1) Life has been so hectic lately that I haven't had a spare second to write down everything I’ve been wanting to say.
2) I’ve been meaning to start a thread about this movie, but I just couldn't find the time.
3) It honestly blows my mind that there are discussion threads here for every single flick playing in theaters across the US, yet this absolute masterpiece hasn't even been mentioned.
4) I was actually planning on getting the ball rolling tonight when I stumbled upon this existing thread.🙂
5) First off, it’s pretty fascinating to me that people will spend dozens of pages dissecting mediocre movies, while profound films like The Shack don't even have their own dedicated space or any real commentary.
6) If you ask me, it’s because most people are looking for pure entertainment and surface-level cinematic thrills. BUT anything that demands actual reflection—anything that forces you to confront suffering, death, and those heavy, fundamental questions of who we are and where we're headed—either goes right over people's heads, or they simply aren't interested in doing the heavy lifting required to face those truths.
I’d like to ask the forum's expert panel to take a look at this situation. I'm requesting that this thread be restored to its proper place, as I feel I'm being unfairly targeted by the moderator here.
bluemason3 said:Real work belongs in peer-reviewed journals. Honestly, given the current state of American philosophy—specifically the lack of qualified people, the shaky standards, and the zero competition—even subpar papers somehow manage to hit top-tier status. I’d suggest not wasting your energy on places that don't actually respect intellectual labor. Instead, direct that effort toward more serious, career-oriented fields. 🙂
You've started rambling here. In all that rambling, you overlooked the fact that you actually conceded my text constitutes some form of work. Furthermore, you haven't proven that my topic is just "trolling."
My extensive research and specific data—which have never been published in American—suggest that philosophers who lost their mothers at an early age tend to develop impersonal, nihilistic, or negative philosophies. That’s a fascinating premise for a philosophical debate, certainly, but it’s hardly grounds for a ban.
What you're doing right now is pure authoritarianism without any actual argument behind it.👎
bluemason3 said:Three pages of philosophy just to conclude that nothing matters and we should all just "pray" instead.
It’s a topic for religion, but since you have partial coverage there, there's really no point in debating the move.
What absolute FABRICATION.
There isn't a single mention of prayer anywhere in the text.
For the first time in an American context, this text provides unexpected data regarding how the early loss of a parent influences one's PHILOSOPHY.
The correlation is genuinely surprising.😲
Deleting a theme that touches upon PHILOSOPHY like this is nothing short of harassment and pure misunderstanding.
This wouldn't happen IF MODERATORS ACTUALLY HELD ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS 😉
It seems there is zero respect from the moderators for someone else's work. Someone could easily interpret three meters of text—which he dismissively calls the "introductory part"—as SERIOUS WORK, RESEARCH, AND A DETAILED EXPLANATION.
Does anyone else get the feeling that moderators—given they’re basically untouchable if they mess up—tend to bully people in ways they’d never dream of doing in their actual lives? Whether it’s at work, school, or even just hanging out with family, there’s a certain boldness they exhibit here that just doesn't exist in the real world.
It feels like they’re just hiding behind anonymity, deleting someone else's hard work or research simply because they have some weird personal grudge against the author.🤷
But here’s the real kicker: most of these moderators identify as liberals, leftists, or free thinkers who claim to despise dictators, arbitrary rules, and injustice... you know the drill.
Yet, once they step away from the coffee shops and the protests where they shout about BROTHERHOOD, LIBERTY, AND EQUALITY, and finally log in as an anonymous moderator, they turn into the exact kind of tyrants they criticize in politics or public life.
There might be a modern twist on an old proverb for this:
If you really want to see someone's true colors, give them the power of being an anonymous moderator on an internet forum, and you'll see everything.
Just a heads-up: this is actually my second attempt at starting a full thread. The moderator wiped my last one completely.
Regarding that first case, I've actually posted about it here—back when I was specifically asked to refrain from complaining about the PZK. 😲
Look, we went back and did some digging, and honestly, we realized we messed up—we accidentally deleted text that actually belongs in the published book. But please, don't go filing a formal grievance with the PZK; I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but an appeal like that isn't going to change anything anyway.
I’ve been spending quite a bit of time lately thinking about the intersection of logic and existence, specifically how we interpret reality through different lenses. It’s one of those deep dives that starts with a simple question and ends up pulling you into the heavy hitters of philosophy. Take someone like Descartes. His whole approach to certainty—that "I think, therefore I am" foundation—is such a cornerstone for how we view individual consciousness. But then you have thinkers like Leibniz or even Pascal, who add these layers of complexity regarding how we perceive order and divinity. It’s fascinating to see how they wrestled with the same fundamental mysteries we still grapple with today. I was actually reading some commentary on Hume recently, and it really makes you reconsider the reliability of our sensory experiences. If we can't truly trust what we perceive, where does that leave our understanding of the world? It’s enough to give anyone a bit of an existential headache! Even the way Rousseau viewed the social contract feels incredibly relevant when you look at how modern institutions function. I find myself drifting toward the more skeptical side of things sometimes—thinking about Bertrand Russell or even Nietzsche. There’s a certain raw honesty in their work that challenges the comfortable assumptions we all tend to hold. It’s not always easy to face, but there's a profound kind of freedom in that skepticism. I’d love to hear what everyone else thinks. Do you lean more towards the structured, rationalist views of Thomas Aquinas, or do you find yourself siding with the more existentialist vibes of Sartre? Or maybe you just enjoy a good bit of philosophical humor to lighten the mood when the big questions get too heavy? Let's discuss.
=== My philosophy professor just nuked my thread because apparently, I was "copying" from one of those heavyweight philosophical classics.
First, here’s a quick rundown of the facts and a timeline of events, strictly without any commentary. I'll follow up in a separate post with the topic that was just deleted upon review.
I actually took a moment to follow my inspiration and decided to start a new thread on philosophy. Philosophical humor and anecdotes involving two variables.
