Posts by Viviane

583

What is the purpose of life?

by slimboyfat in

while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.

because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".

i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.

Viviane

You can prove this for yourself, you already knows that. You only have to accept what you already know, what you always knew.

More like a run of the mill nutter seeking importance. "I am scaaaary! I have seeeecret knowledge! I am a phantom!"

JM is a straight up loon.

John_Mann you have a good point. It's too bad some people cannot get your point no matter how simple it is.

It's always nice when people just go ahead and let you know they're nutters so you don't have to spend time figuring it out.

583

What is the purpose of life?

by slimboyfat in

while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.

because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".

i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.

Viviane

Yes, bicameralism is a hypothesis in Psychology. Like you or not.

Seriously, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

I belong to an ancient kind of knowledge. One that have been around since the dawn of consciousness and it will be around until the end of times.
We wrote the Bible, Viviane.

OK, you're just a nutter. Some wear tin foil, some are anti-vaxxers, some rage about clouds. You think you wrote the Bible.

Science cannot answer these questions and much more, Viviane. And these questions are not "woo and deepitys".

Thy hypocrisy of anti-science nutters is that they use science to spread their nuttery

You can prove this for yourself, you already knows that. You only have to accept what you already know, what you always knew.

They're also full of shit, evidence above. Nutty, nutty shit.

583

What is the purpose of life?

by slimboyfat in

while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.

because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".

i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.

Viviane

Yes, bicameralism is a hypothesis in Psychology. Like you or not.

No, it isn't. A hypothesis is a testable, falsifiable prediction. Bicameralism is not that at all.

I was not talking about being right about definitions of positivism I'd made or if these definitions match with someone else's definition. I already said to you that I don't mind to be wrong about these definitions and matches.

You made a claim about people, calling them evil, using your definition as the basis of almost everything you've said.

Yet you can't even attempt to show that one thing is true even after you've said it was? Why not? Do you know it isn't true? Are you afraid to find out?

I just want to plant a seed of reflection in your mind about the possibility that I can be right. You know there's at least a doubt about this possibility.

I really couldn't care less what you want. Please refrain from making ignorant claims about me. You keep doing it, now that you know it's an ignorant (and false claim), it's a lie every time you repeat it. Dishonesty is not an appealing quality.

And it's useless for you to maunder as the shadows of doubt and denial gets more intricate and subtle. You know exactly what lies in the midst of this darkness.

I have absolutely no idea what you are attempting to say about me. I am assuming it's wrong and uninformed based on past experience.

So, so sum up... JM can't show is central point is correct or makes sense, every single thing he has said about other people, philosophy and science has been wrong. But, there is a chance his specific woo, out of all of the woo in the world, might just be the one that's right, but you need to accept it involved bestiality and/or incest. And that you secretly know it's true, according to JM.

Good grief, JM, put up or shut up. And stop pretending you know anything about me.

583

What is the purpose of life?

by slimboyfat in

while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.

because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".

i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.

Viviane

Yes, he is. It's related to consciousness and that's the subject of Psychology. Some positivists doesn't consider Psychology as valid knowledge though.

Except he doesn't have a hypothesis. It's just something he said. So.... you promoting an unscientific idea as something to be proven while trying to use it to say....well, whatever weird thing you've fallen for.

That's why I'd asked you. My apologies if I'd insulted you. I can only make claims about your positions based about what you writes here. Could you tell me what other kinds of knowledge do you accept as valid?

No, you made a claim about me with absolutely no knoweldge of whether or not it was true. You didn't ask until you got called out for it.

Yes, I could tell you.

If it makes you feel better I can say I did a bad joke about you being a positivist.

There is literally nothing you could do to alter any emotion I have any any amount,

I would not be comfortable if someone labelled me as a positivist. That's why I said maybe you even aren't aware to be one.

No, you assumed I didn't know what it was and chose to attempt to speak down to me. Sucks for you that I actually know what posovitism is. You've yet to produce any evidence that you do. This might be an excellent lesson for you, you aren't as smart as you think you are and you should go around talking down to people, making ignorant claims and assumptions about them and then promoting those ignorant claims and assumptions as fact.

Maybe. But if I'm wrong it will not make a significant difference in purpose of life if our destination is complete oblivion.

Nope, the problem is that sharing and encouraging people to fall for deepitys and woo encourages things like anti-vaxxers and parents that think prayer will heal their child. It actually costs people their lives.

You know the real problem is if I'm right. That's makes one wonder about...

Once you explain how your definition of posotovism matches the one Nicolau posted (something you seem very eager to avoid), then you can explain how it's a "problem" if you are right.

I mean, this isn't /r/Im14AndThisIsDeep.

583

What is the purpose of life?

by slimboyfat in

while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.

because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".

i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.

