If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

After getting spanked at Anjuli Pandaver's blog, Gilliel retreats to the pillowfort to complain:

giliell
March 20, 2016 at 10:19 am
259

Alexander
Urgh, wishing the best for the job. I suppose the boss would duck into the office when talking positively about you as well…

+++
Well, take a look at this blog, the thread about refugees. Actually I thought she was just honestly mistaken about the “organised mass rape” thingy, because she wouldn’t be the first person I’ve seen, but the reaction to me asking for a source and the dismissal of facts is quite telling.

linky:http://freethoughtblogs.com/anjuli/2016 ... -migrants/
Also a bonus, comments by AboringRobot Oaring About.

jimhabegger wrote:Sometimes my God, in Himself, is not a metaphor for anything at all.

So what is your god when he's not a metaphor?

In the metaphors He's a lot of the usual things: creator and sustainer of the universe, king, and father, for example, but in that sense, as I said, I don't have any conviction about whether or not that corresponds to anything apart from the metaphors themselves, and it doesn't matter for my purposes.

So why should those metaphors matter?

In fact, I'm reasonably sure that there is not any such being as anything that anyone could imagine, that I would call God.

So is your god not just unknowable, but impossible to even imagine? How can you even have such a concept if you cannot conceive it?

Other times He's a metaphor for some human characters in my mythology, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, considered as appearances of one and the same Person.

How can different human characters be the same person? Surely, out of metaphor, what you mean is that the messages delivered through their preaching have something in common?

d4m10n wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:And my reply to Ignorant Amos has disappeared. Apparently, Aaron Adair (Blog: A Tippling Philosopher) is another dishonest scumbag who can safely be ignored.

Aaron is a guest blogger. That's Johno Pearce's blog.

Ah. Then he should choose his guests more carefully.

jimhabegger wrote: Sometimes my God, in Himself, is not a metaphor for anything at all. In the metaphors He's a lot of the usual things: creator and sustainer of the universe, king, and father, for example, but in that sense, as I said, I don't have any conviction about whether or not that corresponds to anything apart from the metaphors themselves, and it doesn't matter for my purposes. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that there is not any such being as anything that anyone could imagine, that I would call God. Other times He's a metaphor for some human characters in my mythology, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, considered as appearances of one and the same Person.

https://media.giphy.com/media/lj935f7J3guGc/giphy.gif

jimhabegger wrote:You mean, what I mean by "walk in the path of God"? Roughly, what I mean by it is trying to learn to follow Baha'u'llah, or one of the other characters that He calls "Manifestations of God". Part of my way of doing that is studying Baha'i scriptures, trying to learn to love Him more, and to better understand His purposes and prescriptions and put them into practice.

Ah, OK. I've seen "Baha'u'llah" before. It's what Athrogate keeps saying, especially in the middle of a fight. Cool that you're into Forgotten Realms stuff. Not many of you takes-woo-way-too-seriously people seem to enjoy fantasy that is intended as fantasy.

jimhabegger wrote:Sometimes my God, in Himself, is not a metaphor for anything at all. In the metaphors He's a lot of the usual things: creator and sustainer of the universe, king, and father, for example, but in that sense, as I said, I don't have any conviction about whether or not that corresponds to anything apart from the metaphors themselves, and it doesn't matter for my purposes. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that there is not any such being as anything that anyone could imagine, that I would call God. Other times He's a metaphor for some human characters in my mythology, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, considered as appearances of one and the same Person.

How do you know this drivel to be true? Where's your evidence? It's all wishful thinking; stories based on stories based on stories. It's made-up shit all the way down.

And Moses? Really? That genocidal maniac is someone you apparently find worth emulating? When are you going to join the Einsatzgruppen?

Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Fuck off.

John D wrote:I can see where you are coming from and I honestly find what you are doing to be very interesting. I suspect you have read a bunch of Joseph Campbell.

Actually, no, but judging from some contexts where I've seen his name come up, I can see why you would think that. I'll read the wiki article.

The idea that you can build a community around a shared mythology can work.

I'm thinking now that a common mythology is actually an indispensable part of what makes civilization possible.

Personally, I believe our ethics and moral decisions are often based, not on pure logic, but of the history of stories (myths etc.). People naturally build stories and these stories have an almost magical way of nudging our moral decisions.

I agree.

I really do enjoy reading religious and mythical stuff... Greek myths, the Gita, the Koran, The Book of the Dead...etc.

