03-17-2017, 01:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2017, 04:14 PM by Eric the Green.)
(03-16-2017, 09:22 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:EtI Wrote:See the other thread in the other forum section.
I don't care what asinine bullshit you posted in an other section of the forum. If you have proof for what you call "spirit" why have you not shared it with the world yet. Hell it should make the nightly news. Get pricked up on Breitbart. Maybe even make you a nickle.
I have to conclude all you have is forum posts.
LOL. It's not "my" proof, silly boy. It's research scientists and researchers have done. Some of it is posted on that other thread in the appropriate place. Some of it was on the archived old forum. Find it there if you're interested.
Quote:Being conscious, IE carrying out the electro-chemical and mechanical functions of the body and the mind, does not prove the existence of some external mystical force.
So while I am indeed conscious, I cannot use that evidence as having a spirit, much less any of the other absurd claims you have made.
You ARE conscious, then? You admit that?
You are aware that scientists now call trying to attribute it to some biological, sense-detected object, the "hard problem," which means they now admit they can't solve it?
Silly, being conscious "does not prove the existence of some external mystical force." LOL Where did you get such a crazy notion? It proves the existence of an internal mystical force, that's YOU.
Whatever you claim is detected, you can call it dog shit if you want. You can call it spirit or matter. The point is, what you call it has nothing to do with what you detect. No detection can determine whether what you detect is matter or spirit. None!
That which is detected, is matter.
Matter is what can be detected.
completely circular. You lose!
Quote:EtI Wrote:There's no basis for your claim that what exists is "matter." What is "matter"?
Lets try a website used by children to see if you can understand what matter is. After all you supposedly have an IQ of 150 you should be able to grasp the content in seconds (though I have my doubts that you can and that your IQ is really 150, if it is that makes it even worse for you--as that transforms your issues with reality from a matter of stupidity [which is to be pitied] to willful ignorance [which is to be reviled]).
http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_intro.html
I want your answer, not some kids' answer. What is "matter"?
Hint: it's nothing so you won't be able to say.
Quote:EtI Wrote:On what basis do you make such an undetectible claim? Science doesn't claim it anymore. It's all just probability waves.
Physics directly concerns itself with matter and its modifications from a scientific stand point. I'm pretty sure the Universities have not shut down their Physics departments.
ITT: Eric claims knowledge of Quantum Mechanics and then demonstrates he doesn't even have an elementary understanding of those mechanics.
YOu have supplied no basis for your claim that what exists is matter.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Even science has to acknowledge that dark energy and matter exist and that they don't know what it is. It is not measured, just inferred; even according to Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Most of reality cannot be measured
Science has to acknowledge dark energy and dark matter because they exist, true. But we know that they exist because the collective mass of the visible universe is not sufficient to keep the whole thing together. As such either the theory of relativity is nonsense (which the rest of physics indicates it is not) or there is an unseen force(s) at work.
However, science is not mysticism and rather than simply proclaiming these forces "spirit" or "god" or whatever the work now is to find out ways that we can study both dark matter and dark energy.
All of this being said neither one of us are physicists nor is Neil DeGrasse Tyson. So the discovery of dark matter and dark energy are beyond both our pay grades.
So, admit you don't know, rather than label people like me crazy or to be reviled.
Quote:EtI Wrote:It's your choice: do you rely on instruments and your senses to tell you what is real, or your awareness and experience?
Both. If I see a cat in the road, experience tells me that there is a cat in the road. In seeing the cat, I'm aware that the cat is there and thus don't run it over in my pimpmobile which would be bad for the pimpmobile (and not that great for the cat either). If I see my gas gauge on my instrument panel tell me I have a quarter tank of gas I know I need to get gas soon. I am made aware through my senses and intrements and my experience is a collection of known outcomes and projected out comes based on things that have come into my awareness in the past.
Nice try on presenting a non-choice as an either or choice.
