1984Echoes

And I'm actually fine with that. Yes, absolutely... I just wanted to point that out. Especially since there were, ummm, complaints about my "attitude" and yet... ridicule? The timing was perfect for me to just, you know, point that out... otherwise I would have just thrown a laugh emoji onto that...

By using a mocking, demeaning reference... Sorry, but that's the very definition (how about that for trying something different instead of all-CAP's...?) of ridicule: What does it mean to ridicule someone? make fun of When you ridicule someone, you mock or make fun of them. They become the object of your ridicule or mockery. The word ridicule is related to ridiculous. If you ridicule a friend, you try to make them look ridiculous.

Your prior post is ridicule. I don't equate ridicule of my statement as the same as believing I have above average intelligence. It was ridicule. Is this one of the attitudes you don't like, BTW...?

There's nothing wrong with self-confidence as an attitude.

Are you telling me that I'm stupid Lee?

But YOU'RE asking me to be banned for two weeks because you don't like my opinions, or rather, how I am stating them. That says a whole LOT about you Jim Cowan.

Being knowledgeable and self-assured is cause for a time out? YOU'RE the one calling me arrogant and dismissive (and Lee) because you don't like my opinions. YOU'RE the one PERSONALLY ATTACKING me.

Isn't that what YOU'RE saying? Tell me if I'm wrong... but it seems like you are demanding the basis for conscious volition and if I DON'T have that basis then you are saying consciousness is a self-delusion. As a statement of fact. As... YOUR statement. Or I'm misinterpreting your argument. Because I do NOT believe that consciousness is a self-delusion... and in fact I GAVE the BASIS for conscious volition, which is language. My basis for my consciousness is language, which allows me to DEFINE myself, in relation to a dog, as to my location within my house, as to the background sound of the Michigan game (and that I know they are playing Iowa and are leading 20-0...), etc., etc. I am CONSCIOUS of my desire to go to bed soon, biochemical process or otherwise, and I have the ability of language to DEFINE that, to be AWARE of that, and to make a conscious decision as to when I will turn off the TV and actually drag myself into bed. Do you disagree that language is the basis for consciousness? If not, what is your interpretation, or basis, for conscious volition?

Answer: My brain has the "ability" to INTERPRET data inputs. Yes, I get that it's only a biochemical reaction. And the reaction itself does not recognize me as a living, thinking being since, it's only a biochemical reaction. But through learning language, our brain interprets desires, feelings, dreams, thought, etc. An animal, for the most part, does not think, it only reacts out of instinct. Also biochemically driven. Hunger. Thirst. Find safety (don't get eaten). IE: Visually, biochemically, there is a computer screen in front of me. But how do I KNOW that there is a computer screen in front of me, (defined by the "Me" that is "Me")? Who says, or why, should I CALL it a computer screen? And not a cute little puppy dog winking it's lights and what appears to be some kind of alphabetical characters mysteriously popping up in its "eyes"? Same as in my defining my dreams, what I feel (Love, consternation, or otherwise), and my ability to make decisions. By understanding language, and how those dreams fit within that language, how the biochemical processes creating my "feelings" (defined biochemically in my brain under "language", that I have learned, and stored, biochemically, in my brain cells) as one feeling or another... And if I make a grilled cheese sandwich today instead of an egg salad sandwich, it's because of my decision to do so. It may be driven by biochemical instincts (hunger), but language allows my brain to "Talk to itself" (biochemical processes utilizing language), and, again, biochemically, and through the use of language my brain can "tell me" that "I'm getting really tired of egg salad... let's try a grilled cheese with some of that smoked ham and some tomato slices. Oh, and add a few of those fresh basil leaves you just got from the store yesterday...". Short story: Language opens up a vast ability to interpret biochemical reactions, without even realizing those reactions are there, in so many different ways. It's what makes us more "human" than any other ability. And what allows me to be "Me". And to dream. And to interpret those dreams. And to make my own decisions.

So grotesque....

I don't need caffeine, I'm already hyper. Hyper since I was 2 years old. Just something I have to live with. The all-caps aren't RANDOM, they are on specific words that I am emphasizing. Maybe that's just being hyper, maybe i did have a little bit of caffeine tonight... I do seem to be on speed dial tonight but... NO relation to Trump. Don't even try that ****!!!

No Kane this game... so, not yet.

So what you're telling me is that I MUST agree with you, if we have a difference of opinion, otherwise I am arrogant and dismissive? I MUST accept someone else's beliefs, NO MATTER WHAT, otherwise I am arrogant and dismissive? Because you understand that I am NOT going to change my opinion, no matter how upset you get. I am NOT going to acknowledge the existence of a god when I know there is none. I DO dismiss the existence of any god, as upset as you want to get about that. But let's flip that on its head. I have offered a hundred (just a WAG) different opinions than yours. Why I believe there is no god. And in YOUR arrogance and YOUR dismissiveness, you've dismissed EVERY thing I've said... with: But it's God. It's pretty comical how hypocritical believers are. They do EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing. Arrogantly, and dismissively. You have been dismissing my every post for the past 3 pages. My recommendation: Look in the mirror. But that's EXACTLY what you're proposing. That some magical creature called "god", a creature CREATED in the imagination of humankind, is the MAGICAL CREATOR of science.

