You claimed that science replaced God, and now say that is not the case. If it’s not the case then what’s the problem?

god replaced by science. — EugeneW

Do you really believe that God is so easily replaced?

I’m not here for myself or for intellectual reasons.

Each one of us, no matter how much the thoughts off the top of our heads won’t shut up, has the spirit of God trying to give to us truth and love.

I’m here in service to that spirit. — Joe Mello

10 years at Sam Harris’ forum.

Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results. — Narcotics Anonymous

You believe he knows what he is talking about based on his vague logorrhea, good luck with that —> fly meet flypaper. — 180 Proof

:lol: dart meet bullseye.

Our life becomes as great as our experiences, not as we think it to be. — Joe Mello

I imagine there’s no other way for you to think of it, that great experiences, such as those involving God, make a great person.

I believe that transcendent experiences dissolve dualities like greater/lesser and that religion requires them.

I sold tons of weed and smoked it for years. But 25 years ago I put it down out of respect for myself and everyone around me. — Joe Mello

In the OP you mention being in a monastery for five years 40 years ago. God didn’t teach you to respect yourself or those around you?

"You keep mentioning your credentials and vast mystical experience and in doing so it appears as though being seen as an authority is very important to you. May I ask why that is so important?"

praxis wrote this, and then feigned surprise when I "took it personally".

I think it would be a good practice around here to be a bit more honest with yourselves, and each other. — Joe Mello

You can’t even imagine not taking it personally and honestly answering the question?

you would probably judge me to be respectful for most of the time.
— Joe Mello

Let's check:

your trust in your thinking is scary.
— Joe Mello

Your confidence in yourself must be very popular with everyone but the ladies.
— Joe Mello

go be a fool someplace else.
— Joe Mello

You simply do not have the philosophical clarity to think profoundly and without personal prejudices in the third degree of abstraction.
— Joe Mello

if you're so sure of your thinking you wouldn't get rattled and emotional when it gets upended.
— Joe Mello

I asked you to ponder the principle, not hold my hand and skip away with me.
— Joe Mello

Don't accuse me of not being clear because you fell into a fog.
— Joe Mello

You're free again to walk away from any argument you don't understand in the same pair of shoes you have probably been wearing since you were a teenager.

Bye bye, then.
— Joe Mello

Learn to read … and to proofread.
— Joe Mello

that's just stupid.
— Joe Mello

You are lazy thinkers and lazy human beings.
— Joe Mello

a person who is so filled with pride and self-love
— Joe Mello

Your posts are riddled with emotion and nonsense.

I feel nothing when I read them, for they are not inspiring or profound, just the thoughts bouncing off the top of your head.
— Joe Mello

why don’t you go to the lounge.
— Joe Mello

just a superficial jerk.
— Joe Mello — T Clark

I hope Joe isn’t this rude to God.

Wow, you took that personally. Sorry.

praxis, how many times have you told others that God doesn't exist? — Joe Mello

I don't think that I've ever told anyone that. I don't think it's provable.

Seems a tad polarizing.

Joshs, do you know the difference between an evangelical conservative Christian and a scholastically trained theologian and philosopher?

It’s quite vast. — Joe Mello

You keep mentioning your credentials and vast mystical experience and in doing so it appears as though being seen as an authority is very important to you. May I ask why that is so important?

Groupthink is the death of every debate, not an antagonist. — Joe Mello

Not true, unless you’re intimidated by groups, which you don’t seem to be.

Interesting that you consider yourself an antagonist. Is God cool with that?

I called you neither a liar, nor delusional. And I am not an atheist. Completely wrong on all accounts. — emancipate

Uh-oh, you don’t fit in his safe little box.

Are those things independent of each other or relying on each other? — Joe Mello

Interdependent means dependent upon one another: mutually dependent.

Take your relationship with God for instance, God cannot be loved by you without you, and you cannot love God without God. You're codependent, but in a good way, I hope.

You are lazy thinkers and lazy human beings. I sacrificed years to come to a knowledge and love of God. And you expect to intellectually receive God on a plate. — Joe Mello

This confirms that all you have to offer is your love story with God, insults, and nothing of intellectual substance.

I read a similar characterization on Breitbart News this morning.
— praxis

Really? That we should unionize, remove trade tariffs and "tax the fuck" out the rich. My, Breitbart has changed since I last read it. — Isaac

Well, no, more specifically I was referring to similarities between Marcusean and Orwellian.

