Thanks. It shows who can self-actualize but it does not show or explain what self-actualization means.

Besides, god must be atheist claims that you are quoting the Bible. I — Apollodorus

You are a fing idiot. You misquote me. I did not say Foolso4 quoted the bible. I said he referred to it. Go fuck yourself, you are so full of shit.

At no point has Fooloso4 referred to the Bible. — Apollodorus

You must be blind as much as you are stupid. Fooloso4 did not QUOTE the bible, but he referred to it many many places. You don't even speak the language, for crying out loud.

Why didn’t you just say for what we CANNOT perceive and for what we cannot conceptualize — Mww

Hehe... this claims we can only name things that we can both conceptualize and perceive at the same time and at the same respect... hehe, connectives are tricky, but they do behave consistently by consensus of their usus. :grin:

There enough ways for you to doubt the Bible and enough reasons for Christians to see it as consistent. It depends of which eyes you use to read it — Gregory

You are absolutely right. What you said here is true.

If you use the rational, thinking person's eye, the Bible is inconsistent. If you can believe its contents, then your eyes are already providing skewed vision, so it appears consistent.

Can oppression be measured and compared? — coolazice

It's measured in PSI. Pounds per square inch. The higher the PSI number, the greater the oppression.

As I said, it isn't in the least surprising that anti-Christian activists like yourself cite other anti-Christian activists like Ehrman as their "eminent authority". You aren't fooling anyone. — Apollodorus

Except you. You are being fooled by Fooloso4, because you even mistake what Fooloso4's most eminent authority is the Ehrman. No Ehrman is not. It is the bible itself. You were fooled by your own idiocy.

you are understating things. The gospel has real difficulties harmonizing its stories. From the smallest details to the most monumental ideas. If you haven't read the Gospel IN ITS ENTIRETY then it's easy to say it does not contain self-contradictory elements. Nothing is hard or complicated or impossible, if you don't know it in its detail.

I don't need to "defend" the rationality of the Trinity because there is nothing irrational about it except in your imagination. — Apollodorus

...and in every thinking smart intelligent man's and woman's imagination.

It is true that you do not need to defend the rationality of the trinity or Trinity. You do not need to defend the rationality of the Trinity because you are personally and hopelessly irrational when it comes to discussing church matters, matters of faith, or any matter whatsoever. If I want to hear a rational defense for the Trinity, I listen to someone else but you, hoping that opposed to you, they don't just vomit garbage out of their mouths.

Religion is for those who, for whatever reason, are not inclined towards self-actualization and religion could be rather superfluous for the self-actualized. — praxis

I first encountered the expression "self-actualization" when learning about Maslow's pyramid of needs. But at that time I thought it was a neologism with no meaning, it's just that Maslow needed to put the dot on the i, and say something that happened when someone got all his needs met. Fueling my suspicion, to my knowledge then (and actually now, too) M never explained in any detail what he meant by self-actualization. So M coined this phrase, I suspected, in order to finish the the thought process like every goal-oriented person does, and he carefully chose an expression that sounds meaningful while completely devoid of the same.

In the intervening 40 years I focussed every waking moment of my life to find an actual, should I say, actualized meaning to "self-actualization" but so far I failed.

I would not be so specific. I just finished firing off a letter (personal email) to a friend, who says she keeps herself grounded or level-headed by meditation. I replied that in my opinion Buddhism is just as faulty as a philosophy as Christianity is, but for some reason they work for people. Then I said I am an atheist and that works for me -- in conclusion, human beings are such, that everything works for them to maintain their mental-emotional balance. Stoicism is just one more thing on the pile that works, despite its best efforts.

We take much greater risks every time we walk out the door. — James Riley

... and we take an even greater risk when we don't walk out the door. (But take the window-route, for instance, or we tunnel.)

Basically we have to distinguish between "outdoor risks" and "indoor risks".

My body my choice.

Suicides have the choice, too, over their own lives.

Alcoholics have the choice too.

The choice becomes malignant if it leads to affecting the lives of others via one's choosing one's destiny.

A president can't and shouldn't and ought not to test whether the red button works by pressing it.

People who believe that the vax makes them sick, or it does not work, are allowed to believe that, as it is impossible to argue with reasons against the views of the stupid.

But those who believe that the vaccines work, and they choose to refuse to be vaxxed, due to a principle of holding individual freedom as the most sacrosanct of values, are not society people; they are individualists, and they should be FORCED to be cut off from all the amenities of living in a society, if they believe that their rights trump the needs of society.

