Nasa May Have Accidentally Figured Out How To Make A Warp Drive.

May 26, 2015

Decartes was following his own version of the scientific method. He did avid research concerning observations available to him. Most people do not have the time or interest to pursue the work required to apply the scientific method, in one form or another, to come to their own unique conclusions.

Most do not have the inclination, education, or time to come to their own separate conclusions, that may or may not be inline with present theory. So the starting point is a strong interest and inclination. After that comes education.

As I said above, I suggest you continue to study the BB model as you already have done, as well as the many criticisms of it that are available from a simple online search. Continue to believe that the mainstream BB model, explanations and interpretations are the most likely, unless by your studies of mainstream theory, or otherwise, you might consider other possibilities. Always maintain a healthy skepticism of all possibilities concerning cosmology.

So the act of deciding which of two competing theories is valid must always be mine and nobody else's?

And I must not delegate the responsibility for that decision to anyone else?

Even if they are scientist I personally trust?

In this case there are not just two competing theories, there are a great many including mostly unknown alternatives to the BB model, as well as a number of theories/ hypothesis which are alternative mainstream versions that start with a BB beginning.

I consider taking someone's advice for anything one considers to be important, is something like taking someone's advice for making a personal financial investment. Yes, it would be handy in the future to be able to blame someone else for your own beliefs, actions, or mistakes, but you still have to pay the consequences or have the regrets, if there are any. You may trust their opinion and take their advice but also should learn from others, and study about it yourself if you are that interested. You should never blame anyone else for your actions, beliefs, or mistakes. If you later regret your decisions etc. then you have to be able to own them and only blame yourself. I suggest Healthy skepticism should accompany your considerations in cosmology.

May 26, 2015

Decartes was following his own version of the scientific method. He did avid research concerning observations available to him. Most people do not have the time or interest to pursue the work required to apply the scientific method, in one form or another, to come to their own unique conclusions.

Most do not have the inclination, education, or time to come to their own separate conclusions, that may or may not be inline with present theory. So the starting point is a strong interest and inclination. After that comes education.

As I said above, I suggest you continue to study the BB model as you already have done, as well as the many criticisms of it that are available from a simple online search. Continue to believe that the mainstream BB model, explanations and interpretations are the most likely, unless by your studies of mainstream theory, or otherwise, you might consider other possibilities. Always maintain a healthy skepticism of all possibilities concerning cosmology.

So the act of deciding which of two competing theories is valid must always be mine and nobody else's?

And I must not delegate the responsibility for that decision to anyone else?

Even if they are scientist I personally trust?

In this case there are not just two competing theories, there are a great many including mostly unknown alternatives to the BB model, as well as a number of theories/ hypothesis which are alternative mainstream versions that start with a BB beginning.

I consider taking someone's advice for anything one considers to be important, is something like taking someone's advice for making a personal financial investment. Yes, it would be handy in the future to be able to blame someone else for your own beliefs, actions, or mistakes, but you still have to pay the consequences or have the regrets, if there are any. You may trust their opinion and take their advice but also should learn from others, and study about it yourself if you are that interested. You should never blame anyone else for your actions, beliefs, or mistakes. If you later regret your decisions etc. then you have to be able to own them and only blame yourself. I suggest Healthy skepticism should accompany your considerations in cosmology.

I see, Pantheory.

So, in the context of this thread, your definition of healthy skepticism would seem to be this.

Disbelieve every newspaper and tv news report, every podcast, every radio interview, every magazine article, every website, every blog, every textbook and every science paper on cosmology that I don't understand.

Is that correct?

May 26, 2015

Decartes was following his own version of the scientific method. He did avid research concerning observations available to him. Most people do not have the time or interest to pursue the work required to apply the scientific method, in one form or another, to come to their own unique conclusions.

Most do not have the inclination, education, or time to come to their own separate conclusions, that may or may not be inline with present theory. So the starting point is a strong interest and inclination. After that comes education.

As I said above, I suggest you continue to study the BB model as you already have done, as well as the many criticisms of it that are available from a simple online search. Continue to believe that the mainstream BB model, explanations and interpretations are the most likely, unless by your studies of mainstream theory, or otherwise, you might consider other possibilities. Always maintain a healthy skepticism of all possibilities concerning cosmology.

