The Mind and the brain.

[Age]

There is only One Mind, and It works by allowing all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep being able to learn and create new/er things.

The human brain, however, works completely differently. It works, exactly, like a computer does. That is; the human brain can only 'put out' what has been 'put into' it.

Which was obviously contrary to the popular belief, when this was being written. But, this is how these things here actually work.

[Atla]

There is only One Mind, and It works by allowing all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep being able to learn and create new/er things.

The human brain, however, works completely differently. It works, exactly, like a computer does. That is; the human brain can only 'put out' what has been 'put into' it.

Which was obviously contrary to the popular belief, when this was being written. But, this is how these things here actually work.

Prove it, until then it's just a fairytale you made up.

[Age]

There is only One Mind, and It works by allowing all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep being able to learn and create new/er things.

The human brain, however, works completely differently. It works, exactly, like a computer does. That is; the human brain can only 'put out' what has been 'put into' it.

Which was obviously contrary to the popular belief, when this was being written. But, this is how these things here actually work.

Prove it, until then it's just a fairytale you made up.

you prove what you claim, until then it is just a fairy tale you made up, right?

Also, what you say and claim, according to 'your logic' here, is just a fairy tale that you made up.

Furthermore, no proof has ever been given against what I have said here. So, any view or belief otherwise to what I said, wrote, and claimed here, according to "atla's" logic here, is it is just a fairy tale that was just made up.

By the way, it has already been proved. So, it was not just a fairy tale I made up. As you believe and claim it is "atla".

And, one could also say to you here, now, 'Prove it, until then it is just a fairy tale you made up.'

[Iwannaplato]

The human brain, however, works completely differently. It works, exactly, like a computer does. That is; the human brain can only 'put out' what has been 'put into' it.

Could you explain what 'things' get put in brains and when does this process start? What are the range of processes (if there is a range) that puts things into brains? (I think you are using a metaphorical meaning for 'put in' and 'put out', rather than a literal one, but please let me know in your explanation, also, if this is correct)

You contrast the One Mind and the human brain. It seems like you are asserting that only the One Mind allows all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep being able to learn and create new/er things. Does this mean you think brains cannot come up with new things? If so, how do you know this?

Could you explain how you see computers working and than using that description, show that the human brain works the same way? You started this above, but it's not clear to me what your sense of how computers work is?

How does the human brain, which is more complex than any computer and more versatile (has a wider range of functions), is neuroplastic to a degree and in ways so far not paralleled in computers, resulting in greater ability to integrate context in wide variety of ways and other things that computers cannot manage (yet at least), work exactly like a computer? How does something more complex and nuanced work exactly like something simpler, something which cannot do all the things that human brains can?

Oh, when I say Could you do something, I mean not simply are you capable, but please explain it now, if you can. That's common in English, but I mention this to remove any confusion.

[Atla]

There is only One Mind, and It works by allowing all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep being able to learn and create new/er things.

The human brain, however, works completely differently. It works, exactly, like a computer does. That is; the human brain can only 'put out' what has been 'put into' it.

Which was obviously contrary to the popular belief, when this was being written. But, this is how these things here actually work.

Prove it, until then it's just a fairytale you made up.

you prove what you claim, until then it is just a fairy tale you made up, right?

Also, what you say and claim, according to 'your logic' here, is just a fairy tale that you made up.

Furthermore, no proof has ever been given against what I have said here. So, any view or belief otherwise to what I said, wrote, and claimed here, according to "atla's" logic here, is it is just a fairy tale that was just made up.

By the way, it has already been proved. So, it was not just a fairy tale I made up. As you believe and claim it is "atla".

And, one could also say to you here, now, 'Prove it, until then it is just a fairy tale you made up.'

Age's 'proof' speaks for itself.

[Fairy]

“Nothing known”can be proved, because you are the “Nothing known”trying to prove itself.



Always be yourself, the real fairy tale character.

[phyllo]

There is only One Mind, and It works by allowing all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep being able to learn and create new/er things.

The human brain, however, works completely differently. It works, exactly, like a computer does. That is; the human brain can only 'put out' what has been 'put into' it.

Which was obviously contrary to the popular belief, when this was being written. But, this is how these things here actually work.

I don't even ask for proof.

But I do ask that you provide some reasoning or evidence to support your assertions.