I haven't studied much religious mythology outside of Baha'i and Christian scriptures. I've read some of the Gita and other Hindu scriptures, and the Quran, and recently I've been studying the life and teachings of Confucious. Another mythology that did a lot for me is Theosophy.

To me, it is all about the story and how it is an example of virtue.

Exactly. No one needs to believe that any of it really happened, in any academic historical sense.

Thank you for the warm welcome!

Generally, I try to learn and follow local customs for greetings, but in this case I problably won't. I'll follow a custom I've learned here in China: Best wishes.

deLurch wrote:

HoneyWagon wrote:RW just posted about her Quizotron...today at 3pm.
I am sure it will be a blast.

Quizotron appears to be the height of her profession at this point.

I dunno. She's pretty good at getting other people to give her money for free. I think any quizotron income pales in comparison to what she rakes in from begetron.

I mean, I think Carrier is mostly a narcissistic joke, but it appears he actually puts effort into what he does. What does she produce that even the SJW segment of society seems to value?

O joy, a proselytising relibot is just what we needed. As if a Steersbot is not enough.

Yeah, I know it's spelled proselytizing. My keyboard didn't.

free thoughtpolice wrote:After getting spanked at Anjuli Pandaver's blog, Gilliel retreats to the pillowfort to complain:

giliell
March 20, 2016 at 10:19 am
259

Alexander
Urgh, wishing the best for the job. I suppose the boss would duck into the office when talking positively about you as well…

+++
Well, take a look at this blog, the thread about refugees. Actually I thought she was just honestly mistaken about the “organised mass rape” thingy, because she wouldn’t be the first person I’ve seen, but the reaction to me asking for a source and the dismissal of facts is quite telling.

linky:http://freethoughtblogs.com/anjuli/2016 ... -migrants/
Also a bonus, comments by AboringRobot Oaring About.

That thread is amazing. It is on FTB, but there is a sensible debate going on (no thanks to Gilly). There are also a few unclean in the thread....PZ is not going to like this.

Kirbmarc wrote: So what is your god when he's not a metaphor?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. He isn't anything when He's not a metaphor, or else he's some human characters in my mythology, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, considered as appearances of one and the same Person. If that doesn't answer your question, then I don't understand it.

So why should those metaphors matter?

If you mean, what good are they, for me they facilitate thinking about what I want to do and how to do it, and communicating with other people who use them.

So is your god not just unknowable, but impossible to even imagine? How can you even have such a concept if you cannot conceive it?

My God is a character in a mythological system. I can imagine that God, and I do, mostly either as a big head in the sky, something like the form the wizard took with Dorothy; or else one or another of Baha'u'llah's "Manifestations of God," as I imagine them. Also sometimes, vaguely, a kind of prophetic figure in a long robe, something like Gandalf, Dumbledore or Obi-wan.

How can different human characters be the same person? Surely, out of metaphor, what you mean is that the messages delivered through their preaching have something in common?

I just think of them as one person, inside different bodies. Like if I saw a friend of mine in a Mickey Mouse costume, I might still recognize him from his voice, and the way he talks and acts.

Jan Steen wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Hey, I'm off for the weekend, but hate to leave unattended this shitstorm I started over our Lord and Savior Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD's use of Bayesian theory to disprove our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2 ... 2575010443

Jan Steen, your honor has been besmirched!

O, the horror.

Ignorant Amos wrote:I offered counter material to that arse Jan Steen who has a hard-on for slagging off Carrier and is bias about his work...all ad homs on both parts aside.

You pointed to Jan Steen's slymepit blog, a guy who I've had a run in with at that tit John McGrath's blog "Exploring the Matrix", he is a nasty piece of work and his dislike of Carrier as a person has clouded his judgement of his work.

Typical SJW comment: 100% feelz and innuendo and no arguments. Exactly what you can expect from a Carrier fanboy.

Ignorant Amos?! There's a name I haven't seen in a long while. I remember he used to hang around the Richard Dawkins forum. I don't remember him being this much of a twat, though.

Which pillow fort? There's a veritable nerf maginot line these days.

John, I forgot, I wanted to say that I like this very much:

John D wrote:I have never found an organized group that suited me. Most of these communities use their mythology to over-reach in my opinion. Ultimately a group breaks down into the "normal" group behavior we see everywhere... which include behaviors such as shaming, scapegoating, bullying, and other popularity contests. The only groups I end up enjoying are groups that are focused on an activity. As long as we are having fun engaging in the activity in a genuine way I am happy. In my opinion, all groups that are ethics based end up going to shit.

