Tippaporn

So you want to discuss but then you do not want to discuss. Typical of folks when their beliefs are challenged, shown to be flawed, and yet the individual doesn't want to give up his precious belief. Despite the fact that it is highly flawed, impractical, and even harmful. He'll keep it anyway. Good day to you as well.

@Gandtee Another example . . . or two. And I'll bring it back to the UK. We've all heard of the stories. from the Spanish Inquisition to the former Soviet Union, where censorship was taken to the degree that people were forced to recant their beliefs or their political views under duress of potential death. That, my friend, is censorship to the extreme. Are you so confident that once censorship takes hold in much more benign ways, which are as yet somewhat palatable, that it will not reach it's ultimate destination of totalitarian censorship? Under Biden the U.S. recently attempted to create a new "Ministry Of Truth." Of course they didn't call it that. I forgot what misnomer they used to dress it up as something it was not. In any case, it was to be set up for the purpose of battling mis/disinformation. But after some quick and easy investigation the woman who was to head this new federal department was found to have been the queen of mis/disinformation herself. The idea was quickly scrapped without media fanfare. Imagine if censorship was at the point where it was able to squelch this truth and this federal department actually had come into existence. Under the leadership of an obviously corrupt individual lord only knows how much damage to the 1st Amendment she may have accomplished. Understand that it is not the people who believe in freedom who clamour for censorship. It is always those with something to hide. Yet it will always, always, always be sold as protecting you and keeping you safe. Call it false advertising. The UK is attempting to create what was defeated in the U.S. The UK’s Controversial Online Safety Act Is Now Law - 20 October 2023 Inch by inch by inch the tortoise eventually crosses the finish line. And you, the frog in the cool water boiled to death.

Yes, i know that you didn't suggest it. I brought it up specifically as it was necessary in explanation of what censorship ultimately intends to do. If censorship prohibits you from expressing your thoughts verbally, on paper, or in action then it effectively and practically censors your thoughts. Your thoughts are thus denied any form of outlet. You are neutered. I ask you, is that what you want?

Well, kudos to you for understanding that your thoughts are above censorship. But, you are still not clear about censorship of the expression of your thoughts. You've obviously missed the distinction raised in my point in regards to name calling since you haven't at all addressed it. So perhaps a hypothetical example might get you to understand since you still have doubts about the inherent harms which censorship causes. Let's do up a hypothetical situation using politics. Politician A calls politician B a crooked douchebag. We'll assume A is correct due to a plethora of evidence pointing in that direction. Folks supporting A see B the same as they, too, are aware of the existing evidence and appreciate the candor of A. A is telling it like it is. He's speaking truth, though bluntly. B obviously takes feigned offence as he knows full well that A is speaking the truth. Supporters of B, oblivious to the existing evidence - perhaps out of denial, are outraged and demand that A is censored. And so A is censored, as are his supporters. Think Twitter. Now B is running for re-election. B is corrupt but the corruption has not yet been exposed nor verified. B runs as a 'good' guy. A and his supporters are unable to alert the voters that B is indeed corrupt, because they cannot as yet prove it in a court of law, and B supporters are about to vote for a crook. Supporters of B have thus far been fooled by B. B wins re-election. B supporters cheer. Soon after B's 5th re-election victory B gets indicted for corruption. B is convicted and sent to prison. The damage of B's corruption to the people is exposed. B supporters now rue their support of B all these years. "Not to be scattered around like chaff, that seems to be the case with many today." This shows that you have totally missed the distinction I made clear in my last post between an expression of thought which expresses truth and the expression of thought which expresses untruth. So far you seem either not to see the difference or the difference is irrelevant to you. Let me ask you another question. If someone were to falsely accuse you, causing you great harm in reputation, professionally, and monetarily then you should refrain from exposing the accuser by calling him out for what he is? A lying scoundrel? Keep well in mind, too, that calls for censorship against an individual or entity are oftentimes made specifically by those who fear that open dialogue will expose the truth of their criminality and bring them to the justice which they deserve. Censoring people then works to keep people's mouth shut about the truth of criminality. Is that what you want? Burn that point into your mind. "There is of course respect and politeness to others that we should have learnt from childhood." Would you show a criminal respect and politeness? In other words, are you saying that everyone, regardless of how worthy or unworthy they are of respect and politeness, should nonetheless deserve yours? If yes my response will be, "HUH?"