So the act of deciding which of two competing theories is valid must always be mine and nobody else's?

And I must not delegate the responsibility for that decision to anyone else?

Even if they are scientist I personally trust?

In this case there are not just two competing theories, there are a great many including mostly unknown alternatives to the BB model, as well as a number of theories/ hypothesis which are alternative mainstream versions that start with a BB beginning.

I consider taking someone's advice for anything one considers to be important, is something like taking someone's advice for making a personal financial investment. Yes, it would be handy in the future to be able to blame someone else for your own beliefs, actions, or mistakes, but you still have to pay the consequences or have the regrets, if there are any. You may trust their opinion and take their advice but also should learn from others, and study about it yourself if you are that interested. You should never blame anyone else for your actions, beliefs, or mistakes. If you later regret your decisions etc. then you have to be able to own them and only blame yourself. I suggest Healthy skepticism should accompany your considerations in cosmology.

I see, Pantheory.

So, in the context of this thread, your definition of healthy skepticism would seem to be this.

Disbelieve every newspaper and tv news report, every podcast, every radio interview, every magazine article, every website, every blog, every textbook and every science paper on cosmology that I don't understand.

Is that correct?

You seem to be playing the devil's advocate?

Disbelieve every newspaper and tv news report, every podcast, every radio interview, every magazine article, every website, every blog, every textbook and every science paper ................

No, consider them valid if you think they make sense, according to what you understand of them. If they make no sense to you, you can make your own decision about whatever you're reading. At least you would have more knowledge to consider the possibilities.

As you very well know, a theist/ deist is someone who believes. An atheist is someone that believes theism and it tenets are fairly tails for the unwary and gullible. But an agnostic simply says "I don't know," but could, from time to time, consider new information without prejudice if he chose to. Agnostics come in many varieties. Some have a great deal of related knowledge concerning religion, what he considers to be pros and cons of the arguments. On the other hand other agnostics may generally ignore issues of religion believing all such mental energy is wasted. And many agnostics have all kinds of views, some leading toward religious ideas, astrology, mysticism, etc.

I suggest that concerning cosmology, until one has enough knowledge to decide for himself what one believes, all should be an agnostics and somewhat of a skeptic while continuing education and interest if one wishes. One could study only mainstream theories, or whatever alternative theories one may be interested in -- but such an agnostic will not be surprised too much about mainstream's allegations of "confirming" theory, or changing theory when it happens, since one should expect it on a continuing bases. Maybe about every ten years major swings in theory have popped up. In recent history Inflation theory, dark matter, and dark energy are examples, all of which remain on shaky grounds since there is little grounds for understanding or confirming any of them -- and any or all could be wrong. Since the present BB model seems to require all of these hypothesis to stay afloat, for these and many other reasons the BB itself could be on the verge of sinking.

Such an agnostic could be an agnostic, believer, or non-believer concerning another area of science.

I am a strong believer in the theory of natural selection, plate tectonics, and many others where I think there is a mountain of evidence to support the theories.

May 26, 2015

I see, Pantheory.

So, in the context of this thread, your definition of healthy skepticism would seem to be this.

Disbelieve every newspaper and tv news report, every podcast, every radio interview, every magazine article, every website, every blog, every textbook and every science paper on cosmology that I don't understand.

Is that correct?

You seem to be playing the devil's advocate?

Yes. I do that a lot.

Disbelieve every newspaper and tv news report, every podcast, every radio interview, every magazine article, every website, every blog, every textbook and every science paper ................

No, consider them valid if you think they make sense, according to what you understand of them.

But why should my understanding be the measure of their validity?

Why shouldn't I defer the task of measurement to someone who has the necessary skills to do so? In every sphere of human life, we delegate the responsibility for measuring the validity of certain things to others. We cannot measure the validity of everything for ourselves and so we must rely on others to do some of that measuring for us. That's how all human societies work.

Isn't peer-review an example of such delegation of responsibility?

If they make no sense to you, you can make your own decision about whatever you're reading.

That's what we all do. When we can.

But when we cannot, we all allow ourselves to swayed in our decision-making by others and I would be very surprised (and skeptical) Pantheory, if you replied to the contrary!

At least you would have more knowledge to consider the possibilities.

