selectbutton
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile / Ignoring   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The New Atheism
Goto page
// Prev  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    selectbutton Forum Index -> SimCity Board of Advisors
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
sawtooth
heh


Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: flashback
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:14 pm        Reply with quote
lovin' this. on point like a motherfucker. almost makes me forgive you for being a feminist Christian with a peacocky mix of confessions and a potpourri of believes.
_________________
(  (  
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
diplo



Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Location: Brandy Brendo's bungalow
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:02 am        Reply with quote
i want bbp to be on a podcast just to know if he talks like a dork as much as he writes like a dork.

Mr. Mechanical wrote:
direct mystical experiences




Quote:
I think learning about and understanding why and how our brains seemingly allow for what some feel to be direct contact with God or whatever should be central to the debate.


my mother, whom i admire for going through many cycles of self-investigation, says that she has had several experiences in the past (all of them, i believe, involving a voice (one time, it telling her to consult a specific bible verse). i don't doubt that she's had these experiences, nor do i necessarily doubt the stories of others. what i do doubt is the labeling that's applied to the experiences -- i.e. "this is not easily explainable; therefore, it must be 'spiritual,'" or "if this it not A, then it must be B." in other words, i don't know what spiritual means, and i don't know if anyone else really does. we have a dictionary definition, but how do you apply that to life, and how do you define the basis for that word, "spirit"? this hesitance to accept the strange as 'spiritual' is part of why i right now also have trouble seriously considering near-death experiences. i'd also cite how wildly said experiences vary from individual to individual (being assaulted by violent beings in a dark space, rising from the ambulance carrying one's body, etc.), but doing so makes the assumption that what happens to us after we die is a universal process. still, it's an element to consider.
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Mr. Mechanical
ontological terrorist


Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Scare Room 99
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:36 am        Reply with quote
It's kind of a problem, using language to describe things that are often indescribable even to the person who experienced them. The way I perceive reality is obviously not going to be the same way you perceive it, despite there probably being significant overlap in some parts. But through language we try to create an adequate description in place of the thing itself, and that's where (mis)interpretation comes in.

So it's like when that guy in the video says "it doesn't tell me if it's true" to me it seems he's really saying the caller's statements are poorly defined and do not tell him anything definitive about the way he experiences things as real (assuming he's using the word true to mean "corresponds with reality"). Well, yeah. I think in these kinds of instances where highly evolved primates like ourselves are just beginning to understand our own brain chemistry and we're running into all sorts of weird stuff concepts like "truth" and "real" are probably going to be relative to each person to some degree until enough people settle on some kind of consensus (which, like most forms of consensus, will eventually prove to be inadequate once enough new information is gathered and the whole cycle will start again but that's a bit of a digression).

I can see where he's coming from though because I've been there myself, but I am very hesitant these days to try tackling the questions of the ineffable by working from assumptions about what constitutes truth and reality without also examining in parallel my first premises which led to those assumptions. Like everything else in my life these days it all seems to boil down to philosophy, which I'm sure probably speaks more to my own inabilities at comprehension than anything else.

That's interesting to hear about your mom though. When my mom was giving birth to me she lost a lot of blood and since it was during an AIDS scare in the 80s they weren't doing blood transfusions at the hospital we were at and she almost died. During this time she tells me she felt the presence of her father, who had died two years prior, come to her to comfort her and encourage her to not succumb to the blood loss because it was important that she stay alive. I've talked to her about it a couple times and asked her how she would describe what she went through and she tells me it was unlike anything else she had ever experienced. No fear or pain, and it wasn't dream-like. It felt real and she felt at home and at peace.

It's an interesting anecdote but I'm leery of drawing any inferences about anything from it because it happened to her and not me. I can easily rationalize it in my mind as the near-death experience or other types of mystical experience being naturally occurring hallucinations or delusions meant to ease us into death. But assuming that's the case why or how would nature even select for such a thing?

"Spirit" or "spiritual" is, like many other words, vague, ambiguous and generally unhelpful in its usage in conversations like this that are trying to figure something out. But I think those words are meant to describe something very specific to the human condition that everyone is probably already personally familiar with in some form and has their own words or interpretations for it. Whatever that something turns out to be is the real mystery that drives us, and who really knows if human beings as a species are actually ready to confront it or able to encompass it in our understanding.

This post probably wasn't very helpful to anything. Ugh. Though biocentrism seems to offer a tantalizing framework to hang our "spiritual" understanding on.
_________________
internisus wrote:
You are a pretty fucked up guy.

True Doom Murder Junkies - Updated On Occasion
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:57 am        Reply with quote
It's Theodore Roosevelt. Dude was your best President. Gave you the big stick.

Lincoln is the typical American choice (the most iconic figure) and I like him too (mostly for his beard) yet I still think of Jefferson, for example, way higher than of him. Now that was a man. Thomas Jefferson. They don't make em like that anymore. What happened to all the geniuses? Nowadays statesmen have only ever one skill and one skill only on which they get by. Whatever it may happen to be. They are either actors or orators or dreamers or. School system killed the polymath.

Anyway. It's Theodore Roosevelt.
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
somes



Joined: 25 Jun 2008
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:22 am        Reply with quote
Oh hey bbp.

Thanks for... saying hi!
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:18 pm        Reply with quote
hi Mr. Mech

Mr. Mechanical wrote:
Have either of you guys ever had what you would consider direct mystical experiences? Like altered states of consciousness that resulted from excessive prayer/meditation? Do you believe that such experiences come only out of our biology as a result of our brain chemistry;


yes,

no (not prayer: my brain naturally gives me unusual spikes of serotonin and dopamine from time to time -- pretty frequently actually; it's like a natural cocaine factory up there; I'm also by very introverted at times and then have zero sense of time and space/orientation, so I'm in a natural state of meditation, one could say),

yes, I don't just believe that, I know it. There is absolutely no other way. Consciousness is the waste product of our brain chemicals and electrical currents. There's nothing else to it. Everything that has an effect on our consciousness has to work through these things. You could of course play stupid and say that god personally manipulates these things and that's lame because then god is equal to chance. Forever incomprehensible, non-benevolent, non-malevolent, just fucking indifferent. Influenceable by nothing, not even prayers by very, very good little kids. Not measurably at least. Which, again, means that you'll never know what the fuck it is he wants from you. After all these years, it doesn't amaze me in the least that so many suckers fall for the idea -- it's the perfect abusive relationship. I've talked about this many times before on SB: the best way to keep someone depending on you is to keep them in a constant state of chaos and confusion. They will try to make sense of you, they will try to please you, they will do everything to get some sort of resolution and you never give them anything. No security, not a single thought or emotion of yours. You just let them play themselves.

Mr. Mechanical wrote:
I think learning about and understanding why and how our brains seemingly allow for what some feel to be direct contact with God or whatever should be central to the debate.


yup

Mr. Mechanical wrote:
I feel like neither most religious people or most atheists have had the kinds of mystical experiences that led to people forming religions in the first place so usually when I find them arguing it seems like a waste of time to me. Kind of like people who attack drugs or alcohol without ever trying any themselves. How can one talk about "God" if one's never experienced it themselves?


yup, thing is though: you always have one leader and a million followers. the leader's power comes exactly from the fact that the followers don't know what he knows, didn't make the same experiences that he made, etc. There will always be a hierarchy of understanding.

Mr. Mechanical wrote:
I've not actually had any mystical experiences myself, but I think at some point in my life I'm going to try to induce one; either through shamanic methods of fasting/dancing/etc. or meditative techniques if I can ever find someplace that's quiet and without distraction. Or I suppose I could just take psychedelics but that seems like kind of inauthentic for some reason.


man, it's totally a waste of time. even if you manage to throw your brain off balance with fasting, dancing and meditating alone, you'll only interpret the things that happen as spiritual/mystical experiences if you're a bit irrational or delusional to begin with. a scientific person won't be fooled. you'd have to really want to lie to yourself. and what's the point of that. for something that really feels unexplainable to you, perhaps because you've put the rational parts of you out of commission on purpose, you'd have to take a peyote trip or something like that. something involving substances...

there are shamans in Mexico that still do this as a way to clear people's minds and help them find a new perspective on life. they go out into the desert with a group of people and perform some rituals, like a dance and putting "spells" on personal belongings that symbolize your troubles or whatever. then, when night falls the shaman takes the peyote first, gives some to everybody else in the group and watches over them during their trip. it's pretty safe and controlled. it's not 100% fun, I guess. people puke and feel like shit for a while, then they're happy, feel great, then they cry, hug each other, go to sit alone in a corner, see "demons", hear voices, etc. The trip can last all through the night.

it's not like you'll really find any insights doing that. though yeah, you might have some crazy ideas that you wouldn't have had otherwise.