The only side affects seem to be Bill Gates telling me to buy more MicroSoft Products. I haven't been able to figure that one out yet, but I'm dystopian-loving sheep so we're all good. — James Riley

It's easy. It's about control, much like how the US and Britain gave up on owning the oil in the world, they now go for control.

You know how until ten years ago or until five years ago, you, the user, had control whether to have Windows updates or not. Not that has been taken away from you. If your computer is connected to the Internet, then you have no choice: Microsoft can and does update your system automatically, and you have no control over that.

So now the whole world's computing power (except for cell phones and Apple computers) is at the mercy of Bill Gates. If he says "do it", all the computers in the world can go from functioning machines to being useless pieces of metal junk.

How this escapes the minds of the most powerful people, the American public, can only be explained by knowing that they are either stupid, or else they are not stupid, but instead have blind faith in their government. After all, presidents don't lie, they are the mostes greatest all-Americanest boys.

We can compute it, and we do — god must be atheist

we compute duration or succession, — Mww

Why is it only me who sees you agree with what I say, yet you say we don't agree?

Your language makes explicit we must perceive all we name, which is obviously not the case. — Mww

Actually, no, you must follow conventional protocol.


(1) I have a name for what I perceive.
(2) I have a name for what I conceptualize.
Combining (1) and (2),
I don't have a name for what I don't (perceive or conceptualize). < this is always true only if I have no perception and no conceptualization. If you doubt, build a truth table.
I don't have a name for what I don't perceive and I don't conceptualize.
Therefore I used "and" properly.

I must admit I don’t know how we perceive time — Mww

Again you and I agree.

Why this series of refuting my arguments with arguments that state the same things as I have? Except of course for the negation of the combined condition.

We hate some smart people and love some smart people. Einstein is a darling, and so is Socrates. Both for their brains. But Slim Hawking is hated, and so is Wally Allen.

Successful people? They tend to be hated more than loved, and eventually they will be hated. Or not hated, but sneered, jeered, and thought skeptical of. This is due to the tabloids: every golden boy and nice guy is a wife beater, a cheater or a greedy bastard; every nice girl, and every golden girl is a skank, a gold-digger or a bitch. Then they die, and the praises come in the truckloads.

Humans are predictable, but no human has made a proper prediction on humans. Human psychology tries to do that, with less than with more success. People at best place their bets. This is most visible in politics, and less visible, but more prevalent, in marketing.

The biggest lottery based on human nature is the stock market. The tycoons make their money by manipulating it, not by predicting it. And some regularities are noted and known, about the irregularities.

Some people like smart people, and some people hate smart people. And there are an innumerable other qualities for which people are liked and disliked. Smarts is only one of them, and the smart that are hated are mostly collateral damage: smart people who are hated are more often not hated for some independent reason. Like they are fat, or smell bad, of have yellowed teeth.

I reject that we perceive time in the first place — Mww

We don't need to perceive it directly. We can compute it, and we do. You don't perceive three-D images, either, but you put the two 2-D images your eyes receive and then compute it into three dimensions.

Sure we perceive time, one way or anther. If we did not, why would we have a word and a concept attached to it? Human language is the extension of models of reality, and for what we don't perceive, and for what we can't conceptualize, we don't have a name.

Aside from that, the very title of the thread is "How do we perceive time?"

Is ideating the same as creating images in the mind? I may be pure, but I sure don't know what ideating means. I thought ideating means conceptual imagining... not pictures or images, but "how nice would it be to have peace in the middle east" or "I am the world's second best lover"; but imagining Pamela Lee-Anderson in indescribable activities is not ideation.

Am I wrong? I am not sure.

I bemoan the lack of sexual imagery on that list, 180. That's where it REALLY counts, but this is PG13, I think, or else you are pure like a freshly fallen rose petal in the autumn breezes.

Can I point out there might be something more universal here with mental capabilities than all the things we give names to — Mark Nyquist

Yes, definitely. We can name all 214 unnamed concepts humanity is currently struggling with, and the 34419 ones we are going to challenge ourselves with, before the extinction of the human race.

I don't think you guys are still talking about how we perceive time.

Then again, why should we? We either find our trains of thought run into a conceptual cul-de-sac or else run along into infinity in an infinite regress.

