"my Work", Societal Influence

This is an open air letter, in the form of honest questions, and very few specific statements. If one can't honorably respect a difference of opinion without resorting to indignation or provocation, one simply should not read it.

I don't think anyone on this forum has any debate if such a thing that right or wrong exists. Can we not become prentenius or arrogant ... if someone chooses to call it; good and evil, moral and amoral, wisdom and foolishness, god or the devil, beautiful or ugly, love or hate? What does the true difference make, if someone holds a personal belief that they do not try to enforce upon others? This is why I found the remarks of someone who says that there is something called a selfish gene, extremely personally. He does not believe in the same thing that John Lennon believed in, and totally mutilated the art of a dead man, out of selfishness. Am I not permitted to think, that trying to force someone to not believe in anything period, from the stand point of "I" do not believe is wholeheartedly fallible? Does one feel obligated to enforce only what they believe in ... as just? The thing all humanity shares in all societies, is thoughts about society. The only time I have ever told anyone to believe in something I couldn't prove, was when I was a young know it all. I told people what not to believe, regardless whether or not I could really and truly prove it. It's personal preference, science does not answer this question, nor does philosophy. The structure should be neutral.

I think about what I am going to write, right now. I am thinking about typing this nonsense, and before I can physically do so, I have to think about doing it. So to me, it appears my mind appears to be limited to my body. In the same respect, if I do not first think about what key to press, I will press the wrong key if at all. I haven't come in here preaching what I think about God nor Aliens spewing forth long complicated drivel, that is not either proven nor unproven. I said, I believe in "God," if you wamt to make it a four letter word, then do so and call it "good."
My personal beliefs about the concepts of good and evil relates to memetic algorithms, and memes. Memes, the idea that good story sticks with us for some reason. I don't really have to think too much, because I know that the popular opinion on this forum is that anyone whom believes in "God," has to be a *****. There is no other explanation. And, when I watch movies, I must only watch the "christian" network. I like fantasy, and science-fiction the most. Whatever good is, it's something I cannot fully understand, nor describe it, by just reading about it in a book and thinking I know it all.

This is where the concept of wisdom comes into to play for me. Knowing, is not understanding. I could be an avid reader and have a good memory, and read every medical book out there, would that make me a doctor? It seems something else is required for me to become a doctor, experience. So one could say gaining wisdom involves gaining or having experience. But, one cannot do this on their own, it seems that there is a need for one to interact with another. We could call this training, or learning. If two scientists, very knowledgeable in science get together, regardless of their opinions on God or good and evil, how will they ever solve a problem that is bigger than they are in solidarity rather than inter-action ... not intra-action? How would two "holy-men" do it? How would two "philosophers" do it?
How would two politicians do it? It seems if they were not willing to have a little give and take, push and pull, or yin and yang .. nothing would ever get done. There would be no movement, or no chance for change. I am not here to prove that I am better than anyone else, I only care to be better than myself. Does that not make any sense at all, my personal theory, truth, or razor is mine. I am not here to force it upon anyone. I will not "preach" in the name of true science, religion, philosophy, justice, morality. None of the largest questions in any of these ... does any-one being be able to answer for another but their own. So if I become pragmatic because I am being enforced pragmatically upon, what does that make "me" guilty of, in truth? Not being myself, or not being whom other people want me to be? This is not a stupid question.

When I think or terms like intelligence or design, I am not willing to adhere to just what "I think" that means, nor what "sum-one" (intentional) "thinks" that means. I am willing to discuss that, I am will to debate that, but I am not willing to enforce either of the two view points. That is why, I am willing to discuss with people who others might say, you're a crank, wacko-job, religious freak, space-cadet, to a point. The point where I draw the line is where they start trying to enforce that belief on me, and I will use any reasonable structure, form, or function to debate that. I will try to keep it simple and clean, but people don't always do that. And often in most cases, the best logic to use against any presented argument is the logic the argument uses to state it's claim. If you want to treat me as an idiot, fool, wacko, paranoid freak, arrogant prima donna, then that is what I will be for you, it's not what I want to be, it is much rather what you're forcing me to be because you won't even listen to you own logic. A simple example from an atheist and a theist.

