:100: :fire: :up:

The problem is conferring power to speech is much like conferring power to kings; the only power they have is what society gives them. Speech possesses no actual, physical power, insofar it lacks the capacity to transfer more energy than any other sound from the mouth. — NOS4A2

That’s not true. Those who’ve suffered from emotional/psychological trauma/abuse will beg to differ. I do not believe that we have control over our emotional reaction to words, and it should be clearly obvious that our particular emotional states are quite often strongly correlated with our actions. So words do indeed have power over our emotional states, which then affects our actions. The exact extent of this affect is unclear, but I don’t think it’s existence can be reasonably denied.

We have free speech, there is no demon or angel on our shoulders making us say or withold this or that. What we don't have is freedom from the consequences of what we say. — baker

That’s not quite true. If I want to say specific things my ability to do so is limited, not entirely restricted, but limited nonetheless. Only certain things are allowed on major social media sites, TV, radio, newspapers, articles, etc. If my speech doesn’t fit their imposed restrictions it will not be published, or otherwise available for viewing. Thereby restricting my options for where I can go to express these opinions freely.

So it isn’t just that if I say X there will be negative consequences, it’s that I can only say X privately, because virtually no public forum will allow it to be seen/heard en masse.

I immediately think of this every time I hear Bon Jovi.

We can't have people living their lives in fear, can we? It can be traumatic for someone to get doxed and have their life threatened. It directly causes undue suffering and doesn't constitute the imparting of any ideas, so I wouldn't want to see something like that protected. — ToothyMaw

Ok, so death threats shouldn’t be allowed because they cause fear? So does yelling “spider” around my wife, who’s a legitimate arachnophobic. I agree about certain speech being traumatic, but the issue is where to draw the line. I’m sure whenever the president declares war it’s very traumatic for whom ever it is we’re about to start bombing. So when is it ok to induce fear/harm through speech? I’m sure you’re answer will be something like “whenever it imparts an idea.” But I think all speech communicates something, that is it’s purpose. Death threats communicate that I want you dead. Isn’t that an idea? It’s at least a thought, and why would communicating thoughts be any less worthwhile than communicating ideas?

I think there’s a lot to consider. To begin with, you have to decide how you’re going to interpret speech. Context is extremely important in this regard. There’s a big difference, for example, in a UFC fighter threatening violence against another competitor, and me doing so towards the cashier at Walmart. However, irl context and intent isn’t so easily obvious. Also, I don’t want to assume too much, so could you explain the reasoning behind your claim that death threats should obviously not be allowed?

What’s logical about it if you’re not presenting an argument? Rational perhaps, but I don’t see where logic fits in.

Your mother doesn't believe that my name is Michael, which is to say that "your mother believes that my name is Michael" is false. That's different to your mother believing that my name isn't Michael. — Michael

I think I agree. When you say “‘your mother believes that my name is Michael’ is false,” you’re assigning a truth value to a statement, rather to an actual real world referent.

Something like that. There is a clear difference in meaning between “I believe” and “I don’t believe,” regardless of whatever follows. If you use statements like “I believe no unicorns exist,” then you’re defining belief in a way that makes non-belief impossible. I can say I don’t believe unicorns exist, but you’ll argue that I actually believe unicorns don’t exist. Every possible stance on unicorns is a belief. You see the issue?

Not so much argument or lack, but of evidence. — tim wood

Tomato, tomahto. Arguments are about trying to establish clear evidence. If evidence is lacking, arguments will necessarily fail.

The whole debate is one big pile of nothing. — Foghorn

Well, at least on this we agree.

The point I was trying to make is that even if you haven’t gone through a logical process to arrive at atheism logic is still present in the sense that your lack of belief adheres to the basic principals of logic such as non-contradiction and excluded middle. — DingoJones

I guess that would be right, unless it’s the default position, which I believe it is.

:up:

Believing in the nonexistence of something, is like eating nothing for dinner. It’s actually impossible to eat “nothing,” because if you’re going to eat, there must be some thing you are eating. So, beliefs about “nonexistence” are actually not beliefs. It’s just poor phrasing that leads to the confusion. We assume that if -X=Y, then X=-Y, but that isn’t always true.