Life is greater than the elements, and thought is greater than life, and love is greater than thought, and God is greater than us. — Joe Mello

It’s an interesting progression, going from the elements to life, then to thought, to love, and finally to God. The last step seems unnecessary. In any case, all these things are interdependent so it is nonsensical to say that one is greater than the other. Thought can’t exist without elements, love can’t exist without thought, God can’t exist without elements and thought, etc.

Apparently communing with God makes a person mysterious and arrogant. A story as old as time.

Oh, I see, God is not physical. Stupid stupid stupid me. I suppose that if God isn’t physical then nothing God does is finite. Doesn’t that meaning that it is impossible to do anything, since nothing God does can have a beginning or end?

the physical universe is made up of only finite things. Nothing else. — Joe Mello

Then if God exists, God is a finite thing. That’s rather disappointing. :sad:

It's just my nature to try to understand, or make some sense of, behavior that, in my mind, should be intrinsic in otherwise "normal" people but which isn't. Therein lies the vagaries of human nature I suppose. I chock a lot of thing up to "human nature" but I guess because it personal this time that I'm having difficulty. — Tex

Another stoicism is that we can’t control other people, or anything really, outside of ourselves, so we’re bound to be disappointed from time to time by people and things beyond our control, and it’s pointless to ruminate over things that are out of our control. We can learn whatever there is to learn and move on.

I think he's arguing for a kind of immersion therapy. A little QAnon here, a little Mein Kampf there, until you become desensitized and nonreactive.
— praxis

That was more charity than I needed. Thanks. — frank

I kid, but that is the general idea, yes?

Bringing up the subject of reciprocation, a good relationship should be able to handle it, or if you decide not to then put it out of your mind because continuing to think about it is only causing you stress.
— praxis

But doesn't a good relationship also include reciprocity? That's where I'm having difficulty. — Tex

I was thinking of it in terms of your well-being. Stoic advice would be to act (bring up reciprocation with the subject of your generosity) or put it out of your mind because continuing to ruminate will only do you harm.

Bringing up the subject of reciprocation, a good relationship should be able to handle it, or if you decide not to then put it out of your mind because continuing to think about it is only causing you stress.

an infinite line of finite things is illogical.

An omnipotent God is not finite and therefore the only thing that could exist infinitely. — Joe Mello

It seems to me that an omnipotent God can only express its omnipotence within a universe of finite things and a universe without finite things would be unchanging and dead.

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

Problem is that the something greater than the greater thing needs to be created, and the greater thing of that greater thing needs to be created, and the greater thing of that greater thing needs to be created... If a great thing doesn't require a creator then creation doesn't require a greater thing.

I spent five years in a Catholic Monastery forty years ago, although I have never been religious for a single day. — Joe Mello

Thinking laterally, you were the accountant or cook?

Welcome.

How does a person "stop being a big baby" and how does a person "grow the ability to listen to opposing views without fear that we'll slide into a holocaust if you let other people have their say"?

Have you worked out an actual didactic program for this? Can you present it here? — baker

I think he's arguing for a kind of immersion therapy. A little QAnon here, a little Mein Kampf there, until you become desensitized and nonreactive.

Can't help thinking there's something a little Marcusean here (alluded to earlier) about the reality of worker's demands being all too uncouth for a certain class of left-wing pundit.

Is rescuing a tormented trans art student safer than empowering a grubby factory trade union member?

Is installing a (privileged) black female supreme court judge safer than giving black female banana growers a fair price for their product?

Is getting equal pay (by way of increase, of course!) for female entertainers less dangerous than just taxing the fuck out of them to pay for such luxuries as rice and water for those less charming in an evening dress?

Are the beneficiaries of old-school socialism just too frightening for the newly elevated chattering classes, they need someone tamer, more like them, to help. Someone they are less complicit themselves in the oppression of. — Isaac

Nicely polarizing. I read a similar characterization on Breitbart News this morning.

I've no sympathy at all for those who threaten her, but I've no sympathy for her either, she's a billionaire, she'll manage. — Isaac

She lost her billionaire status when she donated 16% of her net worth or $160 million. In addition to the charitable trust called Volant, she’s the founder of Lumos, an organization that works to “end the systematic institutionalization of children across Europe and help them find safer, more caring places to live.” Not too afraid of important problems, it seems.

Almost finished with Material Girls, incidentally. Well reasoned, as you might expect, and a good book for learning more about the trans controversy.

If this is true, then perhaps many transsexuals can be seen as gay men and women who want their bodies to ‘match’ their brain wiring.
— Joshs

Yes, if that is the most rationally consistent way to go about it. — Garrett Travers

How is it rational see a biologically male sex and a psychologically female gender as a woman, or a biologically female sex and a psychologically male gender as a man?

