Super intelligences are here, beyond preception and mental boundry,
and they’re mostly maleviolent.
It’s been like this forever,
and that’s why it’s over.
Because it’s over, we don’t have friends in the fourth dimension, not that people are even friendly.
That means, ofcourse, that we don’t have a future, because in 4d, and above it, time is truly experienced.
There’s nothing left to say.
All talk is futile. All thought : useless.
We’ve had people praying for thousands of years.
The earth isn’t getting better.
The planets and the sun are moving out of their subtle alignment.
The sources and cores of the true cause of our life, are infected and dieing out.
New fake lives come from death, but that can’t last forever, and these shadows only obscure the cage’s walls.
Christianity can’t solve our problems, Christianity is the problem.
Along with all the other revealed religions which instruct us to eschew reason for blind faith.
Dan said, “We’ve had people praying for thousands of years.”
You’d think by now we’d have learned.
And I think, slowly, blind faith is being overwhelmed. Very slowly.
You know what the sun’s all about
when the lights go out.
And anyway, this isn’t about the salvation of mankind,
it’s about individuals seeing the light,
and living in it,
one individual at a time.
And I think, slowly, blind faith is being overwhelmed.
So says the guy who utilizes a substantial amount of blind faith to even utter such a statement.
As was observed in another thread…philosophical consistency just aint as important as it used to be.
“Give me autonomous liberty–to dethrone Christ and establish humanity–in His place I’ll take my stand, building from His grace my unstable land–Away from me your guiding hand, such is due the city of man!”
So, one person says there’s too much ‘blind faith’ in the world, and another person says that most people have better things to do than study philosophy. Is there actually a functional difference between those statements, or is it just a ‘glass half empty, glass half full’ kind of thing?
the poignancy of this topic isn’t wether blind faith is good or not, because blind faith will be good and bad for different people.
This thread will only be of concern to someone who has outlandish desires (IMO). Maybe it was a crushed blind faith that inspired Dan to qrite this, or maybe it’s made in complete sarcasm. If you don’t edesire to be god or go to other dimensions, who cares? (that’s what interests me)
I think people were giving Dan the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t REALLY want to discuss malevolent super intelligences manipulating our fate in the fourth dimension, and immediately started trying to pull something more…accessible out of his words. If you want to get things ‘back on track’, don’t look at me, just, you know, reply to Dan.
You show me where I was inconsistent, and I’ll say 12 mea culpas and eat it on toast.
Studying philosophy (with genuine interest) is attempting to expand knowledge while railing against those who consider knowledge irrelevant. The difference is between living and thinking rationally or irrationally.
Imagine if you will, a small girl (doll in hand) starring at the sun. She is upset because her big brother told her that light originated from that big ball of fire! She stamps her foot, puffs out her cheeks, and begins sulking! “Where is the light??” she cries…all the while starring directly into the sun.
I would likewise consider it a tad arrogant for someone to assume that their philosophy has no problematic areas. This is especially true after considering James N. Anderson’s wonderfull survey called “Secular Responses to the Problem of Induction.”
I found Anderson’s discussion of Karl Popper especially interesting, and so I went out and purchased a copy of Popper’s book “Objective Knowledge.”
While claiming to have solved Hume’s nefarious “Problem of Induction” Mr. Popper (as Anderson, who is piggy backing off of secular philosopher Laurence BonJour, shows), has failed to adequately do so.
Unless one adequately accounts for this “problem” (which is only one of MANY “problems” the skeptic will have to surmount) he or she cannot make factual statements with any consistency.
But…then again…Mr. Popper is nowhere near as brilliant as ILP’s very own Mr. Paine Full Truth…
TPT,
I guess what I’m saying is, the people who rely on ‘blind faith’ when it comes to religion aren’t necessarily fools or bad people- oftentimes they’re just people who spent their time mastering a field other than religion/philosophy. I’m sure I act like a full and utter ‘sheep’ when I go to the dentist, or consult the financial department about my loans. I simply don’t know anything about dentistry or finance, so I rely on strangers to tell me what to do. I’m not seeing the difference.
And you’re talking to someone who essentially threw his life away to chase a philosophy degree, so you don’t need to convince me that the field is worthwhile. That’s not what I’m disputing.
I wouldn’t know. All I know is that the Truth is the Truth whether it’s a majority of one–or none.
Why wouldn’t I need to convince you if you think you threw your life away on it? My objection to philosophy is the strait-jacket academia has put it in. And while it is very soon too late to play professional football, it’s never to late to pursue and stand up for the Truth–something I imagine you understand.
Both, they’re so similar.
Most can’t be nice, and are not kind.
If one ever manifest most people would call it god anyways, or the devil, or a demon or an angel, or some other regressive repeatition of old ideas.
Compared to things like flies and goldfish, isn’t humanity perspectively a maleviolent superintelligence aswel?
If anyone believes in super powerful or super intelligent beings, they probably believe that those kinds of entities -could- have the power to improve things. Potentially, anyways. But most life doesn’t really care, allot of it is loveless. It only applies to theism or deism in so far as people normally assume things about benevolent super beings / living super figures.
Everyone’s really hung up about the whole christianity thing, at this forum.
Well anyways I was talking about some real problems : it’s obvious that there’s not much love in the hierarchy of life, and most of them do not respect their inferiors.
If I was like, really dumb and small, you wouldn’t respect or love me for it.
That’s the problem because it means most of the alien guys and deities and spirits or whatever you want to call them, don’t respect animals or humanity, and then the humanity doesn’t respect animals or anything else under that idea of a level.
Being small is not a crime. Just because a life has a smaller mind or body, doesn’t mean they should be hated for it.
When you were still a baby you probably would have said so, too, if you could talk.
You would have agreed with me about how it’s good to be gentle and loving.
Can’t you remember who you really are and were, instead of this present faccade?
I would suggest rather, the following artful statement by popular preacher Paul Washer:
“Imagine for a moment, an 18-month old baby that you’re holding in your arms. And this baby sees that shiney watch on your wrist, and he grabs for it. You pull his hand away and say “no.” He begins to cry, and move about in your arms. He reaches again, you say “no” and he begins to scream. He reaches again, and you say “no” and he begins to frail his arms, even in the direction of your face. I submit to you, that if that 18-month old baby had the strength of an 18 year old man, he would slaughter you where you stand, rip the watch off of your arm…”
It is a hallmark of man-centered, humanistic thinking, to suppose that we are “good” from birth. This is in direct conflict with the Christian view of man.