But why shouldn't I take advantage of the knowledge of others?

Their knowledge is at my disposal and all I have to do is to avail myself of it. To deny myself this resource is surely to my disadvantage?

As you very well know, a theist/ deist is someone who believes. An atheist is someone that believes theism and it tenets are fairly tails for the unwary and gullible. But an agnostic simply says "I don't know," but could, from time to time, consider new information without prejudice if he chose to. Agnostics come in many varieties. Some have a great deal of related knowledge concerning religion, what he considers to be pros and cons of the arguments. On the other hand other agnostics may generally ignore issues of religion believing all such mental energy is wasted. And many agnostics have all kinds of views, some leading toward religious ideas, astrology, mysticism, etc.

Fyi Pantheory,

The brand of atheism you've described above is what I would call hard atheism. That is, the denial of god's existence. I'm a soft atheist. I do not actively deny the existence of a god - I simply reject the claims of the theists that there is one. The onus is squarely on them to back up their claims with adequate evidence.

I suggest that concerning cosmology, until one has enough knowledge to decide for himself what one believes, all should be an agnostics and somewhat of a skeptic while continuing education and interest if one wishes.

Why are we not communicating on the issue of the limits of my knowledge and understanding?

I've tried several times to convey to you that I will never have sufficient knowledge or understanding of cosmology to decide for myself what I can accept and what I can't. Yet you persist in recommending that which I cannot do. That I make these decisions, based on knowledge and understanding that will never be mine.

Please note that this will be the very last time I try to get you to realize this, Pantheory.

If I see no satisfactory indication that you've grasped and give value to what I'm saying here then I do believe we have nothing further to discuss.

One could study only mainstream theories, or whatever alternative theories one may be interested in -- but such an agnostic will not be surprised too much about mainstream's allegations of "confirming" theory, or changing theory when it happens, since one should expect it on a continuing bases. Maybe about every ten years major swings in theory have popped up. In recent history Inflation theory, dark matter, and dark energy are examples, all of which remain on shaky grounds since there is little grounds for understanding or confirming any of them -- and any or all could be wrong. Since the present BB model seems to require all of these hypothesis to stay afloat, for these and many other reasons the BB itself could be on the verge of sinking.

Such an agnostic could be an agnostic, believer, or non-believer concerning another area of science.

I am a strong believer in the theory of natural selection, plate tectonics, and many others where I think there is a mountain of evidence to support the theories.

May 26, 2015

BAA,

But why should my understanding be the measure of their validity?

The decision of what you believe is your choice, I made lots of suggestions above which you can consider or not.

Why shouldn't I defer the task of measurement to someone who has the necessary skills to do so? In every sphere of human life, we delegate the responsibility for measuring the validity of certain things to others. We cannot measure the validity of everything for ourselves and so we must rely on others to do some of that measuring for us. That's how all human societies work.

Yes, mostly how all human societies work. In this way I am different from others. I have knowledge of a very wide swath of many different fields so I depend on few others. For instance when a tradesman comes out to do work for me, I let him do the work but either know how to do the work myself or know how it should be done. So if they are doing anything else I would ask why. If I talk to a lawyer and his answers don't make sense to me I ask questions. If I don't like his answers I go to another lawyer until I find one that agrees with me, or I come to understand the reasoning better for their answers. When I go to a doctor I already think I know what is wrong, or know what tests I need, or drugs I may need. If the doctor comes to a different conclusion I will have him explain it to me. If I don't agree with his explanation or decision I will go to another doctor.

Yes, sometimes I must trust others because I am not there, or for other reasons, but if it doesn't work out I blame myself for choosing them, not them personally because most mistakes are honest ones IMO.

And so on in science. I take classes and if I think there is something wrong with what is being taught, or the theory behind it, I let the teacher know. If they can explain the logic better then maybe I could understand the theory or logic better, if they can't then I will explain to them what I consider the problem to be with the teaching or theory, then they will give their opinion. Often they will agree that there may be a problem with the theory. ----------------But for others who do not have the background knowledge I can just make suggestions concerning what I think they should do without background knowledge, my honest opinion.

Isn't peer-review an example of such delegation of responsibility?