I believe in "god"/good/evil
I do not believe in "god"/good/evil
If I asked, what is your belief of this was how would you answer?
I do/do not hold a belief about god.

Is this incoherent logic?

(if you want to remove evil that's fine, good too that's fine-now, figure out why we haven't been able to do it in the world yet without acting upon a belief) There is clearly both good and evil in the world, we are not all intentionalist zombies or machines" performing functions are we? Does the way my "computer" behave dictate my behavior to be good or bad, or do I? Does it control me, or do I control it? (without, piracy(irony) or hacking, or permission, or allowance, or tolerance)
Can anyone control mine? What is the Matrix? Seriously, watch the movie and really try to consider it, because we my friends are jacked into right now. Is that not a valid comparison?

What is the most important word in either statement? In my opinion, to counter what atheism, regardless of how hard or soft saying it is not a believe is false. Because the statement is not hinged on god, do, in, not ... not I, but believe.
If "I" believe some-thing or any-thing or no-thing, it is a belief that "I" carry. There is no logical argument against that, and that is grounded in reality, or relativity. The frame of reference of the observer. It is a personal choice that "we" have to make for ourselves. Oh no, this doesn't make any sense still does it? If one is thinking that at this moment, I would raise this question if you can addresses it objectively rather than subjectively, to your own personal belief.

If seeing something is a physical function only, how is it that people hallucinate or dream? Reality is a physical state dependant on a questionable mental state. We cannot prove "the mind" or consciousness exists, technically correct? Are we not still trying to solve that problem? So how can we not question nor choice what it is we see or think we see, let alone know or understand? Is what makes us human our ability (yes I could phrase this better, but there is a point to be made) act like animals or on desire? Or is it the ability to control action and desire? Humility, or being humble? Is that outrageous to think? What "doctrine" should we enforce, blind action or control? Some ancient philosophers called this moderation.

I have things I consider to be more interesting to discuss with someone like Ron, who is far from arrogant, and is not trying enforce his arrogance (Or ideals, beliefs, opinion, wisdom, truth, knowledge, WHATEVER) upon me, giving me no other option on how I should try to communicate back. He tries to share it with me, not force me to listen, and there is an EMMENSE difference.

So, with out further delay, I truly will retire. There will be those of you that will think that this somehow means "I" won, "we" won the game. I was never playing a game, and I do not have the tolerance for people whom do. Games are intolerable, but never the less, with an open mind you do learn something from them about other people. They ... are not always like you, if but only a precious few.

Ground Control this is Major Meme,
I'm out.

(edited, but I know there are more mistakes, because I make them because I am not perfect, but I can be better than my mistakes)

This post has been edited by Meem on Jul 6 2009, 07:11 PM

The ironic thing is that Meem likes the concept of memes, which is a term invented by Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene.

and

Meem,

The whole point of atheism is absolute materialism. Atheists do not attribute supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon. Dreams are not supernatural, sorry.

If I can't make my point any more simple, which will be my last remark, to my insisted stupidity ...

Can you make a rhythm by beating on a drum, from simply looking at it? Do you have to learn the rhythm in your mind before you can reproduce it on the drum? do you play the drum, or does it play you?

If you don't see the point, I can't explain it to you. Nor do I care to get involved ina argument with someone that brags on their lack of inter-spection, and only confirms their intra-spection, or skeptic, take your pick.

Farewell.

There does not need to be a God for us to be able to play a drum.

All statements I said nothing about god, I said something about a drum, that is plagiarism. Yet further proof that there is no objective reasoning being practiced, only subjective thought, or thinking. And the subject is your opinion, how can you not see that?


