"This place is dangerous for trying to find truth"

[Saltmeister]

Because this is a debate not a research program. And because your idea was stupid.

Now you're being insulting. Telling a person their ideas are stupid is not debating if you don't actually explain why. You were not debating there. You were being insulting.

and . . . I am not making this into a research program. I was simply indicating that the "evidence" you spoke of was inadequate for the kind of conclusion you would have the rest of us accept.

I understand it perfectly well. I have a good idea how it evolved, why it evolved and how it perpetuates itself. But to the nuance of your statement I do not need a placebo to not be scared of the real world.

I said I believed there was something you didn't understand about it. I didn't say you understood nothing about it.

But it is your job to censor mine! If you do not like reading dont read it. Or just maintain your current hypocrisy. The choice is yours.

This isn't censorship, so where is the hypocrisy? I am not the one being patronising and condescending. I am not preaching to you what to think and believe. I was talking about myself. Consider your words:

Which on a site full of people infected with a meme that demands they will to their beliefs is like someone yanking on the rug (or perhaps comfort blanket) of their certainties. But dont worry for them. These memes are big and fat, I stand no chance of toppling them.

You were not talking about yourself. You were talking about us.

A site full of people infected with a "meme"? How disparaging and insulting can you get? It's like you're implying we're all suffering from a disease. You're preaching to us, as if your ideas are better than our's. You're being patronising and condescending. What seems to be worse is that I don't even know if you consider yourself "one of us." It would have been alright if you were talking about the one group of which we are all a part, but if you consider yourself a separate entity . . . that is going to be a problem.

By this "one group" I am not actually talking about a category we have in our heads, but the one that you have in your's. If you want to show how you're different to the rest of us, that makes you patronising, condescending and arrogant.

What...and deprive you of hypocrisy, indignation and really bad ideas?

This is what I mean by being patronising and condescending. You use words like "hypocrisy," "indignation" and "really bad ideas," but there's no indication of what you are actually talking about (with regards to what I have said in a post) and you don't even demonstrate any understanding of me as a person. How can you speak of hypocrisy when you don't know someone? You don't explain what you mean by "really bad ideas."

What disturbs me even more is that by such a statement as the one above, I get the impression that you seem to think you know and understand me when you don't. How can I not regard that as patronising and condescending?

It's like you were waiting for a long time to say this to me. This was your trump card, your opportunity, your moment of glory and greatness. You started being rude, you offended me, you provoked me and you got a response out of me and thought, "Aha! I've got him! He's just the same as the rest of them!"

But that is just what makes it so patronising and condescending. It's when you tell someone you know them, tell them why they're wrong and why they're so stupid. Do you even know me, Tao?

lmao, you want to be a test subject of some fictitious god but not to know how things 'observably' work. Priceless! Your dissonance knows no bounds!

I am not the test subject of anyone and I know as much as you do how things work with regards to this "meme" thing, thank you very much.

You seem to have your very own "meme." Your "meme" is your attitude towards religion, and your meme is a big, fat and ugly one. You would rather have people stop indulging in it than to let them live their lives as they wish. Talk about being patronising, condescending, arrogant and hypocritical.

 

[Saltmeister]

Btw, Tao_equus. Post #158 wasn't specifically addressed to you, but the thread as a whole. Anything referring to you was not for the whole post anyway, just parts of it.

"You" doesn't always mean I am talking to the person quoted. I often speak of things generally. I was talking both about myself and how the idea of "memes" as you put it could become what I considered an abomination. Why do we have to live with theories like that? That question doesn't require a person as a target.

I generally talk to quotes, not people, but sometimes I do have to address people directly. Everything else I say when I am not addressing people, or when it is not necessary for my words to refer to anyone personally is addressed to the quote itself. That is how I have posted for years.

Consider each of my posts as self-contained rhetorical statements.

 

[wil]

namaste all,

Faithful Servant was right, this place is dangerous and this thread proves it.