Since even the "strictest" branches of natural science have plenty of room for a little philosophical humor, I figured philosophy should be allowed to join in on the fun too.
I actually went a step further and suggested a structural improvement in my intro: we shouldn't just be tossing out jokes or random anecdotes for the sake of it. Instead, every single joke needs to serve a purpose—it should act as a gateway into a specific philosophical concept, a problem, or a deeper idea.
To my absolute surprise—and honestly, a fair bit of disappointment—this thread was nuked. It was flagged as trolling, which resulted in me getting slapped with a 35-point penalty for "trolling" and another 30 points just because I used all caps in the title. Talk about a rough start.
Since it’s impossible to tell whether bluemason3 has been on this forum longer than I have been completely clueless, I decided to take matters into my own hands. Since I actually know him "in theory" (even if we aren't exactly buddies in real life), I sent him a private message to vent a little. I basically asked him why he was being so unfair to me and requested that he bring the thread back to life.
7) I felt like he was wavering for a second there. He admitted he couldn't really be his own judge, so he decided to go out on a limb and seek a second opinion from the admin, rustydrifter10.
Look, I went ahead and messaged him directly. Honestly, why even bother with middlemen at this point? I’ve laid out two solid pieces of evidence that prove he's mistaken, and trust me, I'm not just trolling here—there's actual substance to what I'm saying.
Natural science actually has a sense of humor. You’re wiping out entire sections—the core concepts, the introductions, even the actual text from a philosophy book—and then labeling it "trolling" without offering a single shred of an argument before slapping me with a penalty. Let's get this sorted out: fix the mistake and restore the topic, and we can all get back to fulfilling our own dharma.
9) And since I don't want to drag this out any longer, I'll just ask: what exactly was it that rustydrifter10 said?
10) And he’s going to throw another curveball my way—I mean, didn't you tell me you weren't interested in rustydrifter10?
Man, I told you—I really don’t want you wasting time dealing with middlemen. I was hoping you would be the one to get this topic back on track personally. But hey, if there's absolutely no other way to make it happen, then go ahead and coordinate through rustydrifter10.
And finally, bluemason3 gets back to me with something along these lines:
The appeal has been forwarded. I had a quick chat with rustydrifter10, and we’ve decided to let the deletion stand.
I’ve actually been asked to hold off on starting a new thread over on the PZK forums. Since administration already weighed in on the matter, they feel there's really no point in opening a new discussion.
Wait a second—I’m out here asking someone to make things right, and they just won't budge.
15) I ended up skipping the PZK because, honestly, I thought it was just one of those instances where a moderator made an obvious mistake—misinterpreting a subtle joke or overanalyzing a topic that wasn't actually that deep.
The moderator is refusing to budge, and they won't even give me a proper explanation for their ruling—even after I submitted all this new evidence to support my case. To top it off, they actually had the nerve to "suggest" that I shouldn't take this matter up with the PZK! Honestly, the audacity is unreal.
Well, I have to hand it to you—that was a masterclass in wrapping up pure indifference in such beautifully polished rationalizations!
17) You know that feeling when you’re just itching to give someone a piece of your mind—maybe even a little physical reprimand—but then you immediately find yourself pleading with them to just stay quiet and not go running to anyone to complain? It’s such a ridiculous contradiction, isn't it?
Yesterday, I started a thread over on the philosophy board
What happens to a philosopher and their entire worldview when they lose a parent at a very young age?
As you can probably tell, I put quite a bit of time and research into this topic; finding these specific details wasn't exactly a walk in the park.
However, the moderator wiped the entire thread and slapped me with a 35-point penalty for "trolling."
I’d really appreciate it if the community and the administration could take a look and explain why this qualifies as trolling, and, hopefully, allow the thread to be reincarnated here in a more positive light:
==============
I'm fairly certain most people don't realize that 😲 :
Descartes lost his mother when he was just 3. Spinoza lost his at 6. Leibniz was 6 when his father passed away. Pascal's mother died when he was only 3. Hume lost his father at age 3. Rousseau lost his mother right after birth, and his father left him when he was 10. Both Kant and Hegel lost their mothers at 13. Bertrand Russell's mother died when he was 2, and his father when he was 4. And Sartre lost his father at age 2.
Isn't it possible that early parental loss serves as the psychological foundation upon which these philosophers built their ideas of alienation, and for many, their atheism and nihilism?
A wise man once wrote (and I'm essentially throwing this at hiddenpuma75, who seems to be trying to turn my windmill into a flood with all these curses and warnings against philosophy):
"Philosophy is born from alienation. This isn't necessarily an alienation from another human being; it can also be an alienation from oneself or from the cosmos."
Take, for instance, the case of Nietzsche. The contrast between that man's life and his work is just staggering.
Nietzsche preaches a message of absolute hardness, reckless cruelty, and the uprooting of everything perceived as weak or sickly. Yet, since his student days, he was a frail man who required the very help from the types of people he despised. The man who writes with such masterful style about the *Übermensch* was constantly preoccupied with his diet and lifestyle. He obsessed over strict diets, tracked climate charts, and even doctored medical prescriptions.
He writes philosophy of world-historical proportions with a soul of exquisite elegance, yet he himself was just an obscure, retired philology professor, mulling things over in cheap hotels and lonely boarding houses.
While loudly denouncing all traditional values and proclaiming the Superman as light and life, he lived in his own shadow, remaining anonymous and conversing mostly with hotel guests and, more often than not, his own books. His romantic life was quite tragic.
He was a gentle, vulnerable, fearful, and dreamy man whom others found quite pleasant to be around. And yet, his writings explode with hatred for humanity and contempt for everything lowly or weak. Even for God. His expressions are often riddled with bitterness and a desire to offend. An anti-religious fanaticism seems to cloud his judgment.