That's not asking for too much, is it?

[Iwannaplato]

“Nothing known”can be proved, because you are the “Nothing known”trying to prove itself.

Well, that was some justification you gave in the second part of the sentence for your conclusion in the first part. That's all Phyllo and I are asking for: some justification, reasoning, evidence, support. That kind of stuff that you seemed think we might want for your assertion.

And well, "age" often talks about how X proves something. Atla could well be trying to show "age" something about "age's" proofs.

[Atla]

“Nothing known”can be proved, because you are the “Nothing known”trying to prove itself.

Well, that was some justification you gave in the second part of the sentence for your conclusion in the first part. That's all Phyllo and I are asking for: some justification, reasoning, evidence, support. That kind of stuff that you seemed think we might want for your assertion.

And well, "age" often talks about how X proves something. Atla could well be trying to show "age" something about "age's" proofs.

I don't think Age understands concepts like reasoning, justification, argument, evidence, support. Age simply thinks that she has absolute proof. By which point we can already be 95% confident that Age has no idea what she's talking about. But maybe the other 5% are the case this time, so let's hear Age's proof. But unfortunately Age has never provided any proof for her claims so far.

[Age]

Prove it, until then it's just a fairytale you made up.

you prove what you claim, until then it is just a fairy tale you made up, right?

Also, what you say and claim, according to 'your logic' here, is just a fairy tale that you made up.

Furthermore, no proof has ever been given against what I have said here. So, any view or belief otherwise to what I said, wrote, and claimed here, according to "atla's" logic here, is it is just a fairy tale that was just made up.

By the way, it has already been proved. So, it was not just a fairy tale I made up. As you believe and claim it is "atla".

And, one could also say to you here, now, 'Prove it, until then it is just a fairy tale you made up.'

Age's 'proof' speaks for itself.

Prove it. Until then it is just a fairy tale that you made up, according to 'your logic' anyway,.

[Age]

There is only One Mind, and It works by allowing all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep being able to learn and create new/er things.

The human brain, however, works completely differently. It works, exactly, like a computer does. That is; the human brain can only 'put out' what has been 'put into' it.

Which was obviously contrary to the popular belief, when this was being written. But, this is how these things here actually work.

I don't even ask for proof.

But I do ask that you provide some reasoning or evidence to support your assertions.

That's not asking for too much, is it?

Not at all.

[Age]

“Nothing known”can be proved, because you are the “Nothing known”trying to prove itself.

Well, that was some justification you gave in the second part of the sentence for your conclusion in the first part. That's all Phyllo and I are asking for: some justification, reasoning, evidence, support. That kind of stuff that you seemed think we might want for your assertion.

And well, "age" often talks about how X proves something. Atla could well be trying to show "age" something about "age's" proofs.

I don't think Age understands concepts like reasoning, justification, argument, evidence, support. Age simply thinks that she has absolute proof. By which point we can already be 95% confident that Age has no idea what she's talking about. But maybe the other 5% are the case this time, so let's hear Age's proof. But unfortunately Age has never provided any proof for her claims so far.

LOL Just in another thread here I was asked to provide some arguments, and just like "atla" does, when I provide some arguments they get completely and utterly missed, either unintentionally or on purpose, either consciously or unconsciously.

See, like you "atla" some people just cannot 'see' prove when it is provided or even when it is HERE in front of them. And, once more, this is because of the 'currently' held onto beliefs one has.

your assertion and continual position of, 'Prove it, Until then it is just a fairy tale that you made up,' is exactly like those positions of those people who also refused to just 'look at' the actual prove that was continual being given that, 'the earth revolves around the sun', claim.

While they, and you, believe the opposite you and they are not open to absolutely any nor all proof that proves your belief/s False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

And, it plainly obvious that you 'currently' believe that you 'have a mind' and that there are 'many minds', right?

(Again, not that you will be open and honest here and answer and clarify this very simple and easy clarifying question here,)

[Age]

The human brain, however, works completely differently. It works, exactly, like a computer does. That is; the human brain can only 'put out' what has been 'put into' it.

Could you explain what 'things' get put in brains and when does this process start?

Yes.

What are the range of processes (if there is a range) that puts things into brains?

What do you mean by 'range of processes'?

If you provide any examples at all, then I can much better answer your question here for you.