I would not use narrow. More along the lines of black and white. This works, That doesn't. This is true. That is false. Teleology? Not a mystery to me. Every living being's purpose? To propagate its DNA. Human teleology? Self-defined, I've already stated as such above in a previous post. Origin and nature of will/volition? I don't believe in "fate". I don't believe in pre-determination. I'll throw a couple more back at ya': Origin of the ability to speak, origin of language, origin of dreams. These are all biochemical or physical abilities that evolved. Dreams? The development of language parallels the meaning/ interpretation we can give to our dreams. Free will? I make my own choices, every day. Is that too narrow, or more aptly black and white? I don't discount gray areas, although certain areas are a lot less gray than others. IE: Heliocentrism is black and white for me. I don't see any gray area in whether the sun revolves around Earth or the Earth revolves around the sun. I may have a very narrow viewpoint in heliocentrism but I don't see ANY problem with that narrow viewpoint. Other areas, as I've said, are a whole lot more gray and much more open to interpretation, opinions, beliefs, etc.... Teleology? Yeah, I get that there's a WHOLE lot more gray area in that then my simple black and white definition (you can call that flippant if you want, I get it...). I was just being... flippant? Narrow? Black and white? However, I DO recognize the grayness of teleology and the more expansive room for ideas....

I'm sorry, not to be rude, but... That statement is completely and totally laughable. The existence of science is NO evidence, whatsoever, of a god. None.

What are you TALKING about? The individual scientist matters ZERO in science, and you KNOW that. One scientist may offer a scientific theory, any scientific theory... which does NOT matter at all... It is the 1,000's of tests OF that theory that matter. That prove or disprove a theory. That establish a preponderance of evidence that prove or disprove that theory. Newton's Theory of Gravity is awesome. Brilliant. But it matters not one whit versus the preponderance of tests, evidence, etc... that PROVE the Theory of Gravity. And what Newton "BELIEVED", about ANYTHING, not counting Gravity, changes NOT ONE THING about the Theory of Gravity.

That's called "reaching for straws". Science has ZERO evidence for "planned creation" because there is no such evidence. Except for humankind's story-telling fabrications. Sorry, but science rejects god.

But if it were just a genetic connection... You know, like Assassin's Creed (the movie, I don't know the software game all that well)... I would be good with that. PS: Was there a UFO last season...? I remember the UFO in season 2, which I alluded to above, in the first episode and in the penultimate episode... and those played major roles in the deaths of both Rye Gephardt and Bear Gephardt. That could have been a bit much... but it was the 70's so I thought it was perfectly acceptable.

Yes, it has. Are you telling me that SCIENCE ACCEPTS that "god" created the universe? Because that's a falsehood. It's a straight-up lie. That "god" created Homo Sapiens? No, science rejects that. It also rejects that god directed evolution. Note: I did NOT say that religion rejects science... and in fact, any believer must come to terms with what science has PROVEN. Religious believers must reconcile with science, not the other way around. Proven, that the Earth is NOT flat, that the universe does NOT revolve around the earth, that Homo Sapiens evolved and was NOT "created" by any god or god-like entity, that Earth DID spring up naturally in the natural evolution of the universe (which is 13.7 Billion years old, Earth is 4.5 Billion years old so it ABSOLUTELY was created in the same natural process that created our Sun, Mercury, Mars, Saturn & Pluto...). And yes, science rejects "god". Sorry.

Science also has rejected god.

And also Reese Olson and Kerry Carpenter and Jake Rogers and Parker Meadows and Garrett Hill and Jason Foley and Colt Keith and Matt Manning and Joey Wentz (errr, scratch that...), and Beau Brieske and Alex Faedo and Jace Jung... You know, for full disclosure... 😉

I'll give one more example... more-religion-based than prior example: I believe most religious texts state that the universe revolves around Earth. Not just the bible, but other religions and ancient mythologies as well. 400 years ago, everyone believed this. At least the majority did. The church did. In fact the church burned alive Giordano Bruno in 1600 in Rome, as a heretic, because he espoused that the Earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Giordano-Bruno But the majority (at that time) believed the universe revolved around the Earth so, it must be true, right?

PS: The rejection of the existence of a god is due to the fact that it is ALL mankind-created. Through story-telling. Through fabrication. And through the evolution of Sun spirit to Sun God to the One God to Jesus, son of god.

Do you mean, like... When EVERYONE in the world thought this planet was flat? Because if a majority believes it, it must be true, right?

Well... That's because I know EVERYTHING. And I am ALWAYS RIGHT.