And finally, we have the heartbreaking end we all know. He entered a labyrinth from which he simply couldn't find his way out. 😢
Are things like sympathy, kindness, mercy, consideration, humanity, and love truly things that should be branded as weaknesses?
Is there even a single philosophical work that possesses a pure heart?
None!
Even Saint Thomas Aquinas—the great teacher of the Church—declared at the end of his life that everything he had written was merely straw, because he had been granted the grace to experience the very thing he wrote about.🙂 That is why people and the world aren't moved or inspired by mere philosophers, clever words, or brilliant rhetoric.
Instead, they are moved by simple messages of heart and love, truths that were lived, radiated, and passed down through the darkness of the ages.
Lao Tzu, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, St. Paul, Muhammad... Rumi...
So, perhaps we should move past mere philosophy and return to that fundamental truth that has radiated light through thousands of years.
THAT which is spoken through both life and word:
Lao Tzu, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, St. Paul, Muhammad... Rumi...
I’d like to offer a general response here—perhaps even a universal formula for tackling any kind of "thought experiment."
1) First off, most of these experiments operate under the false assumption that there is a single "correct" or "objective" answer. But that’s just not how it works; within your own internal, subjective universe, the standard laws of logic don't necessarily apply! 😲 Because of that, any answer you give to these types of puzzles could be considered "right," which effectively makes the question itself pointless and a waste of breath.
It’s a bit like asking whether it is objectively "correct" to have one wife, four wives, or none at all, and then trying to analyze what actually happens in each scenario. You’ll quickly realize that every single answer just triggers a billion more questions, and this cycle of futility will continue until the end of time... ..................
2) Furthermore, these experiments often turn into little mental traps. No matter what choice you make, someone will find a way to nitpick your reasoning. It's essentially an attempt by a mind that doesn't even know its own nature—a mind that can't even grasp what it looked like before its grandparents were even born—to manufacture complex riddles. Meanwhile, that same mind can't even solve the fundamental mystery of WHO it is, what it actually is, how consciousness functions, or where it was located BEFORE consciousness existed.
3) In reality, all these experiments boil down to a classic Zen koan: A goose is trapped inside a glass bottle. How do you get the goose out alive without breaking the bottle?🤔
====
If you want to solve this or any other thought experiment, you need to understand one thing:
The person posing these questions is usually driven by a restless, monkey-like mind and a nagging sense of existential discomfort. Since the mind doesn't understand its own essence, where thoughts come from, or the enigma of consciousness, it tries to distract itself. That inner restlessness—which could represent anything from suffering and ignorance to simple anxiety or insecurity—forces the mind to churn out all kinds of mental junk just to keep itself busy.
Ultimately, tasks like these are just colorful, distracting clutter. They should be cleared away, and perhaps the person posting them should be met with a metaphorical lash of the whip 🙂... or, in the context of this forum, simply a moderator stepping in to lock the thread.
William Bennett53 said:Look, let's try this: if you can provide a credible link in short order regarding those 662 priests killed due to the "poisoning" of modern art and the avant-garde, then you won't get banned here for gross, revisionist trolling. Don't launch into a debate or call for backup—just drop a link to any historically relevant source.
So, I basically need to map out my deep, metaphorical stream of consciousness? Hmm, sounds a bit tedious. I feel like a writer standing before Cardinal Richelieu here. 😁
Alright, Officer 🙂...
1) Anyone who actually puts in a little effort can find the data (I believe an American victimology society published it) stating that between 1942 and 1948, 622 or 662 priests and nuns were killed. I can't recall the exact number, but I am certain they were murdered out of *odium fidei*.
2) They were killed by the avant-garde.
3) Back then, the avant-garde was essentially the Communist Party—that's what they called themselves. It means they thought they were incredibly progressive and sophisticated because they arrived at the shallow idea that God doesn't exist and everything connected to Him should be wiped out. They did this in Albania, Russia, Tibet, and now in the modern era, they use "artistic and avant-garde" labels on religious forums once they gain a little power—like when three moderators happen to be atheists. 4) They were killed because the avant-garde believed the time had come to eradicate backward opinions and people, and that someone finally had to implement the "final solution." That was actually the answer one forum user gave when I asked how such a thing was possible. Unfortunately, search engines aren't helping me confirm that specific sentiment right now.
5) Using the phrase that they were killed for modern art is my metaphorical expression. It’s my way of saying that crimes born of hatred know no time, borders, or logic. Instead of modern art, you could plug in any term you like. Because to kill someone, or to send them to a purge, YOU NEED A PRETEXT.
Essentially, Socrates was killed because he poisoned the youth, and those hundreds of priests and nuns were killed because they poisoned the youth.
I could have just said it was "due to modern art," which was my ironic way of putting it. It was meant to be understood that way, but William Bennett53 is demanding a link to my metaphors and proof of "the poisoning of modern art." It's hard to find a literal link online for one's own flow of thought and metaphors, especially when they are as slippery as these are if you try to take them too literally. 😉
" The avant-garde could invent any excuse. Whether it was Socrates in Greece or the clergy in the former Yugoslavia from 1942–1948.
a) They poison the youth. b) Counter-revolutionaries are against us (and our "art"). c) ......... d) ...just type in whatever you want.
For example : e) Insufferable behavior where someone quotes a Nobel laureate just to irritate us, and the only way to prevent the public from seeing it is to ban the topic and hide hiddenpuma75—which is a historical analogy to the purging of those priests. (All in the name of MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF ART).
===
Your question is linear, and you read my text linearly.
"Poisoning," the "avant-garde," and "modern art" are all terms linked to Socrates, the Communists, the massacre of those clergy members, a single purge, a single vulgarity, a certain theater in a river town, a cross, and an American flag being pulled from... well, you know.