You have probably seen Kinsey's and other people's stats on bisexual behavior. — Bitter Crank

Just reviewed some of the findings on the site, interesting. Strangely, I noticed that one of the most commonly searched topics on the site is penis size. Not to boast but I'm happy to report that I'm above average. :party:

It's like if you have a friend who goes ballistic every time you put a cup down without a coaster, you just become immune to it; you're going to take little notice next time he explodes even if, this time, its over something really important. — Isaac

People take little notice of the important things that you mention regardless of "First-world neuroses", and if we were actually the selfless and rational species that you seem to suggest we should be then those problems wouldn't exist in the first place. We're selfish and tribalistic.

Even though Rowling and Stock have similar views regarding trans issues, and similar problems with expressing their views, you express care for Stock but none for Rowling. Maybe that's simply because you can relate more to Stock, or you personally know her.

I believe that , as Freud said, in the most general sense we are all bisexual in that we all have the capability to learn to enjoy sexual relations with both biological males and females. — Joshs

Very true, nevertheless heterosexuals who can enjoy sexual relations with both sexes, perhaps even in a ‘twinning dance’, are still sexuality attracted to the opposite sex, at least primarily. I wonder if the same is true for homosexuals.

It’s interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community , which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style, of which sexual attraction is merely one small aspect. For those who dont grasp this , it is incoherent to talk about gayness outside of sexual attraction, and I think that is part of the problem. — Joshs

You seem to be saying that ignorance of gender identity theory is part of the problem and Bitter Crank seems to be saying that “delusion” is problematic, or rather that sex/gender cannot be changed. It’s not clear if BC believes sex and gender can be more or less independent of each other.

Personally, I have no problem with separating biological sex and gender identity or ‘style’. It makes me wonder where sexual attraction fits best though. Is sexual attraction more biological sex or more a part of psychological gender? The fact that some transsexuals are not gay seems to indicate that it’s more biological sex, and also that many gay people’s gender matches their biological sex.

JK Rowling...well, I'd probably try to avoid being seated next to her at a dinner party....but that's about it. — Isaac

Because you believe she’s transphobic or don’t want to be associated with someone who’s been accused of transphobia? Not sure which is worse. Or perhaps you are inclined to express something like tribal solidarity?

That’s an excellent example. Goodonya, mate. I just bought Material Girls and may have more to say on the subject after reading it.

What 'upset me' if you want to put it that way, is that you thought it reasonable, on a debating platform, to dismiss frank's contribution with a dismissive (and, it transpires, disingenuous) "hard to take seriously" rather than any kind of charitable inclusion of those concerns in the discussion. — Isaac

Frank receives more than his share of charity in many many discussions. Trust me on that. :wink:

If you seriously thought that there wasn't any evidence for the claims in the letter (an already fairly absurd position given the general academic standing in which some of the signatories are held), — Isaac

Oh to be young and innocent.

at the very least we might have expected a "...really! Are you sure those things happened", not an assumption that they probably didn't — Isaac

I searched the web for hours looking for examples that would support the claims and I could not find anything more supportive than what you found. People ‘exaggerate’ when doing so benefits them in some way, Isaac.

You asked me what was missing, Isaac, and I made a complete list. I honestly didn’t know that it would upset you so. If it makes you feel any better, it wasn’t too bad for a five minute effort.

So Frank, I can’t help wondering how committed you are to ‘growing the psychological muscles necessary for listening to a view we don't like’. Imagine, if you’re willing, that Marjorie Taylor Greene submitted an Op-Ed piece to the New York Times on weekly basis, assuming she knows how to read and write. How often do you think they should publish her esteemed options (instead of something more substantive)?

You lamented the lack of examples, examples were given. Is there something else you're missing? — Isaac

Good example that sufficiently support the claims. The examples that you so generously provided do not match the claims very well, though I think the last example is a good example of cancel culture.

The list of claims is as follows:

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces - The Tom Cotton example is an expression of cancel culture, in my opinion, just not a strong example. I think running the Op-Ed was a bad choice (was there nothing better to run that day?) and wouldn’t disagree with a reprimand. I wouldn’t ask for resignation though.

Books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity - No example of this has been provided.

Journalists are barred from writing on certain topics - No example of this has been provided.

Professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class - Regarding the New School example, as I said, I’m glad that they investigate accusations of racism.

A researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study - The David Shor saga is a good example.