Posts by Harold Doyle3

Link

They say dogs tore Heraclitus to pieces, but regardless of that gruesome end, I’m curious to get your take from a broader perspective—you know, civilizational, moral, philosophical, historical... all of it.

Apparently, even for "man's best friend," we have to pay a tax.
Is this some kind of tax on companionship? A levy on our love for a living creature that can literally save a human life? We're talking about beings that serve as emotional anchors for the lonely, the abandoned, or the elderly folks who might have nobody else left in the world to lean on.

And then you've got certain animal welfare organizations backing this, likely hoping to pad their own pockets with the revenue. Isn't that just a blatant conflict of interest?

Gerald Hill said:Regarding those who oppose procreation, I am curious to hear your thoughts. What is your perspective on them, and are there any such individuals within this group? Some advocate for this philosophical stance by viewing life as inherently harsh and devoid of value, often citing the fact that Earth's resources are finite. Do you believe antinatalism is a rational viewpoint, or do you consider it to be unnatural and irrational?

Evolution will "pick its winners," and everyone else simply fades away.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Sure, a concept is formed, but it also exists objectively outside of our own mental reflection. If we don't acknowledge that, we’re forced into a purely psychologistic view of logic, which would basically make any kind of actual knowledge impossible because you'd be stuck in that radical subject-object dualism. It’s pretty obvious that the components of a heap of grain are derivable from the individual grains themselves. Those single grains aren't anything other than the building blocks, the parts of the whole. The whole directly implies the parts, and vice versa. When you claim we're just forming a new concept, it sounds like you're suggesting the unity between the whole and its parts isn't inherent, but is instead something created by external reflection—though, in reality, it’s both. That essential relationship is what bridges the gap between immanence and external reflection (and by "essential relation," I mean that every concept is a unity of itself, of another, and of the unity between itself and that other). If you focus too much on negative unity, you end up seeing the whole and the parts as separate entities. From that perspective, the whole becomes nothing more than a reflected self-subsistence, or just a momentary postulate—which seems to be your angle. In that case, the whole is alienated from itself, existing only in "the other." But the truth is that the relationship between the whole and its parts is conditional; you simply can't have one without the other.
Common sense tells us a whole is equal to the sum of its parts, yet the whole isn't quite the same as those parts. The whole represents a reflected unity. The parts essentially say, "we aren't the whole." It should be fairly intuitive to see that the relationship between the whole and its parts is tied to the nature of appearance itself, leading to the realization that existence and appearance exist within that aforementioned essential relation. Existence is the whole, while appearances are the parts. You could broadly say that any attempt to isolate a single abstracted moment of a whole will inevitably be undermined by the re-emergence of another moment within it.

Of course. Those are all quantitative measurements—just a summation of parts. However, the pile as a whole possesses a quality that is fundamentally distinct from any individual grain within it.

I didn't create it. Concepts actually exist in reality; we just give them labels. This applies to every single thing that truly exists—whether it's a subatomic particle, a freight train, Frogger, the entire universe, or the absolute. A concept is just a reflected unity of real relationships that can all be traced back to one essential connection. Every concept carries its own internal tension, some kind of contradiction or insufficient definition that forces it to evolve beyond itself. An emergent property or a new quality is simply the byproduct of those underlying relations. So, it's pretty obvious that nothing just "creates itself." Nothing in this world does.

Now, let’s say we have a pile of piles.
In that case, that meta-pile would supposedly have a quality identical to its individual components (the original piles)

Larry Walker24 said:If one grain doesn't make a pile, then two grains don't either. Honestly, three isn't doing much for us either.

So, how many grains does it actually take to make a pile?

My take? A pile is just an unorganized mess.
That’s the thing. It isn't enough to just have a bunch of stuff; that collection has to be disorganized to earn the title of a "pile."

Take the set of all natural numbers, for example. That’s a perfectly ordered sequence with infinite members. And because it’s so orderly, you can't exactly call it a "pile" of natural numbers. It's too structured for that.

mellownomad30 said:hey everyone

first off, just a heads up—this is strictly my own take on things. I’m trying to kick off a discussion from a more philosophical angle, even though most people here just tend to shove their personal biases down everyone's throats. honestly, that's fine by me; your bias is basically what builds your whole philosophy anyway.

