Humans, the Believing Animals

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Humans, the Believing Animals

Post by owl of Minerva »

Age wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:47 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:41 pm
Age wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 6:04 am

LOL

Even when people are ON each "others side" like "dubious is, or was, the "other" STILL can MISINTERPRET, and become "obnoxious", as CLEARLY SHOWN here above.
Instead of a discussion on the merits, or demerits, of the article in question ‘Humans the Believing Animals’ which I critiqued in a post: Mon. 2/13, 4:21 pm, there are instead arguments arising here between those who post, that are not relative to the article in question; to its merits or demerits.
Are you here suggesting that some one posted some things that were not relative to the article mentioned above?

If yes, and if you would like to continue this discussion, then who were they, EXACTLY, and what were they talking about EXACTLY?

And, does what you just posted here really have ANY thing to with the article above also anyway?

Was the previous post in question, which you wrote, at 4:21 pm or 8:21 pm?
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:41 pm This is disappointing. It appears that people who have no interested in philosophy, whatsoever, are posting here because they have nothing else to do, or they enjoy being disrupters. As in social media in general it is a problem.
Is what you just posted here related to the topic title and the article in question? Or, is it just another form of disruption?

And, if you would like to ACCUSE some people, of some thing/s here, then I suggest you POINT those people OUT DIRECTLY, and HIGHLIGHT the specific thing/s that you are ACCUSING them of doing.

See, CLAIMING that "another" has absolutely NO interest AT ALL in 'philosophy', WHATSOEVER, absolutely ANY one can do, and do back to you, AS WELL.
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:41 pm It requires monitors to disrupt the disrupters, otherwise those who are interested in philosophical discussion, not in cat fights, must look for alternate venues.
If you would like to have a so-called philosophical discussion' about the believing animal, that 'you', adult human beings are, then what does a 'philosophical discussion' entail, to you, EXACTLY?

See, my interpretation of 'philosophical discussion' might be VERY DIFFERENT to yours, and "others". And, so some one could ACCUSE you of having NO interest, WHATSOEVER, in philosophy.
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:41 pm As philosophy’s popularity or relevance, is not great, its venues, unfortunately, are few.
Look, that 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written are so-called 'believing animals' is IRREFUTABLE. FULL STOP.

And, one of the biggest reasons WHY it takes 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, SO LONG to be able to just DECIPHER between what IS IRREFUTABLY True FROM what IS NOT is because 'you' are STILL just in, and so literally STILL just STUCK IN, the BELIEVING and ASSUMING stage of evolution, itself.

WHEN 'you' BECOME Truly OPEN, AGAIN, and REMAINING Truly OPEN, THEN 'you' WILL SEE and KNOW WHY BEING and REMAINING the BELIEVING animal IS HOLDING 'you' BACK.
If you are interested in discussing the article in question, or my response to the article in question, I am on board.

If you are, instead, interested only in meaningless personalized argumentation, I am not on board. I have better things to do than engaged in pointless argumentations.

A difference of opinion on an article is to be expected. We all perceive the world from our unique personal perspective. That is what makes discussion meaningful and worthwhile. So discuss what your take on the article is, do you agree or disagree with the premise? And if so, why?

The choice is yours, so decide. It is much more rewarding to have a philosophical discussion on a topic than making personal attacks on all and sundry. Try it, you might like it.

Discuss the article ‘Humans the Believing Animals’ or take your non-relevant, to the article, personal attacks, and pointless arguments elsewhere.
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Humans, the Believing Animals

Post by Age »

owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:35 pm
Age wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:47 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:41 pm

Instead of a discussion on the merits, or demerits, of the article in question ‘Humans the Believing Animals’ which I critiqued in a post: Mon. 2/13, 4:21 pm, there are instead arguments arising here between those who post, that are not relative to the article in question; to its merits or demerits.
Are you here suggesting that some one posted some things that were not relative to the article mentioned above?