For the editor, yes. If I (we) are the one(s) who did the research, maybe no one else on Earth could understand the research we have done better than us. The paper writer(s) has to explain everything he has done so that all that are reading the paper can understand the research and conclusions. If a peer reviewer cannot fully understand the paper, the reviewer's job is to explain where the paper does not make sense to him. It then becomes the writer's job to better explain that part of the paper where the reader does not understand what is being said. Sometimes a reviewer may find what he believes to be errors in procedure, text, logic, conclusions, etc. If the writer agrees with the problem then he will make the appropriate changes, if not he will explain to the reviewer why the reviewer's statements are not valid. It is best for the authors if the comments can be satisfied one way or another. If neither can agree on a particular point then the final judgement will be up to the editor's representative, whether the reviewer's opinions are valid or not. Only if all comments are satisfied, implemented, or considered invalid to the satisfaction of the editor, will the paper be published. ------ In light of your comment above, one could say that some of the editor's responsibility is delegated to the peer reviewers.

That's what we all do. When we can.

But when we cannot, we all allow ourselves to be swayed in our decision-making by others and I would be very surprised (and skeptical) Pantheory, if you replied to the contrary!

Yes, I agree. But for me I usually want to know more, and will not give up the reins easily

The brand of atheism you've described above is what I would call hard atheism. That is, the denial of god's existence. I'm a soft atheist. I do not actively deny the existence of a god - I simply reject the claims of the theists that there is one. The onus is squarely on them to back up their claims with adequate evidence.

On this definition I am a hard atheist. I think there is no evidence for the existence of god, so I don't believe that god's existence is feasible.

......I've tried several times to convey to you that I will never have sufficient knowledge or understanding of cosmology to decide for myself what I can accept and what I can't. Yet you persist in recommending that which I cannot do. That I make these decisions, based on knowledge and understanding that will never be mine.

I don't agree with seemingly self-imposed limits. I think your abilities to grasp such concepts are better than most. I think one should also consider the possibility that if it doesn't make sense to you, there may be something wrong with the theory or something else you are trying to comprehend, rather than your ability to understand it

Please note that this will be the very last time I try to get you to realize this, Pantheory.

If I see no satisfactory indication that you've grasped and give value to what I'm saying here then I do believe we have nothing further to discuss.

Yes, sometimes it seems like we are just talking past each other. As to my above suggestions, they may not fit your circumstances, so as always the decision for what you choose to believe is yours. There's nothing wrong with trusting others opinions if you have decided that this is your best choice, and I agree that this is what most people do.

I also hope that you agree that anyone has the right to either agree or disagree with theory and explain their reasons why, in conversation or on the net, in reply to a related posting or thread topic.

Miro-brewery cheers , and best wishes, Forrest

May 27, 2015

Pantheory wrote...

Yes, mostly how all societies work. In this way I am different from others. I have knowledge of a very wide swath of many different fields so I depend on few others.

You have raised three very important points here.

1. You acknowledge that, for the most part, all societies function along the lines I have described.

2. Then you differentiate yourself from that which you've just acknowledged.

3. Then you give a worked example of just how different you are from the majority.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm trying to help you see something important - not attacking you personally, ok?

You are clearly an extremely gifted, intelligent, well-motivated and self-reliant person. But these admirable qualities don't occur often in any given population and still less to the degree displayed in you. I don't think it's too unreasonable to say that you are very different from most people. Very different indeed! And I mean this in a good and complimentary way. Now, hold that thought! (You are very different from others.) Hold it and please carefully consider these questions.

Is it fair and reasonable of you to expect others to be as gifted, as intelligent, as motivated and as self-reliant as you?

Is it fair and reasonable of you to expect others to do what you can easily do, with the same ease as yourself?

Is it fair and reasonable of you to hold others to your high standards of intelligence, learning, motivation and self-reliance?

Now, I hope that your answers to all three questions will be in the negative.

That you agree that what makes you so different from others, can't be applied to or expected from others. That doing so is inherently unfair and unreasonable. Pantheory, it's my hope that you can now see the thrust of my argument here. The argument that springs from your quoted comments above - where you acknowledge how societies work, but stress your difference from these societal norms. In a nutshell, my argument could be phrased like this...

If you are so different, then why would you expect and want and strive to get everyone else to line up with you?