 

[the breeze]

Tao, you misunderstand completely. My reason in being involved in debate or discussion is not to win an argument or convince you (or anybody else), it's for my own clarification. I don't see the world as I did 1 year ago and in 1 years time I don't expect to see it as I do now.

I don't claim or seek objectivity. I don't think it's possible (or desirable) and your ranting only underlines that (for me).

Meme theory by the way is how Dawkins maintains his certainty - he needs an explanation of why religion and spirituality have been present in every recorded culture and why there are such striking overlaps in myths and even story structure (still present in Hollywood movies).

In reply to Avi I'd say that it's not a matter of certainty or open mindedness per se but I'd be interested in an example of an idea which we can be completely certain about. This is not a debating point, I'd really appreciate an example. An observation will do such as 'the sky is sometimes blue.'

 

[citizenzen]

I don't claim or seek objectivity. I don't think it's possible (or desirable) and your ranting only underlines that (for me).

Personally, I'm a fan of Tao's "rants" and Dawkins too.

I guess that's why they make both chocolate and vanilla.

 

[Avi]

Personally, I'm a fan of Tao's "rants" and Dawkins too.

I guess that's why they make both chocolate and vanilla.

Me too !!

Plus, now I am pondering a new thought, Tao's location to Brian, in Scotland, is very convenient, could these two be related ?

 

[Avi]

In reply to Avi I'd say that it's not a matter of certainty or open mindedness per se but I'd be interested in an example of an idea which we can be completely certain about. This is not a debating point, I'd really appreciate an example. An observation will do such as 'the sky is sometimes blue.'

Easy, the breeze, no problem - outside of the quantum domain, all objects obey Newton's law of gravity (actually, the also obey Newton's First and Second Law of motion, but lets not get rigorous here ). This was proven in the 1400's and was correct with certainty. During the time of Einstein, it was also demonstrated that particles and waves at the quantum level do not follow these same rules, but this makes Newton's observations no less powerful in the macroscopic domain.

 

[citizenzen]

Plus, now I am pondering a new thought, Tao's location to Brian, in Scotland, is very convenient, could these two be related ?

I'd always had them pegged as lovers.

Which leads to the question, who's more kissable?

I'd say Tao. He's sooo passionate.

 

[Raksha]

I used to believe that I could remember a past life. In that delusion I was a minor landowner in Greece who met his end in a peasants revolt. I had lots of proof's to validate this. I constructed a firm case for my belief. When I eventually gave it up I saw just how I came to believe the evidence and how I fitted it together to be coherent.

Tao and everyone,

I'm reasonably sure I know who I was in my previous incarnation before this one, which in some ways is kind of a "do-over." She was a woman and she was famous, and that's ALL I'm gonna tell you about her for now. I wouldn't mention it now, except that a few days ago I told my daughter that I'm finally ready to start dealing with her karma. It has taken me over 30 years to reach this point. I guess by "dealing with it" I mean cleaning it up, getting rid of some of the bad stuff. I've been dealing with all my life, but in a very reactive way. It's been a kind of repetition compulsion and I'm finally fed up with it.

This isn't a case of believing I was Cleopatra or Queen Elizabeth I or some similar ego trip, and it isn't a matter of "constructing" anything into a plausible whole either. I have never had a past-life regression, and I never got a chance to construct anything because it all happened too fast. I think maybe it was kind of an accident, and that I wasn't meant to find out at that time--over 30 years ago as I said.

It happened like this: My husband and I were heavily involved in the Gnostic Society in the early 1970s, as were most of our friends at the time. So one day we were having lunch in a Mexican restaurant with a couple of our Gnostic friends. One of them had a book with him, which was either by or about this famous woman I had never heard of before. I can't remember now if the book was an anthology or selection from her writings or a biography. I asked my friend to tell me a little about her, and I read the information on the back cover of the book.

