For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Godfree wrote:
God is an illusion , a lie ,a con, a trick ,a scam ,
I resent people and organizations that cheat people out of their money,
the church is big business , like the drug bosses ,
the church will not give up it's income , until we force it to ,
they will continue to use peoples hopes and aspirations ,
to con their money out of them ,
I see the church as about as honest as drugs and crime ,
it's a con there should be a law against it , in my opinion ,
when you have been an Atheist for as long as I have ,
you see religion as credible as Peter Pan or Superman ,
it's so unbelievable , I find the people who believe it , unbelievable ,
in this day and age , with the knowledge we have ,
adults still believe the nonsense , absolutely amazing ,
I have to conclude , there aren't many adults ,
just a lot of frightened little children ,
too scared to stand up and be counted , to face reality ,
you want to live in fantasy land , thats fine ,
just don't try and tell me it's the TRUTH ,,!!!!!
There is only one thing missing; and that is a thought bubble in the mind of the man in the bubble, and a thought bubble inside the man inside the thought bubble of the man in the picture and a thought bublle inside the thought bubble, inside the thought bubble, inside the thought bubble inside the picture, and the thought bubble inside the thought bubble.......Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
............................................
.
I'm glad to see that SoB is finally coming to his senses (literally and metaphorically) in that he is now more open to the limitations of truth through perceptions.SpheresOfBalance wrote:And you were doing so well Lance. The reason why I've always seen you as a better man than Chaz is because you refused to go there. Sure you can be a little cheeky, but can't we all. In using his foul sense of self affirming condescension he's saying more about what he doesn't know, than he's saying about what he does know.
There is no accounting for knowledge as 100% attributed to the individual. I would go so far as to say that environment is in fact the key factor in the determination.
There is no accounting for ones knowledge unless you could take their place for the entirety of their life, but then you'd be them and incapable of understanding anything other than that which now frustrates you about them and it would seem normal to you.
It is too complex an issue for anyone to be capable of accurately quantifying the essence of another's being. This behavior is almost always a self stroking mechanism born of delusions of grandeur that can be seen to parallel megalomania.
Look at what I told Arising_uk. Sure I got punchy on a few occasions but I also said that we weren't compatible for argument. We speak different languages. She would ask me things that I'd thought I'd already made clear, because of our extremely different understandings of the associations of things. To me, what I had said was clearly indicative of meaning that she missed. And I noticed it happening in reverse as well.
You were correct in vision when you saw that Chaz and I could have been referring to the same thing but differently, such that neither were capable of seeing it. A "Communication Gap" is what it's commonly referred too. I have noticed this on many occasions, in my lifetime.
You're a better man for tolerance than you are intolerance. Yes, and I should practice what I preach. It's a trap that I've been caught in far to many times.
Yes, bur sometimes people just keep begging to be called idiots - sometimes even me! And then how would I know if some kind hearted tolerant patient individual didn't get to the end of his zen candle and didn't tell me what an idiot I am?SpheresOfBalance wrote:And you were doing so well Lance. The reason why I've always seen you as a better man than Chaz is because you refused to go there. Sure you can be a little cheeky, but can't we all. In using his foul sense of self affirming condescension he's saying more about what he doesn't know, than he's saying about what he does know.
There is no accounting for knowledge as 100% attributed to the individual. I would go so far as to say that environment is in fact the key factor in the determination.
There is no accounting for ones knowledge unless you could take their place for the entirety of their life, but then you'd be them and incapable of understanding anything other than that which now frustrates you about them and it would seem normal to you.
It is too complex an issue for anyone to be capable of accurately quantifying the essence of another's being. This behavior is almost always a self stroking mechanism born of delusions of grandeur that can be seen to parallel megalomania.
Look at what I told Arising_uk. Sure I got punchy on a few occasions but I also said that we weren't compatible for argument. We speak different languages. She would ask me things that I'd thought I'd already made clear, because of our extremely different understandings of the associations of things. To me, what I had said was clearly indicative of meaning that she missed. And I noticed it happening in reverse as well.
You were correct in vision when you saw that Chaz and I could have been referring to the same thing but differently, such that neither were capable of seeing it. A "Communication Gap" is what it's commonly referred too. I have noticed this on many occasions, in my lifetime.
You're a better man for tolerance than you are intolerance. Yes, and I should practice what I preach. It's a trap that I've been caught in far to many times.
.Why do Yanks have this need to assign gender?SpheresOfBalance wrote:...