Even if you think your ways are best, it's still unfair and unreasonable of you to expect others to do what (almost) only you can do. Therefore, having understood just how different you are and how you can't reasonably expect others to be like you, wouldn't a wise approach be to try and cultivate some empathy for those who don't share your many talents?

Once again I must emphasize that this is not an ad hominem attack, Pantheory.

Please give my argument and my questions careful consideration.

Thanks,

BAA.

May 27, 2015

BAA wrote...

That's all we can do. When we can. But when we cannot, we all allow ourselves to be swayed in our decision-making by others and I would be very surprised (and sceptical) Pantheory, if you replied to the contrary!

Pantheory replied...

Yes, I agree. But for me I usually want to know more, and will not give up the reins easily.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you see the same pattern as before, Pantheory?

First you agree with my point about the majority, then you differentiate yourself from the majority and then you stress how different you are from them. So I won't go over the same questions and make the same arguments that I just posted a minute or two ago. Instead I'll just ask you to continue thinking carefully about your relationship to the majority - what you expect of them and how you might want to relate to them in a new way. A way you might not have considered before.

Thanks,

BAA.

May 27, 2015

Pantheory wrote...

I don't agree with seemingly self-imposed limits.

Neither do I, Pantheory.

And I'm very glad that you've qualified that sentence with the word, 'seemingly'. Having done that, you've made my task of communicating my argument to you a lot easier.

Now, you can see that today I'm shining the spotlight on the issue of your difference from the majority.

Your positive difference from the majority. I've already tentatively suggested that this difference is the very reason why you shouldn't expect the majority to be like, think like and act like you. In an ideal world the majority would be more self-reliant, more motivated and more greedy for self-improvement. But we don't live in an ideal world - we live in this one. And I'd like to think that as well as being all of the above, you can also be pragmatic about which world you live in?

So how does this fit with your disagreement with 'seemingly' self-imposed limits?

In the light of my two earlier posts I now feel I'm on safe enough ground to contend that the limits you see others apparently imposing upon themselves are a fiction borne of your too-high expectations of them. If you agree that the majority think in a certain way, but you are significantly different from the majority, then expecting them to think in your way is unfair and unreasonable. It's placing too high a burden of expectation upon them.

Now please don't think that I use the word, 'fiction' about you and your thoughts in any kind of negative or critical way.

Something that seems to be X, but is really Y is a fiction. X is not really X, it is Y. But believing that X is X is believing in a fiction. I'll further explain how I'm using that word with an worked example from my life. I used to harbor expectations about my partner Maureen that (in hindsight) were way too high. These were unfair and unreasonable expectations - but at the time they didn't seem that way to me. My lack of understanding (and empathy) was at fault, though I didn't know it.

When we were out jogging she'd sometimes lose her balance, stumble, recover herself and then catch up with me. If I'd been more observant (and more empathic) I'd have noticed that she did this when she encountered a surface sloping away from her, on her left side. Instead, I used to just get impatient with her.

Only when we had her foot X-rayed did we discover the cause of her problem.

She been born with an 'extra' bone in her foot. A bone that had no other detrimental effect than preventing her from rotating her ankle properly. Which explained her stumbling. She was denied the freedom of movement that you and I take for granted in our feet and ankles. Pantheory, I'm pleased to say that by using a pair of personalized orthotic trainers Maureen's jogging difficulties have now been much reduced - though not entirely eliminated.

But can you now see that I was laboring under a 'fiction' about this issue?

The fiction being that her feet were just as normal as everyone's else's? And that this 'fiction' caused me to expect something from her that she just couldn't deliver? And that this 'fiction' caused unnecessary friction between us? Which could have been avoided if I'd been less intent on racking up the miles and more intent on her wellbeing?

.

Pantheory, you're a smart guy and I don't need to belabor the point, do I?

I contend that you expect way too much of others because you (without malice) use yourself as a yardstick they can never measure up to.

I contend that using yourself as the measure of what you expect from others is a 'fiction'.

I contend that you're well aware of how different you are from the majority, but perhaps now's the time to put your 'fictionally' high expectations aside and to try and relate to others as they are - not how you'd like them to be.

Please give my three contentions due consideration.

Respectfully yours,

BAA.