The most useful thing in terms of "divine inspiration" is if you use it to create art. Or to write gripping, heartfelt speeches. I'm 100% sure that Adilegian's talent for poetry and his believe in god are not only connected but one and the same thing. When your brain's high on dopamine you become very sensible to intellectual stimulus, you mix all sorts of things together, memorized as well as immediate impressions. you have some crazy/creative ideas that don't follow a logical pattern, aren't overly scientific discoveries. that's how you write great fiction. and everything from philosophy, to Christian canon to Harry Potter is nothing more than fiction. nothing less, either.

I'd say: create art every day instead of praying every day, if you want to train your brain to give you euphoric rushes of divine inspiration. just sit down with a pen and a pad and write whatever comes to you. keep going for half an hour without looking up. don't keep any thoughts to yourself, commit them all to paper. after a few minutes, I bet you, you'll get really into it -- get really emotional. you might feel something welling up in your chest. keep going and at some point something incredible, unbelievable, ungraspable might hit you. overwhelm you, even.

I can work myself into extreme euphoria pretty reliably, but then I have the biological basis for it. I don't know if everybody can do it and I of course also don't know if you can do it. worth trying though!

p.s.: hi somes
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:20 pm        Reply with quote
G. wrote:
To be fair, finding bigoted, offensive and rude people on the internet is kinda par for the course.

Yep! O Anonymity.

bbp wrote:
hi p1, hi spinach, hi Adilegian, hi Cuba, hi Dracko (de Sade quote was awesome), hi swimmy (thanks for absence of proof is proof of absence), hi somes, hi everybody

Hello!

bbp wrote:
a bio-chemical problem/effect

I’m skeptical of most attempts to distill religious experience to bio-chemical effects. I might not be 100% committed to the following analogy, but let’s try this anyway.

Let’s say that religious experience is equated to a stage play. Assessing the value of religious experience only according to its bio-chemical effects is like entering backstage through the loading dock, sifting through materials in the prop and costume rooms, concluding correctly that the play only becomes possible with the support of unimpressive and even arbitrary materials, concluding that the basic materials of the props and costume (wood, plastic, canvas) have no direct correlation to the texture of meanings involved in the play (problems concerning the inheritance of cultural identity in multi-ethnic areas of the Southern US a la Tennessee Williams), and finally regarding the audience as a gathering of deluded incompetents who happily accept the combination of non-thematic materials (actors, props, costumes) as somehow related thematically.

bbp wrote:
almost makes me forgive you for being a feminist Christian with a peacocky mix of confessions and a potpourri of believes.

I do what I can!

<doff>Hat.</doff>

bbp wrote:
Also, Adilegian, confirm/deny: with "evil" you mean something that is to the immediate benefit of one/few while to the detriment of many/society

By “evil,” I tend to mean “that which systematically results in psychological, emotional, and/or physical suffering.”

bbp wrote:
Adilegian, please consult GOD on the matter and get back to me on this ASAP, I'd like to know what the two of you think about The Sex Hormones relating to gender roles, over and out

Most research attempts to designate the relationship between hormones and gender identity are incredibly flawed. The experiments most often exhibit flaws in the area where you’d most expect a “scientific” process to suffer under cultural presumptions: the interpretation of data.

Better yet, most scientific research has been directed toward the relationship between testosterone and “what makes for a manly manly man’s man.” (No bias there, right? ~_^ Research started on that foot automatically assumes a necessary correlation between the hormone and temporal societal values.) The best research – meaning the research that features the best awareness of the scientific process both in conducting the experiment and drawing conclusions from the findings – suggests that testosterone only relates to aggressive behavior as an enabler. In other words, people with higher levels of testosterone will only behave more aggressively if they already had aggressive inclinations. Someone with decreased aggressive inclinations, given the same amount of testosterone supplements as another person with increased aggressive inclinations, will not exhibit the same levels of aggression.

If hormones have a causal relationship to gender roles, science has yet to establish so credibly. We live in a beautiful veil of delusion regarding scientific support of the ideas that we think are encoded in nature – and it’s hard to admit that such fallacies are capable outside the spheres of intelligent design. Hardly anything that we take as “characteristic” or normative re: human behavior is actually so. The world’s a big surprising place!

Mr. Mechanical wrote:
Have either of you guys ever had what you would consider direct mystical experiences?

I’ve had experiences that I regard as mystical. I’ve typically understood these in terms of clarified physical perceptions, specifically in sight and hearing. I guess I’d call them experiences of a mental and perceptual cascading-cleansing, wherein distraction decreases significantly. Perceiving the world becomes simpler, and my understanding of my relationship to the natural world feels as though it requires less mental mediation to accept.

Mr. Mechanical wrote:
Like altered states of consciousness that resulted from excessive prayer/meditation?

I’ve attained altered states of consciousness as a result of zazen sitting meditation sessions. Right now, I’m recalling a particular experience where I perceived that the space within my hands (cupped at navel) held something concrete and fantastic yet unidentifiable.

In general, though, the kinds of experiences that I regard as mystical happen less as the result of disciplined meditation and more as the result of what I consider divine surprise. The title of CS Lewis’s spiritual autobiography (despite its being revisionist in a lot of ways) describes the feeling quite well: “surprised by joy.”

Mr. Mechanical wrote:
Do you believe that such experiences come only out of our biology as a result of our brain chemistry; or whatever or do you think our biology could be a conduit that allows information we wouldn't normally perceive to be perceptible, as though our brains were antennas tuned to specific frequencies?

I think that the biological components of mystical experiences can be studied in isolation from in-the-moment mystical experiences, certainly. Huxley’s “Heaven and Hell” and “The Doors of Perception” do a pretty neat job of exploring the chemical induction of mystical experiences, particularly within the context of Huxley’s experiments with mescaline. Ultimately, though, I find that this approach places far too much importance upon the mystical experience an sich. My beliefs are not contingent upon the reliable recurrence of specific states of consciousness, and I think that mere provocation of mystical experiences amounts to something akin to unhealthy masturbation. Life isn’t about feeling good all the time, and, accordingly, religious belief isn’t about experiencing a constant stream of spiritual fireworks.

Mr. Mechanical wrote:
I think learning about and understanding why and how our brains seemingly allow for what some feel to be direct contact with God or whatever should be central to the debate.

I think this is certainly allowable. However, I have little faith that scientific investigation into highly politicized areas of human experience will be as reliable as we’d love the stamp of “APPROVED BY SCIENCE” to indicate.

I had more to post but then became distracted, and now I’m having a hard time getting back into writing this post. Will continue later under more auspicious circumstances.
_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Swimmy



Joined: 04 Dec 2006
PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:44 pm        Reply with quote
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE | wrote:
swimmy, could you compile a list of things (experiences, texts, vitamins (lol), etc.) that will -- with high probability -- turn the average Christian/believer/etc. into the average atheist/skeptic/non-believer/etc.? You listed a few blogs and articles... I'd be interested in a more specific "recipe" though. Like, a list of all the things that changed your mind, perhaps?

Further, do you think it would be possible to single out all the faulty logic that plays a role in the Believers' thought processes and then address it all, thus solving it and with it the irrational belief? Of course assuming that the person is physically able to rationalize on a high enough level. Is able to follow what you're saying. Is introspective enough, self-aware enough, etc.

I don't think there's a specific recipe. The reason I told my story the way I did (giving my particular Christian background and so on) was in part to show why the recipe that worked for me did, but perhaps wouldn't for other people. As for the faulty logic list, I think it's a lost cause. First because we've been studying cognitive bias for over fifty years and we're still coming up with new ways our brains are faulty. The ways in which human thought can go wrong is seemingly endless. Second because identifying various biases is weak evidence. This gets people into the "You're making X logical fallacy!" game, which tends to get pretty silly. The truth is, even with all the facts on the table and agreed upon, people still tend to disagree. There's no way to prove someone is doing a Bayesian update improperly--although there is reason to believe in common priors, which means improper Bayesian updates are more likely the cause of disagreement.

The idea of a thought nosology has been around, by the way. I think Stove underestimates the ways our brains can be wrong. Yeah, I'd say they outnumber the ways we can be sick.

Mr. Mech: I've never had a mystical experience in the sense of feeling something otherworldly or any spiritual visions. There are atheists who have, including Richard Dawkins, who saw visions of angels when he was a young Anglican. He now calls them flights of fancy.