It’s incredibly tough to share my deeper reflections and metaphors—much like those historical forum parallels we all know—just as it’s nearly impossible to explain $E=mc^2$ or wave function collapse in plain, everyday English. 😉
My point was meant to be universal; I used artistic metaphors (inspired by that local theater in San Diego that operates with a similar vibe and methodology to our religion sub-forum moderator).
Basically, we can poke fun at them, but they aren't allowed to mock us—if they do, they're labeled "fanatical primitives," and their behavior becomes absolutely intolerable.
(That's why the title mentions how you can pull a cross and an American flag out of a pretentious theater production in San Diego; it's the ultimate way to show contempt for someone who holds those things sacred.)
==========
It all boils down to this:
Back when the religion board had three atheist moderators, you could have written that Muhammad was a pedophile or that Jesus was gay, and believers would have just been treated like sheep without anyone batting an eye.
But the moment you show up quoting a Nobel laureate from my signature, suddenly your behavior is "unbearable" and you're accused of being biased. >
That is pure intellectual dishonesty—it's exactly what I meant by "modern art" (referring back to that San Diego theater and the religious sub-forum).
Gregory Turner71 said:He hasn't been banned because of his unbearable behavior, but rather due to a moderator conspiracy.☕
It isn't a conspiracy; it’s intellectual dishonesty, which is a massive distinction.
For example:
Back when there were three atheist moderators on the religion board (which is absurd in itself—like having vegetarians moderating a BBQ forum or Republicans moderating a Democratic Party forum), and when hiddenpuma75 opened the thread mentioned in my signature,
that thread was shut down pretty quickly because it didn't fit the ideology that scientists are actually atheists.
Even though everything the Nobel laureate stated was published in a SCIENTIFIC book, not just some random chatter at a bar. ==
But if you open a thread claiming the prophet Muhammad (may he rest in peace) was a pedophile,
or suggesting Jesus was actually a closeted homosexual because of his bond with John, those topics are debated until retirement.
So, on the religion board (while those three atheist moderators were in charge), you could say whatever you wanted about God, the church, religion, theology...
and even insult believers, calling them sheep or primitives because they fail to grasp deep artistic concepts—like an actress in a high-end modern theater in Chicago pulling a cross and the American flag out of her backside... and that is called religious pluralism, freedom of thought... and peak art.
But if you happen to quote the Nobel laureate Christian Anfinsen from my signature, then a thread like that gets closed because hiddenpuma75's behavior is "unbearable."🤦
Ha ha! Give me a break.
Seriously.🤣
That's how modern leftists operate.
As long as you agree with their views, it’s called democracy and freedom of thought.
But if you post something that doesn't fit their ideological narrative, suddenly you're an insufferable fanatic or a religious zealot who needs to be banned because some sensitive soul got offended.😵 ==
I’ve seen this all before. Between 1942 and 1948, the atheist authorities in Yugoslavia killed 622 priests and nuns out of pure religious hatred simply because they preferred crowns and Bibles over modern art and the avant-garde. Just try opening a thread like that on the religion board without getting banned!
I’ve lost track of exactly how long it’s been, but there has been a persistent bias against my profile within the religion section for a verryyyyyyyy long time.
If I had to guess, it’s been at least three years... 😲 I would love for an official review committee to look into this and report back to the community, as I am quite curious to see the findings myself.
(For those interested, I could provide a detailed breakdown of the situation, but frankly, it feels irrelevant now. It wasn't about the facts—which seem to hold little weight anymore anyway—but rather a case of "moderator syndrome," where someone simply wanted to hunt down and ban any user they personally disliked.
That predatory moderator moved on long ago, just as Buddha predicted, but the lamb, 🙂 hiddenpuma75 😁, remains, along with that lingering prejudice.
It seems a moderator's personal distaste can easily manufacture a reason for conflict. However, since Buddha teaches in the Diamond Sutra that moderators are transient while the users and the forum itself endure, perhaps there is enough goodwill in the new, wise leadership to finally lift this undeserved penalty from me.
I would like to submit the following mitigating circumstances for your consideration:
a) My clean record, which can be verified by any local police department or even the FBI.
b) My graying hair and the simple fact that I am getting older.
c) The sheer volume of engaging topics I have introduced in the religion section—essentially my overall contribution to this forum through numerous long-form essays written with a refined touch.🙂
d) The fact that I have been a member of this forum for a long, long, long time.
e) I have never belonged to a political party, a church, a sports club, an association, a clan, a clique, the moderation team, or the administration.
I am neither a soldier, nor a mercenary, nor an aggressor. I haven't voted for the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party, though I did cast my ballot.
In short, I have always been, and will always remain, an SELF-SUFFICIENT THINKER. 🙂
Reason might lead you to the doorstep, but it won't let you through the door. - Rumi
Colleague Sigmund!; Please take note: Those who fail to see the hand doing the writing often assume the work simply emerges from the movement of the pen itself.
Colleague Sigmund! (And Daniel, with his two e's),
HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT BY SETTING THESE DEFINITIONS AND LIMITS (definitions) FOR REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE, YOU’VE REMAINED TRAPPED IN PLATO’S CAVE, CONFINED BY BOTH YOUR OWN REASON AND THE CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL LOGIC?
If we play strictly by your definitions—by those specific rules of engagement established by ratio—then you are absolutely right, and any further debate is a total waste of time. In your version of the world, reason acts as both the prosecutor and the judge.
It struck me during this discussion that you are essentially acting like Pythagoras, insisting that only rational numbers exist and that you can master them perfectly to calculate everything in existence. I wonder if you realize how much of a shock that was to him and his school when they discovered the existence of irrational numbers. And that’s not even touching on transcendental, imaginary, complex, or... well, let's just say "unpredictable" numbers.
Using high-flown, rather pretentious philosophical jargon, you describe "your" version of universal logic as a self-referential, self-determining system. It is the prosecutor and the judge. It is the president, the legislature, the senate, and the executioner all rolled into one. It’s easy for you, Sigmund, to dismiss every other form of perception when you’ve appointed yourself the boss and decided that you get to set the rules of the game.