So the upshot is that nobody knows how we perceive time, and we instead let our talk migrate over to discussing the hunting and nesting practices of the North American Chiphawk missiles.

Unless we can find some physics stuff that equivocally ties time to some not purely theoretical, but real phenomenon, we are at liberty to say also that time does not exist, it is an illusion, and changes in the world feed this illusionary process we experience as time.

The internal metronome must depend on some changes, too, and this may lead to an infinite regress, which at this point can only be explained by supernatural or quantum physics theories, neither of which hold water in the macro-physical world of causative processes, so time remains elusive for the time being.

Humans: Homo temporus, the being of time. (Time being.)

Nuff! Stop the puns.

Thing is, though, we do not perceive time, but only perceive one occurrence in relation to another, and that relation is what we call “time”. — Mww

In a stimulus-free situation we still experience time. This may be explained by internal changes in the brain, such as a sort of time-keeping piece pulsating. After all, we only have a sense of rhythm, each person, because we have an internal metronome.

It, the Metronome, that is, the internal metronome, probably occupies a delineatable area or volume in the brain, if anyone ever wants to try to mine for it.

probably multiple ways of modeling it spatially. — Enrique

Send one of those models over to me, I need some jerking around here.

-2d-13.3y+19.3t=0 — Enrique

Try substituting f(m)=2^d!-Piy*183*(m!)^2.5 where m= 3.3540606060...

This will make d and y equal to -2 and plus 44, respectively,

Which reduces your original equation to stupidity,

Which makes Enrique fall out both sides,

And you get 3=1, which is the basis of the Christian numbering system.

The reactions of some atheists to a discussion is a proof itself of fear. — Zenny

That's a statement of no consequence. You did not support it. You just blurted out an opinion which you wish would be true. I think chances are you are unaware of what constitutes a reasoned, supported opinion and how to write one.

Let's say the opinion you wrote is true. At least you should believe so. Now gather all the quotes that show, or evidence to a reasoned person, that our reaction to a discussion (any discussion) is a proof of fear.

If you can do that, then do it. That way you will garner some respect around here. Right now, without having done that, you are nothing but an angry, intimidated nincompoop in the eyes of those who belong here.

Zenny, you came here a bit better prepared than 3017Amen or Apollodufus. You have at least an arsenal of expressions, or maybe not an arsenal but a few shots, which are demeaning and have a psychological effect on your debating opponents. You have used a few: declaring laughter which was unwarranted and probably false, against Fooloso4 and calling my stance defensive. These are cheap tricks, my dear friend, and any person with any amount of maturity will see though your tactic. You call others angry and fearful, but you lack the punch because you can't support with any degree of credibility that we are fearful, defensive, or angry.

Your problem is that you are not used to debate with thinkers. You are most likely used to debate with people who are impressionable to emotive put-downs.

We are not like that. We are thinkers here. You start behaving like a thinker, or else you will be targeted for your fallacious thinking, your ill logic, your wrong reasons, and for your appeal (or attempts to appeal) to emotions.

You think life is a dictionary definition?! — Zenny

Aha. Strawman. You are stupid.

Yes,I've experienced eternity,continously as well. — Zenny

You're delusional as well. Or perhaps you have a very good supplier.

Since when was the truth a particular conception only? — Zenny

You are denying that truth is unique. You are implying therefore that it's possible that two contradictory statements can both be true. Therefore you are either stupid, or delusional, or both, but you sure don't accept the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction.

Your defensiveness shows your fear and anxiety of eternity. Or for you,let's say life after death. — Zenny

My fear and anxiety of eternity is not at all a source of defensiveness. They are real, and they are caused by clearly seeing what eternal life means and all its accoutrements. And if you see any defensiveness in my text, it's again your delusionary nature, my friend.

--------------------------

Unless you behave and think like a philosopher, you have no place here. I'm sure there is a place for you somewhere, Zenny, but it's not here, that's for sure.

Show me the dictionary definition. "Continuous unending time" has no end. To experience it, you need to live the entire span of it, which is infinity. Do you now, or have you ever, experienced infinity in time? Yes or no.

You are new here. Are you another stupid one, like 3017Amen? If you are, you can't hide it for too long. The truth will out.

Indeed. I've challenged many atheists on this site to start threads and they were all afraid to do so. I'm not sure why these discussions are so emotionally charged for them. — 3017amen

You are so inept, 3017amen, that you completely misread human reactions. We do not start new threads, true. But it's not due to fear. It is due to our foreknowledge of our complete inability to get through to you, because you surround your mind with a senseless, reasonless, stupid religiosity.