I did, however, have something I now like to call a "God module" in my brain. It was sort of like. . . a feeling or an idea--or, more specifically, an idea that presented itself as a feeling--that God was there. I talked to him, in my head. Thought about his presence. I never really thought of it as a part of my brain until I lost my faith, at which point, I noticed that I even got a weird feeling when accessing it. A high, sort of. You know that nice wave of feel-goodness you get when nostalgia hits you really hard? It was exactly like that. (I noticed that I get the same feeling when I listen to The Weakerthans' Left and Leaving, making that album the single most "spiritual" thing in my life.) After a while I had to train myself to stop activating the God module: to tell myself that there was no one there, that I was speaking to myself. It even kicked up when I would reference something from the Bible. I used to get the same feeling whenever my girlfriend would ask me something about how people justify X in the Bible, but it doesn't anymore. It's mostly gone.

And, I should note, now that it's gone I believe that I think more clearly. When I think back, it was more like a rationalization module. My thoughts always fell back to this warm and fuzzy feeling--that there was a God who loved me, and whom I loved, and the contentions in my head could all be swept away by it.

It's also funny to think about considering so many discussions after church services; it was very common, when there was a disagreement in my churches, for people to fall back on "It's all about Jesus" or something similar and everyone end in agreement. No matter what makes you stumble, never forget about Jesus, is the lesson.

(I should note that my churches were not very emotional type churches, looked down on speaking in tongues, believed that visions and spiritual feelings really were hallucinations because they required God to be revealing new things which he doesn't do, and blah blah blah. So it's to be expected that I never got into that stuff.)
_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:05 am        Reply with quote
Swimmy wrote:
(I should note that my churches were not very emotional type churches, looked down on speaking in tongues, believed that visions and spiritual feelings really were hallucinations because they required God to be revealing new things which he doesn't do, and blah blah blah. So it's to be expected that I never got into that stuff.)

Swimmy and I have had different experiences with Presbyterianism -- or maybe it would be more accurate to say that we've had experiences with different Presbyterianisms -- but this is something that's supposedly true about the Presbyterian Church writ large. I believe the off-hand term for Presbyterians is "the frozen chosen."
_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:10 am        Reply with quote
DENIZENS OF THE INFOBAHN, GET READY FOR MY SECOND COMING; THUSLY I DESCEND:

Adilegian wrote:
If hormones have a causal relationship to gender roles, science has yet to establish so credibly.


I get what you're saying about bias. And I know that bit of trivia about aggression. Still, it was science that did away with the mistaken believe, in the end. Don't use the example as something that invalidates everything else that science discovered in the field. You can't argue with the fact that most people are either born with the ability to produce sperm or the ability to ovulate. People that can do both or something else entirely are unknown to me. That's gotta be rare. And it's not what got us here. We are here because of virile men and fertile women. That combination has worked well. That's the combination we are interested in having in the future also. These gender roles are part of our fertility cult. You know what I'm saying? A woman must be able to identify a suitable male somehow and vice versa. Gender roles are an imprecise and clumsy, yet necessary and beneficial way to advertise and emphasize virility and fertility. There is a connection between testosterone and sperm production, as well as testosterone and muscularity. Also of course testosterone and body fat percentage, testosterone and bone structure, etc. All the things that make female bodybuilders on testosterone (and estrogen suppressants, probably) look a lot like men. I don't see any room for discussion there, really. Of course I still consider a woman that looks like a big, burly man a woman. No doubt about it. Still, the appearance is masculine.

So, let's not just think of gender roles as just behavior, but also as appearance. Appearance that you have to conform to, for better or for worse, if you want to be accepted. There were times and places in which a man with long hair was considered effeminate. High muscularity and low body fat are considered masculine, probably by most people, today. Never mind the stories of "in Africa fat men are considered sexy" or whatever. That's on another level. Should be obvious.

I bring up physical appearance because there is more accurate science to be found there, as opposed to behavior.

The problem with discussing any of this is this: people always fall for the naturalistic fallacy. They say "aha, so this is how nature wants a man/woman to be! Better make that compulsory and take away the rights of everybody that doesn't comply! yuck yuck yuck mouth-breathe!!"

That's why one can hardly ever discuss these things properly. That's why politics will always enter the equation and block off fields of scientific study that would make you look like a racist/sexist/etc. to the avrgman. Never mind that the way science works it is absolutely necessary to look at a problem from both sides -- if you want to prove that blacks and whites are equal you have to disprove everything that could possibly make them unequal. You can't just look at a few dudes holding hands, singing The Internationale and say, "yup, seen it! perfectly equal!". You have to look for that black swan that disproves that all swans are white. You have to look for the thing that would falsify your hypothesis. That, and only that, is the way of science. You have to look for the things that would indeed speak for inequality of the sexes/races and if you never find it, congratulations! You will strengthen the believe that they are equal with every study.

In reality though, you can't do that because you'd look like a fucking nazi. Nowadays you can't even study homosexuality without being discriminated against. Discriminated against by scientists. I mean that's just fucked up.

What I'm saying with all of this is: YOU FAIL, ADILEGIAN. You did not address the question of sex hormones properly. You just gave an example that supported your belief. You did not try to falsify it. TYPICALLY CHRISTIAN lololo. You are not A Daredevil Renegade Scientist With Nothing To Lose And Everything To Disprove.

That would be kinda cool though. Was what I hoped for. As a recruiter for the Badder Science Bureau, I must turn my back on you. And boldly go where no man has gone before; alone ;_;.

Adilegian wrote:
In general, though, the kinds of experiences that I regard as mystical happen less as the result of disciplined meditation and more as the result of what I consider divine surprise. The title of CS Lewis’s spiritual autobiography (despite its being revisionist in a lot of ways) describes the feeling quite well: “surprised by joy.”


This follows what I was expecting... I think I know your condition! It's actually a medical condition. Which means that it can take forms that are not so great and that require countermeasures. The divine surprise you talk about could be part of a cycle. They could be hypomanic phases. Which means, not-quite-manic (or "below manic"). That's all I'm gonna say about it. The infinite wisdom of science will reveal itself to you once you are ready, my son, I am sure.

Adilegian wrote:
By “evil,” I tend to mean “that which systematically results in psychological, emotional, and/or physical suffering.”


"Systematically"... yeah, that was one thing I wanted to clarify. I'm not certain if that means that you consider a scorpion evil for stabbing you in the foot if you mistakenly step on it. Certainly that response is systematic in some way. Yet, of course, I wouldn't consider a scorpion capable of doing evil. But then I'm not Christian. Religious people tend to have a weird understanding of "evil", from my point of view. If they eat a mushroom that gave them anxiety attacks (psychological/emotional suffering) they might later call it evil and blame Satan for putting it in the forest.

I'm asking about this because I find people that still believe in the concept of "evil" kind of cute in a platonic way. For there is no evil. If a sociopath kills several prostitutes over the course of many years then you can be damn sure that he enjoyed it. He caused a lot of suffering and death, yet he gained some satisfaction from it. There were losers and winners in this transaction. There was suffering for some and pleasure for one. Is that man "evil" by your definition? I'd expect it.

From my point of view "evil" is not applicable. It never is. It's non-existent. It's vapid propaganda. It's used to demonize people and set them up for remorseless slaughter. See: wars, the death penalty. The idea of evil should itself be deemed evil by those that hold it. It's unholdable.

Again, this is hard to discuss because you can't look like you're defending the actions of "evil people". Yet of course as a man who holds up the burning stake of science, on which many witches have been burned, I have to get in there, by force or diplomacy.

Did that work? I was going for the Jesus parable. With the cross and all. Invoke my martyrs and heroes that died by the hands of my enemies. That kind of thing. Kinda turn it around on the (catholic) Christians.

Because of course I don't defend the killing of prostitutes, as I have a soft and a hard spot for them. IF OYU KWON WOATH AI MIEN

Adilegian wrote:
an sich


oh, nice use of "an sich", by the way. I often get to the end of an English sentence and want to use it, then. There's really no English equivalent, which is annoying. In the German language we cram all the nice stuff into the end of the sentence and then emphasize it. So, I could feel that too, yeah. Is "an sich" actually understood by smart English native speakers or is that just you? (Spent your childhood in Germany, as I understand it.)
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:53 am        Reply with quote
swimmy, thanks for your answer. Of course what worked for you won't work for everybody. Doesn't matter: I'm more concerned with what works for the average of a group, anyway. I'm only interested in getting to "critical mass", not absolute change (that would be useless). For example, while religion is on the rise in America, it's been steadily (or rapidly) declining in Europe for years now. In pretty much the whole region. That's interesting. And it begs the question, "what is the cause of that? (/are the causes of that)". It's also not important to lead people from faulty logic to perfect logic. Just to get them to switch from one faulty believe to another. Being able to induce change like that would mean tremendous political power. (people with perfect logic would be useless in that regard because they couldn't be led astray to do anybody's bidding)

Anyway, going to work on becoming Obama's Secretary of Nihilism sometime in the future. Would be a cool job. You'd get to dress like a mix between Hitler, Trent Reznor and Psycho Mantis.
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:05 pm        Reply with quote
bbp wrote:
What I'm saying with all of this is: YOU FAIL, ADILEGIAN.