I haven't actually sat down and read any books by the "real" heavy-hitter philosophers. I skimmed some stuff on "moral relativism"—can't even remember the author because it was pretty twisted and didn't really click with me.

but man, it's wild how most "philosophical" debates just end up being people recycling quotes or rephrasing a handful of guys who've been dead for centuries.

hardly anyone actually pushes the topic further than just applying some stale, pre-packaged versions of ethics or morality.

having lurked on this forum for a few years now, whenever I drop in, it feels less like a community and more like some weird social experiment that I happen to be watching from the sidelines.

the bottom line I've landed on is this: humans are just animals.

let me break that down and get ahead of the inevitable backlash: people are fundamentally selfish. everything is about "me" first.

I tried testing this out with a little mental exercise:

look at my basic needs—what am I actually looking for? food, drink, sex, warmth, affection (fill in the blanks as you see fit)—it's always easier to grab those things if I use other people to get them. so, I start layering on all these manufactured moral and ethical codes...
I try to squeeze out as much benefit for myself as possible while staying within the lines of that "morality," essentially masking my true self.

it sounds blunt, and look, writing isn't exactly my forte, but I'm convinced everyone operates on this exact same frequency. kindness and solidarity? they're just convenient fictions we made up; they aren't baked into our DNA.

everyone wants to be the alpha in the pack because it serves the individual interest. you can see it in action: anyone jumping into an argument with me is just trying to prove they're superior.
I'm sure someone's gonna chime in saying, "No way, I just want to find myself and be a good person." But seriously, think about the actual motives there. Why would you do that? If you show people your "true" face, you're just lowering your status in the pack.

In my book, almost every decision a person makes starts with one question: how is everyone else going to perceive this?

anyway, those are my thoughts. I got there just by observing myself and how I carry myself around others.

maybe take a harder look at your own motives?

🤷 I have to say, looking at what you wrote, I find myself wondering about your motives for giving someone the chance to prove they are "better" than you in this debate.

I'm guessing you don't have kids, based on that part you bolded.

Biologically, man is an animal.
Physically, man is matter.
Mechanically, we are machines.
Computationally, we are computers.
Chemically, we are molecules.
Philosophically, we are (just) consciousness.
Religiously, we are God's creation.
And so on...
These are all imprecise, reductionist generalities.

You stated your opinion: that people prioritize perception, that showing your true self hurts your standing in the pack, that kindness is a fiction... and then, in a very human way, you reflect on yourself and society, conducting a "social experiment"...
None of that is characteristic of animals. How does everything you just listed actually support your conclusion that man is an animal?

Mark Torres14 said:And that just starts a vicious cycle. What even counts as "criticism"?
I could be dead certain that Pero Perić is a criminal and blast every judge who let him walk free. But how far does that "freedom" actually go? Can I picket someone's house, harass their kids at school to turn them against their dad, or run caricatures in the news just to mock them under the guise of free speech? Where do we draw the line?

It’s just expressing a value judgment regarding a specific subject or theory.

Mark Torres14 said:And that just starts a vicious cycle. What even counts as "criticism"?
I could be dead certain that Pero Perić is a criminal and blast every judge who let him walk free. But how far does that "freedom" actually go? Can I picket someone's house, harass their kids at school to turn them against their dad, or run caricatures in the news just to mock them under the guise of free speech? Where do we draw the line?

Sure you can.

Mark Torres14 said:And that just starts a vicious cycle. What even counts as "criticism"?
I could be dead certain that Pero Perić is a criminal and blast every judge who let him walk free. But how far does that "freedom" actually go? Can I picket someone's house, harass their kids at school to turn them against their dad, or run caricatures in the news just to mock them under the guise of free speech? Where do we draw the line?

As much as you want, provided it stays within the realm of critique.
For instance, burning an American flag isn't "criticizing" a nation's policy. There are plenty of people inside that country who disagree with the administration, yet they still see the flag being burned.
Even burning a Nazi flag is unjustifiable—mostly because of the environmental impact of breathing in carcinogenic smoke.

Mark Torres14 said:And that just starts a vicious cycle. What even counts as "criticism"?
I could be dead certain that Pero Perić is a criminal and blast every judge who let him walk free. But how far does that "freedom" actually go? Can I picket someone's house, harass their kids at school to turn them against their dad, or run caricatures in the news just to mock them under the guise of free speech? Where do we draw the line?