And let's say we got through to your mind. Scary thought, but we are not afraid; we just know now, before even we start, that we would find nothing but endless stupidity, infinite ignorance, and not an iota of any ability to listen to, or to express reason.

In a way I admire you: you are so stupid, that nothing in the world is threatening to you, you lack the imagination needed for paranoia, you lack the insight to know you are wrong, and you lack the reasoning ability to see when you are proven wrong.

It is Christ who said, "Happy are the stupid, for they shalt inherit the Earth." Heck, you do a hundred times better than that; you are so stupid NOW, way before the alleged judgment day, that the world is your oyster, for no other reason but for your stupidity.

What if eternity is a an intuition,a feeling,an experience? — Zenny

No time involved??? Then what is eternity if there is not time involved? The very meaning of eternity involves infinite time. Why would it be an intuition, a feeling, an experience? From our point of view eternity is a concept, nobody around here has experienced it.

Really.

Why do theists hope there is a god?

It can work out only for the worse.

If and only if there is eternal life after death, then it's eternal boredom that will lead to eternal suffering even in heaven. Man has been created to enjoy change and not monotony; living lifelong a million times sure will take out all the joy there is in life. Living life infinite times, is going to be worse than hell if you get to heaven, and it's going to be worse than heaven, if you get to hell.

I really, but really don't understand why theists (at least the Christian and the Muslim ones) pray to go to heaven, which is only possible if god really exists and exists in ways their religion describes him.

Muslims: they get 49 virgins at death, if they do a good job of living in life. 49 virgins can be turned to 49 non-virgins in a very short time. And 50 years later you will have 49 women who are past their prime. At 200 years of celebrating life in heaven, the devout Muslim will have 49 prunes, and at a 1999999 years mark in heaven, the poor sap wished he had never been born in the first place.

No, I hope there is no god. That is my only wish and hope, everything else is happenstence and acceptable to some degree. And I am amazed, truly amazed, at the stupidity of those who hope god(s) exist(s).

Buddha obviously had some sort of eating disorder I bet that’s what killed him. — DingoJones

He was a reformed anorexic. Most likely had hormone replacement therapy, too, except the pharmacist mixed up the recipe and gave him heavy doses of estrogen. He had the best set of tits his side of the Euphrates river.

We can ask to what extent the artistic pursuit be followed above all else? How far should one go? — Jack Cummins

Watch the movie "Bullets Over Broadway". It asserts that a true artist is willing to die for his or her art.

No, because there is no evidence that philosophy kills. — DingoJones

I dunno... Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Spinoza, Marx, Buddha... all dead. That is evidence you can count on.

I have seen people who really do get drawn into a view where it can become so strong. — Jack Cummins

This may apply to me what with my theory of what constitutes morality. I still have to hear someone who agrees with the thoughts expressed therein. The strongest viable criticism was so far a discredulity of the claim that people risk quite a bit, even their lives, to save their progeny from certain death. It is an empirically decided question, and while I insist that most people would do this, there are also the examples of people drowning their children to get the love of a man. (Was a case about 20-30 years ago, a woman drove her kids in her car into a lake and told police that some visible minority people stole her car. She was eventually charged and convicted, given 20 times the life sentence. She was / perhaps still is / gorgeous.) But then again, we see cats and dogs and chimpanzees save their offspring at great personal risk from certain death.

Maybe that bit with the woman drowning her children can be explained by a yet different mutation or suppression of the morality gene. I dunno.

onanistic mindfuck. — 180 Proof

Oximoron. It's either copulation or handplay.

The only people who can do both at the same time ar those who reach in though... never mind.

:starstruck:

The problem is that zombies have needs, they are therefore capable of emotions. Without emotions you can't feel you need something. Yet the zombies definitely are after the flesh of living humans.

In other words, they have passion, in the sense Hume used the word. But do the Zombies have intellect? If they use their senses without a sensation of pleasure to smell or seek out other ways the humans with living flesh, then they are not like humans. If the eating of live flesh gives them pleasure, then they feel satisfaction, which is a mechanism of passions, according to Hume. This may be their true motivating force to eat humans. The moment they have a motivating force, and an apparatus to achieve the satisfaction, and a reliable COMMAND over their apparatus, they become conscious.