Brive1987 wrote:Which pillow fort? There's a veritable nerf maginot line these days.

http://the-orbit.net/progpub/2016/03/14 ... /#comments
[Urghh] comments 251 and 259 [urghh]

jimhabegger wrote:
Sometimes my God, in Himself, is not a metaphor for anything at all. In the metaphors He's a lot of the usual things: creator and sustainer of the universe, king, and father, for example, but in that sense, as I said, I don't have any conviction about whether or not that corresponds to anything apart from the metaphors themselves, and it doesn't matter for my purposes. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that there is not any such being as anything that anyone could imagine, that I would call God. Other times He's a metaphor for some human characters in my mythology, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, considered as appearances of one and the same Person.

I have some doubts about that, but I'm not here to discuss that, this time.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/23 ... f4f499.jpg

free thoughtpolice wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:Which pillow fort? There's a veritable nerf maginot line these days.

http://the-orbit.net/progpub/2016/03/14 ... /#comments
[Urghh] comments 251 and 259 [urghh]

The orbit's pages are too cluttered. They need more white space between comments and everywhere else.

rayshul wrote:Hey you can talk about it on the main thread fuck all else is happening except for FtB hilariously combusting.

Nope, Rayshul he can't.

You're talking to the famous 'Multithread Jim'.

His internet M.O. is to start a brand new thread for every thought that pops into his head. Then if anyone replies with anything which doesn't correspond to the exact form he wanted the conversation to go, he'll start another thread with a topic imperceptibly different from the original one. Then again and again until we have about seventeen threads all for the same conversation !

He's a lovely guy and also a complete and utter nuisance !

free thoughtpolice wrote:After getting spanked at Anjuli Pandaver's blog, Gilliel retreats to the pillowfort to complain:

giliell
March 20, 2016 at 10:19 am
259

Alexander
Urgh, wishing the best for the job. I suppose the boss would duck into the office when talking positively about you as well…

+++
Well, take a look at this blog, the thread about refugees. Actually I thought she was just honestly mistaken about the “organised mass rape” thingy, because she wouldn’t be the first person I’ve seen, but the reaction to me asking for a source and the dismissal of facts is quite telling.

linky:http://freethoughtblogs.com/anjuli/2016 ... -migrants/
Also a bonus, comments by AboringRobot Oaring About.

The reaction is indeed pretty telling. Anjuli replied to Giliell with a source.

Giliell dismissed it and engaged in some grade-A minimization and deflection: it's not "organized mass rapes/sexual assaults" but only disorganized and individual sexual assaults to distract women while the migrants stole their wallets. This is a common minimization of the incidents in Cologne and elsewhere (note that Giliell fails to address the fact that the incident of Cologne wasn't an isolated case).

Giliell believes that the real people who are really at fault are (who else?) the German authorities, but not because they didn't stop the sexual assaults, but because they're part of the "German rape culture" by not punishing groping hard enough. The poor, disfranchised Muslims have just exploited the weak German laws to acquire some iPhones to sell to support their poor, disfranchised stay in the capitalist Germany.

This just isn't true. There have been cases of mass sexual assaults in Hamburg, Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Dortmund, Düsseldorf and Bielefeld. Up to 1,000 men have been involved in Cologne alone. Similar attacks were reported in Austria, Finland and Switzerland, always involving refugees or immigrants from countries with a Muslim majority.

Giliell also ignores the fact that mass sexual assaults are a tool frequently encouraged and used by Islamists (for example in Cairo at the Tahir Square) as part of a real rape culture inspired and supported by the preaching of traditional Muslim values (like the idea that women are to blame for the assaults if they weren't veiled).

There are many factors leading to this view of women in our communities. One of the factors is that a man is infallible to shame or any of the negative consequences of a relationship between a man and a women that is not officiated by marriage; in these cases the women is believed to be despicable and has consented to be put in this situation, while he is of sound morals.

This catastrophic thinking has resulted in religious insanity that says girls should be taught their place in the streets and public spaces, to push them into donning the veil and push them out of the public sphere. Their rationale is that if women feel safe on the streets, they will be tempted to commit the sin of immodesty. By that virtue, harassment becomes a noble religious goal.

Giliell denies that the assaults were organized and claims that the investigations of the German police have found no evidence for any organization whatsoever. However the police didn't say that.