I can only think of one process, at the moment, but this might change if, and when, you provide some examples of what you are meaning and referring to here and/or explain further what you mean, exactly.

(I think you are using a metaphorical meaning for 'put in' and 'put out', rather than a literal one, but please let me know in your explanation, also, if this is correct)

This is not correct as I am not using a metaphorical meaning at all.

You contrast the One Mind and the human brain.

Okay.

I do this to answer the question that you human beings keep asking about, 'How does the Mind and the brain work?' And, to resolve that wonderment, of yours.

It seems like you are asserting that only the One Mind allows all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep being able to learn and create new/er things.

Just so you become fully aware I am, 'actually', asserting this, and not just 'seemingly' to, along with the other processes which are obviously needed to actually create new/er things, of course. But, the Mind is the fundamental part of the whole process. As will be shown, and 'seen'.

Does this mean you think brains cannot come up with new things?

Yes. In that brains cannot come up with new/er things by themselves, only.

If so, how do you know this?

Because I put it to the test. And, because of how cause and effect works. And, because of the fact that at least two things are needed for absolutely any and every thing to be created/come into being. Except, of course, for the Universe, Itself, but even the Universe, Itself, needs at least two things, Itself, to exist. And, the Universe, Itself, is, fundamentally, made up of just two things only, anyway. Which, in a sense can also be described as the Universe is created/being created by at least two things Itself, as well.

So, in essence, I know that the brain cannot come up with new/er things by itself, because there is no new/er thing that can come from one thing only.

Could you explain how you see computers working and than using that description, show that the human brain works the same way?

Yes.

You started this above, but it's not clear to me what your sense of how computers work is?

Okay, and totally understandable.

How does the human brain, which is more complex than any computer and more versatile (has a wider range of functions), is neuroplastic to a degree and in ways so far not paralleled in computers, resulting in greater ability to integrate context in wide variety of ways and other things that computers cannot manage (yet at least), work exactly like a computer?

What makes you even begin to presume and/or believe that the human brain is even 'complex', let alone 'more complex' than other things?

you human beings have a tendency to say and call 'things' 'complex' when you do not yet understand and know how they work. But, as soon as you also come-to-know and understand how 'things' work, then, all of a sudden, that 'thing' is not called and labeled 'complex' anymore.

Also, the word 'neuroplastic' here, and is very vague Wrong description or definition, does not help in clearing things up in regards to how the brain, exactly, actually works.

Also, you human beings have been 'trying to' study 'the brain', itself, when all along you would have been much better of studying something else, instead. That is; the 'thoughts', themselves, within 'those human bodies'. But, why this is so will become continually much clearer as 'we' move and progress along here.

How does something more complex and nuanced work exactly like something simpler, something which cannot do all the things that human brains can?

Again, why have you even begun to assume and presume that the human brain is 'more complex' than other things?

Also, once you start 'believing' that some 'thing' is 'more complex' than other things, or just plain 'complex' at all, then this effects one's ability to 'look at' and 'see' 'things', for how they actually really are, exactly, moving forward.

Again, the words that you human beings use have far more of an impact 'on you', than most of you fully realized yet, in the days when this is being written.

If you get rid of the, 'The brain is far 'more complex' than ...', view, presumption, and belief, then this will make explaining 'things' here far easier for you as well as make 'understanding' 'things' here far simpler for you, too.

Oh, when I say Could you do something, I mean not simply are you capable, but please explain it now, if you can.

So, as I have pointed out to you previously, then why not just replace the 'could' word, with the 'will' word?

If you did, then;

1. you would not have had to write a whole extra and unnecessary sentence like you just have here.

2. you would be speaking a 'more truth', in regards to what it is that you Truly wanted and desired here, from the outset.

That's common in English, but I mention this to remove any confusion.

And, what was always so-called 'common' "english", at any particular time, evolves and changes.

So, what might be so-called "common english" when you were speaking and writing this, in the days when this is being written, is certainly not necessarily "common english" at all, when this will be read, obviously.

But, as a self-proclaimed "english teacher" you would already know that language, itself, is always continually evolving, right?

If yes, then you must also already know that what is, so-called, 'common', in regards to language, 'one day' is not necessarily 'common' the 'next day', correct? Otherwise, you would, still, be 'gay' some days, correct?