One more important point on the subject for you to consider. What is speech anyway? It should be obvious to anyone that speech is the expression of an individual's thought. In our reality thoughts are private. And private for a good reason. No one really knows what another is thinking. Until, that is, the very moment that private thought is given expression. Expression comes in three basic forms . . . verbal, on paper, or through action. It is impossible to control or regulate another's private thoughts. Censorship can at best only target the expression of one's thoughts. However, no one has the ability to censor the thoughts themselves. Nor should anyone be given the power to censor the thoughts of another. Especially given that people tend to abuse the power that they have. And so it is one of the reasons why thoughts are private in our reality. So I ask you, would you be in favour of gifting the power to another individual to be able to censor your very thoughts? The sole power to determine what thoughts you should or should not entertain? If your answer is 'yes' then all I can say then is that you have much to learn.

Do you mean Free Speech such as ex Presidents and politicians name calling like adolescent children? If so, I agree. Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. Remember that old adage oft spoken by the targets of bully's taunts in schoolyards? Do you honestly think that censorship is capable of ceasing that? But the distinction must be made between name calling which is truthful and name calling which is untruthful If someone calls you a racist when you are clearly not then that would be name calling that is untruthful. You are not a racist. But if someone blatantly lies to you and you call them a liar then the name calling is truthful. They are indeed a liar. Do you see the difference? In any case, whether name calling is truthful or not good luck trying to prohibit it via censorship. Since the truth or untruth of name calling is not always readily apparent, or perhaps readily apparent but the untruth cast in doubt by the name callers constant insistence that it is the truth - or the target of the name callers truth denied by the target insisting it's not true, then censorship fails badly. It will cause more harm than good. It might take those in favour of censorship, on the grounds you laid out, years to figure out that there's more harm than good but that's for you to figure out for yourself through trial and error. Censorship doesn't work. Period. America's founders understood that so clearly, and understood it to be so fundamental a right in order to preserve freedom, that they made unrestricted free speech the very first amendment. After careful consideration they came to know and understand what you as yet don't know and understand. Before you take offence at my accusation I will point you to the proof in the pudding. "Do you mean Free Speech such as ex Presidents and politicians name calling like adolescent children? If so, I agree." You favour censorship. So I accuse you in truth.

Listen, GammaGlobulin, I like you as a poster. I've always enjoyed your posts. In fact I've let you know outright on several occasions via direct compliments. So I really don't want to exchange barbs with you. That would simply be a pissing contest and for what? Because we happen to disagree on a particular subject matter? And should we then dislike each other over a single issue when we derive enjoyment on more than not? As I said, I'm not so foolish that I would throw the baby out with the bathwater. No two people will ever be in agreement on every issue amongst the vast number of issues we deal with in life so the fact that differences will arise is only the natural course of human affairs. We both have different views on this subject matter. So what? You've your own personal decision to make as to where we go from here. I've made mine a long time ago. Before this thread existed. I'll continue to enjoy your posts and maintain the respect which you deserve. Better to have a friend in the world than an enemy. What say you?

Very innovative. The first 4 albums were excellent. No doubt they were creative and talented. I wouldn't even try to deny them that. But their soft rock didn't appeal to me and the friends I hung around with at the time. Perhaps we were a bit snobby when it came to music but there were a number of bands in the 70's which we termed commercial music. One of the purposes of music is that it connects with people on a deeper level. No woo when I say that. As long as it does that then it's great. My musical tastes evolved as I got older and very much broadened in scope. I get immense enjoyment now from music I wouldn't get caught dead playing back then. But still not broad enough to encompass everything. Soft rock kind of puts me to sleep and I still hate disco very much. I enjoy 10CC's Dreadlock Holiday very much. But I love reggae. I'll take a hard pass on The Second Sitting For The Last Supper, though I like the lyrics.