And that was ALL it took. I can't describe the horror that came over me, and the chills that went down my back as I realized she was SO much like me...and not in a good way either. I've identified with women writers and poets before, but this was something different. It felt totally different and it was terrifying! I felt that I had just learned something about myself that I desperately didn't want to know.

I was not tempted to read the book or learn any more about this woman than I already knew. In the years that followed I made a determined effort NOT to find out about her. I have only told a few people, and only very rarely do I google her name and read the articles about her. I have never read any of her books or read a biography of her. Just from the little my friend told me about her that afternoon, I felt like I knew her from the inside. I promise you--that's enough and more than enough!

I guess if you want to look at this experience outside of a reincarnation context, you could also say this woman represents my Shadow, in the Jungian sense. And I couldn't give you an argument about that either.

Love and Light,
Linda

 

[earl]

Easy, the breeze, no problem - outside of the quantum domain, all objects obey Newton's law of gravity (actually, the also obey Newton's First and Second Law of motion, but lets not get rigorous here ). This was proven in the 1400's and was correct with certainty. During the time of Einstein, it was also demonstrated that particles and waves at the quantum level do not follow these same rules, but this makes Newton's observations no less powerful in the macroscopic domain.

Perhaps those are "certainties" Avi, but we all know that when it comes to consciousness there will never be "certainties." There are suggestive possibilities. But, ultimatley all evidence related to consciousness-or at least interpretation of that evfdence, will remain as Breeze and I, (or if you prefer, breezy earl), have suggested always filtered through one's pre-existing views on reality. So, if one is disposed to consider only materialistic models, that will be the interpretation, etc. So science in that sense will never definitively lay to rest all questions re to consciousness. In the meantime, let's play nice with each other or don't play at all. earl

 

[Avi]

Perhaps those are "certainties" Avi, but we all know that when it comes to consciousness there will never be "certainties." There are suggestive possibilities. But, ultimatley all evidence related to consciousness-or at least interpretation of that evfdence, will remain as Breeze and I, (or if you prefer, breezy earl), have suggested always filtered through one's pre-existing views on reality. So, if one is disposed to consider only materialistic models, that will be the interpretation, etc. So science in that sense will never definitively lay to rest all questions re to consciousness.

I agree Earl, consciousness issues are not the same as science. I was just responding to the breeze comment about certainty.

In the meantime, let's play nice with each other or don't play at all. earl

I guess that means you are saying you are not related to the breeze .

 

[citizenzen]

Perhaps those are "certainties" Avi, but we all know that when it comes to consciousness there will never be "certainties." There are suggestive possibilities. But, ultimatley all evidence related to consciousness-or at least interpretation of that evfdence, will remain as Breeze and I, (or if you prefer, breezy earl), have suggested always filtered through one's pre-existing views on reality. So, if one is disposed to consider only materialistic models, that will be the interpretation, etc. So science in that sense will never definitively lay to rest all questions re to consciousness.

It's ironic how Earl tries to build a case for "suggestive possibilities" by making so many definitive statements.

 

[shawn]

I'm reasonably sure I know who I was in my previous incarnation before this one, which in some ways is kind of a "do-over."

[youtube]4wZ3ZG_Wams&NR=1&feature=fvwp[/youtube]
chorus:
I'm so glad that he let me try it again
Cause my last time on earth I lived a whole world of sin
I'm so glad that I know more than I knew then
Gonna keep on tryin'
Till I reach my highest ground...Whew!
Till I reach my highest ground
No one's gonna bring me down
Oh no
Till I reach my highest ground
Don't you let nobody bring you down (they'll sho 'nuff try)
God is gonna show you higher ground
He's the only friend you have around

 

[Avi]

Tao and everyone,
I'm reasonably sure I know who I was in my previous incarnation before this one, which in some ways is kind of a "do-over."

Good thought, Linda, I think we all feel like that some days !!

Shawn - good Stevie Wonder track !!

