Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - falcon9

Pages: 1 2
Off-Topic / Red Dawn redoux
« on: November 15, 2012, 07:21:54 pm »Message ID: 642329
"Red Dawn is a 2012 American action war film directed by Dan Bradley and written by Jeremy Passmore and Carl Ellsworth, based on the 1984 film of the same name. The film stars Chris Hemsworth, Josh Peck, Josh Hutcherson, Adrianne Palicki, Isabel Lucas, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan. The film centers on a group of young people who defend their hometown from a North Korean invasion.
The remake was announced in May 2008 and went into production in September 2009. The film was originally scheduled to be released on November 24, 2010, but was shelved due to maker Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's (MGM) financial troubles. The invading army was changed from Chinese to North Korean in post-production. FilmDistrict picked up the U.S. distribution rights in September 2011 and set a November 21, 2012 release date."

I'd seen the 1984 version where the Soviets and Cubans were the invading forces and I'm looking forward to the variations in this remake.

Debate & Discuss / esoteric xtianity (was Re: Subforum suggestion)
« on: November 14, 2012, 12:17:48 am »Message ID: 641305
Sorry not to get back with you on this sooner.  Life interfered.

No need to apologize; reply as you can or wish, (presumably, life intereferes for everyone).

I think I do make a conscious choice to hold what you regard as an irrational belief.  If people are self-aware enough, they can choose to how they want to behave or react in a given situation.  If they aren't self-aware, then they will react in a knee jerk fashion.

'Oddly', if some are making the conscious decision to intentionally hold a superstitious belief for which there is no objective substantiating evidence, then they are choosing to be irrational, (since such a choice doesn't fall under the definition parameters of a "rational" choice).  That's fine, as far as making a decision for/against rational logic and people are relatively-free to make such a choice.  Pardon the implicit conclusion based upon the previous premise; which would be that a conscious choice to be irrational is unlikely to be a contributing aspect of self-awareness.

Yes, some part of it experiential.  A number of things have happened in my life that are convincing to me.  Trust me, I looked hard for rational explanations.  Sometimes I even found them.  But enough of these things occurred that went beyond mere coincidence or serendipity.

Actually, you are contending that such vague, (and subjective), expereiences are being interpreted as going "beyond mere coincidence or serendipity", (note that under the burden of proof obligation for making that initial claim, I could await supporting evidence or, move on after countering that such an assertion remains unsubstantiated and basing one unsubstantiation upon another is a logical fallacy).

I think at some point, either on this thread or another debate thread, another poster actually listed some experiences that she had that were sufficient proof for her at least of the existence or God or a supreme being.  For her, those were truth, at least spiritual truth.  Neither you or I had those experiences so neither of us can really address the validity or truth of them for another individual.

Those would be considered as unsubstantiated hearsay, would they not?  The validity or veracity of 'testimony' can be subjected to examination by reason/logic in that, if any logical internal inconsistancies, (or lies), mutually-exclusive assertions or, obscuring vagueness are revealed by that 'testimony', the witnesses' veracity falls into question/doubt.

I am curious as to where intuition fits into your framework if it does at all.  In other words, do you ever follow a "hunch" or a "gut feeling" that may not necessarily have a rational basis in deciding your actions?

No, since such "hunches", "gut feelings" or "intuitions" turn out to be cues not noticed consciously but, processed subconsciously, (and since the conscious mind isn't nominally aware of the underlying logical processing, it interprets the 'sudden' conclusion as an intuitive gut feeling hunch).  There is significant hard evidence in support of such a contention and I'd be glad to provide it, (unless others look it up before then), in exchange for your supporting non-ambiguous evidence in regards to 'spiritual experientialism'.

If you can remember any of the old threads, I'd like to browse them sometime even if they are locked to further comment.

Ack; well, using the search feature and typing in such parameters as "religious belief burden of proof blind faith", etc. yields interesting results, (I wouldn't want to pick only the threads/post where religious adherents' contentions are refuted by non-religious logic, nor would it be equitable to present only those posts where religious adherents are evangelizing unopposed).  That said, maybe I can find an 'even' cross-section.

Debate & Discuss / Re: debate postings
« on: November 07, 2012, 01:04:17 pm »Message ID: 637492
This is an intentionally contentious post and would be more suitable as a "Debate & Discuss" thread than posted in the "Fusioncash"-related forum.