Let me summarize briefly, then go into more detail below: Against your ratio and its arbitrary self-referentiality stand both Buddha and Heisenberg with his uncertainty principles, Gödel with his theorem regarding the incompleteness of any formal system, Hamvas, and various others—Voltaire, Owen, and finally, though no less importantly, the legendary hiddenpuma75.......
================================= I ask the executioner to pass a sentence that is merciful. We will liberate Sigmund from the illusion he has fallen into within his own Platonic cave of ratio, provided he simply admits that the circle of evidence against him and his precious universal ratio is CLOSED. In truth, ratio is merely a small, limited, yet incredibly pretentious magician from Oz, using a loud fanfare of old metaphysical tropes to create a massive smoke screen that people mistake for awe.
But here comes the brave knight, hiddenpuma75, who has healed Amfortas's wound and exposed this entire grand performance. Let Sigmund admit that ratio is at fault—that it self-appointed itself without the consent of the people—and we will be lenient and grant him his freedom.
If Sigmund refuses to plead guilty, then I ask the executioner to allow me to step in as the lead prosecutor against Sigmund and his highly personal version of ratio.
I am bringing in an expert witness, my uncle Kurt Gödel, and he will speak through the voice of hiddenpuma75:
You are the accused, Sigmund, for appointing ratio as the ultimate authority. You're being as naive as a wide-eyed intern. It is interesting because you pointed out the limitations of that rigid materialism and its perverse, Frankenstein-like byproduct—reductionism—quite clearly to Wanda. Yet, here, it seems you have become just like her, insisting on the absolute supremacy of ratio.
Your entire paradigm is built upon a central, naive premise: the dictatorship and supremacy of ratio, or rational knowledge.
For example, Wanda says: "The universe is laid out before me... I have two comprehensive tools: mathematics and physics. Now, I will use the pincers of math and physics to grasp reality itself."
But your god, Sigmund, is ratio.🙂
I would ask both Wanda and Sigmund: are you truly aware that you cannot even rely on the "Queen of Sciences"—mathematics? Mathematics isn't actually a tool capable of pinching and analyzing true, objective reality.
Here is a scholarly reflection from hiddenpuma75 on the limits of knowledge, based on what my uncle Gödel taught me while I was taking some advanced math courses.
GÖDEL'S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM and Heisenberg's uncertainty principles.
Some people argue that there’s a fundamental limit—a literal, insurmountable abyss—to our capacity to actually grasp or predict the reality of the universe.
Mathematics is the undisputed queen of the sciences—it even holds its own against... Sigmund’s god, that ratio. They have their limits. There is this idea that a specific set of axioms could be considered "complete" by certain mathematical standards, but I just don't buy it. In my view, they can never truly be complete. Because the very foundations of mathematics aren't fundamental themselves, any such system is merely a tiny cross-section—just a faint reflection of a much deeper causality that allowed those "foundations" to exist in the first place. Everyone seems to be completely overlooking that deep, implicit dimension sitting right behind those "foundations." People act like mathematical principles are the fundamental blueprint of the universe itself, when in reality, they’re just a distilled byproduct of much deeper relationships occurring at a far more consequential level of existence.
Here we go again!! While mathematics might be the final veil standing between us and the ultimate truth, we have to admit that even math has its limits. What we define as "completeness" from a mathematical and... Sigmund’s perspective on the world.It’s not even really about achieving absolute completeness, because the very foundations of mathematics itself are incomplete. In a way, Gödel’s theorem is essentially telling us that if we start out with an incomplete set of axioms—say, something like the combination of Sigmund and the RACIA—then we shouldn't be surprised when that set fails to produce a complete description or proof of all the true relations within it. It’s incomplete. Since the mathematical foundations of such sets are inherently incomplete, then any mathematical—or rather, Sigmund's "rational"—claim to achieve completeness within such an fundamentally flawed framework is nothing more than pure pretension. It feels like you just can't find what you're actually looking for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Colleague Sigmund, just remember—those who try to play games with the demon of infinity will only end up being torn apart by the hounds of reason. ________________________________________
I’d like to ask the forum jury to take notice.
Sigmund brought us a masked witness today, announcing that she’s actually a young woman—a paragon of flawless logic. She claims that through pure, unadulterable ratio, she sees and knows everything. Her mission? To prove once and for all that God doesn't exist, because, in her eyes, the only true divinity is RACIA. But the brave knight hiddenpuma75 finally tossed that mask aside, and now the truth is out in the open—it turns out Sigmund has been keeping that old, crumbling metaphysics all to himself this whole time. 😒
JER
Let's be honest: infinity as we discuss it today isn't actually "real." It’s just a convenient mental construct cooked up by mathematicians who wanted to tidy up their equations.
b) There’s also no such thing as infinitely small numbers.
I think we should take a closer look at option C. It seems to offer a more balanced approach than the others, though I'll admit I'm still weighing the long-term implications. What do you all think? The formalists, like Hilbert and Russell... Sigmund It feels a bit pretentious, even dishonest, to suggest that we can grasp and explain everything through mere RACIA—whether we’re talking about actual infinity in mathematics or the concept of the Absolute. They were firm believers in actual infinity, mainly because they felt it aligned perfectly with the third logical axiom, "tertium non datur."
David Hilbert, colleague Sigmund's brother, once remarked:
In a way, you could say mathematical Analysis is nothing less than a symphony composed around the theme of infinity.
...before Kurt Gödel ended up driving him right out of that "mathematical paradise" where Georg Cantor had originally led them.
Kurt Gödel, with his theorem, essentially pointed out the inherent limits of logic and mathematics, and... Sigmund’s ratio We really ought to consider this without overcomplicating the math or forcing the logic into shapes it wasn't meant to take. Cantor’s continuum hypothesis remains valid strictly within the framework the author himself established. When you look at the axioms of cardinal numbers, they don't actually represent any kind of "actual" infinity—not in the sense of the Absolute. They possess a starting point, a baseline that is rooted in finitude rather than true infinity.