Do you play the drum, or does the drum play you?

That was the question. So if you can't answer it, like it is worded, then don't plagiarism me .... for truth's sake, not "god's."

Oh My God, you are worse than the RIAA. Plagiarism? Really?

You are trying so hard to be taken seriously, but you are making no sense.

If you're not trying to prove anything to me, you can stop now, like a mature adult.
"heaven" a.k.a. space forbid that if a higher form "intelligence" life were out there, and they could help us with "our" problems why would they help us with an attitude like that? Because we disrespect and mistreat those "forms" of "intelligence" we think are "beneath" us? You think, you know what I am saying, however you do not. What is life without respect?

This post has been edited by Meem on Jul 6 2009, 07:45 PM

I play the drum.
What is your point?
And what opinion?

"There does not need to be a God for us to be able to play a drum."
Is not an opinion. There are alternate explanations as to our ability to play drums that do not require God.


I also have some dictionaries.
I read them they don't read me.
You should buy one.
Start with the word plagiearism.

The point is, what makes a good song or rhythm? What makes a bad one? Opinion, or is it a little more complicated than that? What makes a good story, the reader, or the writer? In the movies you watch, do you identify with the hero or the villain?

Are "aliens," "if" they are out there good or evil? Are they both? Are most of them good, but only a few of them bad? Why is that crazy to think about? Why would they not help us? Because we prefer to hit the bad notes, rather then the good ones?

Honestly, I'm not sure what they would do in reality, but sometimes I hate to think about it when I turn on my T.V. Just more bad news, with people singing the same old "songs," beating on the same old "drum." What is life, if not a gift ... curse? A triumph or a tragedy?

How would you treat someone from another planet that thought, you were "god?"
How could we ever go into deep-space, without that consideration of something we can't "prove" either way?

No, that doesn't make any sense.

This post has been edited by Meem on Jul 6 2009, 07:59 PM

Can I say, I am not telling you what to believe, and actually be trusted when I ask a simple question?

If light doesn't have "mass" is it material? Do you feel that saying light is a particle is a valid theory, just mass?

Seriously, I am just asking a "stupid" question. I am not telling you to go read king james, the torah, coran, what-the- ___ ever. Read them all and pick your opinion for all I care. It's just a stupid question. Does that make me a dreamer? Is it that hard to imagine?

I do believe that was the real point of the song, word for word.

But, I guess that makes me stupid?

I think your problem is that you think that morality is absolute. It's not. Good, bad; right, wrong; it's all a matter of perspective.

Morality is relative, there is no black or white, only gray.

No,but these threads make you look retarded.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26200&hl=
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26164&hl=
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26193&hl=
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26194&hl=

That question shows a lack of understanding.
In some experiments light acts as if it is a particle.
That does not mean it has mass.
Now the question is, will you unlearn what you think you know about light and particles?




And I used to believe what FBM just said but I think the Mandelbrot set is an analogy to how good/bad can be black and white but unknowable in "gray" situations.

And if I can be any stupider for you, I'll barrow something from the Matrix, lets not call it plagiarism, since I didn't fail or make the mistake, of not referencing it.

I personally and quite specifically believe,

"I am the one," who can make a difference if I try, for those around me. Is that stupid too? The Matrix is a great movie.

So you agree that light has no mass, but you're a materialist, right? I'm confused. Could you give a scientific definition of atheism, and the specific "reality" characteristic it relates to, solely?

But I am stupid ...

If you are not willing to admit to the possibility, you are far from a scientist when you have already eliminated the most abundant property in the universe. The higgs field?

This post has been edited by Meem on Jul 6 2009, 08:43 PM

If I am correct, Neo was a Jesus allegory. Meem, are you Jesus?

Materialism means that you only believe in things that are provable.

Higgs field: provable
God: unprovable
Light: provable
all forms of spiritualism: unprovable

(I should note that not all atheists are materialists, though most are)