It could also be defined as a belief in the non existence of Gods. — khaled

See this thread for my thoughts on the accuracy of statements like these. Suffice it to say I’m not certain one can have a belief without an object of that belief.

The people you are talking about have a positive belief that there is no God or gods. — T Clark

No, I’m meaning those who do not believe gods exist. Those who fall under “C” in Banno’s example.

You would still be applying logic to arrive at your position of non-belief right? — DingoJones

I don’t think so. I’m starting at a position of non-belief prior to even hearing any of the arguments. It’s the position of ignorance, which seems to necessarily be the default position, since one can’t start at a position of knowledge. Right?

It is logical to withhold belief in the absence of evidence. — DingoJones

Logic is strictly applied only to arguments. What argument is being presented when you simply find theism’s argument unconvincing?

Happy Father’s Day



The intro is the voice of Rev. Saul S. Williams (Saul’s father) live at Baptist Temple Church in Newburgh, NY in 1999.

And Pretty Eight Machine, but I couldn’t find a video of the full album.

What can one say about the world that the other can't? — khaled

Idealists cannot rule out supernatural explanations, whereas materialists can.

:rofl: That’s hilarious.

I’ve read what you’ve written, but you won’t reply to my objections, or answer my questions. Why is that?

So, how many things is a person allowed to not know, and still be considered perfect, or flawless? Is knowledge a factor at all? If God doesn’t know how to tie his shoes is he still perfect? You’re defining perfect so that nothing is excluded. If that’s the case then I’m perfect too.

It naturally follows that in order for someone to be perfect, they must have perfect qualities, at least those we deem as good. So, God would have perfect compassion, humility, patience, actions, knowledge, reasoning, etc. If any of those are lacking, then he isn’t perfect. Let me ask you a question, are there any qualities other than knowledge that God could lack and still be considered perfect? If not, then you’re special pleading with respect to knowledge. If so, please explain what they are, and how having imperfect qualities can rationally lead to perfection.

I think agnosticism, meant in the broadest definition possible, as an automatic default position is self-defeating. If we take it to simply mean uncertainty, then doesn’t that mean we must be uncertain about our uncertainty as well? It creates an infinite regress of uncertainty. Doesn’t agnosticism have to be arrived at like all other knowledge? If so, how can it be arrived at without certainty? The agnostic is necessarily certainly uncertain.

In either case, there seems to be an underlying assumption that truth exists prior to agnosticism. We assume causation, some sort of realism, that words/language have meaning, etc. Perhaps we shouldn’t, but if we didn’t we wouldn’t even make it to cogito ergo sum, much less knowledge beyond that.

He didn't. He was about to die and was reciting from Scripture, Psalm of David, Psalm 22:2 — Apollodorus

Ok, then what about his prayer in Gethsemane? This too seems to illustrate the same point. He seemingly lacked knowledge of God’s plan/will. And maybe even disagreed with it.

It should now be clear that this does not follow. One can be perfect and know everything - and one's knowing everything can be part of what makes one perfect - and one can be perfect and not know everything - and one's not knowing everything can be part of what makes on perfect. For again, there's more than one way to be perfect. — Bartricks

I disagree. Perfection necessarily entails flawlessness. Not knowing something is a flaw.

God's mind and Jesus's mind can be one and the same mind, without having to have the same content. I am the same mind as the mind I was yesterday, and yesterday I wrote a note to myself telling myself to do something today, something that I cannot today fathom the reasoning behind. There is no problem with this - I am wondering why I told myself to do X. — Bartricks

I see what you’re trying to say, but their collective mind existed simultaneously. Your mind can change day to day, but at each particular point in time its content is whatever it is. I don’t see how one mind can at the same time know X, but also not know X.

Correct. Pinprick doesn't have a clue. He is substituting imagination for fact. — Apollodorus

I may not have a clue, but I’m not trying to imagine anything. I wasn’t aware he was reciting scripture. So I’m fine with tossing out that example.

Taking statements out of context can lead to all kinds of interpretations or "conclusions" but that only amounts to deliberate misconstruction of the text, which is what Pinprick is doing for his own agenda. — Apollodorus

My agenda? What are you talking about? I’ve admitted my ignorance about the subject, and am only asking questions. It appears to me that you’re the one drawing unwarranted conclusions about me. Why assume I’m deliberately misconstructing the text? Stop being so defensive, I’m not even attacking you.