Sounds like you've found eternal life on this planet, which is cool. I'll tell ya, though, if it were offered to me I'd take a pass. Eternal life as me on this single orb would be true death, which doesn't exist. As I mentioned in one of my posts to you, the knowledge discussed on the God thread is not mere dry philosophical musings. It has practical value. I'll be well situated when I decide to leave. Yes, you read that correctly.

Again you most definitely get the point and yet again you fall short of admitting it. So you wish to dismiss the point on grounds of technicality that it's a math class? The point doesn't apply then, is what you're trying to say? Gary Larson's cartoons are signed but perhaps on this one it was cropped out. You have better observational skills than I on this cartoon.

Quite true. A life long education is no guarantor of possessing correct knowledge. For me to claim that there's a connection would be for me to argue using a fallacy of logic. But I don't need to recsort to deceptive practices. The truth is plenty good enuff. But you do get the point, though you fell short of admitting it. BTW, have you learned anything in your long life, GammaGobulin, or would you consider yourself on par with Leary? On this particular subject matter I'd say so.

10CC had a few soft rock hits but they were a commercial band to me.

Here's what happens to most as they attempt to go 'deep'.

My prediction is that this new God thread spin-off thread will meet it's maker very soon as well. Perhaps GammaGlobulin will want to perform the eulogy himself.

One last point, GammaGlobulin, before this thread dies. Most, including yourself, are probably of the mind that what's discussed in the God thread has little to zero practical value other than perhaps providing the 'believer' some psychological comfort. Au contraire. You have no inkling of the practical benefits afforded by 'going deeper'. When the grim reaper makes his round to your doorstep I would not want to be in your shoes bed.

Of course that's always the problem in general. No matter the subject matter. As soon as one tests another's beliefs they run away. Or if they reply they will not address any pointed questions you pose to them nor will they discuss any valid points raised if those questions and points would destroy their beliefs and show them to be unfounded. Whether it's God or politics or Covid or any other subject matter. Facts will be dismissed or invalidated and reasoning or logic will fail as well. Because the reason and logic is based on data that is not part of their data set and so cannot fit and make sense given their limited data set. You'll only be heard to be speaking Greek.

Maybe he's alone and single and has no one to shower him with attention. Hmm . . . Perhaps I should introduce him to my wife's sister?

You are joking.... Right? You believe in a "bedrock reality"....? ONE Particle can exist in two places at the same time....and.... You still insist that there is an observable bedrock reality??? Your views are far too classical to make any sense to me, at this late date. You're a hobbyist. Nothing at all wrong with it. Unless it's in your head that as a hobbyist you should be able to understand those who've studied a lifetime.

Not sure I get the connection.

It takes a great deal of time and effort to understand what lays beyond our limited world for it is indeed vast. We are all here in this world for our own purposes, whether we understand that or not. So of course the intentions each of us has is not the same. Hence your question in your OP asking why everyone doesn't get interested in subjects like science. The questions that some in this world are indeed deep and since intentions are different for all then naturally what interests the likes of me and, say Sunmaster, are not your cup of tea. Do you take cream and sugar? If you have no interest in going deeper, though, then what makes you expect that you would understand any of the discussions now taking place in the God thread? Wouldn't it be similar to a science hobbyist attending a conference attended by great scientists? You'd get lost in their discussions, wouldn't you?

Besides the God Thread? You see, GammaGlobulin, the entire premise of your OP was faulty. Fatally so. For you believe that the God thread is only about God and religion. Now whilst it is certainly true that the thread was initiated as a discussion of beliefs about God, perhaps in strictly religious terms, the thread has since evolved over the years. It is no longer dedicated to the OP. Rather, as @Sunmaster has explained earlier, it has morphed to include discussions of all types, including science. It's now a thread with regular members holding a wide array of different thoughts and ideas. So why did you start this thread? Perhaps your reply of affirmation to swissie gives us a rather revealing clue. Agree You are not religious, you don't believe in any God or even in the concept of a God, and you feel threatened by those who do. This thread was a means to push back. BTW, I will still continue to read and enjoy your other posts as much as I read and enjoy your posts on this thread. I am not so foolish as to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Why you didn't even give yourself the time to read my analogy before posting a reply. So typical of folks to be dismissive. Again, because they're afraid to learn and discover that their dear, precious and life-long held beliefs might be a bit faulty. Sad. Truly sad. Again, you've lost all my respect for shamelessly running away. Not that you care, I know. Your pride is so great that it prevents the hurt from being felt.

