Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

igm I think you know that I like you and would not intentionally say something mean to you and if I did I sure hope that you would accept my apology for being ignorant in a moment.

Why do you believe in rebirth? Maybe I already asked this question but my memory is so poor or I just did not get your explanation.

Do you have solid science that supports this idea?

I went back and reread the post that it came from - I can't see it - but thank you for the clarification.

Edit : ah hah, I found it...I didn't pick it up the first two times, because the paragraphs weren't in chronological order (otherwise the post has me completely confuse )

Hmmm...if this is your experience, then this is right for you.

I'm sure that my parents, the church I went to, and the friends I had - all played a big part in early development. Later my jobs also played a part, and when I was about 32 I became frustrated with my perceived inability to acquire skills to the degree I wished. I read a few books, which resulted in no better acquisition of skills...knowledge doesn't equal skill, and besides, I disagreed with any number of things I read...

...so that lead to the question 'how do I develop the ability to develop skills in the way that I want to grow'. As no one I knew seemed to truly know the answer to this question, it was up to me to find out.

Since that point, I read something in the vicinity of 600 books, on varying topics (subconscious, habits, negotiations, conflict, handwriting analysis, emotions, awareness, self-deception, NLP, hypnosis, listening, questions, sales, etc as well as other unrelated subjects)...all of it I was interested in, and most of it I read with the red font goal in mind. So with that goal in mind, sometimes I would just take one or two things away from an entire book. Sometimes I would set the information in a book aside until I came across enough other information for a pattern to emerge, and then I would integrate it.

One subject that I didn't have that red goal in mind - it just interested me was 'handwriting analysis' (which is a field of psychology, better known in Europe than the US or Australia). Oddly...this subject tied many other subjects together, and gave me an insight to a concept I haven't found anywhere else (explanation takes time, and isn't the subject of this topic, so I'll leave that one alone)...suffice it to say I found insight in an unusual subject.

...that's a long winded way of saying that, I can see the value in a sounding board (or many sounding boards), but many things present themselves as sounding boards anyway - the greatest being the experience of life itself. So where you don't find a specific sounding board, still go about developing.

Maybe this would help I posted it earlier...

http://able2know.org/topic/220026-15#post-5418203

Vikorr, thanks for your detailed explanation... very interesting... common sense really...

Not as comprehensive as Buddhism in my opinion but certainly a wise alternative.

This is obvious. Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
If you have 'your own' language you will have nowehere to practice it.
Maybe you are confusing here the world view with one own's philosophy. It is the understanding of the world (the world view) that is 'one's own', not the philosophy. Philosophy is a class of understandings (of the world): agnosticism, atheism, theism etc. The class presupposes collective world view. If you have some world view that nobody shares with you it will be rather strange (how the 'objective' things that you can observe could not be seen by anybody else).
Most of the things you are talking about here are not philosophy, but rather life experience.

- What does life experience teach you?
- what does comparing other peoples (or your own) knowledge to life experience teach you?
- how do you solve problems?
- if you learn knew 'guiding principles' that help you solve problems, are they 'guiding principles' or 'personal philosophies' ?
- is philosophy only philosophy if one studiously studies, or if one learns the same from life experience?
- is philosophy in the end, not just valid reasoning? How then does that differ if the same reasoning is obtained either via study, or life experience?
- what is the point of philosophy?

Thank you igm.

Do you think that there could be a possibility that we are all delusional?

What is the question:
Is it possible for all of us to become delusional?
- 'possibility' is the state of being possible to happen, capability of being or becoming something
OR
Can the probability for all of us to be delusional be completely execluded?
- 'probability' is the extend to which an event is likely to occur ... and 'completely excluded' means that the probability event is impossible

Speak for yourself, RL.

You can find out whether you are hypnotisable or not by simple test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_mK_9T44Ls
You should pray in all the churches of all religions in the world for guys like Mr. Neo (and his home pet Setanta) not to take control over the things ... for then woe to us.