Viviane

My point is to show that Bicameralism is a serious valid thesis about the origin of human consciousness.

Soz, Richard Dawkins saying it's probably rubbish but he's hedging his bets doesn't count as validation. Also, if it's a thesis, that means he's intending to prove it with science. Why are you promoting posotivism?

Speaking of which, you've yet to show that your definition of posotivism matches your claims. Why won't you do that?

It's a very convincing hypothesis and I think you would enjoy to read it.

I have read it. And if it is a "hypothesis", that means he is using science. Why are you promoting posotivism?

Viviane I don't understand your lack of education to me. I never insulted you and I'm just sharing some knowledge about the origin of consciousness and its relationship with the purpose of life.

You're not sharing knowledge, first. You're sharing woo and deepitys and calling it knowledge and making false claims about people and reality. Second, I have no idea what you mean by "lack of education to me".

About the Positivism, I just classified you as a positivist because you seems just consider the scientific method as the only valid human knowledge. Am I right about this opinion of you? If not, tell me what other forms of human knowledge (beyond scientific method) do you accept as valid.

You are wrong about me. You shouldn't make claims about people you don't know anything about. This isn't about me.

583

What is the purpose of life?

by slimboyfat in

while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.

because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".

i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.

Viviane

That's not the opinion of the two major advocates of Atheism.

So what? Atheism has nothing to do with what you and they have chosen to fall for.

Anyway, you've yet to show us how your definition of posovitism matches what nicolau wrote. Why are you afraid to show that what you wrote matches?

583

What is the purpose of life?

by slimboyfat in

while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.

because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".

i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.

Viviane

I didn't mean scientific theory, but this:

In the general sense, a philosophical position[1] is a position that explains or accounts for a general philosophy or specific branch of philosophy.

That's science, attempting to explain or account for something. But, even then, thomistic views on the soul aren't a general philosophy or specific branch of philosophy. There is no thomistic philosophy of the soul, so you can't have even really meant what you're claiming to have meant.

Anyway, you've yet to show how your claims about posotivism are correct. Please do that and quit avoiding it.

But they lacked the ability to adapt and evolve technology. Some Homo used the same tools during millions of years. Any change in environment meant extinction. Clearly their minds worked in a very different way in relation to Hss

Ooops.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/becoming-human-the-origin-of-stone-tools-55335180/

583

What is the purpose of life?

by slimboyfat in

while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.

because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".

i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.

Viviane

I didn't say this knowledge is scientific (it can't be) but is philosophical.
And internally there's logical consistency in this system.

Philosophy is about improving what we know and how we think. You certainly aren't doing any of that, in fact, you're doing quite the opposite. You're anti-philosophizing, really.

If you read about Bicameralism you'll find more explanations about what I mean.

Bicameralism is literally nothing more than something some guy said that you've chosen to fall for.

I am curious what your criteria for belief is. Is is "some guy said it" or "it makes me feel good"?

583

What is the purpose of life?

by slimboyfat in

while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.

because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".

i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.

Viviane

Yes, this is the Thomistic view on soul. Is based on Aristotle indeed.

View? You said theory. Which is it? I ask because "theory" is science. It is supported by evidence, experiment, observation and experiment. You just tried to support what you said with evidence. Posovitism? Are you doing exactly what you accuse other of?

Oh you! You're such a hypocrite!

I didn't said that. I said animals, humanoids and anatomically modern humans can live without the immortal soul (Psyche) but not without the mortal souls (vegetative and sensitive or Anima).

No, you said god gave some humanoid animals souls, that made those specific animals human, who then had sex with the non-ensouled animals. That's a clear case of bestiality.

Why does your religion promote bestiality?

So, anyway, you STILL have't shown us how your definition of posovitism is correct. Why are you so afraid to do that? Seriously, if you were in fact correct, it would take... two, maybe three sentences? Why won't you do it?

583

What is the purpose of life?

by slimboyfat in

while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.

because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".

i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.

Viviane

Yes I agree. But I was not talking about logic in that sense.
I was talking about logical consistency inside philosophical systems about soul.

Internal logical consistency exists whether we are talking about the soul, Harry Potter or math. You've demonstrated none.

Well that's not what I meant. I accept the Thomistic theory of soul.

Well, no you don't. This is where knowing what you are talking about comes in handy. No such thing actually exists. At best, you have the Aristotlean view of a natural body with the capacity to act because of a soul. You've already declared that humanoids can act without souls, so you shot your own argument in the foot. That's where knowing critical thinking and logic come in handy. It helps you to stop from arguing against yourself.

In short it says that there's 3 kinds of soul.

Yeah, that's totally 100% bullshit lies from you, no need to address anything lies you say.