Yes, you can, as long as you aren't disturbing the peace (meaning no violence and no inciting violence).

Mark Torres14 said:And that just starts a vicious cycle. What even counts as "criticism"?
I could be dead certain that Pero Perić is a criminal and blast every judge who let him walk free. But how far does that "freedom" actually go? Can I picket someone's house, harass their kids at school to turn them against their dad, or run caricatures in the news just to mock them under the guise of free speech? Where do we draw the line?

That isn't criticism. That's outright aggression.

Mark Torres14 said:And that just starts a vicious cycle. What even counts as "criticism"?
I could be dead certain that Pero Perić is a criminal and blast every judge who let him walk free. But how far does that "freedom" actually go? Can I picket someone's house, harass their kids at school to turn them against their dad, or run caricatures in the news just to mock them under the guise of free speech? Where do we draw the line?

A caricature is exactly what the word implies: an exaggerated critique. It’s biased, it pushes things too far, and it goes way beyond simple criticism.

Mark Torres14 said:And that just starts a vicious cycle. What even counts as "criticism"?
I could be dead certain that Pero Perić is a criminal and blast every judge who let him walk free. But how far does that "freedom" actually go? Can I picket someone's house, harass their kids at school to turn them against their dad, or run caricatures in the news just to mock them under the guise of free speech? Where do we draw the line?

The person doing the mocking is usually just someone who lacks the actual arguments to back up their point. It's nothing more than a blatant admission of how weak their own critique really is.
Real criticism should be well-intentioned. Mockery, on the other hand, has zero good intentions—unlike actual humor. Now, irony is a neutral beast; you can find plenty of that within legitimate criticism without crossing the line.

Mark Torres14 said:A French newspaper drops a caricature of Muhammad, hiding behind "free speech" traditions and their precious little darling: "freedom of expression." A Russian punk band dances in an Orthodox church shouting slogans against Putin, claiming "freedom of speech." Some journalist leaks your private info or a photo of you without your consent, citing "freedom of speech."

Just think about what would happen in the "real world" if every single person used their right to "free speech" to say exactly what they actually think to every other person, group, or community.

What even is free speech, and does it actually have limits?

In a democracy, what people actually mean when they say "freedom of speech" is the freedom to criticize.
That means you can criticize things without facing legal consequences for the act of criticizing itself.

However, for anything else said, there should be consequences. (Whether those are positive or negative.)
That’s how it works in democratic societies—you face the fallout if someone spreads disinformation, lies, truths, slander, opinions, or uses speech as artistic expression, etc.

So, in democratic societies (ideally speaking), "freedom of speech" doesn't actually exist, nor does a democracy demand it. What a democracy demands is the freedom to criticize.
Freedom of criticism belongs to democracy; freedom of speech belongs to anarchy (and maybe to the mentally ill or people talking to themselves).

Arthur Barnes said:I was re-reading a column by Darko Macan today, titled as Picasso. He tells this story about how he once settled a bar tab just by sketching something on demand for the waiter—it reminded him of that old anecdote about Picasso paying his restaurant bill with a quick doodle on a napkin. It’s a short read, you can check it out here, though you don't really need to. There's this one quote at the very end that sticks with you:

Believe in everything you want to happen as if it's already yours, because reality is never quite as intense as your imagination. Reality is just imagination, only paler.

(The rest says something about not wanting to hold an ace up your sleeve for everyone we meet, but let's ignore that for now)

Do you guys agree with that? Is imagination actually more vivid than reality? Does it depend on the person? How? And if you actually believed this was true, how would it change the way you live your life? Maybe I posted this in the wrong section... maybe it belongs in Psychology or even the Lifestyle corner 😁, but I couldn't think of a better spot for this thought.

If that’s actually true—if reality really is just a duller version of our imagination—then that whole statement is pretty damn dull itself.

And if imagination is what makes reality look faded, then by that logic, reality is what makes imagination look faded.

Science Fiction bombs and philosophy

bluebison25 said:What exactly are you trying to say, Harold Doyle3?

You think you're right just because you believe in ghosts, and since you've convinced yourself they're real through sheer willpower, suddenly I'm the one in the wrong? Fine, if it makes you feel better, keep clinging to your little ghost stories. Just don't try to twist my words or redefine my posts just to suit the agenda of your dying ideology for your followers.

edit: For the billionth time:

The "soul" isn't a thing; it’s just an abstract concept floating around in people's heads. Believers love to claim the soul is immaterial, arguing its existence shouldn't even be questioned. It begs the question: when does a person actually get assigned a soul? And what about animals? Believers will tell you animals don't have souls because they were meant for us to use—give me a break.