Jürgen Mathies, the new chief of police of Cologne stated (in German) that:

[Some perpetrators had made appointments for celebrations on New Year's Eve] on the social media. Some of them said there: 'We go to Cologne, there will be a big party.' There is no evidence that we are dealing with structures of organized crime. It is rather the case that the phenomenon of such sexual assaults out of groups is a massive problem in Cairo for example. The perpetrators probably knew from their home countries the behavior that women are encircled by many men at the same time and then abused. However, I did not know about this phenomenon in Germany so far.

The police has found no evidence of the involvement of organized crime, but has found evidence of more or less spontaneous organization from groups on social media, based on cultural attitudes. Giliell either doesn't know or deliberately ignores this important piece of information.

Gilliel and other dhimmis minimize the impact of Islam on the perception of women in the culture of Muslim men, especially in the last few years when Islamist "scholars" argue that rape of non-Muslim women can be justified.

The female prisoners of wars are 'those whom you own.' In order to humiliate them, they become the property of the army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them just like he has sex with his wives.

These words don't come from an ISIS leader, but from a female scholar and so-called "moderate Islamist" who teavhed the university of Al-Azhar in Cairo (who said what is quoted in the contest of a war against Israel).

Rape of non-Muslim women is a tool of Islamist preaching. The "superiority" of Islam is supported by the "purity" of Muslim women,when compared to the "degenerate" West. To say that Islamism and the cultural attitudes it inspires have nothing to do with what happened this New Year's Eve is disingenuous at best and willingly blind at worst.

"ʿAli Muhammad Shirazi [who was executed in 1850] took the title Báb (lit. "Gate") out of the belief that he was the gate to the Twelfth Imam.[4] The Bábí movement signaled a break with Islam and started a new religious system."
... "Bahá'u'lláh accepted the Báb's claims, becoming a Bábí".

[youtube]-s-wzTRwJMg[/youtube]

Why America needs reform of its libel laws, at least as regards the press:

"In the years that followed, this sensible decision has somehow morphed into the concept that if an event or a person is "newsworthy," the press can publish whatever it wants without fear of lawsuits for libel, slander or invasion of privacy. "

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/20/opinions/ ... index.html

TLDR?
If you lie about someone you can give them newsworthiness and notoriety. They thus become a 'public figure' or 'newsworthy' and you are immune to the consequences of your lies in the first place.

US media has carte blanche to ruin just about anyone's life by lying about them. It's my contention that part of the reason the US Press is so "Yellow" these days is due to the fact there is absolutely no incentive to be truthful. And that is wrong and harmful not just to individuals but to society itself.

jimhabegger wrote:
<snip>

So why should those metaphors matter?

If you mean, what good are they, for me they facilitate thinking about what I want to do and how to do it, and communicating with other people who use them.

Are they necessary, though? People who tend to get use to metaphysical metaphors a lot also tend to easily forget that they're metaphors. Isn't it better to communicate without them, to express a message in a straightforward way? It might be harder but by ding so there's less room for misunderstandings.

How can different human characters be the same person? Surely, out of metaphor, what you mean is that the messages delivered through their preaching have something in common?

I just think of them as one person, inside different bodies. Like if I saw a friend of mine in a Mickey Mouse costume, I might still recognize him from his voice, and the way he talks and acts.

So do you believe that a personality can survive death and the destruction of the brain, and to "reappear" in a different body centuries later?

Service Dog wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:
Sometimes my God, in Himself, is not a metaphor for anything at all. In the metaphors He's a lot of the usual things: creator and sustainer of the universe, king, and father, for example, but in that sense, as I said, I don't have any conviction about whether or not that corresponds to anything apart from the metaphors themselves, and it doesn't matter for my purposes. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that there is not any such being as anything that anyone could imagine, that I would call God. Other times He's a metaphor for some human characters in my mythology, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, considered as appearances of one and the same Person.

I have some doubts about that, but I'm not here to discuss that, this time.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/23 ... f4f499.jpg

I like it.

piginthecity wrote: You're talking to the famous 'Multithread Jim'.

There are too many Jims here already. Can we refer to this new guy as shithead?


Just to avoid confusion.

For those interested a bit more technical discussion on the latest results from the LHC- am reading slowly

http://resonaances.blogspot.com/

Really? wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:Which pillow fort? There's a veritable nerf maginot line these days.

http://the-orbit.net/progpub/2016/03/14 ... /#comments
[Urghh] comments 251 and 259 [urghh]

The orbit's pages are too cluttered. They need more white space between comments and everywhere else.