If yes, and if you would like to continue this discussion, then who were they, EXACTLY, and what were they talking about EXACTLY?

And, does what you just posted here really have ANY thing to with the article above also anyway?

Was the previous post in question, which you wrote, at 4:21 pm or 8:21 pm?
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:41 pm This is disappointing. It appears that people who have no interested in philosophy, whatsoever, are posting here because they have nothing else to do, or they enjoy being disrupters. As in social media in general it is a problem.
Is what you just posted here related to the topic title and the article in question? Or, is it just another form of disruption?

And, if you would like to ACCUSE some people, of some thing/s here, then I suggest you POINT those people OUT DIRECTLY, and HIGHLIGHT the specific thing/s that you are ACCUSING them of doing.

See, CLAIMING that "another" has absolutely NO interest AT ALL in 'philosophy', WHATSOEVER, absolutely ANY one can do, and do back to you, AS WELL.
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:41 pm It requires monitors to disrupt the disrupters, otherwise those who are interested in philosophical discussion, not in cat fights, must look for alternate venues.
If you would like to have a so-called philosophical discussion' about the believing animal, that 'you', adult human beings are, then what does a 'philosophical discussion' entail, to you, EXACTLY?

See, my interpretation of 'philosophical discussion' might be VERY DIFFERENT to yours, and "others". And, so some one could ACCUSE you of having NO interest, WHATSOEVER, in philosophy.
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:41 pm As philosophy’s popularity or relevance, is not great, its venues, unfortunately, are few.
Look, that 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written are so-called 'believing animals' is IRREFUTABLE. FULL STOP.

And, one of the biggest reasons WHY it takes 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, SO LONG to be able to just DECIPHER between what IS IRREFUTABLY True FROM what IS NOT is because 'you' are STILL just in, and so literally STILL just STUCK IN, the BELIEVING and ASSUMING stage of evolution, itself.

WHEN 'you' BECOME Truly OPEN, AGAIN, and REMAINING Truly OPEN, THEN 'you' WILL SEE and KNOW WHY BEING and REMAINING the BELIEVING animal IS HOLDING 'you' BACK.
If you are interested in discussing the article in question, or my response to the article in question, I am on board.

If you are, instead, interested only in meaningless personalized argumentation, I am not on board. I have better things to do than engaged in pointless argumentations.

A difference of opinion on an article is to be expected. We all perceive the world from our unique personal perspective. That is what makes discussion meaningful and worthwhile. So discuss what your take on the article is, do you agree or disagree with the premise? And if so, why?

The choice is yours, so decide. It is much more rewarding to have a philosophical discussion on a topic than making personal attacks on all and sundry. Try it, you might like it.

Discuss the article ‘Humans the Believing Animals’ or take your non-relevant, to the article, personal attacks, and pointless arguments elsewhere.
My so-called 'attacks' were on the 'hyprocrisy' of pointing out the wrongness of the way believing things influences one's views distortedly while doing the EXACT SAME thing "them" 'self'.

Also, my views on having ANY BELIEFS themselves is already well known here.

Contemplation, itself, can NOT occur while one is BELIEVING or ASSUMING that they already know what is true. It really is this SIMPLE and EASY, well to me anyway.

Discussing, and even worse arguing over, just personal opinions, dies NOT get anywhere, as PROVED True over the past few thousand years of human history at the time when this is being written.

Also, and by the way, the very reason WHY you ALL have distorted and Wrong perspectives of 'the world' has occurred BECAUSE you express your OWN unique personal perspectives.

Once you ALL get RID OF doing this while expressing them as being what is true and right, then you ALL can START beginning to SEE and UNDERSTAND what IS ACTUALLY True and Right
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Humans, the Believing Animals

Post by owl of Minerva »

Age wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:16 pm
owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:35 pm
Age wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:47 am

Are you here suggesting that some one posted some things that were not relative to the article mentioned above?