If this immaterial soul actually exists, how does it interact with the physical body? If it has zero impact on us, then the whole idea is dead on arrival. But if it *does* affect the body, it has to affect the molecules within it. We already understand the physical laws governing protein behavior; therefore, the existence of a soul directly violates the laws of physics. If souls are real, we might as well throw the laws of physics out the window. Who needs smartphones, the internet, or satellites then? Honestly, what are you even doing on this forum? Why aren't you out floating through the cosmos with all your other ghosts like a true believer should be?

The soul is nothing but unnecessary complication. Anyone claiming it exists needs to explain the mechanism of how it moves the physical body. We already know which parts of the brain handle which functions, so it looks like the soul doesn't actually do anything at all.

🤷
Where exactly did I claim that a soul (or ghosts) exists?

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Harold Doyle3 says:
Reality itself is just a construct born from human imagination and thought.
(we operate under the assumption that what we perceive as reality actually *is* reality)
Plato's cave

Reality is a shadow. Reality is a cave. But honestly, none of that matters in this specific context:

I’ve always preferred expressing my own truth a bit differently—mostly by swearing like a drunken sailor. 😲

There was this Zen master named Hogen who lived a solitary life in a small temple out in the sticks. One day, four traveling monks show up at his doorstep asking to light a fire in his courtyard just to warm themselves up.
While they’re busy tending the flames, Hogen overhears them bickering about subjectivity versus objectivity. He decides to jump into the fray and asks, "Take this large stone here. In your estimation, does it reside within your mind or outside of it?"
One of the monks replies, "From a Buddhist perspective, everything is an objectification of the mind, so I would say that stone exists within my mind."
"Your head must be incredibly heavy," Hogen remarks, "if you're carrying a stone like that everywhere you go."
There's actually a second part to that story.
The master adds, "So, you believe everything is an illusion—an objectification of the mind—just like this brick I'm holding in my hand while you hold it in your mind?" Then, he drops the brick right on the student's foot, sending him hopping around and howling in pain.
"Why all the shouting and jumping," Hogen asks, "if this brick is nothing more than a figment of your own mind?"

Pain is a mental construct.
Think about phantom limb pain—you don't need a brick or a fish for that.
The reaction (the pain) is identical whether it's triggered by something physically there or something that isn't.

The real question is whether reality is even perceivable—meaning, can anything actually exist in space-time when time is relative and space is constantly expanding?

When someone looks up at the night sky and sees the faint, hazy glow of Andromeda, they have proof that the galaxy existed two million years ago. But does it exist *now*? Most likely, yes. We'll know for sure in less than two million years (as we approach the local deviation from global expansion). We see our own Sun as it was roughly eight minutes ago—does it still exist? We can only answer that question with an eight-minute delay. We see the Moon as it was about a second ago, and so on. The closer the object, the smaller the time lag, but the gap is always there. It never truly vanishes (well, maybe at Planck scales).

An objective "present" doesn't really exist; it's just an approximation. All we truly have is the past (and maybe the future, if information can somehow travel faster than light).
If the objective present is just an approximation, then objective reality itself falls within that same window of approximation.

I should point out that the processes happening at quantum scales are part of our "reality" and our daily lives—take laser rangefinders, cell phones, or computers. And we certainly can't rule out the possibility of quantum processes influencing the brain.

If we wanted to define reality, could we ever actually define it objectively using the concepts we have available?

bluebison25 said:You all seem a bit lost when it comes to distinguishing fact from fiction, but whatever. I’m currently reading a solid critique that dismisses Ivancic’s "book" about Jesus of Nazareth being a Historical figure as nothing more than a fairy tale, systematically tearing down every supposed "proof" and witness. Like Anthony Perez9 pointed out earlier, the only "historians" who would ever try to prove the existence of the supernatural are theologians—people who, much like yourselves, can't tell the difference between reality and make-believe. 🙂

So, you actually gave us a definition of reality (#441)
"to me, reality is when I finish up in bed with a fertile woman, we have sex, and as a result, we end up with a child."