May 27, 2015

Thanks for the nice reply. I realize now that you are also trying to teach me something

Is it fair and reasonable of you to expect others to be as gifted, as intelligent, as motivated and as self-reliant as you?

IMO many people generally understand the Big Bang model, which has been the subject of our discussion. It takes no mathematics to understand the BB model fairly well. The chief mathematics of the model is General Relativity and its related field equations. One can understand how they work without understanding the mathematics involved. Most alternative cosmology theories do not have their own theories of gravity either (mine being an exception) so they also would rely on General Relativity. So IMO any person of average intelligence can have a good understanding of the BB model as well as being able to discuss dark matter, dark energy, and the Inflation hypothesis, since only the inflation hypothesis requires unique theoretical physics, and none to have a general understanding of at least one of its many alternatives. The point here is that high-intelligence is not required for an informed discussion and good decision making.

Motivation and self reliance is more related to a personal philosophy IMO. But a real interest in the subject is all that is needed to have intelligent discussions on the internet.

Is it fair and reasonable of you to expect others to do what you can easily do, with the same ease as yourself?

The good things that I have "accomplished" in my life have required very great efforts on my part; It certainly wasn't easy for me, nor did I expect that it would be. This fact may put some doubt into the characteristic of being gifted.

Is it fair and reasonable of you to hold others to your high standards of intelligence, learning, motivation and self-reliance?

With goals, aspirations, time, and a great effort the majority IMO can become well educated in their chosen field, or continuously learn new things. Scholarships of all kinds are available for economic need, etc. student loans, online education, reading books and online material, tutoring, etc.

Again motivation and self-reliance are hard to learn and teach. Both are better understood by the study of psychology and philosophy and can be slowly learned from those that one may admire.

I would like others to have reasonable goals and aspirations to make their lives better.

Hope I have properly answered your questions.

May 27, 2015

Disappointingly Pantheory,

I see only a re-iteration of your beliefs - not a re-examination of them in the light of my argument.

Nor do I see any indication on your part of a willingness to change in any way.

It seems that you cannot or will not negotiate or compromise on anything, no matter how small.

.

And speaking of small things, I note that less than 2 hours has elapsed between my first message and your reply.

This is giving my argument, my questions and my contentions careful thought and due consideration?

.

What a NOBLE thing it must be for you to spend so much time and effort trying to raise pond scum like us to your level!

May 27, 2015

Pantheory wrote...

I don't agree with seemingly self-imposed limits.

Neither do I, Pantheory.

And I'm very glad that you've qualified that sentence with the word, 'seemingly'. Having done that, you've made my task of communicating my argument to you a lot easier.

Now, you can see that today I'm shining the spotlight on the issue of your difference from the majority.

Your positive difference from the majority. I've already tentatively suggested that this difference is the very reason why you shouldn't expect the majority to be like, think like and act like you. In an ideal world the majority would be more self-reliant, more motivated and more greedy for self-improvement. But we don't live in an ideal world - we live in this one. And I'd like to think that as well as being all of the above, you can also be pragmatic about which world you live in?

Generally the brunt of many or most my conversations here relate to alleged problems with modern physics. My postings IMO are not that complicated so that any could ask questions and afterwords could understand the issues. Those that answer such postings often have understandings of the subject. I think they appose what I say because they don't like anyone suggesting science theory may be wrong in the same way a religious person does not like someone bagging on their religion. I think I understand a lot about human behavior, but like most others I cannot predict it in many cases. I think I understand the world we live in better than most because of my education.

So how does this fit with your disagreement with 'seemingly' self-imposed limits?

In the light of my two earlier posts I now feel I'm on safe enough ground to contend that the limits you see others apparently imposing upon themselves are a fiction borne of your too-high expectations of them.

In this case I was referring to your statement about yourself relating to a limit of your possible understanding. Since your logic is good I can only guess that you were referring to the math and physics involved, but as I said above, neither are needed to have a good understanding of the BB model. If only knowledge and logic is the only thing required to have a good understanding of the BB model, as I contend, then it would seem that there would be no reason for you not to be able to grasp the entire theory.

If you agree that the majority think in a certain way, but you are significantly different from the majority, then expecting them to think in your way is unfair and unreasonable. It's placing too high a burden of expectation upon them.