But you show no curiosity about your awareness. You merely attribute it to objects you can sense or detect with your awareness. That does not explain it.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Marx was a non-materialist Marxist in his youth, and I know Marxists who are not materialists,
Marx was not a Marxist. Said so through his own words. He could not be a Marxist for the same reason that Jesus Christ could not be a Christian. You've made the claim that Karl Marx founded Marxism, in that case he could not be a Marxist. Jesus Christ, supposedly founded Christianity, yet he was a Jew.
He was an idealist when he was a young man. He eventually rejected idealism in favor of materialism. His entire body of work is based upon materialism.
If you know Marxist who is not a materialist then you don't know a Marxist.
Here let Lenin explain why. Seriously this work is in my Former Party's ABC of Communism. We teach this shit to Children!
Propaganda is not valid. No thanks.
Marx founded Marxism, and he did not do it in a 2T. And he had a following before the 2T.
Quote:I didn't quarrel with your definition. That's fine.EtI Wrote:Yes that is more or less true, although Marxists also seek and obtain political power directly. None of that is materialism, however.
Then you must seriously twist the meaning of the word of materialism as it is clearly based on the dialectic that plays out between material conditions--IE modifications of matter.... See my previous posts where I defined materialism.
It has nothing to do with the fact that Marxists seek political power. They do, and they did, especially in the last saeculum.
Quote:EtI Wrote:So by whatever rationalization you make, you have thrown over the Marxism you believed in a few years ago, and now embrace the opposite: classical liberalism.
Typically that is what people do when the philosophy by which they have operated ceases working. Or in my case never really did.
Your current philosophy, all of it, has been proven not to work for a long time now. Trickle-down doesn't trickle. Classical liberalism is even more dated and falsified than Marxism. You have regressed.
Quote:EtI Wrote:As a classical liberal, you value individual freedom. You need to consider that there is no freedom in materialism. All events are caused by previous events, mechanically. You can't honestly be a classical liberal and be a materialist.
Wrong about not being a materialist in order to be a classical liberal. Classical Liberalism has the concept of personal liberty. Provided I have personal liberty I have the freedom to attempt to change what may or may not happen in my life--that is to say I have agency.
That is not to say that there are not issues over which I have no agency. I could choose to not believe in gravity, but regardless of what I believe if I jump off a building I'm still going to come to a sudden stop eventually, is but one example.
There is no such thing as "agency" in materialism. Everything is claimed to be explained by the behavior of nerve cells and muscles, as you claimed above. No, there is no free will in materialism at all. Liberty is strictly denied. YOu can be a classical liberal and a materialist, but not without accepting complete contradiction and cognitive dissonance in your mind.
Quote:
Really? How? By offering them a job? That I should be so oppressed as to have a job so I can have money to buy whatever I want! That I should be so abused as to get money for doing stuff!
Dude, I seriously had trouble with that even when I was a Marxist. The only way Marxists can really justify it is through the concept of theft of surplus value. But a worker does not rent his labor power as Marx would put it, rather he directly sells it. The capitalist buys his labor power, ergo he owns it through the act of buying it.
It would be like saying Ford Motor Company owns my car cause they made it, even though I gave them money so it could belong to me.
You are so misguided. I and others everywhere have discussed this ad nauseum. The notion of "job creaters" (Dubya pronunciation) is so false it has long wooden noses growing out of it. No need to recount what the "job creaters" do with all the breaks that you classical liberals give to these greedy bosses in the name of "liberty." I thought you were deceived before; now you have gone over the edge. Really. Ford is going to give you a job? NO, they are giving machines and foreign labor "jobs." Gimme a break. That is too much even for you.
Quote:EtI Wrote:And some today advocate employee ownership, which is worker ownership of the means of production. And periodically, Marxist revolutionary movements still happen.
Employee ownership of businesses is not prohibited by classical liberalism. In fact I would say that laws should be structured in such a way as that it should be made easier for people to pool their money and goods together to start businesses.