Since that definition relies entirely on your own ego (bolded), we're talking about pure solipsism, or rather subjective idealism—which is nothing more than a construct of human imagination and fleeting thoughts.

silentridge8 said:Given that perspective, Richard Rorty makes more sense. He argued that objective reality doesn't really exist—there's only "vocabulary." Essentially, things only exist insofar as they are expressed through language.

🙂
"In the beginning was the Word..." right?

But how do you actually express yourself through language?
( If you say "I"... well, everyone with even a shred of self-awareness says "I," yet every single "I" is unique... or is it?)
And what about people living with split personalities?

Are we expressing ourselves through others, while they express themselves through us?
Isn't that just one big circle?

bluebison25 said:I’m telling you, believing in an afterlife or even in God just isn't rational. It’s nothing more than a product of human imagination and mental gymnastics, not actual reality.

And honestly? Reality itself is nothing more than a construct of our own imaginations and thoughts.
(We just convince ourselves that what we perceive as reality is actually real.)
Plato's cave

Anthony Perez9 said:I read something about this once.

Flower pots were flying out of windows, the whole place was shaking, and people in the building were losing their minds... Then the cops remembered some "mad scientist" and went to bust him.

Meanwhile, Nikola Tesla was having a rough time. A connection on his massive, vibrating machine shorted out, and he couldn't kill the power. So, he sprinted to a nearby hardware store to borrow a sledgehammer. The only way to stop that "hellish contraption" was to smash the casing. He was right in the middle of swinging that hammer when the cops caught him.
Once he finished, he gave them a bit of that classic dry wit you'd expect from a guy like him and told them: "Too bad you didn't show up a few minutes ago to witness a successful experiment." 😂

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_resonance

🙂
I think that specific scene was actually adapted for that TV series about Nikola Tesla (Šerbedžija).

Anthony Perez9 said:There's a big difference between shaking something apart via resonance and an actual tectonic earthquake.

Dumb conspiracy theorists just spread paranoia, claiming "mysterious Masonic-Illuminati power centers" are triggering unnatural earthquakes globally with some kind of super-rays, or that they're "poisoning us" and trying to chip us to control our thoughts. It's just a total fever dream. 😂

As for Tesla, you won't find any intellectuals among those who worship bishop rings, kiss altars, or believe in Mary's perpetual virginity and all that other nonsense. They wouldn't be who they are if they didn't believe in that Jehovah-biblical nonsense.

Look, the Earth itself is just an object too.

That tremor in New York City was caused by a mechanical oscillator—basically, the vibrations traveled through the building's foundation and bled right into the ground.
The harder the surface—think solid rock or granite—the more intense that effect becomes.
If my geology is right, New York City sits on a monolithic slab of rock.

Maria Robinson2 said:Ugh.
Finally, a bit of actual substance on this board—bravo, I guess.

Discussions here generally lack specifics, so it mostly devolves into everyone mocking everyone else—people making fun of things without even knowing why (aside from their own personal frustrations).

Tesla?
He was brilliant—he saw things so far ahead of his time that modern science still hasn't even come close to catching up; they just copy him and claim his discoveries as their own.
Beyond being exceptionally intelligent, he had a good heart—he actually claimed that the current being discovered could be free for everyone on Earth.
That obviously didn't fly, since the wizards of capitalism had other plans for that.

I always found that incident where Tesla (while in NY) triggered a tremor that caused both an earthquake and a nearby fire—leading to panicked calls to the fire department—quite interesting.
Back then, he testified that such things could be induced intentionally.
Today, his work is being repurposed to trigger tremors across the globe—if you can distinguish them from natural earthquakes.

So, I won't argue that God hasn't granted humanity knowledge, or allowed us to understand the elements we're playing with to a certain degree.
The issue is that people exploit that knowledge, experimenting in ways that threaten everyone else on the planet—and the planet itself.

🙂
When someone claims something is "smart," that judgment is strictly limited by the intelligence of the person making it.
So, an assessment like that (calling something smart) is entirely relative.

Also, when you claim something is smart, you’re essentially implying that you are smart too.

Maria Robinson2 said:Ugh.
Finally, a bit of actual substance on this board—bravo, I guess.

Discussions here generally lack specifics, so it mostly devolves into everyone mocking everyone else—people making fun of things without even knowing why (aside from their own personal frustrations).