So, here we go again with that dreadful debate over Sigmund—and let’s not forget Wanda—and Gödel.
In any formal system, you can construct a statement P such that neither P nor its negation can be derived from the system's own rules. Essentially, we're talking about undecidable problems. -- A Verdict in the Name of the Forum Republic
Prosecutor hiddenpuma75 has successfully convinced the jury, so let the executioner carry out the sentence.
Gödel, Heisenberg, and hiddenpuma75 (with that award-winning reflection of theirs: THE TRUTH IS THAT THE LIST IS JUST CABBAGE) ) They’re essentially proving that there is an absolute abyss—a hard limit to what we can actually know. It's an ABYSS that logic, reason, neither Sigmund nor Daniel, nor Hegel, nor even mathematics can ever hope to leap over.
Bravo! Give them a hand! 👏
QED
Wishing you all the best, and please, stay patient while I prepare for the next escalation of this debate.
Well, I'm the kind of guy who read "The Man Who Was Thursday" on a Friday—totally on purpose. Maybe a little "wicked," but I actually enjoyed tackling it on a Friday, haha, just kidding.
Regarding Orthodoxy—after my first pass and being totally swept up by his style—I actually set it aside. Once the initial hype died down, I thought about writing my own "anti-orthodoxy," basically a counter-belief, using that same Chestertonian style to write a parody from the opposite perspective. But I gave up on that pretty quickly for a bunch of reasons I won't get into here. Honestly? Chesterton is just one jolly, chubby little jokester with a rather unfortunate psyche. Yeah, really. Did you know he actually tried to take his own life when he was younger? That’s what I mean by an unfortunate psyche. Those paradoxes of his? They're just his style. It’s all fun and games, but for me, it feels a bit like watching kids playing marbles in a park—how do I put this?—kind of silly. And look, I'm not a creep, for crying out loud; I don't want the cops chasing me through the streets like they did during my wilder days back in the day—and no, that wasn't because of anything weird like that. Chesterton himself is a parody to anyone who isn't Christian, and in his head, it all makes perfect sense. I respect the intent, but I can't respect the headspace. To me, it feels two-fold: hollow and empty. Just... hollow-empty. And there's one glaring issue with his logic that anyone with half a brain can see. The thing is, it isn't even about philosophy—and mind you, philosophy is something that still needs to be overcome, so there we have it.
His books deal in—as Hegel would say—abstractions. And that's the truth; everything he writes is pure abstraction. Everything he puts down is just "common sense." Personally, I'm more of a "psychiatric case"—that common sense stuff doesn't really do much for me, which is probably why I'm labeled as such. Knowing what abstractions actually are (not going to dive into that here, though Hegel is incredibly fascinating when you realize what he was actually doing), I just can't bring myself to read stuff like that anymore without feeling like I'm regressing to playing marbles in a park. Chesterton used his style to arrive at Christianity, but get this: you could use that exact same style to arrive at atheism or anything else non-religious. His writing isn't an argument for faith; it's just abstraction. I shouldn't have to write two forum posts about things handled by "common sense," yet you have these Chestertonians calling him the "Apostle of Common Sense," which, if you ask me, is the height of irony. I can only laugh at that, and I'm apparently the only one who gets why it's so ironic and funny. Anyway.
From a philosophical standpoint (which is the most important part here), Chesterton is a populist. Just as Hitler was a populist to Junger, that's how Chesterton is to me. You aren't going to learn anything intellectually from him, even if he technically "philosophizes" in his works. Aside from the style—which you could mimic if you have "that certain something"—he mostly just plays with abstractions. But that's just common sense, or rather, reactionary thinking. What Chesterton does is operate within a binary, an "either-or" framework. He toys with logic in a way that makes it easy to build a parody once you learn how to flip his specific perspective. If they declare him a saint in the Church (and they surely will), there's nothing left to say. They know he walks hand-in-hand with them. An apologist is an apologist, and those are the types they canonize. On the other hand, if someone isn't in their camp, even if they're just as "saintly" as the others, they won't be called a saint. Why? Because they aren't *theirs*. You have to exist within their dogmas and their entire hierarchy just to be considered for sainthood. They can't canonize someone outside their circle; they only recognize their own. It's logical, really—it stays within their framework, much like what Nietzsche discussed in 'On Truth and Lie in a Moral Aspect.'
Look, if you’re looking for high-level philosophical depth from the Czechs, you’re barking up the wrong tree—specifically when it comes to Chesterton. If someone actually expects serious philosophy out of him, they're going to leave hungry. That’s my point, anyway, and I think it’s pretty obvious here. It brings up that classic dilemma: "Is it better to spend a month or two devouring all of Chesterton's translated works, or should I dive into Aristotle—even if it means grinding through just two pages a month while really chewing on the ideas?" I don't know about you, but I know my own answer. I know what I want to do. If you're the type who lives for wandering through thoughts, pure reasoning, entertainment, or some sort of "complete" education, then hey, do your thing. I’m tolerant of all that—I wouldn't say I'm as strict as Amanda Jackson5 made it out to be—I’m just pointing it out. Though, knowing this place, I doubt anyone "gets" the point of pointing things out. Honestly, pointing stuff out on a forum feels almost as pointless as reading these ancient posts. Since this is just a forum and everyone just posts whatever random junk comes to mind, you might stumble upon something smart once in a while, but at its core? This whole forum—and most others, really—is just one big, inflated bubble of nonsense. If I had a match, I’d love to see this forum like a giant round balloon, where the air inside is heated so intensely by the words being written that the whole thing just pops. I’d probably laugh, too—not like some villain, but more like those monks warming themselves by Buddha statues. Anyway, enough with the metaphors.