Also, and obviously, if you just used the 'will' word, instead of the 'could' word, from the beginning, then this would have removed any and all confusion from the start anyway, and without the completely unnecessary words that you have added on here.

Or, you could have just said and written something like; 'If you could explain ..., then will you?' And/or, 'Could you explain ...? If yes, then will you?

"Creative writers" find ways to write things, without having to keep 'having to explain' "themselves", later on, like you have 'had to' here, just 'now'.

[Age]

I don't even ask for proof.

But I do ask that you provide some reasoning or evidence to support your assertions.

That's not asking for too much, is it?

As this alone is all that is really necessary I will respond to this one, while responding/answering some of "iwannaplato's" requests/questions at the same time.

When one says, 'you can create, learn, or achieve something with an 'open mind' ', then what is actually being meant?

When one answers this, fully, that is properly and Correctly, then what is discovered is that it is 'the Mind', Itself, that is what has been and is allowing human beings to continually keep learning more and anew. From 'the wheel', and before, to 'artificial intelligence', and beyond. human beings are 'able to' keep learning more and new/er things always, and continually.

So, where, exactly, did 'this ability' to, always, be able to keep learning, creating, and achieving new/er things, all the time, come from?

Through an open Mind.

Now, considering that 'this ability' is within absolutely every human being, then the claim that you each have 'your own, personal, mind' does 'not fit'.

'The ability', itself, to 'always' be able to keep learning, creating, and achieving more and/or new/er things, obviously, comes from 'being open', and certainly not from 'being closed'.

('We' can look at what human beings individually and collectively are actually capable of or not later on. But, for now,) It is through and from an 'open Mind' where 'the ability', itself, to learn, create, and achieve comes from.

And, because 'this ability' is always existing within the human being, this means that what it is, which is said to be open, must always 'be there', within.

I say and claim that there are no different minds, which some of are closed while others are open, or that some are more closed or more open than others. Within each and every human being there is an 'openness, which, when harvest, is what has given and is allowing each and every human being 'the ability', itself, to keep learning more and anew, things.

What I say and claim 'closes' or 'shuts off' this 'absolute openness' is not 'the Mind', Itself, at all, but instead the thoughts and thinking, themselves, within a body. Within the range of 'thought', itself, there are things like, views, opinions, assumptions, presumptions, values, perspectives, perceptions, and beliefs among others, of which some lessen 'close off or shut down 'being open' completely, while others allow a 'range of openness' to remain, thus 'the ability to learn' is changed or influenced by the 'type of thought/s' that are occurring, within the body. Or, as I have previously stated, the very words that you people use actually affects you people more than is fully realized yet, when this is being written. For example, when one states, 'I believe ...', this then affects one's ability to 'look at' and 'see' things, than stating, 'I think ....', does. Although, there is this fact, there is also a deep nuance at play and working here, and that is one can also state, 'I believe ...', while also deeper down at a further level be actually meaning, 'I think ...', or 'I only think ...'. So, the importance of stating what the actual Truth is from the very outset and always can never be underestimated.

However, to me anyway, there is only One Mind, only. It is always Truly and fully open. But, what shuts off and closes 'the ability' of one being Truly OPEN are some of the 'thoughts/thinking', within.

And, whenever the words 'your mind', or similar are being used, what will be discovered is that what people are actually meaning and/or referring to are the thoughts/thinking within, and not some other thing.

Once more time is spent studying 'thoughts', themselves, in conjunction with 'the brain', instead of just 'the brain', itself, being studied, then far more about you human beings, who and what you really are, and how you actually work will then be able to Truly start become understood, and even fully.

Studying 'thoughts' instead of 'brains' reveals so, so much more 'about you', human beings, than could ever be ascertained from 'the brain', alone. you, people, literally, are the 'thoughts and thinking', themselves, (and emotions) and not 'the brain' at all.

'The brain' is just a pile of matter, that receives 'information, or knowledge' about 'the world/environment', around the body, through any or all of the five senses of the body.

The brain grasps the new knowledge/information coming in, through the senses, stores that knowledge/information as 'thought', or in 'thinking' if one likes. (And, in regards to 'information or knowledge', themselves, this is for a later discussion where agreement has to be reached on which one is what exactly and also as to what they each do exactly).