Tesla?
He was brilliant—he saw things so far ahead of his time that modern science still hasn't even come close to catching up; they just copy him and claim his discoveries as their own.
Beyond being exceptionally intelligent, he had a good heart—he actually claimed that the current being discovered could be free for everyone on Earth.
That obviously didn't fly, since the wizards of capitalism had other plans for that.

I always found that incident where Tesla (while in NY) triggered a tremor that caused both an earthquake and a nearby fire—leading to panicked calls to the fire department—quite interesting.
Back then, he testified that such things could be induced intentionally.
Today, his work is being repurposed to trigger tremors across the globe—if you can distinguish them from natural earthquakes.

So, I won't argue that God hasn't granted humanity knowledge, or allowed us to understand the elements we're playing with to a certain degree.
The issue is that people exploit that knowledge, experimenting in ways that threaten everyone else on the planet—and the planet itself.

Off topic, but
Tesla caused that tremor using a mechanical oscillator.
Naturally, the condition is that the oscillation is synchronized with the resonance so that positive interference occurs (where the peaks of the oscillator and the resonator align and add together), and... there you have it.
If I recall, he attached the oscillator to a structural column of a building...
As a kid, I used to build Tesla transformers... later, my own mechanical oscillator was just a basic motor with an eccentric cam and variable RPMs. My goal was to create an automatic feedback loop (synchronization) between the oscillator and the resonator (a shed pole), but... well, I'm no Nikola Tesla.
Kids today have much better options available to them.

Bottom line: Tesla caused a tremor
much like how soldiers marching in step across a bridge can hit its resonant frequency.
But his work on electromagnetic oscillators and resonators—which he used to transmit power wirelessly over long distances—is far more interesting.

Tesla didn't exactly try very hard to shake off his image as a mystic; if anything, I'd say he leaned into it.

He probably wasn't an atheist (he almost certainly wasn't as a child), nor an anti-theist... most likely a theist, just a non-traditional one.

Anthony Perez9 said:It’s common knowledge at this point. We're talking about a brilliant engineer and inventor, not some academic scientist.

What's your take on that "religious minority"?

Way better than dealing with that (insane) majority.

... so that’s probably why he never picked up a Nobel Prize in Physics. Physics is a science, and he just wasn't a "scientist."

Sure, he was a genius engineer and an incredible inventor, but
I haven't seen a single credible source anywhere claiming he was ever disqualified from being considered a scientist.

Anthony Perez9 said:Indications of origin can always exist...

What exactly do you find interesting about that?

Indications of origin can always exist...

What exactly do you find interesting about that?
Because it was just some telegram he sent back to Vladko Maček, not some official manifesto.

I wrote scientist - inventor.

So why isn't he a scientist?

He isn't.

I agree.

Clues about origins can always exist...

What's interesting to you here?

The fact that most religious people have heads full of creationist nonsense, conspiracy theories, Masonic myths, and other superstitions (not that atheists are immune, but there's less of it). Why isn't it the other way around? 🙂

I mean, if religious folks are in such direct, intimate contact with Reality and God, wouldn't that clear their heads? Wouldn't it make them more grounded, objective, and better at using both their brains and hearts?

Instead, even just on this forum, we run into believers pushing insane fringe theories, various superstitions, getting hyped over psychics and their wild hallucinations, predictions of the apocalypse, or seeing Jesus in a barrel or a rag.

What's the takeaway here?
Does dealing with God enlighten them or just cloud their judgment? 🙄
Because it was just some telegram he sent back to Vladko Maček, not some official manifesto.

I wrote scientist - inventor.

So why isn't he a scientist?

He isn't.

I agree.

Clues about origins can always exist...

What's interesting to you here?

The fact that most religious people have heads full of creationist nonsense, conspiracy theories, Masonic myths, and other superstitions (not that atheists are immune, but there's less of it). Why isn't it the other way around? 🙂

I mean, if religious folks are in such direct, intimate contact with Reality and God, wouldn't that clear their heads? Wouldn't it make them more grounded, objective, and better at using both their brains and hearts?

Instead, even just on this forum, we run into believers pushing insane fringe theories, various superstitions, getting hyped over psychics and their wild hallucinations, predictions of the apocalypse, or seeing Jesus in a barrel or a rag.

What's the takeaway here?
Does dealing with God enlighten them or just cloud their judgment? 🙄
I assume he actually meant what he wrote.