LOL

Okay bbp. I don’t see a coherent opinion arising out of your post, and I’m not particularly tempted to consult the bones and determine which of the spastic assertions to take as serious, so I’ll accept this as the underlying thesis here.

bbp wrote:
The infinite wisdom of science will reveal itself to you once you are ready, my son, I am sure.

May the day arrive with all due haste!
_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:17 pm        Reply with quote
;_;

was just amicably teasing you with that.
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
evnvnv
hapax legomenon


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: the los angeles
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:21 pm        Reply with quote
you know, once you've decided that you really need to get the opinion of a caffeinated ubermensch around here, you never have to wait very long
_________________
The text will not live forever. The cup are small
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:27 pm        Reply with quote
when I said "hi everybody" that stood for "hi evnvnv!". you know that.
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:14 pm        Reply with quote
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE | wrote:
;_;

was just amicably teasing you with that.

Aww. Now I feel like a jerk. V_V

I will write you a good response when I have finished making this second delicious homemade pizza bbp. If you were here I would offer you a reconciliatory slice.
_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
evnvnv
hapax legomenon


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: the los angeles
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:52 pm        Reply with quote
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE | wrote:
when I said "hi everybody" that stood for "hi evnvnv!". you know that.


:D
_________________
The text will not live forever. The cup are small
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
parker
a wolf adventuring


Joined: 31 May 2007
Location: suplex city
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:09 pm        Reply with quote
Man I love Teddy Roosevelt. Not too long ago there was a guy who stole one of his guns, but his wife couldn't help flapping her gums about it and showing it off to somebody who ratted him out for it. Damn broads. I guess he just took it from Teddy's house, on a tour or something.
_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:28 pm        Reply with quote
bitches looove (men with) guns. It's most obvious in the slums and favelas of the world. In Rio de Janeiro, city girls will sleep even with drug dealers from the favelas if they are packin'. Torrent the film "News From A Personal War". It's great.

There actually exists some video footage of TR. Man was a beast. From a youtube comment: He had asthma growing up, and after he beat asthma to death, he ate asthma's raw flesh and ran 100 straight miles off the energy it gave him.
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
evnvnv
hapax legomenon


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: the los angeles
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:39 pm        Reply with quote
roosevelt is the closest thing to a mussolini we will ever get in this country, and certainly the closest we deserve
_________________
The text will not live forever. The cup are small
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
Dracko
a sapphist fool


Joined: 06 Dec 2006
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:02 pm        Reply with quote

_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:39 pm        Reply with quote
so much corruption in this thread now.

evnvnv wrote:
roosevelt is the closest thing to a mussolini we will ever get in this country, and certainly the closest we deserve


how do you mean that?

having dug into the GWB administration lately, finally able to look past all of Bush's personal moronery, I must say that it's comparably Berlusconian in its corruption. the staging of the "war on terror" is without precedent though. I mean, honestly, I'm not aware of anything so cynical ever having been successfully pulled off before.

Dracko, you posted the best part of the movie right there. Good job, as always.

EDIT: oh yeah, for all that don't know: that's Rio de Janeiro's Chief of Police, Hélio Luz, speaking in the video. Makes more sense knowing that. Three months after the interview he quit his job and became State Representative (also of Rio d. J.). That was sometime near the end of the 90s.
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
evnvnv
hapax legomenon


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: the los angeles
PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:10 am        Reply with quote
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE | wrote:

evnvnv wrote:
roosevelt is the closest thing to a mussolini we will ever get in this country, and certainly the closest we deserve


how do you mean that?


in terms of personality and image, i mean
_________________
The text will not live forever. The cup are small
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
GrouchoClub



Joined: 04 Dec 2009
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:03 pm        Reply with quote
I'm fairly certain that liking any American president is irresponsible.
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:51 am        Reply with quote
bbp wrote:
You can't argue with the fact that most people are either born with the ability to produce sperm or the ability to ovulate.

I’m not, actually. I’m arguing that biological sex along with gender are socially constructed, and those social constructs are not causally connected with hormones.

There’s another largely unexplored dimension to the issue, which is that “hormones” themselves are linguistic and social constructions. We identify things within our bodies as hormones, and I’m not denying the existence of hormonal processes, but the cultural and even scientific value that we assign to those processes (under the general name of “hormones”) is a construction that serves more social and political agendas than it circumvents.

The constructed nature of “hormones” remains largely invisible, I think, because we lack alternative constructions of those processes for comparison. These hypothetical “alternative constructions” would need to come from other cultural frames of reference, and we’re very biased on the notion that our cultural frame of reference is the most scientific.

We have a wealth of examples of how physical experiences are socially constructed when we look at physical experiences to which all human cultures have had access, technological endeavors regardless: death, birth, puberty, pain, menstruation, inebriation, etc. These physical experiences become completely different in the hands of different cultures, as do the words available to describe them, and I think we’d be healthily sobered to consider our present scientific knowledge in a similar light.

bbp wrote:
You did not address the question of sex hormones properly.

You haven’t really asked a question. So I will: Why do you think that the causal relationship between hormones and gender identity itself is not a social construct.

bbp wrote:
These gender roles are part of our fertility cult. You know what I'm saying?

I don’t think I see what you’re saying. It’s hard to make a claim as encompassing as “our fertility cult,” because there’s a lot more variety than generalization can afford.

bbp wrote:
They could be hypomanic phases.

I’ve considered this, and I’ve even had it asserted a few times by others. The problem with passing the experiences off as “hypomanic” is that “hypomanic” is a nonce word describing the end experience. The root causes of hypomanic episodes vary between individuals, so the label doesn’t do much by way of offering an interpretation of the experience.

bbp wrote:
I'm not certain if that means that you consider a scorpion evil for stabbing you in the foot if you mistakenly step on it. Certainly that response is systematic in some way.

I want to write, “Of course I don’t mean this,” but I admit that the “of course” might only have been clear to me. I don’t see suffering itself as innately evil – the experiences of pain and suffering is more complex than simple. I think it’s probably pretty good for someone to get stung for accidentally stepping on a scorpion, actually, because it will make that person more aware of scorpions.

bbp wrote:
From my point of view "evil" is not applicable. It never is. It's non-existent. It's vapid propaganda.

I think that “evil” works as a description, though I agree that it’s pretty arbitrary as a starting point for moral action.

bbp wrote:
oh, nice use of "an sich", by the way.

Thanks!

bbp wrote:
Is "an sich" actually understood by smart English native speakers or is that just you?

Yeah, smart English native speakers get it. There’s enough metaphysical background shared among Western Europeans (and their cultural descendents) to make the concept signified therein accessible. I think that “an sich” is ironically the more accessible term, since an alternative like “noumenon” doesn’t convert well into an adjective or an adverb, because then it just looks like a grammatical or purely rhetorical term.

Noumenon -> noumenally -> nominally

Which gets around to “noun,” etymologically, but that’s neither here nor there.

bbp wrote:
(Spent your childhood in Germany, as I understand it.)

I did! Though, to qualify, I spent my childhood on US Army posts in Bayern. I held dual Deutsch-American citizenship until I was 16, but the historical circumstances weren’t such that allowed me to make the fullest use of it.
_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:53 am        Reply with quote
GrouchoClub wrote:
I'm fairly certain that liking any American president is irresponsible.

I feel like it's pretty responsible to like Carter.
_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:27 pm        Reply with quote
Quote:
I think it’s probably pretty good for someone to get stung for accidentally stepping on a scorpion, actually, because it will make that person more aware of scorpions.


mmmmaayybe. Although I'd rather not eat your pizza slice now for fear that you might have put something on it that will make me more aware of the danger of eating food from a stranger (lololo jk)

Quote:
The root causes of hypomanic episodes vary between individuals, so the label doesn’t do much by way of offering an interpretation of the experience.


hey, it's a start though! Something that you can look into and something that will become more and more defined as time goes on and research is done. True, right now it's a "behavioral pattern" and you can't precisely say what causes the pattern. Flat out pushing all of that aside though won't get anybody any further. Ironically enough, if you look at your religion, and spiritual believe in general, it's full of "nonce words" -- and no way to investigate any further. You can only make up new concepts that might or might not correspond to reality in some way, with religious "knowledge".