But, as for the brain itself, each one can only 'put out' what has been 'fed into' it. Just like how computers work. For example, a human body cannot start speaking "japanese" if only "english" has been 'fed into' it. The brain can only store 'in thought' what information/knowledge has been 'fed into' it, through the senses. So, the 'output' of the brain can only be in correlation with the 'input'. Again, exactly, like how a computer works.

And, for how it appears as though it is 'brains', themselves, that are coming up with all of the 'new ideas', which is what is keeping the 'new' learning, creating, and achieving always 'moving along', then it is just from the putting of at least two, previous, 'in puts' of information/knowledge together, which is when 'new things/ideas' appear, or arise.

But, again, without having 'an ability' to keep learning, creating, and achieving 'new/er things', then human beings would not be able to, obviously, continue to keep learning, creating, and achieving new things, all of the time. This ability is in and comes from 'being open', which is what the Mind, Itself, always Truly IS. And, it is only from 'being able' to be fully and Truly open, the human brain is able to 'put together' two of previously gained 'thoughts' so that some thing 'new' could arise.

If it was not for the Mind, being always open, and the amazing ability of the human brain to be able to 'capture' and 'store' any and all the 'information/knowledge' 'fed into' it', then you human beings would just be like absolutely every other animal on earth, and would be just living completely 'instinctual' to 'just surviving' alone, and not living continually learning how to make and create ' a life better', for "yourselves" '.

Now, of course, none or all of this will never be 'enough reasoning' or 'enough evidence' for any or all of you. But, this is just 'a start', and, once again, I stand by all and every part of this, while 'knowing' that I can back up and support every part and all of this with actual proof, which obviously cannot b refuted by any one.

[Iwannaplato]

I read what you had to say about common English and I generally agree. I hope you'll respond to my request above, given I explained what I meant.

What are the range of processes (if there is a range) that puts things into brains?

What do you mean by 'range of processes'?

If you provide any examples at all, then I can much better answer your question here for you.

Is it just through experiencing: the senses - hearing, seeing, reading, conversing, etc ? Is there something other than experiencing that leads to what brains do?

I can only think of one process, at the moment, but this might change if, and when, you provide some examples of what you are meaning and referring to here and/or explain further what you mean, exactly.

What was the process you thought of, if it wasn't in the response to my previous question.

(I think you are using a metaphorical meaning for 'put in' and 'put out', rather than a literal one, but please let me know in your explanation, also, if this is correct)

So, you think things are literally put in brains. What things are literally put in brains?

It seems like you are asserting that only the One Mind allows all human beings, individually and collectively, to keep being able to learn and create new/er things.

Just so you become fully aware I am, 'actually', asserting this, and not just 'seemingly' to, along with the other processes which are obviously needed to actually create new/er things, of course. But, the Mind is the fundamental part of the whole process. As will be shown, and 'seen'.

Does this mean you think brains cannot come up with new things?

Yes. In that brains cannot come up with new/er things by themselves, only.

If so, how do you know this?

Because I put it to the test.

Will you describe this test in your next post to me here in this thread?

And, because of how cause and effect works.

Will you describe how cause and effect works and how this shows the brain cannot create new thing in your next post to me here in this thread?

Could you explain how you see computers working and than using that description, show that the human brain works the same way?

Yes.

And will you do this in the next post to me in this thread?

You started this above, but it's not clear to me what your sense of how computers work is?

Okay, and totally understandable.

So, what is your sense of how computers work?

How does the human brain, which is more complex than any computer and more versatile (has a wider range of functions), is neuroplastic to a degree and in ways so far not paralleled in computers, resulting in greater ability to integrate context in wide variety of ways and other things that computers cannot manage (yet at least), work exactly like a computer?

What makes you even begin to presume and/or believe that the human brain is even 'complex', let alone 'more complex' than other things?

So, you don't think the brain is more complex that other things?

you human beings have a tendency to say and call 'things' 'complex' when you do not yet understand and know how they work. But, as soon as you also come-to-know and understand how 'things' work, then, all of a sudden, that 'thing' is not called and labeled 'complex' anymore.

Do you consider anything complex and if so, what?

Also, you human beings have been 'trying to' study 'the brain', itself, when all along you would have been much better of studying something else, instead. That is; the 'thoughts', themselves, within 'those human bodies'. But, why this is so will become continually much clearer as 'we' move and progress along here.

