Atheism speak your mind about religion

Raccoon Adorability, Nazi Propaganda & False Gods


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DPP6w0N5GQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Jacque is either a stupid, ignorant, and/or foolish man who doesn't really think about what he's talking about, or a genius scammer...my votes on the later. My belief on this is based on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7CKPCl9W5I this is his "perfect" world. There are just so many problems with all that he's saying and all of his ideas and it seems as if he's just trying to draw people in for their money.

Could that quote apply to me and you at times?

I do not agree with every thing he says neither do I agree with every thing you say but I do find value in you.

What I like most about him is, "that he seems to try and get morals correct but I do see him fail in my opinion!

I still just can not get over him and The Venus Project. This actually only contributes to more contradictions to his whole "ideal world" thing. I don't think that the quote that you've outlined applies to us. I branch out a lot into a few small topics that I feel I'm well aquainted with while you seem to branch out a little into a lot of big topics. Basically I participate a lot in a few categories while you participate a little into a lot of categories. You approach these topics more like a dry desert thirsting for rain while I'm just lounging in my own little pool, but he's trying to swim around the entire Atlantic Ocean...I hope you understand my analogy.

I think you're spot on with your second sentence. I don't think that anyone should completely agree nor disagree with anything, I think people should just understand and question what they don't understand if they would like. There is, of course, value in just about everything. I just think there are people with a lot more value than him...other than that of a different point of view.

The main thing that I don't like about him is that he denies that there is any kind of "nature" to us. Of course there's no natural bigotry or prejudice but people will always naturally be selfish, have a need to survive, and will always want more...what they want more of depends on how they grow up. Some want power, some want money, some want knowledge, and so on.

Wow you are very bright and I do realize this and how do I know this? Because of people who think like you and participate a lot in a few categories! The fewer the better because you become specialist in your field!

Very observant of you, I do participate a little into a lot of categories and I approach these topics like a dry desert thirsting for rain.

The rain that I thirst for is the rain that you and other specialist rain down upon me! Now don't get to high on reality because many of you specialist disagree at times with each other so you as well as me get it wrong at times!

I take the info that I get and try to understand reality with it and I am sure that I fail at times!
I am what many may call, "A want to be philosopher!




I wonder how many people had this same thought about leonardo da vinci.

Thank you for the compliment but I really don't think I'm really a "specialist", I just stick to what I know, that way I run less of a risk of looking like a complete tool. It's kind of good to have that feeling once in a while though, it's humbling and helps you learn really fast. That's actually what really started me on this path. I thought I was a know-it-all but was pretty much demolished and way out of my league. I learned really fast though and that was actually just a few short months ago! I've always found myself to be an especially wise person just lacking the knowledge and intelligence to formulate and convey all of it. I'm learning all the time and I love every nanosecond of it and it's just alphanumeric.

It was really easy to peg you because you actually stated that you're like that. Other than that you can come to that conclusion because you never really contribute your idea's on a topic, you just mainly direct them and see how people respond (such as all the various video responses).

I don't really think that any can really have a grasp on reality. It's like a super oiled up water snake toy that just slips around everywhere no matter how you try to hold on. I also don't think that anyone is really a "wannabe philosopher" since philosophy is just the love and pursuit of wisdom and that's all you need. You seem to have an abundance of that so you're really more like Stargazer Lily bud just waiting to explode...don't judge me, I like flowers...

As far as Leonardo, I don't believe that he ever planned or even thought about creating a new better world in the way that Jacque has. Every will always have some idea on how the world will be better but to try and reinvent the entire world and every aspect of it is something in which I think is beyond and one man or even a small group. There are people who go there entire lives trying to completely study a single aspect of society as a whole yet he think he has the whole thing pegged? I think not, if someone like me can see all the flaws in everything that he's talking about with that, then it's just sad that someone just hasn't crippled him (logically) by now.

You may want to check out JPB because she seems to be a reflection of you and talk about smart she seems to have a head on her shoulders!

Stargazer lilies
Primary Significance: The floral celebrity, stargazer lilies are young, bold, beautiful, and dramatic. The meaning of these fragrant flowers can be one of wealth and prosperity, but their white variety can dress down to genuinely express purity and sympathy.

Sorry please disregard my last post!

My bad I have a bad memory! I was thinking of someone who has similar initials I seen the flower in her profile and I thought that she was someone else I had in mind. But then again like always, remember that I can be wrong!

The power of search engines and copy and paste. Who did you mean to refer to though. I ended up looking her up before you placed the second post and I was a little confused.

I really should have not made that comment and if I told you who I was thinking of it would only confuse you more! Some times my mind will play tricks on me and have me thinking of some crazy ideas.