At least with science on hypomanic phases we can say things like, if you're depressed and you take St. John's Wort, that might trigger a manic phase. We know that that can happen in some people, we can look into it. It's a phenomenon you can look into, you can find ways around it, etc. Also, someone that suffers from full-blown mania can be rather easily and effectively treated with lithium salts. So you see, it's good to know that something might be hypomania, because if you want to get rid of it there's something you can do about it. You can, also, be aware that full-blown mania COULD be on the horizon somewhere and you'd be warned. I'd say that's pretty useful knowledge, at least.

If you interpret the experience as god talking to you instead of going with the scientific approach you gain absolutely nothing. Do you? the scientific approach doesn't need any kind of interpretation in that regard, actually; why would you even need an "interpretation" of natural occurences if you understood the science behind them? it is what it is, isn't it? you just follow the chain of events -- earthquake->plate tectonics->(studies ongoing). not earthquake->god must hate gay people/the end times are near. When has an interpretation of such an even ever lead to anything good? Wouldn't you say that it's exactly the same with personal events? Why should it be different?

why should something non-manmade have a "meaning" the way manmade things have a meaning? it seems just like a straight up mistake to apply that concept to the physical world.

Quote:
You haven’t really asked a question. So I will: Why do you think that the causal relationship between hormones and gender identity itself is not a social construct.


it is a social construct. what you're missing is that that social construct is all we have. there is no biological gender. gender is inherently a social construct because if there were only one person on earth, completely alone, that person would have no gender. of course if you could observe that person right now you'd be able to judge him male or female, but that's because then there'd be already two people -- one observed and one observer. for there to be gender there need to be at least two people. gender is defined in relativity. gender is a description of what one organism means to another, what one organism's bodyparts mean to another organism's bodyparts. What can come from the intercourse of the two. And so, gender only means anything as a social construct. only as one thing in relation to another thing. there is absolutely no "biological gender" or any of that crap that some scientists seem to believe in. Yet there is good reason for looking into the social construct of gender by looking at the biological particulars that create it. And yeah, those will be put into our social constructs as well, to comment on what you said about "the constructed nature of hormones". We need some sort of construct, otherwise how are we going to deal with the physical world? How are we going to manipulate it if we can't single out things, give them names to talk about them, group them together logically, etc.? Just because that's imperfect doesn't mean we should stop. Or that we could stop. We can only refine. Of course our habit of making all these constructs is itself a result of our biology, but that's another story, and pretty obvious anyway, I suppose.

man, i don't know if you follow. do you? I wrote a piece on this a while back that goes into more detail, but I guess maybe you get it already? After this point/argument the "fertility cult" point becomes fairly obvious. There is a general human "fertility cult" and that you say there is "more variety than generalization can afford" already implies that it's all the same thing -- all just variations of the same theme. And that theme is what I'm talking about.

EDIT: phhh, so many typos. corrected a few. shouldn't write so fast. probably needs a second pass of spellchecking but whatever
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:46 pm        Reply with quote
Quote:
I’m arguing that biological sex along with gender are socially constructed, and those social constructs are not causally connected with hormones.


yeah, I didn't address the second part of that sentence properly; where else should our social constructs -- society itself, even -- come from, if not from our biology and our hormones? doesn't make any fucking sense to say that there exist things in human behavior/society that cannot be causally linked to human biology. because that's the way it is. if we had different substances coursing through our systems then we'd act differently and create different societies (which is what's happening all over the globe; different biologies, different societies)

so yeah, where else should social constructs come from, if not from our bodies?
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:38 pm        Reply with quote
bbp wrote:
Ironically enough, if you look at your religion, and spiritual believe in general, it's full on "nonce words" -- an no way to investigate any further.

I have a feeling that you’re using “investigate” in the sense of “experimental verification,” which is kind of an exhausted argument against the verity of religious claims. I don’t want to presume you to mean something you don’t, though, so please let me know if I’ve misunderstood your point.

Can you specify which religious nonce words you mean?

bbp wrote:
why would you even need an "interpretation" of natural occurences if you understood the science behind them?

I can (and gladly will) explain why someone would desire to interpret private experiences. Your question scans rhetorically, though, and I think that you need to understand the narrowness of your perspective. By virtue of your limited experiences – and we all possess limited experiences – you are in no position to judge another person’s imaginative and cognitive needs. I bring up this point less as an insistence of civility and more as a reminder that we ought to remain epistemologically honest.

I actually integrate both metaphysical speculation and contemporary guesses regarding the chemical underpinnings of cognition into my worldview. I trust metaphysical speculation more, however, because the history of science has not proven the discipline to be wholly reliable. A shitload of our predecessors have “understood the science” behind phenomena, and their understandings have been overturned by succeeding generations, whose understandings were then overturned by their children, and so on. I choose to rely upon my own efforts to understand my experience because I prefer to take accountability for my worldview rather than defer my ideas about my life to an authority that has not proven itself reliable enough to handle the responsibility.

bbp wrote:
why should something non-manmade have a "meaning" the way manmade things have a meaning?

Because:

(1) Our sense organs create impressions from the world around us,
(2) We construct those impressions via cognition into ideas,
(3) We can know nothing of the world that has not been molded by cognition into something other than what it was, pre-perception, and
(4) Everything “non-manmade” is automatically “man-made” by virtue of the fact that it has been perceived and cognitively assessed.

Reflecting on what I wrote, that’s pretty close to straight-up Buddhism.

bbp wrote:
there is absolutely no "biological gender" or any of that crap that some scientists seem to believe in. Yet there is good reason for looking into the social construct of gender by looking at the biological particulars that create it.

This is where I think that we disagree. I don’t see biological particulars as responsible for “creating gender.” Rather, I see any necessary relationship between biology and gender as a “just-so story.” In other words, because we cannot purely perceive biology outside our cognitive framework of gender, we automatically gender biology in the very act of observing it.

bbp wrote:
Just because that's imperfect doesn't mean we should stop.

I hope I haven’t come across as suggesting that we should adopt a wholly different cognitive framework out of whole cloth. I don’t think that’s possible, just as I don’t think we can somehow implant racial equality into the minds of people who have matured within a racist society. I’m arguing that, in understanding gender as a construct, we need to realize that our constructs are more plastic than we initially feel they are. From there, the molds can be altered to become more socially just.

We’ve already seen this happen over the last fifty years, though women (as a group) have more widely experienced the plasticity of gender. Our culture now contains a script – a socially accepted explanation – whereby women may wear clothes traditionally assigned to men, wear their hair in traditionally masculine fashions, and assume traditionally masculine professional responsibilities. Women’s relationship to femininity has been considerably more radical than men’s relationship to masculinity, however. We typically view women as the party who needs liberation from gender typing, so we’re more comfortable when we see advertisement images of little girls playing with toys traditionally reserved for boys (tools, cars, guns, etc.). We’re more likely to crack a joke if we see an advertising image with a boy playing with toys traditionally reserved for girls (domestically themed dolls, cookware, etc.).

Unless we view the plasticity of gender as belonging to both men as well as women, we’re creating as many social problems as we might potentially solve. The past thirty years’ phenomenon of hyper-masculinity has developed largely in response to feminism: women adopt roles that are perceived as more masculine, thereby closing the historical gap in power between men and women. Men then respond by trying to become more masculine as a means of maintaining the distinction between them and women.

Current academic trends support this observation. Whereas colleges and universities were once filled to bursting with male students, men have started to conscientiously avoid college because more and more women enroll – thereby making education girly and feminizing. Men like to say to feminists: “We gave you the vote, so shut up.” (Note that people who say this tend to think of all feminists as women.) However, men’s refusal to understand masculinity as plastic undermines feminism’s textbook-approved victories. Men’s migration away from traditionally masculine fields due to the influx of women essentially admits, “Of course you’re not equal to us, so we’re going to play somewhere else.”

Let me put this another way. Women have historically represented contemptible character traits (weakness, sympathy, compassion, nurturing). Male society – the society with power – has come to view women as symbols of flawed character, and this symbolic association was sustained by a political and economic division of men and women into professional and domestic spheres. The symbolism was reinforced outwardly with gendered fashions. Preventing women from becoming as unlike men as possible (both in terms of daily activity and in personal appearance) had a number of effects, but the most important one for my point is this: the division protected men from the fear that they could become “feminized” or reduced to the social and personal characteristics regarded with the greatest contempt.