I’m vaguely aware of how Christianity came to be, and I’m not trying to deny any of it. I wasn’t aware of much that’s been discussed, so it may just be a confused thread from a confused mind.

Grey Sunset- Emo
Natural Selection- Metal/Punk
GMILF- Joke band, a la Tenacious D
Ninroot- NIN tribute band for Elder Scrolls fans
Negative Zero- Doom/Sludge/Industrial
Ditch Digger- Outlaw Country

So, it seems I’ve missed quite a bit the last day or so I wasn’t able to log on….

To perhaps clarify a bit, I’m really not interested in debating the funds aspects of the trinity aside from what I specifically mentioned. What’s confusing to me is that Jesus is typically considered by Christians as flawless, or perfect, and divine. To me that means he must have perfect knowledge in the same way God is presumed to have. But if that’s the case, why all the questioning of God by Jesus? Shouldn’t he have known his fate (crucifixion) and agreed with it if his consciousness is one and the same as God’s? How could one feel forsaken by one’s own consciousness?

This in my opinion is even worse. Many potentially good members would just leave at that point. I know I would. — jamalrob

Lol, that’s why you’re the boss! :grin:

I personally don’t have much in the way of complaints about this forum, but reading some of the complaints other members have gave me a couple ideas.

I think one of the more common issues is new members seemingly posting the first thing that comes to their mind, and not really taking the time to get a feel for the forum, etc. So, what if there was a mandatory waiting period for new members before they could post? I think that would encourage new members to spend some time on the forum before posting to at least see what type of posts are preferred, and which are not.

Another idea would be to create a thread that new members must post in before being allowed to post elsewhere. The thread could require them to post their favorite rule from the guidelines thread, or maybe the rule they think will be difficult to follow, need clarification on, etc. Really just anything that forces members to at least look at the guidelines. I dunno, just some ideas I thought I’d share…

Or they care more about a people with money than those without. The crack epidemic was in poor black neighbourhoods, and suburbs are generally doing much better financially. — DingoJones

That’s definitely possible too.

Well the research into drugs and drug addiction is showing that it’s less about the drug and more about the person. Trauma is what leads to addiction, not drugs. — DingoJones

Funny you should mention trauma. I just had a training that discussed the ACES study. I’d known about it for quite a while, but it’s pretty illuminating. But yeah, trauma definitely plays a role.

Yep. Kind of a Pantera meets Lynyrd Skynyrd feel.

Nah, it’s just in jest. I’m not trying to take a swipe at the AN folk. Maybe I’m just odd, but I sometimes try to think of songs that I could associate with PF members. Usually just as a joke. I find most everyone here endearing in some respect. I’ve been mulling over whether or not to keep doing this sort of thing. We’ll see what happens…

Oh, and I’m totally game with others doing the same towards me. I think it would be interesting to see how I’m viewed by my anonymous (usually) peers, and also to see if others view other members in a similar light as myself.

Anyhow, here’s a local band that’s sadly defunct now…

@Shawn

Because people are discovering that most of what they’ve told about drugs and drug addiction is a bunch of bullshit. — DingoJones

Yeah, completely agree. It’s funny how once a drug epidemic started affecting mostly white suburban and rural kids they changed their tune. Yet with the crack epidemic all anyone wanted to do was increase policing, especially in predominantly black neighborhoods. I’m willing to remain open minded about the intent behind these efforts, maybe it’s coincidental, I don’t really know. But it certainly sends the message that we, as a country, care more about white people than other minorities.

That said, when it comes to drugs, or laws in general, what I look for first is the justification for prohibiting that act. If that appears reasonable, then I look at whether or not that justification is applied consistently. The justification for banning drugs seems to be because they’re harmful and addictive, at least that’s the primary justification as I see it. That’s true enough, but if all harmful and addictive things should be banned, then McDonald’s should have been shut down a long time ago. So I think the best solution is to try our best to allow each other the liberty to make our own decisions when those decisions only affect ourselves.

I’m not really seeing what others are referring to as a bias. So far, I don’t think I’ve seen one thread where everybody agreed with the OP. It doesn’t matter what your opinion is, someone on here will disagree with you about it. It isn’t an echo chamber by any means, imo.