 

[Tao_Equus]

This isn't censorship, so where is the hypocrisy? I am not the one being patronising and condescending. I am not preaching to you what to think and believe. I was talking about myself. Consider your words:

Perhaps you always consider someone proffering an opinion as preaching. And I suppose when they do so again and again as I do it is easy to use such a term. But I neither look for nor want any converts to my way of thinking. For me this is all entirely selfish. It is mechanism for me to clarify in my own mind what interests me.

You were not talking about yourself. You were talking about us.

A site full of people infected with a "meme"? How disparaging and insulting can you get? It's like you're implying we're all suffering from a disease. You're preaching to us, as if your ideas are better than our's. You're being patronising and condescending. What seems to be worse is that I don't even know if you consider yourself "one of us." It would have been alright if you were talking about the one group of which we are all a part, but if you consider yourself a separate entity . . . that is going to be a problem.

I am not infected with a meme of religious thinking. But I am not the only atheist who posts here. As you say you understand memes then you should have no difficulty with the analogy of a meme as an infectious agent, or disease. Everybody has some disease at some point and that is not disparaging, condescending or wilfully hurtfull, it is a fact. Sometimes a debate demands certain analogies be made because they illustrate a point, not because you are attempting to insult but because a startling analogy can illustrate with a certain clarity. I have been posting here a long time now and sometimes I do get tired of some of the repetitive nonsense I see put up as logic. But no matter what I think of someones opinions I hold no animosity toward anyone here and nor do I mean to really insult them. Though I must admit I find it useful to bait people sometimes and others do the same to me...so what? That is normal on a debate forum. You made an aggressive post to me. You got an aggressive one in return....what did you expect from me? You know my style well enough by now.

You seem to have your very own "meme." Your "meme" is your attitude towards religion, and your meme is a big, fat and ugly one. You would rather have people stop indulging in it than to let them live their lives as they wish. Talk about being patronising, condescending, arrogant and hypocritical.

Maybe it is an emergent meme, time will tell.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao, you misunderstand completely. My reason in being involved in debate or discussion is not to win an argument or convince you (or anybody else), it's for my own clarification. I don't see the world as I did 1 year ago and in 1 years time I don't expect to see it as I do now.



'

I have written essentially the same thing many times here now.
How dog-gone curious is that?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Me too !!

Plus, now I am pondering a new thought, Tao's location to Brian, in Scotland, is very convenient, could these two be related ?

I'd always had them pegged as lovers.

Which leads to the question, who's more kissable?

I'd say Tao. He's sooo passionate.

We have met, briefly. We are not related and we did not kiss.

 

[Tao_Equus]

namaste all,

Faithful Servant was right, this place is dangerous and this thread proves it.

How does it prove it wil?

 

[17th Angel]

This place is dangerous.... when trying to find the "truth" lmmfao!!! You got a ton of people here an all of them think they have the "truth".... So... Uhm... I guess it could be seen as "dangerous" if you already have made your mind up on what is truth and are very easy to manipulate... Or if you are one of the hawkers here trying to peddle your bs wares.... Then sure it's dangerous... Someone else might grab your sucker. But, I think that comes with the territory.

All in all "truth" seeking to me is freaking pointless and irrelevant. *shrugs*

People put on their blinkers as soon as they are comfortable... So *thinks* I don't see a danger you all sit here day in day freaking out banging on about the same old load of ****e.... lol Every day every week every month every year... And you all get no where lol... It is pathetic. You run around in circles.... But... Nothing changes there are no effects... So I actually fail to see a threat/danger. Apart from the cricle thing.

 

[nativeastral]

hi alex angel long time no here; what you say is just as applicable in the 'outside' world where everybody kicks around ideas so is that just as pathetic or circular? if so that is life, but to say there are no effects or affects is *not true* for as human beings theres one thing for sure we are changed via our feelings [or fleeings] as much as our thoughts on ideas [and these are as much an input from the outside as they are so called 'self generated']. But l get your drift