Over the past fifty years, these separations have been greatly shrunk. Women can dress in men’s clothing, and they can work alongside men. This brings the outward symbol of contempt – women – on a level closer to men’s own. Hence this syllogism:

(1) IF women represent characteristics that a man should avoid, and
(2) IF the practical distinctions between men and women are shrinking,
(3) THEN men need to find some new nook of masculinity into which women may not enter.

This syllogism leads to a lot of ugly, disgusting behaviors – along with a lot of flawed justifications of those behaviors. Men tend to gawk when a feminist argues that cat-calling exists on the same spectrum as rape. People often argue that catcalling and rape are primarily about sexual attraction, but actual instances of catcalling and rape have illustrated that both phenomena occur whether or not the men are attracted to their victims. Both behaviors are a man’s effort to claim a feeling of power for himself by taking power away from another person. The varying grades of sexual harassment, culminating in rape and murder, allow men to create a new, sacrosanct masculine identity through violence against women.

As I wrote above, many men gawk when they claim that the attention they’ve given a woman is innocent. The phenomenon of gawking itself is an instance of male privilege. Men’s accounts of their behavior are automatically given more authority than women’s accounts of their revulsion at those men’s behavior. Men typically presume that their professed intentions are more important than the resulting effects. This is like saying, “I need to assert my masculinity by objectifying you, and that’s going to hurt you as a result, but I also don’t like to think of myself as someone who enjoys hurting another person. To resolve this cognitive dissonance, I’m going to censor my awareness that I hurt you by claiming that I did not mean to hurt you.”

And while I’m on the point!

Anyone who thinks rape is funny has not been raped.

No one who has been raped does thinks that rape is funny.

No one who has helped someone physically, emotionally, and mentally rehabilitate from being raped does thinks that rape is funny.

Anyone who thinks rape is funny needs to grow a soul. (Note that I do not wish rape upon anyone as an object lesson. Growing a soul is more beneficial than getting raped.)

Interestingly, the people who think I’m being prudish about rape-as-hilarious have only ever been male.

Also interestingly, whenever I, as a white man, suggest to other white men that we should not hold the invisible privilege we assume from the moment we wake up to the second we sleep, I am accused of trying to be “politically correct.” This is kind of hilarious! Political correctness implies that one has spoken insincerely in order not to offend others, when I have actually spoken “incorrectly” to the popular political opinion of my audience – that they are entitled.

Anyway, all of these points relate to the fact that it’s okay for women to be men – but not okay for men to be anything like what women are. The past hundred years’ effort to balance political power between men and women can only succeed if those constructs are rejected as absolutes.

So, yeah, off my soapbox and going to lunch.
_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:49 pm        Reply with quote
hm. Basically you're always saying "we can't know" and leave it at that while I say "we can know".

Quote:
Your question scans rhetorically, though, and I think that you need to understand the narrowness of your perspective. By virtue of your limited experiences – and we all possess limited experiences – you are in no position to judge another person’s imaginative and cognitive needs.


I am able to judge that to some degree, I do it regularly and so do you. Empathy would be impossible without it. It's good that you talk about experiences because they are the only way to know anything. Precisely because my own personal experiences are so limited I draw upon the experiences of the many great men of science. Because science deals only with experiences and experiencable things. It deals with knowable phenomena while religions lure people in by talking about "the unknowable", which basically means they get of scot free. They can get as crazy as they want to with the stuff they're talking about. It doesn't corelate to experiences at all. Religion is not about experiences -- those are always better explained rationally. It's only the things that people don't get, rationally, that religion deals with. And people falsly assume that that somehow broadens their perspective.

And that's the core of the problem right there. Our experiences are limited, yes, but they're all we've got. Religion adds nothing. That is what I am saying. I know that science can tell me only a few things while an infinite amount of things remain in the dark. Yet religion, by comparison, can tell you absolutely nothing, not even a few things. Not even those few tiny things that science can tell you. Religion is a false friend in that it seems to offer more knowledge that's found nowhere else, some powerful secrets of sorts, from a place that rational thought can't reach, and it never delivers. It promises everything and delivers nothing (that's what Napoleon advises you to do "if you want to be a success in this world", by the way).

Saying that I can't judge that, that perhaps the minds of other people are such grand mysteries that I'll never get it because there's somehow an alternate dimension in their minds in which religion actually make sense, just seems like a weak defense to me. I feel like I can judge that. I have to, anyway. Saying you can't judge it is a judgement already, so you might as well go with the other one that offers you more opportunities. That's just logical. And of course I'll revise my judgement whenever new evidence pops up. That's something you have to do even when you say you can't judge, so you're not saving all that much energy. You're just missing out on opportunities to try, fail and learn. (The way of science)

I know that whatever viewpoint one can possibly adapt will be narrow. But what can you do, you gotta work with what you got. And you only have a few decades to do it, so saying "I can't judge this, I can't know this" just seems like a waste of time. I'd rather say "I've got to figure this the fuck out". And the only way to do that is through empirical research, not making up stories about devils and angels.

Quote:
I actually integrate both metaphysical speculation and contemporary guesses regarding the chemical underpinnings of cognition into my worldview. I trust metaphysical speculation more, however, because the history of science has not proven the discipline to be wholly reliable.


That's what religious people say all the time. Science is not 100% reliable. Yeah. And how reliable has metaphysical speculation turned out to be? They never turn around and ask that. They never turn around and question how fucking reliable religion has turned out to be. How reliable Norse mythology, the Greek and the Roman religions turned out to be. Because that's zero. Honestly. Do you ever fairly and squarely compare the track records? Metaphysical speculation, in the cases where it turned out to be on point, was only ever proven to be on point because of science. Because science verified it. Science created actual knowledge from the blue print of metaphysical speculation. Speculation will always be a part of science, it will always stand at the beginning of new research. And that's where it belongs. It has to be put in its place.

Quote:
A shitload of our predecessors have “understood the science” behind phenomena, and their understandings have been overturned by succeeding generations, whose understandings were then overturned by their children, and so on.


That's what I mean. It hasn't been "overturned". Things build upon each other. And even though I know that whatever scientific knowledge I'm holding now will be absolutely dwarved by what people will know in a hundred years, that's still my best bet. You can't do any better than state of the art. If I could time travel and pluck some sweet knowledge out of the futuristic garden then I would and I'd come back here and, well, nothing would change, really. Science would once again have been overturned. Dagnit! You see, constant actualization of knowledge isn't really a problem in my eyes. There is no constant knowledge, nothing static. You always gotta be on your toes. I mean, after all, how could you expect anybody to come up with a perfect understanding of anything -- a "last word" on anything. You think any religion has that? You think any kind of metaphysical speculation has ever stumbled across that? Because if so, I'd like to hear it. For now though I'll say it simply doesn't exist. Couldn't ever. Science doesn't have it on sale or in stock and it's not getting any new absolute truths in until at least the next big bang, and perhaps even later, but again, religion has even less on offer. All empty boxes crawling with spiders.

You yourself are not the kind of Christian that Christians were when Jesus was still around/had just passed away. How often has that shit been overturned?

At least I know the little bit I know. Thanks to science. At least I can make some accurate predictions about the future. No religion ever was able do that. Never. Ever. And never were they able to say anything about current events -- miracles or otherwise -- that didn't turn out to be completely discredited and overturned later on. Often times by religion itself, which could no longer deny science. I think we should play Good Christians right now and be humble for the pitiful amount of knowledge that the lord has granted us through science, in his infinite wisdom. So, yeah, there!

Quote:
This is where I think that we disagree. I don’t see biological particulars as responsible for “creating gender.”


Yeah but you're not saying what it is that you're seeing instead. It's all in that cool crystal ball that you're blocking off with your shoulder when I'm trying to sneak a peek. Because:
Quote:
Rather, I see any necessary relationship between biology and gender as a “just-so story.” In other words, because we cannot purely perceive biology outside our cognitive framework of gender, we automatically gender biology in the very act of observing it.