Ah, there are no limits to creativity and therefore the creative clever excuses people use to avoid having their beliefs tested.

@GammaGlobulin Here's an analogy for you which you may find useful. Imagine two people standing in front of an object of immense proportion, both standing with their noses almost touching this object. They are each asked to interpret what this object is. The one person, we'll refer to him as individual A, begins to provide his conclusions based on what data is apparent within his field of vision. Now this person makes use of only their intellect as his perceptive tool. The other person provides his conclusion and the two conclusions basically match. Yet this other individual, we'll call him individual B, makes use of not only his intellect as a perceptive tool but his intuition as well. Now whilst A is accepting the reality of this object at face value, given, of course, the amount of data he has to work with B's intuition is telling him that there's more to this object than what he is able to observe whilst his nose is pressed up against it. And so he takes a few steps back. Now more of this object is revealed to him. He continues to step back, further and further until the entirety of the object is viewable to him. A questions not that what he perceives is all that there is to perceive. B's intuition causes him to question and that questioning is precisely what leads B to step back. A then begins a conversation with B and asks whether his perception is the same. B responds that, no, from his new vantage point his perception is greater since he has much more data available to him than he had with his much narrower perception. Therefore his perception of what this object is does not match A's. And so a heated argument begins. A accuses B of being stupid for not perceiving what A perceives. B shouts back, as there is quite some distance between them now, that he does indeed perceives what A perceives. That is not the problem as A once had the limited perception and data set that A currently has. But from his new vantage point, and with the new data available which this vantage point affords, he is able to perceive as A but also to perceive differently. B communicates what he perceives back to A. A has taken his limited perception and limited data set at face value, and furthermore firmly believes this to be the only perception possible of this object, as he also believes that what he perceives is all there is to perceive. And so A yells back at B accusing him of being delusional for what he claims his perception to be. For if what B claims to exist, per his perception and greater data set, is true then A would, or should, be able to perceive it as well. And since A cannot perceive it then what B perceives cannot exist. B shouts back at A, "Well, then, step back a bit to where I am and you, too, will be able to perceive what I perceive." B then begins to provide to A the added data which was impossible to have from his initial vantage point. A then accuses B of being non-rational and making no sense. In return A provides B with his rationale and logic which supports the "truth" of what this object is. B then counters to A with the fact that A's rationale and logic only appear sound given A's limited data set. But with a greater data set then A's logical flaws would become apparent to him. A refuses to suspend his beliefs as to what this object is and so refuses to step back from it. In fact he indignantly shouts to A, "Well, what you're saying is crazy talk and no way am I going to go your way as I would then be crazy, too. And I'm not crazy!! You're crazy!!!" A then exists the thread with a "humph!!!" That about sums up this thread, BammaGlobulin. You, like A, believes that the only things which exist are those which you are able to perceive. That the only data which exists is the data currently available to you. And since you refuse to even consider that more than what you are currently able to perceive, and that more data exists than what data you currently possess, you have unwittingly but willingly enclosed yourself in a small, a very small, mental box believing that there is nothing outside of it. You're idea of what God is, or better put, the idea of God, is only that which you are able to perceive given your limited data set and what others perceive given their more expansive data set therefore is not r-e-a-l. You are intellectually muscle bound and therefore are unable to reach your intuitions. Yes, GammaGlobulin, I am nothing but an incoherent, babbling, irrational and illogical fool spewing delusional nonsense. My writing is certainly proof of that.

This is COMPLETE nonsense. I just hope that you will live long enough to RUE THE DAY...that you penned this nonsensical comment of yours. If it's nonsense then show me where and logically explain why and where my logic fails. You have a golden opportunity, GammGlobulin. Don't blow it. If you can't, or won't, then I've lost all respect for you. People who make accusations in general terms only but will not get into specifics don't deserve respect. They just blow a lot of wind to alleviate their frustrations.