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/hepro ... rmat43.jpg

Clarence wrote:Why America needs reform of its libel laws, at least as regards the press:

"In the years that followed, this sensible decision has somehow morphed into the concept that if an event or a person is "newsworthy," the press can publish whatever it wants without fear of lawsuits for libel, slander or invasion of privacy. "

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/20/opinions/ ... index.html

TLDR?
If you lie about someone you can give them newsworthiness and notoriety. They thus become a 'public figure' or 'newsworthy' and you are immune to the consequences of your lies in the first place.

US media has carte blanche to ruin just about anyone's life by lying about them. It's my contention that part of the reason the US Press is so "Yellow" these days is due to the fact there is absolutely no incentive to be truthful. And that is wrong and harmful not just to individuals but to society itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong but being a public figure usually strengthens, not weakens, a libel case because a big part of defamation is proving that the false statements actually had a negative impact, which is more likely to be the case if you and your defamer are both well known.

Ape+lust wrote:Nobody was happy with my answer :cry:

And of course, when the discussion turns to particle physics, the only useful info from me is how many octopuses I've fucked :lol:

I'll say again -- I've learned a thing or two from watching the old buzzard.

http://imgur.com/TFGJTky.jpg

I think what PZ is saying, is that he wants the tentacles up his ass. I mean, if he can't stick his dick in its beak, what the hell else can he do with it? :moon: :goatse:

This is turning out to be more fun for me than I would have thought, and it isn't as hard as I thought it would be to follow the discussions that interest me.

jimhabegger wrote:This is turning out to be more fun for me than I would have thought, and it isn't as hard as I thought it would be to follow the discussions that interest me.

Sunder wrote:

Clarence wrote:Why America needs reform of its libel laws, at least as regards the press:

"In the years that followed, this sensible decision has somehow morphed into the concept that if an event or a person is "newsworthy," the press can publish whatever it wants without fear of lawsuits for libel, slander or invasion of privacy. "

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/20/opinions/ ... index.html

TLDR?
If you lie about someone you can give them newsworthiness and notoriety. They thus become a 'public figure' or 'newsworthy' and you are immune to the consequences of your lies in the first place.

US media has carte blanche to ruin just about anyone's life by lying about them. It's my contention that part of the reason the US Press is so "Yellow" these days is due to the fact there is absolutely no incentive to be truthful. And that is wrong and harmful not just to individuals but to society itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong but being a public figure usually strengthens, not weakens, a libel case because a big part of defamation is proving that the false statements actually had a negative impact, which is more likely to be the case if you and your defamer are both well known.

You are wrong. Being a 'public figure' (which you might not have been but for the bad press) is basically a get out of jail free card to slander you at will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

This is what killed George Zimmerman's (well, that and the fact that the same Judge that was overruled repeatedly on his trial by higher courts , Debra Nelson, presided over the libel case) libel case against NBC. He was ruled a 'limited public figure' if I recall correctly:



A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established...

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, [jokes about]... Terry Rakolta [an activist who spearheaded a boycott of the show Married With Children] were fair comments... within the confines of her public conduct [and] protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

So the doctoring of the tape to make it sound like he said a racial slur that was played on TV's around the country didn't matter.

To be fair, given that cunts like Senator Claire McCaskill can slander private citizens at will (with no repercussions) on the floor of Congress, it's only fair that people can slander her back as given that she is a lawmaker, she is a public figure.

Of course her POWER gives her some immunity anyway that Joe Schmoe or even a regular celebrity who runs afoul of Gawkers need for headlines doesn't have.

comhcinc wrote:There are too many Jims here already.

[youtube]Lxp_3000h_U[/youtube]

The United States has evolved into a country that doesn't give a shit about truth. And we are reaping the whirlwind as we speak.
That's why no one can get on Trump for lying: even if, one was to say he lies more than the politicians running against him (who are liars as well) the other politicians have arguably lied about more important things, say the CIA operation in Libya...

jimhabegger wrote:This is turning out to be more fun for me than I would have thought, and it isn't as hard as I thought it would be to follow the discussions that interest me.

This will help:

MarcusAu wrote:

katamari Damassi wrote:...the town smells like a fart...

Have you been to Rotorua?

No, but I've been to Sulfer, Oklahoma. People from around there say the water is an acquired taste...

deLurch wrote:

comhcinc wrote:There are too many Jims here already.

[youtube]Lxp_3000h_U[/youtube]

He was asked to tone it down for the commercials.

Also he was Jewish.

And would lock up is wife when he left the house.

And has a rap album.