Puzzle!
You have three doors, behind one of the doors is a new car, if you pick the correct door the car is yours.

Maybe you know this but just encase not, I will share it with you and who ever else that might read this!


Back to the doors.

Lets say you pick door #1 and I make things more interesting by opening door #2 and show you that there is nothing behind door#2, now I will also give you the choice of switching from door #1 to door #3 if you would like!

My question to you is, "Would you switch and if so why?

I have heard that one before and depending on the source in which you heard it from, you're most likely referring to the statistical aspect. Mathematically you have a statistically higher chance to be right if your switch. That's just the mathematical side though. The other side is the logical side, the example is normally used with the "gameshow" aspect as in your on a game show and you have to try and "find the prize". These people aren't dumb and want you to fail so you also have to try and think about how they might choose it sort of like rock paper scissors.

That is strange because I heard that the logical side would be the mathematical side!

Everyone that I have ever asked this question to failed, at least those who have never been exposed to it!

What I find amazing is how our brains are easily able to pick up on this when we are exposed to many doors but when we are only exposed to a few we fail at seeing this!

I like to view social ethics using this same method of observation but in reverse if this makes any sense. I think that we come to different logical conclusions when we think of society issues when we observe them in small numbers { fewer people!}

The logical side (or at least what I'm referring to), is the psychology side of it. How do you know that they aren't just asking you the question to try and change your answer so that you don't get the prize it's statistically the better choice?

The reason people "fail" is because they think it would then be a 50/50 statistically when it's much more complex than that. If they say the same one it may be because they might be thinking about it on a more psychological level rather than a mathematical level though so the "correct" answer really depends on the thought process.

I'm afraid I don't really understand where you're going with you comment on "being exposed to many doors". I can speculate based on your last sentence, but I don't really understand the relation very much. The reason that you would come to different logical conclusions about society issues when observed in small numbers is because there would be less diversity and interpretations, but of course would also be deeper and more meaning as well as more managable. If you are discussing society issue with a group of 3 other people, you are able to more easily go into further depth on there understandings of the problems. The down side to that, is that you would only go into their understandings which may lead to some bias. This is why I think that as far as with ethics and morality, that no one should be excluded because it would provide a more accurate scope as to what's actually ethical rather than what people what you to believe is ethical.

(This is a topic flashback that's just extra, I felt it made my main post too long).

That why i don't agree with that video you posted about Sam Harris and him think that only certain people who have "moral expertise". There's really no moral expertise there's really just expertise in how you present those idea's and the logic behind them. There are people in the world that are so persuasive that they could justify just about anything as being "moral". Once that happens it no longer becomes about morals really but about justifications and the more persuasive person wins regardless of whether they or their ideas are morally right or wrong. History has proven that murder, slavery, rape, torture, and so on, has been morally justified.

Instead of only three doors make a thousand doors and see how easy it is for you to see this logic!

It is getting late but you seem to be going into, "Why the understanding of frame of reference is important but I can be wrong!

That is an aspect to my post and a very valid point, but I was more focused on the the "morality" of science however. I don't think that science is really "moral" except in a very minimal sense and everything else is really just a semantics game. I suppose that would be a better place to start a discussion from if you would like to focus on this point since there's really no reason to go back on to morality in science.

I started with 3 doors now do the problem from the beginning but this time use 1000 doors!

Lets say that you pick door number 666 and then I open every door that has nothing behind it leaving 2 doors remaining the door you picked and one other door. If I asked you if you would like to switch would it seem easier to see that it would be wiser to switch?
That is what I meant by "being exposed to many doors." That logic repeats it self all the way down to 3 doors.

I like to use the reverse of this to view moral consistency and it also seems useful with societal issues. To be honest I am not sure if it is of a legitimate use the way I use it, that is why I share it with others for a peer review!

...adaptation has proven useful since ever...generally speaking being open minded to consider change in choice is better then not being...

Regardless of how many doors there are, the statistical side would always be to change your answer. The psychological would also remain the same regardless of how many doors for the question remains the same. Should I switch or shouldn't I, and the same process would be taken into account.

As far as attempting to translate this to view moral consistency and societal issues wouldn't exactly work in my opinion. These issues are volatile because people are never really static while this form of thinking (at least the logical side which you have pointed out) is.

The psychological would also remain the same regardless of how many doors for the question remains the same. Should I switch or shouldn't I, and the same process would be taken into account.


Would it not be easier to see or is it still as difficult?




Have you actually tried it?

Did you even understand what I was proposing? I probably would not have understood this with the little info that I used to explain it!