You're a jackass. I don't believe there is a god, and i have no interest in taking control of anything. Neo does believe that there is a good and is a practitioner of an established religion, and although i don't know, i suspect that he also is not interested in taking control of anything. If you want to babble continuously from a compulsive need to demonstrate just how little you know, and how clueless you are, help yourself. Leave my name out of it.

Argument 'ad hominem'

This is in contradiction with your previous claims that you are agnostic (don't know whether there is God or not, and truly believe that this issue is unknown and not knowable).

I really apology for that. The post is really by Neo, but the petion is by unknown author.
http://able2know.org/topic/50801-1

'ad hominem' 'red herring' 'ad hominem'

'argument from authority' 'argument from omniscience'

O.K. I propose to smoke the Peace Pipe.

As usual, you don't know what the hell your talking about. Telling you that you are a jackass is not part of any argument, it's merely and observation, and an accurate one. Whether or not you are too stupid to know, being agnostic and being an atheist is not a contradiction. I've told you more than once that you should look up weak or implicit atheist, but you're so goddamned pig-headed that you think you know it all, and you can't be bothered to educate yourself.

Telling someone that they know very little is not argumentum ad hominem. This is something else that you apparently think you know, when in fact you don't. Argumentum ad hominem only applies if one attacks a person rather than their argument. For as unpleasant as it may be to be told that you are ignorant, the evidence of this is available throughout this thread. I offered no red herring, and no argument from authority. Apparently, you think knowing the names of logical fallacies is sufficient, without bothering yourself to determine if they apply--you just throw them out there.

You can smoke whatever you please. Frankly, i suspect that you probably smoke too much of an illicit substance--at any event, that would explain the loony bullshit you post. Whatever the case, keep your nasty mouth off me, and perhaps i'll leave you in peace--although i make no promises.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Once again, although you may find it unpleasant to be reminded of just how little you know, i do argue against the egregious bullshit you post, and it is you who constantly attempts to make arguments from authority. I see no reason to assume that you can speak authoritatively on any subject.

Weak atheism (sometimes equated with "pragmatic atheism" or "negative atheism") describes the state of living as if no gods exist. It does not require an absolute statement of God's non-existence. The argument is based on the fact that as there is no evidence that gods, spatial teapots or fairies exist, we have no reason to believe in them. This argument could also be classified as extreme agnosticism, or "agnostic atheism" - as it is an acknowledgment of the lack of evidence but acting as if there were no gods.

Pragmatic atheists however are frequently reluctant to make outright statements like "Gods (or fairies) do not exist", because of the great difficulties involved in proving the absolute non-existence of anything - the idea that nothing can be proved is held in the philosophy of pyrrhonism. Consequently many pragmatic atheists would argue that the burden of proof does not lie with them to provide evidence against the extraordinary concept that gods exist. They would argue that it is up to the supporters of various religions to provide evidence for the existence of their own deities, and that no argument is necessary on the atheist's part.

Christopher Hitchens put it another way when he said: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Why don't you educate yourself for a change, you great, graying jackass.

'ad hominem' 'argument from authority' 'extreme form of ad hominem based on naming'
BTW you abviously are not at a level to assess my knowledge in math logic.

You really need a more complete understanding of how the various fallacies apply. A person can be a complete scoundrel and still present an argument either valid or invalid. Calling him a scoundrel while criticizing an invalid argument is not an example of ad hominem. At worst, it is an example of poor manners.

I can see no reason to show good manners to that ranting, christian piece of ****. By the way, the JW's came to the door today and got the little dogs all worked up when they should have been taking a nap. I'm holding that against you, Neo.

Funny you should label him christian. I had not noticed. Perhaps he does represent . . . . well, no, he doesn't represent. I told Toby about how your doggies got all upset. He said they could come over for a bone anytime. We get those rawhide thingys from Costco. Best not to bother him while he's eating. But once he gets it into two pieces, he doesn't mind sharing.

Why would you do that? You do know that all atheist are different and this is true with all others that are theists? You never know how theists may respond. I had once had a self proclaim witness bring a case of bear, oysters and some good weed at on time in my life. How could I ever forget that sermon?