alive will be able to dispute these undeniable facts.
With regard to the purpose of this book, who should we believe here, Lessans or peacegirl?
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
peacegirl, Lessans wrote it and you posted it for discussion. If it's irrelevant, don't post it!
I posted it not thinking you were going to get all confused as to who was talking or why I included this in my post. There was rhyme to my reason, and you missed it LadyShea. Shame on you if you think that your interpretation of why I included this was to throw people off or to start a conversation on the existence of God.
Why can't you just post pertinent excerpts and concisely express yourself? Why can't you post a couple lines, include your personal explanation, and answer questions in your own words? You make everything so difficult!
LedyShea, you are asking a mental case to diagnose themselves. It's hardly a fair thing to do.
You know what, you're sick NA. You can't stand that you are wrong. And I am not going to put up with this thread if you keep this up. Think about everyone else who is interesting before opening your mouth. You're ruining it for everyone. I will not put you on ignore. I want to see the garbage you are spewing, and I will have to end this thread because of it.
Exactly what am I wrong about? That you are mentally ill? peacegirl, it has been said that insanity is repeating yourself over and over again and expecting a different result.
By that standard alone you are stark raving mad. You've been doing this for over ten years and have gone nowhere. If anything you are building up resistance to Lessans among the public. You would be profoundly stupid if you weren't so mentally ill.
This book is not about the proof of God's existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 38-44
The purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe. By delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt
is removed. Through our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the
evil is not removed to prove that God is not a figment of the
imagination, but only because it is evil. He becomes an epiphenomenon
of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away the evil, and
the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of the evil that
He is now removing through these discoveries which He also caused;
and no person alive will be able to dispute these undeniable facts.
With regard to the purpose of this book, who should we believe here, Lessans or peacegirl?
Or this is just another instance illustrating that peacegirl cannot process even Lessans information let alone anything that anybody here is offering. Her brain doesn't work so well.
But I suspect that her peculiar method of presentation has itself become part of the content of the faith-based delusion to which she is so attached. As such, she can't really conceive of presenting things differently any more than she can conceive of Lessans possibly being wrong.
I think you are seeing first hand obsessive compulsive behavior. After all these posts and what I've seen on other sites I don't think there can be any other conclusion.
, it has been said that insanity is repeating yourself over and over again and expecting a different result.
L.O.L. by that standard how many of us are not completely insane, look at how many times any of us have tried to tell Peacegirl something, or explain the same thing over and over again. We're all candidates for the loony bin. Fuck it all let's have a party and get really crazy.
, it has been said that insanity is repeating yourself over and over again and expecting a different result.
L.O.L. by that standard how many of us are not completely insane, look at how many times any of us have tried to tell Peacegirl something, or explain the same thing over and over again. We're all candidates for the loony bin. Fuck it all let's have a party and get really crazy.
Yes, I agree, what does our constantly replying to these inanities say about all of us, after all?
Didn't you read the sentence that followed Morrison? Yes he was saying that this world did not come about by chance, especially recognizing that we are controlled by these laws.
Unsupported assertion.
Do "physical laws" or "mathematical laws" control or govern the world, or merely describe the world?
Now, about those infinite trials ... were you planning to tackle that question, or just ignore it?
I don't believe that this world could have ever come about by chance, so I'm ignoring it.
What you believe is entirely irrelevant. We're discussing what can be shown and proven, especially what, if anything, was shown and proven by Lessans. Neither your personal incredulity regarding the origins of the world and universe nor his are even tangentially related.
I'm in total agreement, so let's move on, or I'm seriously going to end this thread.
You don't get to end a thread, doofus.
Or is another of your dishonest threats to leave if things don't go as you want them to? How many times have you told that lie?
I'm pretty sure that if peacegirl stopped posting these threads would end.
So, of what use is the "free will" argument? I think LadyShea and I think that it's primary use is in theology, especially important for theodicy.
I suppose it's important in ethical and morality questions, but considering that I think people functionally have free will (regardless if we really do or not), I'm not sure it has a lot of application there.
So, of what use is the "free will" argument? I think LadyShea and I think that it's primary use is in theology, especially important for theodicy.
On this thread it is one of the main premises of Lessans book, apart from that it's only as important as you want it to be. But Lessans book looks a lot like theology.
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
peacegirl, Lessans wrote it and you posted it for discussion. If it's irrelevant, don't post it!
I posted it not thinking you were going to get all confused as to who was talking or why I included this in my post. There was rhyme to my reason, and you missed it LadyShea. Shame on you if you think that your interpretation of why I included this was to throw people off or to start a conversation on the existence of God.
Yeah, LadyShea! Shame on you for thinking that just because peacegirl posted something, she had any clue what it meant, and/or she thought it was relevant to the discussion.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
That's why Lessans said "in the direction of". This is very precise.
It's not precise at all. Indeed, it's factually incorrect for reasons you've already acknowledged. "In the direction of" doesn't clear up anything. To the contrary, it's the source of the inaccuracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The movement off of the spot you're now on is in this direction, ...
If by "this direction" you mean the direction of greater satisfaction, that isn't necessarily the case. The "movement" (kind of a strange word to use in this context, but hey, I'll roll with it) may well have been initiated with intent to move in that direction, but for reasons we've already discussed the actual movement might end up in exactly the opposite direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
... even when you are not choosing between two or more alternatives. Scratching your head because you have an itch is also in this direction, otherwise you would be "satisfied" not to scratch your head, but to remain where you are without moving a hairs breath.