Why is it that Christian postings are always the most debated.
What about the economy, nation wide disasters, or hunger?
I  have noticed that all the Christian related comments have the most postings under them.

I think they were wondering why it happens to be this way on the forum here, so that's why they posted it here. But yes, I agree, probably best under debates as well!

The short answer would be that there are far more unsupported religious claims/attributions to supernatural 'sources' than there are contentious political or social issue posts, (and the unsubstantiated religious claims/attributions get challenged more than other more secular claims).

Suggestions / Ignore function
« on: October 15, 2012, 05:48:04 pm »Message ID: 623170
Given that there are several 'ignorant' users of FC's "ignore" function, (in that they claim to use it while simultaneously not ignoring the pseudo-ignored member's posts), perhaps the function could be renamed the "Osterich" function.

Suggestions / revisiting the suggestion for new posting level
« on: October 10, 2012, 10:14:03 pm »Message ID: 620506
What is the general preference; FC decides what to name an 8,000-post level or, a member participation context to name it?

Some previous suggestions:
"rhodium" level
"diamond" level
"aluminum" level
"Promethium" level

Support / Referrals denied (from the off-topic forum)
« on: August 04, 2012, 05:42:37 pm »Message ID: 582411
I was looking at my cashout & it denied both of my referrals...why is that so? -.-"

The most common reason is a shared internet access however, another explanation could apply, (inactive referral/no confirmation of e-mail address, etc.).

Off-Topic / Dudeism: religious paradigm
« on: July 01, 2012, 02:24:23 pm »Message ID: 564021
"Looking for a handout? You goldbrickin’ bums have come to the right place. Only the handouts we offer here are virtual, spiritual, and totally based on the Holy Principle of Placebo."

Off-Topic / daily wiccan book of shadows excerpts
« on: June 30, 2012, 08:19:16 am »Message ID: 562926
"This is the text of the Gardnerian Book of Shadows. In one sense, this is the central sacred text of the Wicca religion. However, it is important to point out that there is no 'official' Book of Shadows. Typically each coven has a hand-written copy of a Book of Shadows, sometimes in cypher or code, which reflects its own practices and knowledge. This particular text is derived from a file posted on the Internet in the early 90s, and quotes previously published material which was known to be in use by Gardner and his group.

  The Book of Shadows was attributed by Gardner to an ancient, clandestine witch cult, which he claimed to have been initiated into.
However, modern researchers have concluded that it was composed by Gardner. The text shows influences from English and Celtic Folk-lore, the Enochian system of John Dee, Thelema, the Golden Dawn, Stregaria, Tantric Yoga, the KJV Bible and even Kipling. This version organizes the material in chronological order and has estimated dates for each section, ranging from 1949 to 1961."


Off-Topic / Operation Overlord
« on: June 06, 2012, 04:00:25 pm »Message ID: 549263
Today mark's the 68th anniversary of "Operation: Overlord", commemorating the courage and sacrifice of those who participated in the D-day assault on Normandy.

*saluting the fallen*

Debate & Discuss / Anasazi ancient ancestors?
« on: May 22, 2012, 04:24:22 pm »Message ID: 541473
"According to legend, the ancestors of the Hopi tribe migrated from various locations and settled near the Grand Canyon. Legend also portrays a peaceful people, willing to cooperate with others to improve their life. 

Classified as Pueblo Indians they most likely descended from the Anasazi. The Hopi were the only Pueblo Indians that spoke a dialect of the Uto-Aztecan language family called Shoshone. Archaeological evidence indicates that the Navajos migrated from the north about 1025 A.D. "
 -- unverified excerpt from "Purple Hawk", Apache, band not listed

Off-Topic / Ring of Fire tonight
« on: May 20, 2012, 05:27:03 pm »Message ID: 540535
The "ring of fire" is an "annular solar eclipse--the first one in the USA in almost 18 years.

An annular eclipse occurs when the Moon passes directly in front of the sun, but the lunar disk is not quite wide enough to cover the entire star.  At maximum, the Moon forms a "black hole" in the center of the sun."