Look at what I told Arising_uk. Sure I got punchy on a few occasions but I also said that we weren't compatible for argument. We speak different languages. She would ask me things that I'd thought I'd already made clear, because of our extremely different understandings of the associations of things. To me, what I had said was clearly indicative of meaning that she missed. And I noticed it happening in reverse as well.
...
Well, maybe I don't always use words that are universally indicative of meaning to a passerby, but at least I don't go around and blindly respond to someone elses contextual meaning as if I know what they're talking about, just to grab a inconsequential scrap of ego fortification, anywhere I can find it; one could be said to be acting like a fool, in missing the point for the sake of self!Godfree wrote:It is too complex an issue for anyone to be capable of accurately quantifying the essence of another's being. This behavior is almost always a self stroking mechanism born of delusions of grandeur that can be seen to parallel megalomania.
,,,oh what a wanker you are ,,,
that is a complete load of nonsense ,
and a contradiction ,
you are attempting to "quantify" what others can or can't do ,,!!
like any science , the science of psychology ,
can tell you a lot about your "essence"
I'm sure I'm repeating myself but ,
reality is an individual experience ,
there is only one reality ,
what we each see as knowledge ,
may have nothing to do with reality or real knowledge ,
we could both be wankers dreaming in fantasy land ,
there is the real world , and there is all the rest ,
it's science that is slowly creating the picture we call ,
reality ,
not religion , not science fiction , not one individuals dream ,
quantifiable proven facts ,
if you think you above being judged ,
who's the ego maniac again ,,???
Why are some people so caught up in a need to distinguish nationalities?Arising_uk wrote:Why do Yanks have this need to assign gender?SpheresOfBalance wrote:...
Look at what I told Arising_uk. Sure I got punchy on a few occasions but I also said that we weren't compatible for argument. We speak different languages. She would ask me things that I'd thought I'd already made clear, because of our extremely different understandings of the associations of things. To me, what I had said was clearly indicative of meaning that she missed. And I noticed it happening in reverse as well.
...
SpheresOfBalance wrote:And you were doing so well Lance. The reason why I've always seen you as a better man than Chaz is because you refused to go there. Sure you can be a little cheeky, but can't we all. In using his foul sense of self affirming condescension he's saying more about what he doesn't know, than he's saying about what he does know.
There is no accounting for knowledge as 100% attributed to the individual. I would go so far as to say that environment is in fact the key factor in the determination.
There is no accounting for ones knowledge unless you could take their place for the entirety of their life, but then you'd be them and incapable of understanding anything other than that which now frustrates you about them and it would seem normal to you.
EDIT: NO, not the content of the knowledge but the exposure to any particular bit of knowledge, and the means by which it is articulated; the associations that give rise to the understanding and categorizing and filing in the memory.
It is too complex an issue for anyone to be capable of accurately quantifying the essence of another's being. This behavior is almost always a self stroking mechanism born of delusions of grandeur that can be seen to parallel megalomania.
Look at what I told Arising_uk. Sure I got punchy on a few occasions but I also said that we weren't compatible for argument. We speak different languages. She would ask me things that I'd thought I'd already made clear, because of our extremely different understandings of the associations of things. To me, what I had said was clearly indicative of meaning that she missed. And I noticed it happening in reverse as well.
You were correct in vision when you saw that Chaz and I could have been referring to the same thing but differently, such that neither were capable of seeing it. A "Communication Gap" is what it's commonly referred too. I have noticed this on many occasions, in my lifetime.
You're a better man for tolerance than you are intolerance. Yes, and I should practice what I preach. It's a trap that I've been caught in far to many times.
This edit is an example of things that can sometimes be omitted due to a presumption of things that go without saying and is lent to by this medium of communication.
Because it appears to be a trait here that the Yank needs to assign gender to others thoughts?SpheresOfBalance wrote:Why are some people so caught up in a need to distinguish nationalities?
Depends what you mean by 'mental processes'? What makes you think I'm a female? What did you base your assignment upon?It was just a pronoun used to reference you, because I'm pretty sure you're a female, and not meant to indicate anything else. Though I would argue that there is a difference in the mental process's of men and women, that is a result of the different hormones.
Pretty meaningless statement I think.But I absolutely love women, and not just for the physicalities.
Who said I didn't? But I find little need or purpose in proclaiming it. I'm more 'concerned' about why someone needs to do such indicating? And how they think they can in such a medium?Why are you so concerned about someone indicating your sex, what can be said of someone that doesn't want their sex known?