That doesn't explain how gender is created. At all. I told you what I though how it is created. You're saying "Not so" and don't offer anything instead. I don't see how that's acceptable for an inquiring mind, and it doesn't make you look like you're really taking metaphysical speculation all that seriously. Because what are you speculating? You're not telling. I say that if we'd genetically engineer all men to be homosexual we'd have a homosexual society and you say biology doesn't have anything to do with gender. Obviously you're not going to deny that homosexuality exists (to whatever philosophical degree you'll feel able to settle on) and obviously you're not going to deny that it's biological and not "just in the head". So where's the disconnect between that and our current biology creating our current society, our current perception of gender and, indeed, our current perception of anything and everything? Whate else makes it so, if not biology? I wanna hear you say the worddddd, I wanna hear you say HIS nameeeeee, if that's what it's gonna beeee gaaarrghh

Quote:
(1) Our sense organs create impressions from the world around us,
(2) We construct those impressions via cognition into ideas,
(3) We can know nothing of the world that has not been molded by cognition into something other than what it was, pre-perception, and
(4) Everything “non-manmade” is automatically “man-made” by virtue of the fact that it has been perceived and cognitively assessed.


Let me correct that.

Quote:
(1) Our sense organs work synergistically with the rest of the world to bring about consciousness (there is no "inside" and "outside", it is all one inseperable thing)
(2) Consciousness is all we know and will ever know about the world
(3) The world "pre-perception" is undefined, a paradox, and will forever remain as such (see point 2)
(4) "Man-perceived" is not “man-made”; for example, the big bang was an event, a natural phenomenon, that, while it is understood/perceived in human terms, no one would argue to have been caused by humans, or that it has any kind of "meaning" other than what is derived from its place in the chain of causality; further, "meaning" is the study of cause and effect through logic -- "X happening "means" something (Y) must have caused it and something (Z) must follow it".


Look closely and you'll see that whenever you go to figure out the meaning of anything you're asking for the things that led to it, that made it happen, and the implications that it's having.

Further, an earthquake -- or even better, because further away -- an eclipse of the sun, is not a manmade event by any definition of the word. All perception is manmade, yes. However, inside of that manmade perception we differentiate between manmade events, objects, etc. and non-manmade events, objects, etc. That's what I was talking about. You don't interpret the meaning of a novel the way you interpret the meaning of an earthquake. You just don't do that. But that's what religion does. All the time. It, for example, interprets death as some sort of plot point in the godly plan. Then comes purgatory and judgement day and heaven and hell. Religion makes up a fictional meaning for death -- it interprets a meaning into things that have no basis anywhere. Someone just pulled it out of his ass. Science doesn't do that. And if a scientist does it then that's bad science. If a prophet does it then it just might become a religion with a billion followers.

Going to post this now and get to the rest of your post later. Seems like the most fun parts are up next! I'm really enjoying this so far. Probably too much for my own good, even.
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:51 pm        Reply with quote
P.S.: Hope you had some good 'n' tasty lunch
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:55 pm        Reply with quote
P.P.S.: Hope you're not vomiting it all over the place at the sight of my sparklingly brilliant arguments, now
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:48 pm        Reply with quote
bbp wrote:
It's good that you talk about experiences because they are the only way to know anything.

If you lack direct access to another person’s experiences, and if those experiences lead a person to adopt religious ideas, how can you presume to discern the verity of that person’s conclusions?

bbp wrote:
Because science deals only with experiences and experiencable things.

At this point, I’m reminded that I’m unsure what you’re attacking under the name “religion.” In my experience – and in the experiences of many others – religious experiences occur and are, hence, experienceable things.

I think you might know less about this than you feel you do. Before I conclude that, though, let me ask: can you please define “religion?” If you have time, I am interested to know how the positions I’ve traced in my earlier posts relate to your definition of religion.

bbp wrote:
Religion adds nothing. That is what I am saying.

I understand that this is what you're saying. You’re over-reaching by presuming to describe the experiences of others.

bbp wrote:
Saying that I can't judge that, that perhaps the minds of other people are such grand mysteries that I'll never get it because there's somehow an alternate dimension in their minds in which religion actually make sense, just seems like a weak defense to me.

Let me rephrase it then: you can judge it – but not in a way that I take seriously. By judging my experiences, you presume to understand my reactions to my life better than I do. I think you’re smarter than this, but your arguments aren’t reflecting such.

bbp wrote:
I feel like I can judge that. I have to, anyway.

Why do you have to?

(These are all straight-faced honest questions FYI.)

bbp wrote:
Do you ever fairly and squarely compare the track records? Metaphysical speculation, in the cases where it turned out to be on point, was only ever proven to be on point because of science.

The strength of metaphysical speculation lies not in its history of conclusions, but in its power to enable a person to think critically. Scientific labor, of course, teaches critical thinking as well, and I don’t begrudge anyone their resulting maturity through scientific pursuits.

Contemporary techno-industrial science, though, doesn’t do much to enable critical thinking. Most of the methods, equipment, and data are so far specialized beyond accessibility that trusting those conclusions seems specious, especially if the individuals responsible for disseminating those conclusions have ulterior motives – as might have been the case with this Climategate business.

This science is sponsored. These sponsors fund university research programs and use their leverage to suppress studies that reflect poorly on their corporations. Beyond the simple problem of errancy, there’s a lot of static coming between the labor of research and the report’s press release.

Come to think of it, I’m now remembering that I’m not too clear on what you’re referring to under the name “science.” Can you clarify that for me?

bbp wrote:
You always gotta be on your toes. I mean, after all, how could you expect anybody to come up with a perfect understanding of anything -- a "last word" on anything. You think any religion has that? You think any kind of metaphysical speculation has ever stumbled across that?

Reading this suggests to me that you’re not properly prepared to doubt metaphysics. You’re doubting something, and you’re calling that something “metaphysics,” but you’re not describing the processes or disciplines that I’m familiar with.

Do you work in Information Technology? I’m curious because I’ve had similar conversations with folks in IT.

bbp wrote:
That doesn't explain how gender is created.

Of course it doesn’t. My aim here isn’t to locate the genesis of gender.

bbp wrote:
I don't see how that's acceptable for an inquiring mind, and it doesn't make you look like you're really taking metaphysical speculation all that seriously.

It’s far better to be honest about ignorance than to feign understanding.

bbp wrote:
Obviously you're not going to deny that homosexuality exists (to whatever philosophical degree you'll feel able to settle on) and obviously you're not going to deny that it's biological and not "just in the head".

The roots of homosexuality are hardly settled within the GBLT community. Where, specifically, are you getting your conclusions on the biological roots of homosexuality?

bbp wrote:
Seems like the most fun parts are up next! I'm really enjoying this so far. Probably too much for my own good, even.

Thumbs up!
_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
evnvnv
hapax legomenon


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: the los angeles
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:12 pm        Reply with quote
this thread is getting mind boggling

The Joker, 2008 wrote:
This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.


godspeed gentlemen

PS bbp please stop referring to religions as personified individual objects that are capable of "doing" things, it is one of my pet peeves. the equivalent of the way scientists feel about people saying that planets or particles or atoms or what the f ever "want" to behave in certain ways, maybe.
_________________
The text will not live forever. The cup are small
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:58 pm        Reply with quote
evnvnv wrote:
this thread is getting mind boggling

Kind of! I wasn't bothered by the digression, but it might be worth splitting this into two different threads: one on gender and the other on atheism/theisms.

And we can only wait to see which thread Theodore REX claims as his own.
_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:00 am        Reply with quote
wrote:
This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

_________________
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Rud31
forum ruler of Iraq


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: SanAnTex
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:06 am        Reply with quote
best controversial topic debate thread ever?
_________________
My Hawt Blog Vita Games

THERE ARE DEFINITELY WORSE VIDEO GAME PODCASTS
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
diplo



Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Location: Brandy Brendo's bungalow
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:51 am        Reply with quote
bbp wrote:
Religion adds nothing.


to what? life? why not?

also, i was wondering if anyone wanted to go back to this:

evnvnv wrote:
you know, if you 'proved' that god exists, [...] then religion (or at least faith) would become meaningless.


evnvnv wrote:
What I was getting at is that proof that god does exist would be more disruptive to this kind of idea than the further accumulation of 'proof' that god does not exist. The presence of a god that can be detected empirically would devalue all of those personal affirmations. Even if it was an exact mirror image of the biblical version of god the scientific god would never be the same thing as the god of the faithful. To me that makes the whole conflict between science and religion, logic and belief, rationalism and faith, completely meaningless. I'm not sure whether I'm arguing for the complete separation of spirituality and science or the complete unification, at a certain point it all seems the same to me.


unless . . . it's self-explanatory. hm. i feel like there's more here, but i dunno what.