Some humans study brains. Some humans study thoughts. Well, perhaps nearly everyone studies thoughts, in a wide variety of ways, most pretty sloppy, some with more focus and care.

Oh, when I say Could you do something, I mean not simply are you capable, but please explain it now, if you can.

So, as I have pointed out to you previously, then why not just replace the 'could' word, with the 'will' word?

If I write 'will you do X', the answer can be 'yes' also, your answer is correct if you do this whenever and wherever, perhaps in ten years in another forum. In fact, if one is taking the question in the same contextless way it seems 'could' was taken, the answer would be merely 'yes' in most situations. Yes, I will do this. (And then unsaid: But you will not necessarily be the target audience for the explanation/answer). For example. This is why more context is brought into these situations by many people. They understand that the person is asking for this in the next post. Especially when this is specifically pointed out, even if you think they should have done it in some more concise way One could write something approaching a contract to try to make it clear exactly what is being asked for or some of the basic human implicit contracts could simply be politely upheld and often are.

This habit of yours was one of the reasons I started finding your posts non-collaborative, stretching out what might be the easiest parts of an interaction into more posts. Here instead of responding to the request that becomes utterly clear at the end of the post - since your response to me about using 'will' shows you understand what I was requesting, you tell me about what I should have done and about common english. I can certainly understand if at this point in our various discussions you wish to not reply to requests that you understand are requests, but 1) you did this before our discussion took the turns it later did and 2) there's no need for the pretense that 'will' somehow avoids what ends up being your obtuseness in practical terms. It wouldn't.

If you did, then;

1. you would not have had to write a whole extra and unnecessary sentence like you just have here.

2. you would be speaking a 'more truth', in regards to what it is that you Truly wanted and desired here, from the outset.



And, what was always so-called 'common' "english", at any particular time, evolves and changes.

So, what might be so-called "common english" when you were speaking and writing this, in the days when this is being written, is certainly not necessarily "common english" at all, when this will be read, obviously.

But, as a self-proclaimed "english teacher" you would already know that language, itself, is always continually evolving, right?

If yes, then you must also already know that what is, so-called, 'common', in regards to language, 'one day' is not necessarily 'common' the 'next day', correct? Otherwise, you would, still, be 'gay' some days, correct?

Also, and obviously, if you just used the 'will' word, instead of the 'could' word, from the beginning, then this would have removed any and all confusion from the start anyway, and without the completely unnecessary words that you have added on here.

Or, you could have just said and written something like; 'If you could explain ..., then will you?' And/or, 'Could you explain ...? If yes, then will you?

"Creative writers" find ways to write things, without having to keep 'having to explain' "themselves", later on, like you have 'had to' here, just 'now'.

A creative writer understands the various creative ways one can easily avoid the intended request where there is 'could' can be easily managed when someone uses 'will' or even adds 'will'. And a creative writer will note that even when the intention is laid out, certain people prefer to extend the process unnecessarily - and can easily do this with 'will' - because they are angry at the person they are responding to, even if they are incapable of admitting this, perhaps even to themselves, and even if it is obvious to others. Such a creative writer will also note the utter lack of interest in communicating well with the people one is posting to - who would tend, for example, to use 'gay' in a certain way and not other ways. Perhaps the creative writer would then ask to make sure every single word you are using isn't being used in some etymologically correct but long outdated way. But then, when you suddenly are getting clarifying questions and it bothers you, you negatively assess the other person, as you did when I was asking about 'absolute'. Hypocrite.

And if my repeating this accusation, that you are a hypocrite, leads you to want to point out what you think my hypocrisies are, let's first remember that I present myself as a human being, while "age" you present yourself as above the lower human beings. And not following their lead in all sorts of ways. As not getting angry etc. As something with the solutions to all the problems of the world. But actually, you're just another human being, with lots of foibles and stubbornness, and this affects how you post here in a myriad of ways. And the denial of this creates a rather different context for all your negative judgments of individuals and humans in general, which are presented as part of philosophical ideas that have been around for a long time - despite you're thinking, again and again, that if someone has a problem with what you are saying, they can't possibly understand how you view things. Toss in the whole you don't have beliefs(well, one belief and lot of views, lol) and we have that toxic mix I have mentioned before.

By all means give it a shot at calling me out on hypocrisy: but that hasn't gone very well for you.