It really just comes down to what interests you: deep philosophy, something else entirely, or maybe a bit of both. You can't have everything—you can't have this and that at the same time. I mean, I’d love to grab both if I could, if you catch my drift, but since I can't, well, life goes on. They aren't exactly willing to accommodate my brand of tolerance for this or that. The Czech (that's my little nickname for him, kind of like how a dog named Lassie might be "Czech" to me) in his search for God—and indeed, like all unhappy consciousnesses—was basically just trying to end it all. If I had been alive back then and knew him personally, I would have handed him a rope and said, "Listen, you apostle of common sense, this pear tree has branches strong enough to hold your weight." He probably would have replied in his usual style: "I think I'll pass; the branch might snap." As for why it's so ironic to call Chesterton the "apostle of common sense," I'll keep that joke to myself.
Anyway, excuse me, I've got to go finish my coffee and rejoin reality.
Regardless, Chesterton acts as a mirror! Everyone sees in him whatever they carry within themselves. 😉
Many great figures respected Chesterton far more than Paul Bailey95 does.
So now, does Paul Bailey95 disrespect Chesterton because almost nobody respects him? 🤔
Or do great men respect Chesterton simply because they are great men themselves? I'll leave that for you to judge, but for your own enlightenment, I'll point out just how much these absolute legends actually admired Chesterton. 😉 ===========
1. The 1. famous philosopher (and atheist) Ernst Bloch stated that Chesterton "was the wisest man in the world." 😲
2. Even Mahatma Gandhi admitted he was significantly influenced by one Chestertonian essay, applying its ideas to his political struggle for India's independence. Gandhi remarked that reading that essay felt like being struck by lightning. 😲
3. Michael Collins claimed that a certain Chestertonian novel influenced his way of fighting for a free Ireland.
4. Ingmar Bergman claimed his favorite drama was a Chestertonian one, and he actually filmed a movie based on it in 1958.
5. Chesterton is, by any measure, the most cited 😲 writer in his home country, despite never finishing college. (For what it's worth, he wrote 80 books, about 200 short stories, roughly 4,000 essays, and several plays.
6. He stood 6'5" and weighed 310 lbs, so people affectionately called him a colossal genius or a genial colossus.
7. He used to unnerve Miroslav Krleža when they discussed Chesterton's main work during gatherings among Krleža's circle of friends. Krleža once remarked that he "stands bewildered before Chesterton as if before a Sphinx, testing my old age and my illumination."
8. Jorge Luis Borges admired Chesterton's detective novels, which feature a Catholic priest as the protagonist. In a film, this priest-detective was immortalized by sir Alec Guiness, who wrote in his autobiography that this fictional priest-detective influenced him so deeply that he left atheism and converted to Catholicism. 😲 While filming and playing the role of the Catholic priest-detective, sir Alec Guiness's eleven-year-old son fell ill with polio and was paralyzed from the waist down. Guiness writes that during a shoot in France, while dressed in his priest costume, he went to a nearby church and began to pray, vowing not to object if his son became a Catholic, provided God healed him. It looks like his prayers were answered; his son recovered, and interestingly enough, at just 15 years old, the boy decided to become Catholic. sir Alec Guiness didn't put up a fight and held up his end of the bargain. Later on, Alec Guiness himself converted to the Catholic faith.
9. In 1922 (when he was 48), Chesterton was received into the Catholic Church, calling it "the most important event of my life." He remarked that it was "the only church that actually dared to go down into the depths of my own being." ------------------------
A few of Chesterton's thoughts include:
-If there were no God, there wouldn't even be any atheists.
- When it comes to miracles, the most staggering part is that they actually happen.
- Love means loving what is unlovable; otherwise, it isn't really a virtue at all.
-"People who start fighting against the Church in the name of freedom and humanity end up discarding both freedom and humanity just so they can keep fighting the Church. Their enemies will use every weapon imaginable against her—swords that cut their own fingers and torches that burn down their own homes... They burned their own grain just to light a fire under the Church; they destroyed their own resources just to destroy her. Every club was good enough to strike at the Church, even if it was just the last scrap of wood left from their own shattered furniture."
If you were to poll our staff, nine out of ten would likely strike you as staunch liberals and progressives—people who champion justice and stand firmly against dictators, censorship, the church, political elites, taxes, recessions, or even just a slow-loading webpage...
But here’s the kicker! It seems those grand principles our moderators hold dear don't actually apply to the very forum they manage. 😉
Give anyone a little bit of authority—whether it's a seat in Washington or just a mod role on a message board—and you'll quickly see what kind of parent, politician, or leader they really are,😉 especially when they face zero consequences for any unfairness they dish out.😉
It’s honestly a shame that a public forum like this ends up discriminating against and censoring ideas simply because they rub a moderator the wrong way, even if those ideas are straight from Einstein or other Nobel laureates. That goes against the entire spirit of an open forum and completely ignores that famous Voltaire advice given to moderators:
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
So, I finally shared my thoughts on what he actually believed regarding atheism and science—specifically referencing when Time Magazine named him the Person of the Century, Albert Einstein.Unfortunately, even he didn't escape the scrutiny and was eventually bumped from the top spot. Yet, the cheap one-liners and insults directed at the Secretary—who, despite what some might think, holds a PhD—still persist.😉
According to TIME, the most significant figure in our civilization over the last millennium is Albert Einstein. I went ahead and dug up his specific take on atheism:
There are people who claim there is no God, but what truly frustrates me is how they use my own words to bolster their arguments... What sets me apart from the majority of atheists is this profound sense of humility in the face of the unfathomable mysteries within the COSMOS... Fanatical atheists are like slaves who still feel the weight of the shackles they cast off after an exhausting struggle. They are beings who, in their fierce opposition to traditional religions, are unable to hear the music of the spheres. Atheists lack that sense of humility and wonder regarding the unreachable mysteries of the harmony of the COSMOS, a quality that believers possess in abundance.