Define revolutionary movement. The number of actual Marxist Revolutions (or more broadly speaking Marxist inspired revolutions) is very thin after 1960.
True, but they still happen, and such Marxists as are left still want, as they did before, to take over the means of production and put it in the control of the state, allegedly for the benefit of the working class.
Quote:EtI Wrote:In any case, historically, Marx is still important as a prophet of the realization that capitalist bosses can not be allowed to abuse the people in the name of their own "freedom." By embracing classical liberalism, YOU now think that the common working people should be abused by the capitalist pigs, and you call this "individual freedom." They are still just as much pigs as they ever were, and you now close your eyes and support them fanatically by supporting their leaders and agents. Shame, shame on you.
Right on Marx--partially he is historically important. Wrong on everything else.
As a classical liberal I think people should be allowed the opportunity to become capitalist bosses themselves if they so desire. Or if they desire to start a business of their own, either individually or collectively. Things they wouldn't be allowed to do under a communist system. Indeed no matter how bad abuse and oppression and so forth have been under bourgeois regimes Marxist regimes are far worse. And in those states founded on the principles of Classical Liberalism (such as the US or the UK) abuse of the population is non-existent.
Yes Eric, shame on me for valuing freedom more than free loaves of bread I have to stand in line for for three hours and half of which is made of adulterants.
I'm not going to address where you put Marx on your wheel thingy. Mostly because I just don't give a shit.
It just meant I was agreeing with you that Marx was mostly a materialist, and where I put him on my wheelie showed that. OK?
YOu don't even agree with me when I agree with you. That's pathetic.
You are the one who values bread over freedom, because you are a materialist. That's what materialists do, in all senses of the word.
I am neither a classical liberal nor a Marxist; I have no interest in defending either one. Marxists are closer to the truth however in their insight that the capitalists bosses abuse the people, and that's certainly true and has long been true in the USA. As a classical liberal, you now DENY this fact.
Quote:EtI Wrote:<snip> tables and shit</snip>
18% of Americans might be "Spiritual" but there is no definition of what that even means. It could mean "I believe in woo-woo.", it could mean "I think that there are unexplained things and maybe <insert idealism here> explains these uneplained things.", or it could mean "I'm really a nominal <insert traditional religion here> but don't go to <insert meeting place here>".
So maybe 1 in 5 people. I notice that most people don't talk about it and you posted no methodology.
I'm not going to address Depack Chopra and all that other mess..mostly because I don't give a shit and I don't need a guru to tell me bullshit to believe. If I wanted to be told what to believe I'd call up my sperm donor...at least I know what he'll do with the money.
It just means there are lots of Americans who prefer non-traditional spirituality. Whether YOU give a shit about them is less than irrelevant. Whether they are mystics or not is irrelevant. I'm just pointing out that many Americans are interested in non-traditional spirituality, and therefore that in 2Ts, when spiritual awakenings happen, non-traditional spirituality is part of it. 18% of Americans is a lot of folks.
Quote:EtI Wrote:No, it's an interdependent relationship. That's what ecology is. As I stated, human beings and living things are not separate beings; science proves it. You deny science.
No that is not what ecology is.
Ecology: 1. the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings.
2. the political movement that seeks to protect the environment, especially from pollution.
Since definition 2 is unimportant here, let's look at definition 1 and see if we can break it down.
Ecology is the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings. What does this indicate? It indicates that each organism is a discrete and concrete entity, it also indicates that the physical surroundings (environment) are separate from these organism.
For example if we have a field, and there are rabbits in that field and they are eating grass, your view point would point toward the rabbits eating themselves--but they are not. Grass is a discrete and concrete organism separate from the rabbit. Science insists that the rabbit and the grass be separate. If we introduce a wolf, and the wolf eats the rabbit we've just added one more layer of the same thing.
Science insists that all these organisms and their environment be separate from each other even if only to be able to actually study them. But do carry on with your projections---I think through the years you've made it abundantly clear that you understand science about as well as the average kindergartner.