Godfrey makes an appearance in the wild, don't know if it's the original though, didn't Parsehole say someone else had picked the account up?

It's not Parsehole nor do I find the person a very good troll at all.

screwtape wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:This is turning out to be more fun for me than I would have thought, and it isn't as hard as I thought it would be to follow the discussions that interest me.

This will help:

haloperidol.jpg

Reading jimhabegger, they seem to have some damn high quaity horse in China. Imported from Thailand I guess.

feathers wrote:
Reading jimhabegger, they seem to have some damn high quaity horse in China. Imported from Thailand I guess.

Kirbmarc wrote:

jimhabegger wrote:
<snip>

So why should those metaphors matter?

If you mean, what good are they, for me they facilitate thinking about what I want to do and how to do it, and communicating with other people who use them.

Are they necessary, though? People who tend to get use to metaphysical metaphors a lot also tend to easily forget that they're metaphors. Isn't it better to communicate without them ... ?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Imagine where technology would be today, if people had tried to do physics without any metaphors.

The only reason I've used the metaphors here, has been for transparency, so people would know from the start that they're dealing with a religious nutcase, and not be taken by surprise, when they find out.

I just think of them as one person, inside different bodies. Like if I saw a friend of mine in a Mickey Mouse costume, I might still recognize him from his voice, and the way he talks and acts.

So do you believe that a personality can survive death and the destruction of the brain, and to "reappear" in a different body centuries later?

My view of them all as one person is purely metaphorical.

Metaphors are not real. And they are gay.

piginthecity wrote:He's a lovely guy ...

What a sweet thing to say! I'm glad to know that you think so.

comhcinc wrote:Metaphors are not real. And they are gay.

Agreed. Anyway, I'm queer.

See!

jim wrote:

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Imagine where technology would be today, if people had tried to do physics without any metaphors.

I think you mean metaphysics, not physics.
If people used the kind of fuzzy logic, magical thinking you are promoting here instead of applying reason we wouldn't be in the Stone Age yet.

jimhabegger wrote:

comhcinc wrote:Metaphors are not real. And they are gay.

Agreed. Anyway, I'm queer.

Meh. And?

I'm mostly browsing, catching up on things at the moment. I come across a mysterious mention of a Stephoknee, I type it into google and review...

First I'm thinking, "gah, this is creepy", then, "oh this is a kink" and finally I come to the conclusion that it must be a put on, all seems a bit too phonknee.

If it is, it's very very funny.

free thoughtpolice wrote:I think you mean metaphysics, not physics.

No, I mean physics. Lines of force, waves, particles, electric current, and the Bohr model of the atom, for example.

free thoughtpolice wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:Which pillow fort? There's a veritable nerf maginot line these days.

http://the-orbit.net/progpub/2016/03/14 ... /#comments
[Urghh] comments 251 and 259 [urghh]

Thx. I'm finding it very hard to get excited about the Orbit.
They need to kill a few skeptical goats before they have my attention beyond occasional lolz.

It's as if Bulgaria detached itself from the Central Powers and formed a parallel bloc while yelling "look at me look at me".

:bjarte:

And yes, everything can be understood an a WW1 analogy.

Don't call the cops you guys.

Kirbmarc, go back through this thread, looking for metaphors, and then see if you still think it would better to never use metaphors.

jimhabegger wrote:

comhcinc wrote:Metaphors are not real. And they are gay.

Agreed. Anyway, I'm queer.

I only care about your gender fluids. :cdc:

jimhabegger wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:I think you mean metaphysics, not physics.

No, I mean physics. Lines of force, waves, particles, electric current, and the Bohr model of the atom, for example.

When you have described as metaphors so far have been imaginary things like gods and ghosts of historical criminals like Muhammad. Using speech to communicate things like lines of force are using analogs and models to describe real measurable things.
Religion and magical thinking have never done anything to further science; if anything it's held it back.

jimhabegger wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:I think you mean metaphysics, not physics.

No, I mean physics. Lines of force, waves, particles, electric current, and the Bohr model of the atom, for example.

Physics is done with experiment and maths. Your confusing it with wanking.

BASTARD EDIT BUTTON!!!! You're...fucking you're

d4m10n wrote:Don't call the cops you guys.

So is she just trying to rig her own deathpool?

Kirbmarc, I do think it's a good exercise to try to say the same things without the metaphors, periodically. That's been one of the benefits for me in following atheist blogs and discussions. It stimulates me to try to explain to myself what I'm doing, without the God metaphors.