The term you're looking for is "hair's breadth."
In any event, this sort of "movement" always involves choosing between two or more alternatives. Staying put is an option in and of itself, yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But you can't do this for long because life dictates that we move away from a position which has grown uncomfortable to a more satisfying position. This is "life" propelling you forward in the direction of "greater" satisfaction, not absolute "satisfaction".
We're skirting precariously close to woo here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You really need to reread this section which is his proof, if you can only allow yourself to really let it sink in.
Yes, I've already read that particular bit of eyebleed multiple times. I understand what Lessans was trying to say. I simply disagree with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The following excerpt is an undeniable relation whether you see it or not.
1) Relation between what and what?
2) Sez you. Can you offer any objective reason for concluding that your assessment is correct?
3) Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people across multiple forums have denied Lessans' observations. I'd say that's at least a prima facie case against undeniability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You can argue with me until the cows come home but this does not make his observation any less accurate.
You can call his observation undeniable until the cows come home, but that doesn't make his observation any more accurate.
[In case it wasn't entirely clear, my statement directly above was intended to highlight how pointless, petty and unproductive statements such as your "cows come home" remark are.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It also shows that his reasoning was not a tautology.
I agree. The excerpt you quoted is multiple floors below tautological on the elevator of usefulness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It is difficult being called all kinds of names and being interrogated every step of the way.
...............
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Seriously, though, I can see how enduring the name-calling would be difficult, but if answering questions is too great a burden you should find someone else to do this stuff.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
peacegirl, Lessans wrote it and you posted it for discussion. If it's irrelevant, don't post it!
I posted it not thinking you were going to get all confused as to who was talking or why I included this in my post. There was rhyme to my reason, and you missed it LadyShea. Shame on you if you think that your interpretation of why I included this was to throw people off or to start a conversation on the existence of God.
Why can't you just post pertinent excerpts and concisely express yourself? Why can't you post a couple lines, include your personal explanation, and answer questions in your own words? You make everything so difficult!
That's what I've been doing, and look where it has gotten me? Either I'm going to bow out because I am really tired of getting nothing but insults, or I'm going to post whatever I feel is pertinent and we have a discussion afterwards, or we don't. It's as simple as that.
You know what, you're sick NA. You can't stand that you are wrong. And I am not going to put up with this thread if you keep this up. Think about everyone else who is interesting before opening your mouth. You're ruining it for everyone. I will not put you on ignore. I want to see the garbage you are spewing, and I will have to end this thread because of it.
NA is dead right. You are mentally dysfunctional. Sorry, but it's true. This has been everyone's conclusion at every forum you've been to. It is the only rational conclusion which can be reached given your posting behaviour. And as one would expect, you're the only one who can't see it.
Why do you think it is that everywhere you go, different audiences all independently make the exact same objections? Why is it that you've never been able to give a response to any of these objections which is satisfactory to the objector? Why are you the only one who ever finds any of your responses even remotely plausible or satisfactory?
Why is it that you insist upon the same flawed methods of presentation wherever you go? Methods which have failed you every single time? Why is it that you are never able to explain Lessans' work in your own words? Why don't you ever learn from your mistakes?
You are being extremely unfair Spacemonkey. To judge the veracity of this knowledge based on my inexperience when I first came online in 2003 is preposterous. You are just as bad as the rest. If you think I have failed in my presentation, then I'm asking you to please move on. Your interrogation is getting very old, and I've wasted enough time as it is.
So, of what use is the "free will" argument? I think LadyShea and I think that it's primary use is in theology, especially important for theodicy.
I suppose it's important in ethical and morality questions, but considering that I think people functionally have free will (regardless if we really do or not), I'm not sure it has a lot of application there.
I purposely posted the last excerpt to see if anyone even understood what Lessans wrote. Obviously, you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it. Can you explain why, according to Lessans, man does not have free will, and why even though we don't have we will, we get to make choices? And can you explain what he means by "I did it of my own free will" even though man's will is not free, and why this is not a contradiction? I'm going to have to start testing people because I'm not going to waste my time moving on to the actual discovery if they can't even understand the soundness of his premises.
peacegirl, Lessans wrote it and you posted it for discussion. If it's irrelevant, don't post it!
I posted it not thinking you were going to get all confused as to who was talking or why I included this in my post. There was rhyme to my reason, and you missed it LadyShea. Shame on you if you think that your interpretation of why I included this was to throw people off or to start a conversation on the existence of God.
Why can't you just post pertinent excerpts and concisely express yourself? Why can't you post a couple lines, include your personal explanation, and answer questions in your own words? You make everything so difficult!
That's what I've been doing, and look where it has gotten me? Either I'm going to bow out because I am really tired of getting nothing but insults, or I'm going to post whatever I feel is pertinent and we have a discussion afterwards, or we don't. It's as simple as that.
You posted all the words
I ask about some of the words
You tell me those words I asked about are irrelevant
I am asking you to not post words you think are irrelevant or that you don't want to answer questions about
If you do post all the words, be prepared to discuss all of them
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Linear Mode