Definition one agrees with me. That's all that matters. When you study anything, even spiritual things, you separate things to talk about and study them. That does not mean they are separate in actuality. That is obvious, and it's obvious that ecology is about how life is inter-related. Definition 1.
Quote:EtI Wrote:The way to understand that you are connected to all, is merely to experience it. Take a look at yourself. Telepathy only proves communication.
I sent you a message already.
I've never had such an experience, and even if I did I'd probably immediately seek psychological counciling.
I've taken a look at myself and realized that 1. I don't know and can't possibly know everything. 2. Those who claim that they can are usually foolish.
And yet you claim to know for certain that matter exists, and you are SO certain of this that you ALSO claim that anyone who disagrees with you about this is insane. Even despite the fact that science no longer claims that matter exists. Now, explain your cognitive dissonance. It really creaks loudly! "I don't know and can't possibly know everything." Really, now!!!
Quote:I never received your message. So I have three possible conclusions 1. Eric didn't actually send a telepathic message--IE Eric is a liar. 2. Eric did but Kinser can't receive it because of reasons. 3. Telepathy does not exist.
Occam's Razor indicates that answer 3 is the best one because it assumes the fewest things.
Inb4 Eric says that this proves my mind isn't open to <insert whatever here>.
Yes, it proves that you are not open to receive my message. "I don't know and can't possibly know everything." Oh yeah, really?
I just sent it again.
Quote:EtI Wrote:That is what the EPA does, protect us from the bosses
No it doesn't. The EPA mostly tells farmers that they can't shovel cow shit on their fields because of "water pollution" and tells me I can't build my house in certain places because "it's a wetland". From what boss is anyone protected from? And that is before we get into the constitutionality issue which is above your head anyway.
What a pile of manure, or however you spell it. The farmer/slash industrial plant/tech plant etc. puts poison into the environment and poisons the water, the air and the land. And you don't care, because as a classical liberal you defend the "freedom" of this boss to poison our water, land and air. You don't give a damn, because you are a goddamn classical liberal, and all you care about is the welfare of the damn bosses. And your own lack of concern that your money-driven behavior has on anyone else! The only "freedom" classical liberals and neo-liberals like you care about, is the freedom to hurt other people.
But since you are a materialist, you don't have to care, because others are just mechanisms anyway, and are not conscious sentient beings, because in materialism there are no such beings, and there can't be any such beings. Materialism absolutely precludes it. So, you feel you are given carte blanche by your philosophy to poison anyone that you want to poison. Because, since there's no one home, and no one is conscious, it doesn't "matter." And you cannot prove that I am wrong about ANY of this.
Quote:IOW you don't mind if the greedy, creepy bosses like Daddy Drump poison us and ruin our climate for all time. Good job, kinser. Bow down to your Daddy. Believe what the Father above tells you. Submit to his authority.EtI Wrote:which Drump and classical liberals in congress are abolishing.
Actually Daddy released his budget blueprint today. They merely got a haircut. Now myself I wouldn't mind abolishing them.
It was not a haircut EPA got. It was a hatchet job, and its new leader wants to stop the EPA from operating, and he will. You don't give a tinker's damn about the environment we all depend on. Even less than a tinkle damn.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Shame on you for opposing the need to control the bosses, require them to pay living wages, treat their workers fairly, offer safe products, keep from ruining the economy through speculation, and keep them from polluting our world
Yes shame on me for believing people shouldn't be forced to pay more for labor than it is worth. Have you ever stopped to consider that there would be a living wage for everyone if the importation of cheap labor was stopped (IE enforcing immigration laws). Yes, shame on me for having the faith in businesses to not offer products that kill their very customers (well except perhaps very slowly), and Shame on me for not wanting to nerf life to the point of making it unlivable. Indeed shame on me for not wanting to tell people how to invest their money.