momentarily burned myself out on all the atheist material i was surrounding myself with (and would appreciate text recommendations from another perspective). the thing i find that seemingly pervades the general arguments of hitchens, dillahunty, dawkins, etc. is that truth is equal to literalism (curious, since that seems to place them in a similar area as fundamentalists (either side says: 'realistically' disprove or contradict the story of, for example, genesis and it loses all its worth or 'truth')), which seems to completely rule out the function of truth as metaphor, or at least selectively glosses over the worth of religion as such while allowing it (metaphoric truth) to be elsewhere deemed valid in a novel or movie. based on this observation, i was trying to come up with a premise linking religion and art . . . but, it wasn't exactly working, since -- correct me if i'm wrong -- the ultimate source of art-experience is physically verifiable, whereas the supposed ultimate source of religious-experience isn't. might not be a worthwhile premise to pursue. i guess the general point that brought on this idea is: i can read a poem and have "illogical"/"irrational" reactions to it, like crying, and i can use the material, and the metaphoric truths it presents, as a way to apply meaning to my life -- and i can probably do all this while avoiding the critique of, say, matt dillahunty. however, if i were to do the same things with religious text, my actions would suddenly become immoral and absurd, because everything and the possible truths it offers must suddenly be taken from a factual/scientifically testable standpoint. i don't understand what is setting up this divide. can someone explain? or did i answer my own question.
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
negativedge
banned


Joined: 04 Dec 2006
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:30 am        Reply with quote
I'll go ahead and distill everything on this page at least that isn't specifically founded on the minutia of gender theory, or the presence of god as a means of personal growth:

Adilegian wrote:
Hume


bbp wrote:
Kant


the rest has been pretty pish
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead


Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:17 pm        Reply with quote
damn you, thread, don't move so quickly. guess I'll have to shoot you some quick answers.

Quote:
At this point, I’m reminded that I’m unsure what you’re attacking under the name “religion.” In my experience – and in the experiences of many others – religious experiences occur and are, hence, experienceable things.


No, no and no. I am talking about empirical observation. No one can "observe" a "religious experience" empirically. One can observe a dude talking garbage (aka speaking in tongues) and twitching on the floor (aka "rapture") but that "religious" part is kind of lost on the observer. If you disagree, name an event.

I will of course, at this point, mention "the God spot" again. Mr. Mech linked to an article on that. Activity in that brain region can be experienced. It is an experiencable event in that a scientist can stand there and observe his instruments pick it up. That is the definition of experiencable that I was using.

But that's hardly what you'll call a religious experience -- activity in that brain region --, right? So, I don't know, how has anyone ever had an observable religious experience? How can you observe that "religious" part?

So, to really, really make it clear: A "religious experience" is fiction. It is not observable, it is not experiencable through the senses. It is merely an expression that is applied loosely to whatever events.

Quote:
Come to think of it, I’m now remembering that I’m not too clear on what you’re referring to under the name “science.” Can you clarify that for me?


The scientific method. Straight up, bare bones. The lean, mean, way of looking at the world in this way, that's what I mean. Not the business of manipulating and selling scientific research or whatever you mentioned when you talked about sponsored science.

Quote:
Before I conclude that, though, let me ask: can you please define “religion?” If you have time, I am interested to know how the positions I’ve traced in my earlier posts relate to your definition of religion.


That's a good one. I'm not going to define religion because it can't be done. I'm not aware that anybody has ever defined it in a satisfactory manner. Religion itself deals with supposedly unexplainable and undefineable things, so how could it itself be defineable. It's pure chaos. Whatever you call a religion can be a religion. It doesn't matter -- you can just make it up. I'm not aware of a rigorous standard -- some sort of "religious method" that's as defined as the scientific method, by which religious people go by. Of course from my point of view, when people call themselves religious then, just as with the onus of proof, it's their turn to define what they mean.

Apparently though you cannot hold religion to the same standard -- religious people don't hold themselves to that standard. At least not in regards to their religions. Let's take a famous religious person. The pope. Does he outline with clarity what religion is, or even just what roman catholicism is? Yeah, according to what standards? If he said "You have to believe in the trinity", is "believe" clearly defined? Again, to scientific standards?

Defining things is what science does and religion is thorougly unscientific.

I could be wrong with this, of course. I don't recall your positions on this, the ones that you've "traced in your earlier posts". So, if you could point me in their general direction then that would be appreciated. Because, yeah, how do you define religion?

About the rest of your post: Once it gets personal the debate is probably soon over. So, you'll excuse if I don't react to that prodding and stay focused solely on making my points. That also means that I'll refrain from assuring you that I'm not attacking you personally, even when I attack believes that you might happen to hold.

P.S.@evnvnv:
evnvnv wrote:
PS bbp please stop referring to religions as personified individual objects that are capable of "doing" things, it is one of my pet peeves. the equivalent of the way scientists feel about people saying that planets or particles or atoms or what the f ever "want" to behave in certain ways, maybe.


Nope, you're wrong.

Evan, sorry that I have to school you once again (jk, bff): you can refer to religions as whatever you want because religious people will refer to whatever they want as "religion". I define "religious people" as: people who call themselves "religious". There, that one was easy! They don't define what religion is. It's not something that has a method, a defined ruleset or even a hierarchy/power structure/clear authority (because often times "god" is their authority, at other times it's ... "the essence" or whatever madeup stuff). Some religions do include an authority on their teachings. But that authority is not the religion. It's seperate from the religion -- it's "the church" of the religion, for example. "Religion" is different from things like, say, "Government" in that regard because a country is only governed if there is an actual govenment. Religion doesn't necessitate "actual" anything. You could declare your body a temple and start The Religion Of One right now. Who could deny you your claim of being the prophet, messiah and sole member of that religion? That's exactly how Christians, Muslims, etc. operate in the interpretation of their holy scriptures and that's how they form their believes. They don't base any of that on scientific research. The only difference to my example is that they are much more conformist and orientate their believes in relation to what their peers believe.

When you're attacking religion you don't have anything concrete to attack except for the minds of religious people. You can't attack religion itself because it's not even defined. And that's why you have to attack it in the first place; that whole bullshitting approach. That has to go. That has to be brought down.

And you can't play fair against someone who's set on cheating! CONFIRM/DENY

footnote@nedge: what the fuck are you even talking about

P.P.S.: I actually just now came up with a perfect definition of religion. fuuuck
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
CubaLibre
the road lawyer


Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Location: Balmer
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:00 pm        Reply with quote
diplo wrote:
the thing i find that seemingly pervades the general arguments of hitchens, dillahunty, dawkins, etc. is that truth is equal to literalism (curious, since that seems to place them in a similar area as fundamentalists (either side says: 'realistically' disprove or contradict the story of, for example, genesis and it loses all its worth or 'truth')), which seems to completely rule out the function of truth as metaphor, or at least selectively glosses over the worth of religion as such while allowing it (metaphoric truth) to be elsewhere deemed valid in a novel or movie.

Again I think you misapprehend or sell short the criticisms of these guys. Hitchens himself is very concerned to point out that eliminating the religious is not the same as eliminating the transcendent. Indeed, he states in no uncertain terms that the novel is the repository of moral philosophy. I don't think any of these people would deny the fundamental power of metaphor. Except maybe Dawkins, he's boring. This point being made, you now have two options as regards religion:

1. The Bible is just another novel.
2. The Bible is more than just a novel.

If 1, then the argument is over; there's nothing to disagree about. In fact, Hitchens says that even in an entirely secular world he would recommend study of the Bible to everyone, for its absolutely brilliant and powerful metaphor. The problem is that as a factual matter most if not all religious people believe 2. That is what separates religion from art. The question then becomes, what is this surplusage that the Bible has that no other book does? And it is always based on some literal, factual truth, from the basic "God exists" all the way down to all the specific theologies of Christianity. Even Adilegian seems to be this way, even though his beliefs are heavily metaphorical and aesthetic; he at least believes in the existence and divinity of a guy named Jesus who lived around 2000 years ago. That's a factual assertion and not a "metaphorical truth" that one can derive from art.

Hitchens has sort of addressed this argument himself when he refers to Socrates. He says that if someone proved Socrates never existed, it wouldn't matter a whit to him. The writings of Plato still exist and the (now fictional) character of Socrates still says the same extremely important things. His appreciation of the Socratic method doesn't depend in any dimension on Socrates' existence as a real person. Now imagine the exercise as applies to Christ and a Christian. You can't. A Christian can't say: it would be totally fine with me if Christ just never existed; the Bible would be just as useful. He would have to concede that something had been lost. That something is a matter of fact, not of metaphor.

Of course, any religious text or authority could be substituted for the Bible in this instance.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.
Filter / Back to top 
View user's profile Send private message
Quick Reply
 Attach signature
 Notify on replies
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    selectbutton Forum Index -> SimCity Board of Advisors All times are GMT
Goto page
// Prev  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 6 of 14

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group