Anthony Perez9 said:Indications of origin can always exist...

What exactly do you find interesting about that?

Indications of origin can always exist...

What exactly do you find interesting about that?
Because it was just some telegram he sent back to Vladko Maček, not some official manifesto.

I wrote scientist - inventor.

So why isn't he a scientist?

He isn't.

I agree.

Clues about origins can always exist...

What's interesting to you here?

The fact that most religious people have heads full of creationist nonsense, conspiracy theories, Masonic myths, and other superstitions (not that atheists are immune, but there's less of it). Why isn't it the other way around? 🙂

I mean, if religious folks are in such direct, intimate contact with Reality and God, wouldn't that clear their heads? Wouldn't it make them more grounded, objective, and better at using both their brains and hearts?

Instead, even just on this forum, we run into believers pushing insane fringe theories, various superstitions, getting hyped over psychics and their wild hallucinations, predictions of the apocalypse, or seeing Jesus in a barrel or a rag.

What's the takeaway here?
Does dealing with God enlighten them or just cloud their judgment? 🙄
Because it was just some telegram he sent back to Vladko Maček, not some official manifesto.

I wrote scientist - inventor.

So why isn't he a scientist?

He isn't.

I agree.

Clues about origins can always exist...

What's interesting to you here?

The fact that most religious people have heads full of creationist nonsense, conspiracy theories, Masonic myths, and other superstitions (not that atheists are immune, but there's less of it). Why isn't it the other way around? 🙂

I mean, if religious folks are in such direct, intimate contact with Reality and God, wouldn't that clear their heads? Wouldn't it make them more grounded, objective, and better at using both their brains and hearts?

Instead, even just on this forum, we run into believers pushing insane fringe theories, various superstitions, getting hyped over psychics and their wild hallucinations, predictions of the apocalypse, or seeing Jesus in a barrel or a rag.

What's the takeaway here?
Does dealing with God enlighten them or just cloud their judgment? 🙄
Is anyone else besides you claiming that it isn't??

Anthony Perez9 said:Indications of origin can always exist...

What exactly do you find interesting about that?

Indications of origin can always exist...

What exactly do you find interesting about that?
Because it was just some telegram he sent back to Vladko Maček, not some official manifesto.

I wrote scientist - inventor.

So why isn't he a scientist?

He isn't.

I agree.

Clues about origins can always exist...

What's interesting to you here?

The fact that most religious people have heads full of creationist nonsense, conspiracy theories, Masonic myths, and other superstitions (not that atheists are immune, but there's less of it). Why isn't it the other way around? 🙂

I mean, if religious folks are in such direct, intimate contact with Reality and God, wouldn't that clear their heads? Wouldn't it make them more grounded, objective, and better at using both their brains and hearts?

Instead, even just on this forum, we run into believers pushing insane fringe theories, various superstitions, getting hyped over psychics and their wild hallucinations, predictions of the apocalypse, or seeing Jesus in a barrel or a rag.

What's the takeaway here?
Does dealing with God enlighten them or just cloud their judgment? 🙄
Because it was just some telegram he sent back to Vladko Maček, not some official manifesto.

I wrote scientist - inventor.

So why isn't he a scientist?

He isn't.

I agree.

Clues about origins can always exist...

What's interesting to you here?

The fact that most religious people have heads full of creationist nonsense, conspiracy theories, Masonic myths, and other superstitions (not that atheists are immune, but there's less of it). Why isn't it the other way around? 🙂

I mean, if religious folks are in such direct, intimate contact with Reality and God, wouldn't that clear their heads? Wouldn't it make them more grounded, objective, and better at using both their brains and hearts?

Instead, even just on this forum, we run into believers pushing insane fringe theories, various superstitions, getting hyped over psychics and their wild hallucinations, predictions of the apocalypse, or seeing Jesus in a barrel or a rag.

What's the takeaway here?
Does dealing with God enlighten them or just cloud their judgment? 🙄

What’s your take on that "minority of religious people"?

Morgan Brown5 said:😂 man, I'd give you anything... but regardless of everything, people still only talk about Tesla being an American scientist in circles of Americans who are just obsessed with him.

Americans really can claim him, though. He was born here, grew up here, and did his schooling among us... his roots are firmly planted in America.

🤷So, what exactly are those "other circles" supposed to be proud of?