As for pollution--Eric, you're free to give up your car, your electricity, your internet and all the other trappings of modern polluting life at any time.
What a load of typical classical liberal crap. And btw cheap labor abroad is something classical liberals generally approve of. Drump was on the right track in seeking to stop it (referring only to the lack of tariff laws, not to his immigration bullshit), but notice he has done diddly-shit about the only thing he got right-- the free trade issue. He also promised spending for infrastructure, but in his creepy, horrific so-called budget he cuts it. What a yuge, big fat LIAR; the biggest liar since Adolf Hitler, whose book he learned his lying ways from. And you fell for it! And you think I am the one who is willfully ignorant. No, YOU are one of the people George Carlin talked about. Willfully ignorant.
Quote:EtI Wrote:You worked for this, you voted for this.
I know you have a severe case of TDS so....yeah I did work for this, I did vote for it, and it IS going to happen. Don't like it? Well you can work harder next time...but the tide of history is against you. And you know it. Which is probably why your TDS is so severe.
From google: Total dissolved solids - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_dissolved_solids
Total dissolved solids (TDS) is a measure of the combined content of all inorganic and organic substances contained in a liquid in molecular, ionized or .
I don't know what you are babbling on about.
No, I admit I don't like it; but I don't admit that the tide of history is against me yet.
Quote:EtI Wrote:No, that's what I said about YOU. There's no basis for any philosophical assumption; it's just your theory.
Wrong. My point is that Paul had to convert people to Christianity before he could preach any wisdom to them. In the most part he was an evangelist rather than a pastor. It isn't my fault you don't know the difference.
Your point does not refute MY point. Paul wrote wisdom in the Bible.
Quote:"No, you made a statement. I want some statistics. Statements =/= statistics."EtI Wrote:No, you made a statement. I want some statistics. Statements =/= statistics."
Wrong again, and even by your own sources!
Your statistics indicate that about 18% of people claim to be spiritual, and around 65% of people claim to be religious. At no time is there a figure that these "spiritual" and religious people are in fact mystics.
Truth be told if that 65% of religious people are Christian, Jewish or Muslim then they should seek out and kill those mystics on the basis of them being witches according to their own religious texts.
Come on, pony up. Show me your stats that say most mental patients in psych wards are mystics. I'm waiting. Stop diverting attention. Produce or admit you're wrong.
Quote:EtI Wrote:It is possible for any sincere seeker or interested person to read my scribbles and discover the truth. One who is already a mystic doesn't need to read my scribbles to discover the truth. YOU DO
I've read your works. I found them to contain no truth and much bullshit. Honestly the bible is a better read and as mythology goes the bible is very mediocre, YHWH is somewhat of an asshole but he's a great fictitious character and wonderful villain.
You haven't read my works. If you had, you'd know that YHWH is the name of God that means "I am that I am." You can call that "asshole," but that's just uninformed interpretation. Moses was told that "God" is the "I am" within every being. Eastern religion says "I am that." Pretty similar; really the same thing. Christianity at its root, is mysticism. So is every religion.
Quote:EtI Wrote:It proves the likelihood that Boomers will still be in leadership positions during the 1T, which was the only point.
If you mean you might have a Boomer or two in the Senate and on the SCOTUS bench sure. They won't be running the show. Which is the Point. Like it or not X is already running the show now.
No generation "runs the show" at any time. I don't care who runs the show. It doesn't matter, despite what generation theory says.
If Silents now have more than two in the Senate now, it's reasonable to predict that Boomers will have more than two in the 1T.
Yet you still persist in using the phrase "one or two in the Senate." You don't listen, or you can't. I'm not sure which.
Quote:EtI Wrote:Which is why you need to question your other beliefs too.
You should take your own advice. I question my own beliefs all the time. I doubt we can say the same of you.
I did though. I switched 180 degrees, but from materialism to spiritualism. I switched in the right direction. You switched from Marxism to classical liberalism. Both are wrong, but you regressed a century.