Suggestions / FC contest suggestion
« on: May 18, 2012, 05:27:27 pm »Message ID: 539703
FC contest suggestion:

Participants guess who will reach the newly-inaugurated Platinum posting level, (@ 4,000 posts), and when.  Pays whatever Kohler/Admin deems appropriate for such a contest.   :-X

Debate & Discuss / re: How well you know [was: from Payments forum]
« on: May 17, 2012, 06:28:36 pm »Message ID: 539222
God doesn't exist. Debate me.

I'll move your challenge to the Debate + Discuss, (d+d) subforum of the Off Topic forum and we'll see.

You've decided to open a debate by stating a negative assertion as your premise.  As such, the onus of the burden of proof falls to you to support your assertion with evidence.  Please provide evidence which proves your assertion that "g-d doesn't exist".  Thanks, (please give the OP a chance to reply before you guys scare 'em off, they're new so hush a moment.  *chuckle*).

Debate & Discuss / Re: The Fool [ported-over from Payments forum]
« on: May 06, 2012, 11:04:33 pm »Message ID: 533405
[porting over the thread to d+d, intact; Re: The Fool]:
"So you agree that we can't prove God exist [sic] ... "

That's a two-part question.  Let's see if the thread can be moved out of the Payments forum over to d+d, (since the current context warrants it).

Neither the existence nor, 'non-existence' of such a hypothetical being can be "proven".  That being the case, should a claimant initially propose that "g-d exists", the burden of proof, (providing evidence to support such a claim), rests with those claimants, (and not with those who challenge such a claim.  If different claimant initially proposes that "g-d doesn't exist", (which neither I nor, anyone in recent forums/threads has dine thusfar), then the same burden of proof would rest with them for making a 'positive assertion', (just as with the religious adherent's
'positive assertion').

The burden of proof requirement does not generally apply to making 'negative assertions' because of an inherent logical fallacy involved, (for example in a criminal case, the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the defendant by providing substantiating evidence while it's incumbent upon the defense to _either_ rip-apart the prosecution's case by challenging evidence presented, establish "reasonable doubt" and/or present evidence which indicates that 'guilt/responsibility' rests elsewhere and not with the defendant).  The foregoing applies in a general way to establishing _who_ has the burden of proof; the "prosecution" making the 'positive assertion'/claim of "guilt" and having the burden of proof.

... and you can't prove how the world actually started it just wasn't God right?

Not precisely; there is no solid evidence to substantiate the initial unsupported claim that a "g-d created the world/universe".  Since it's been established that the burden of proof falls to those who claim/make such 'positive assertions', others remain awaiting evidence being presented to support it, (rather than being required to substantiate a 'negative assertion' made under an inherent logical fallacy).

Debate & Discuss / Dumbing-down or wising-up?
« on: May 02, 2012, 11:04:25 am »Message ID: 530752
Every once in a while, (okay, a lot more often than that), the opportunity to re-examine these questions tend to present themselves to me in a variety of situations; is it actually detrimental to "dumb it down" for others or, wouldn't that be condescending and ultimately not beneficial for everyone?   Does "talking over someone's head" inherently 'insult' them or, motivate them to figure out what in the blue blazes they're going on about?

Since it isn't my intention to unintentionally 'sway' opinions regarding these questions, I'll answer them from my perspective after anyone who wishes to responds with theirs.

As to the 'locked thread' which sparked this new one, (placed in d+d for a few different reasons); I accept the apology of the OP who 'paged' me and I want to both thank her for inspiring this thread while offering my apology for any unintended emotional duress caused by my posts.

For all of my apparent "fans", 'anti-fans', 'secret admirers', (ya'll outed yourselfs and we're on to you now *chuckle*), 'anti-groupies', honored opponents and newly-minted FC friends and acquaintances; I did read every one of your comments just as the thread was locked.  Thank you, guys, (and gals inclusively).  The perspectives offered by each of you had me pondering however, I'm not sure answering them all in a separate thread wouldn't constitute 'reopening' a thread which Kohler locked.  

   So, in a rare moment of potential indiscretion, (at least a few will probably grin at that), this thread was begun to discuss & debate the question(s) of 'dumbing-down or wising up'.  Like the forum "sign" says about d+d; "enter at your risk", (to which I'll add, don't worry - my bite is much worse than barking in a forum).

*crickets chirping*

Pages: 1 2