So, I tried sharing what one of history's most legendary scientists—the author of the famous *Principia*—actually thought about atheism. For some reason, the moderator didn't take too kindly to it and wiped my post, yet somehow the snarky one-liners from 🤦 managed to stay up.
Anyway, here is what many consider to be the greatest physicist to ever live, Isaac Newton, had to say regarding atheism:
"Atheism is so senseless and loathsome to mankind that it has never had many advocates."
So, since this thread has somehow managed to create this incredible—yet totally false—atmosphere suggesting that a Secretary of Science shouldn't be a believer, or that he's some kind of crackpot just because he has faith despite his PhD, I thought I’d share a few quotes from world-class scientists regarding atheism. I’ve posted three separate excerpts below that actually have something to do with the topic, unlike the endless stream of online trolls and insults being hurled at the Secretary. Of course, they’re perfectly fine for a regular moderator to post 😉
1) When asked in the famous book COSMOS, BIOS THEOS: "
''Many scientists, including Darwin, Planck, and Einstein, were deeply preoccupied with the concept of God. What are your thoughts on the concept and existence of God?''
The Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, the American scientist Christian Anfinsen, responded by saying
''I think only an idiot can be an atheist! We have to admit there is an incomprehensible power or force of infinite providence and knowledge that set the entire universe in motion.''
===========================
So, what was deemed worthy of publication in a legendary book, and what a Nobel laureate told a moderator like lonebadger6, was apparently "not good enough" for this space. Apparently, internet trolls and INSULTS TOWARD THE BELIEVING SECRETARY ARE ALLOWED, but certain Nobel laureates who don't align with our (leftist) agenda are unwelcome. Just delete it then!
We all know exactly why this bothered him, but honestly, moderator, unprincipled censorship is like a hydra—you cut off one head, and two more pop up in its place. 😉
Looking back at the thread about our new Secretary of Science, Smith, there’s an endless stream of one-liners, insults, pointless noise, rambling tangents, and just general creative license
I wanted to pull out a few of those snappy little remarks—though there are countless others you can find if you care to look. Honestly, the whole forum feels like a collection of "one-liners," where people hide behind their screen names to throw hypocritical jabs at public figures... and so on and so forth.
For instance, the thread is full of these "profound" gems:
1) Well, there you have it. A crackpot is running our science policy.
2) We aren't falling behind; the idiots are just lagging.
3) Check out that hair. 😍
4) Quick trivia question for everyone following this thread:
What do you get when you combine the minds of Secretary Smith and Secretary Hasanbegović?
...you get the whole spectrum of nonsense.
Anyway, if you look below, you'll see what I actually posted before it was deleted. 😉 Apparently, I got slapped with a 35-point penalty for "trolling."
It’s been quite a while, but I believe there has been a persistent bias against my username within the religion section for a long time. I’m talking at least two, if not three, years now. 😲 I suggest the expert committee look into this and release their findings to the public.
(If anyone is truly curious, I could provide a detailed breakdown of the situation, but honestly, it doesn't matter anymore. It wasn't about the facts—which seem to be irrelevant to everyone these days—but rather a classic case of "moderator wolf syndrome," where someone just wants to hunt down and ban any user they personally dislike.
In short, a moderator's personal distaste made it far too easy to find an excuse (for instance, targeting a quote from a Nobel laureate in my signature because, apparently, Nobel laureates shouldn't take my side, but should instead align with "the right" side). 😉 However, since Buddha teaches in the Diamond Sutra that moderators come and go, but the users and the forum remain, maybe there is some goodwill within the new, wise leadership to overturn my undeserved punishment.
The mitigating circumstances I am submitting for your consideration include:
a) My clean record, which can be verified through local law enforcement and Interpol. b) My gray hair and advancing age.
c) The wide array of fascinating topics I’ve initiated in the religion section—essentially my overall contribution to this community through numerous well-crafted, long-form essays. 🙂 d) The fact that I have been a member of this forum for a very, very long time.
d1) The fact that I once invited the moderator who banned me to grab a drink when I was visiting Washington, D.C., but I never received a response.
e) I have never been a member of any political party, church, sports club, association, clan, clique, moderation team, or administration...
Simply put, I have always been, and will always remain, an SELF-SUFFICIENT THINKER. 🙂
But let me tell you—both the visionaries in Lourdes and you had your reasons; something truly revealed itself to you both 🙂
Something really did manifest in Lourdes 😲 and even here on the forum, the only question is what 😉
You haven't actually studied the data from the scientific studies and MEASUREMENTS conducted on the visionaries DURING their apparitions in Lourdes, but I have 😉
Your issue is that you’ll never bother to look at those materials (even though they're publicly available). Instead, you'll spend your whole life trapped in your own little reality tunnel, stubbornly insisting that these visions are fake and that Lourdes is nothing more than a total farce.
And here's your next hurdle: hiddenpuma75 is going to reveal himself right here on this forum, and you're just going to mess around about it and then end up apologizing...
But you, the moderators, and many of the admins will all engage in a sort of intellectual dishonesty by staying silent about the fact that you and your allies are partially banning hiddenpuma75's ability to share news regarding religion—much like how a Nobel laureate wrote in a serious book that being an atheist is essentially being an idiot. 😉
Essentially, your biggest problem—your group's biggest problem—is that you mock the truth, the Church's inquisitors, the skeptics, this slow forum, and Lourdes, while simultaneously doing the exact same thing you accuse them of. You're just hiding in holes like rats behind your forum handles, 😉 whereas they actually operate in public.
In a coffee shop, you play the liberal, but on this forum, you act like inquisitors—exactly the kind of people you claim exist within the Church!
The core issue for you, and for this entire forum, is this blatant intellectual hypocrisy. You clearly aren't even aware that you're doing it, all while you ridicule others for behaving the exact same way. 😉