If yes, and if you would like to continue this discussion, then who were they, EXACTLY, and what were they talking about EXACTLY?

And, does what you just posted here really have ANY thing to with the article above also anyway?

Was the previous post in question, which you wrote, at 4:21 pm or 8:21 pm?



Is what you just posted here related to the topic title and the article in question? Or, is it just another form of disruption?

And, if you would like to ACCUSE some people, of some thing/s here, then I suggest you POINT those people OUT DIRECTLY, and HIGHLIGHT the specific thing/s that you are ACCUSING them of doing.

See, CLAIMING that "another" has absolutely NO interest AT ALL in 'philosophy', WHATSOEVER, absolutely ANY one can do, and do back to you, AS WELL.



If you would like to have a so-called philosophical discussion' about the believing animal, that 'you', adult human beings are, then what does a 'philosophical discussion' entail, to you, EXACTLY?

See, my interpretation of 'philosophical discussion' might be VERY DIFFERENT to yours, and "others". And, so some one could ACCUSE you of having NO interest, WHATSOEVER, in philosophy.



Look, that 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written are so-called 'believing animals' is IRREFUTABLE. FULL STOP.

And, one of the biggest reasons WHY it takes 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, SO LONG to be able to just DECIPHER between what IS IRREFUTABLY True FROM what IS NOT is because 'you' are STILL just in, and so literally STILL just STUCK IN, the BELIEVING and ASSUMING stage of evolution, itself.

WHEN 'you' BECOME Truly OPEN, AGAIN, and REMAINING Truly OPEN, THEN 'you' WILL SEE and KNOW WHY BEING and REMAINING the BELIEVING animal IS HOLDING 'you' BACK.
If you are interested in discussing the article in question, or my response to the article in question, I am on board.

If you are, instead, interested only in meaningless personalized argumentation, I am not on board. I have better things to do than engaged in pointless argumentations.

A difference of opinion on an article is to be expected. We all perceive the world from our unique personal perspective. That is what makes discussion meaningful and worthwhile. So discuss what your take on the article is, do you agree or disagree with the premise? And if so, why?

The choice is yours, so decide. It is much more rewarding to have a philosophical discussion on a topic than making personal attacks on all and sundry. Try it, you might like it.

Discuss the article ‘Humans the Believing Animals’ or take your non-relevant, to the article, personal attacks, and pointless arguments elsewhere.
My so-called 'attacks' were on the 'hyprocrisy' of pointing out the wrongness of the way believing things influences one's views distortedly while doing the EXACT SAME thing "them" 'self'.

Also, my views on having ANY BELIEFS themselves is already well known here.

Contemplation, itself, can NOT occur while one is BELIEVING or ASSUMING that they already know what is true. It really is this SIMPLE and EASY, well to me anyway.

Discussing, and even worse arguing over, just personal opinions, dies NOT get anywhere, as PROVED True over the past few thousand years of human history at the time when this is being written.

Also, and by the way, the very reason WHY you ALL have distorted and Wrong perspectives of 'the world' has occurred BECAUSE you express your OWN unique personal perspectives.

Once you ALL get RID OF doing this while expressing them as being what is true and right, then you ALL can START beginning to SEE and UNDERSTAND what IS ACTUALLY True and Right

This is much better than your previous posts. You are making progress. Keep up the good work.
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Humans, the Believing Animals

Post by Ansiktsburk »

This article gave me quite the creeps. Especially the paragraph On page 12 starting with “Suppose for example that I believe thet global warming”. Sounds like hey, find your ism and adhere to it, it makes life simpler. Side up for whatever.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Humans, the Believing Animals

Post by Agent Smith »

12:00 Noon. 12/9/2038, Sader Airport, West Agadia

Good morning Mr. Stockman. Welcome to West Agadia. Passport please.

12:00 Noon, 12/9/2048, Dacer Aiport, Fawa

Good morning Mr. Stockman. Welcome to Fawa. Passport please.
Post Reply