Premier Rock Forum

Earwicker wrote:I don’t think we generally are following the same conception of god. That was a point of mine – that the concept can accommodate a variety of different things.
I don’t mind that other people have a different concept of it.
I got shirty with Gramsci before because he seems to mind – even though he doesn’t believe in any conception of it.

Even if it's reasonable to call two different types of thing "God," I'm still only really talking about one of those types of things. I might not be atheist, or I might be less strongly atheist, about the other type of thing.

And incidentally – regarding the origin of matter and energy in the universe: there is a theory (a scientifically sound one) that without our observation that matter and energy cannot have taken any form that we recognise. It can’t be said to have existed (in any recognisable way) before we (or an awareness) was there to observe it.
I can’t think who the theorists who posit this are right now but I’ll have a check and post names etc.

I can't imagine ever believing in such a thing. Some people believe there is no reality outside our perceptions. Some people believe there is no free will. Some people believe we're living in something like The Matrix. Some people might believe we were all created 10 seconds ago, memories intact. The thing is, you can't live your life according to any of these beliefs. We have no choice but to at least pretend none of these things are true.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I think there's stuff that's real that is outside the realm of science. I believe in a soul or something similar. I believe in love. I believe in the power of positive thinking - even faith. This may sound strange or even inconsistent from an atheist, but there you go.

I think this is inconsistent. What is the evidence for a soul?
What is it that makes you think there is such a thing?

I break it down like this:

I experience free will. I have the experience of making choices, making decisions. I believe that I am responsible for my decisions, and that others should be responsible for theirs. This may be real, or it may be an illusion. No scientific mechanism exists that I know of that can explain our ability to make choices - no explanation for free will. Some say that if there is no mechanism to explain free will, then free will must be an illusion. I don't consider this an honest approach. Science is based on observation - we observe things, and scientific theories are explanations for our observations. Any observation might be an illusion, but since observations are all we have to go on, we have to trust them unless we have a very good reason not to. To reject an observation as an illusion simply because we can't come up with a scientific explanation for the cause of that observation seems to me to be horribly unscientific. I believe we know enough about the physical body, including the physical brain, that we can say that free will doesn't originate from the chemical reactions and electrical impulses that happen there. So whatever it is, it's something else. And I don't mind calling that something else "soul."

I don't believe the "soul" is something supernatural. I don't necessarily believe the "soul" is eternal or that it lives after death (although I don't claim to know). I believe the "soul" is, like all things, bound by certain universal laws, although they may well be laws that we haven't discovered yet, and may never discover. I believe that the nature of the "soul" is, in theory, completely within the bounds of science, although it's possible that, in practice, we will never have the technology/ability to study it.

The tl;dr version: I experience free will. Either it is an illusion or it is not. I consider it dishonest to simply assume it's an illusion. No neurochemical mechanism explaining free will is known, and I think it's probable none exists. The mechanism or cause of free will must therefore be Something Else. I find it reasonable to name that Something Else "soul."

Earwicker wrote:a bunch of contrarian bullshit

I think Rick is too old for a wet-nurse.

What does "bloodlines" mean, if not family/racial genetics? Is it just a magical conspiracy theory word that means a bunch of shit when you want it to, but suddenly means nothing when we call its pseudoscience into question?

Rick Reuben wrote:genetics are known to contribute to many personality traits

This is not what you originally said. Your original post was accusing your political adversaries of being genetically "wrong" or abnormal. You used the same terms in the post immediately below this one.

Questioning the racial/genetic purity of your political opponents is racist and bigotry. I can't see any other way to look at it. You use the same terms in your next post, they are still objectionable.

The facts are, nobody knows if genetics affect personality traits because we don't know definitivity why people have personality traits or where those difference occur. The same goes for psychopathy and several personality disorders. We don't know, it might.

Oh, and not everyone capable of vicious crimes is a psychopath. Worth me throwing that out there as well.

This has nothing to do with what you posted, which was to do with the enlarged "lizard brain" of zionist leaders and selective breeding of the elites.

They are diseased because of their bloodlines, right? This is what you are saying time and time again. "not normal", "diseased", "psychopaths", "corrupted", "fallen angels". The list of racist language goes on. Of course you don't realise that you're dipping into the Fascist well. I'm not accusing you of being willfully racist, but much like your trend towards libertarianism, your mental foaming and weirdness is driving you in that direction and I'm pointing it out. Rick, you are starting to explain the world on racist, Aryanist terms.

Something is wrong with these people.

This is just sad. You're frustrated with the state of the world and grasping at straws to explain it. Try to grasp straws other than the genetic purity straws in future.

You said what you said, you cannot get away from it.

I didn't realise George Bush was a plural now. Is he now "these people"?

Repeat that your foes are genetically defective a million times. See how much respect it gets you.

I have nothing to prove, especially to two grudge driven senior citizens hounding me on the internet.

Get back to blaming the imaginary elite for your worthless life and anti-social loneliess now. When the senile dementia kicks in, you can have flouride as an excuse.

Your imagination is running away with you, yet again.

big_dave wrote:

Earwicker wrote:a bunch of contrarian bullshit

I think Rick is too old for a wet-nurse.

I don't know what this means.

I asked you to produce a quote for two reasons:

1. I thought I might have missed something somewhere which you were referring to.

2. The 'you're a racist' card is a cheap way of avoiding discussion of a subject, usually used by pathetically desperate people who can't think of anything else to argue.
This erks me.
At least, it does when the accused has shown no racist tendency at all.

I note that it seems I didn't miss anything.

Ho hum

big_dave wrote:What does "bloodlines" mean, if not family/racial genetics?

I'd take it to mean just 'genetics'. That unavoidably brings in family but don't see why it has anything to do with racism.
Are geneticists racist?
Is that your contention?

I think the use of the word 'bloodlines' is ill advised because it is too sensationalist - and I said in the thread you're obsessed with that I don't necessarily agree with Rick (who - I should point out made the suggestion as a possibility - not a fact).

But you can't see that.
You think we're in some sort of agreement gang.

Oh well.



Incidentally I'm not that old. (do you realise how desperate you sound when the best you can come up with is an attack on someone's age?
You are truly pathetic.)






oh - and I don't work for a credit agency

which makes me feel pretty good about myself whenever I'm 'talking' with you.

Jesus fucking Christ, how about "if you arseholes don't like what I post, don't read it?"

Does that gambit work for anyone who isn't totally insane and washed up?

Earwicker wrote:oh - and I don't work for a credit agency

Neither do I. But then again, I don't show pornographic movies to Boy Scouts or whatever you do for a living. Nice to know that you're arroused by the fact stangers on the internet might take jobs they dislike to pay the bills.

Stop bumping this thread with your smug, rambling bullshit. Rick started using a bunch of racist language, look where I said he wasn't being willfully racist but he was starting explain the world on racist terms. We can agree that "bloodlines" is ill-advised because it infers both family and racial heritage. It doesn't mean anything, it is a bullshit conspiracy theory concept that means whatever who said it last wants it to mean.

I don't know what this means.

Are you autistic? If I had ten pence for every time you asked someone to explain a straight forward joke, I could quit my job at the bank and study full time. In a house made of gold. With a maid.

tl;dr

I think that it is a stupid name for a piece of software, and that you should google a rest for a while and maybe go for a walk.