I believe that by asking continuous questions most can understand the issues. By making negative statements nobody can generally learn or gain anything. To seriously think is often a big effort. To ask questions of someone not believed to be an authority can be demeaning. But both could pay big dividends if one is seriously interested in learning.

Now please don't think that I use the word, 'fiction' about you and your thoughts in any kind of negative or critical way.

Something that seems to be X, but is really Y is a fiction. X is not really X, it is Y. But believing that X is X is believing in a fiction. I'll further explain how I'm using that word with an worked example from my life. I used to harbor expectations about my partner Maureen that (in hindsight) were way too high. These were unfair and unreasonable expectations - but at the time they didn't seem that way to me. My lack of understanding (and empathy) was at fault, though I didn't know it.....................................................................................................

Glad to hear things are going better for her. Many or most of us try our best to make good decisions, but all of us have made bad ones. That's human nature -- to live and hopefully learn. Yes it is difficult to judge another's aptitude, ability, or achievement possibilities. Most all people are a mixture of aptitudes of varying levels. You might easily recognize a high aptitude in one area and from that make wrong assumptions concerning their over-all ability, which also could involve psychological and philosophical issues. Because of my age of dealt with a great number of people in business over the years. My adult children think that I often underestimate a person's ability and overestimate their integrity. When bad things happen I often attribute it to their ineptitudes rather than their lack of effort or skulduggery.

But can you now see that I was laboring under a 'fiction' about this issue?

The fiction being that her feet were just as normal as everyone's else's? And that this 'fiction' caused me to expect something from her that she just couldn't deliver? And that this 'fiction' caused unnecessary friction between us? Which could have been avoided if I'd been less intent on racking up the miles and more intent on her wellbeing?

Yes, I try to be aware of others well-being. If someone has replaced their beliefs in religion, for instance, for a belief in science theory then eventually IMO their beliefs again could be ripped apart, certainly not a good thing. So I try to explain that understanding is far better than belief.

Pantheory, you're a smart guy and I don't need to belabor the point, do I?

I contend that you expect way too much of others because you (without malice) use yourself as a yardstick they can never measure up to.

I contend that using yourself as the measure of what you expect from others is a 'fiction'.

I contend that you're well aware of how different you are from the majority, but perhaps now's the time to put your 'fictionally' high expectations aside and to try and relate to others as they are - not how you'd like them to be.

Most people's success, in my view, has to do with ambition and good habits more than natural ability. This is what I try to instill in other people. For me a micro-brewery excursion from time to time doesn't hurt

Please give my three contentions due consideration.

Respectfully yours,

BAA.

Please give my three contentions due consideration.

OK, I'll try. -- but remember this is done at your request.

I contend that you have the ability to understand cosmology as it is now, and the arguments for and against the mainstream model, simply by continuously studying it for maybe no more than a few weeks.

I contend that many or most interested people with some related background knowledge, could understand major arguments in cosmology over a short period if they made the effort to do so.

I contend that I am as good of a judge of others abilities as most people are, having made mistakes both overestimating and underestimating their abilities.

Cheers

May 27, 2015

.

And speaking of small things, I note that less than 2 hours has elapsed between my first message and your reply.

This is giving my argument, my questions and my contentions careful thought and due consideration?

.

2 hours is a long time for answering just a single posting and making requested considerations, no? since I have done little else.

Our understandings or misunderstandings of each other, personalities, character, still seems unresolved, but I hope a little more clarification for both might have occurred.

.

May 28, 2015

Pantheory wrote...

"Our understandings or misunderstandings of each other, personalities, character, still seems unresolved, but I hope a little more clarification for both might have occurred."

Yes, there is now a degree of better understanding between us now, Pantheory.

The post where you respond to my contentions has helped in this regard. However, when I look back, I still see an underlying pattern in your posts that causes me concern. Therefore I'll list what I find worrying.

In reverse order

You try to instil your view of what brings success into other people.

You try to explain to others that (in your understanding) understanding is better than belief.

You think you understand the world better than most because of your education.

You will not give up the reins easily when it comes to decision making - even though you agree that is what most people do.

You would contest every doctor's diagnosis of your health until you found a doctor who agrees with your diagnosis.

You would contest the professional opinion of a lawyer and in preference would seek out one who agreed with you.

You declare that you are very different from the majority, especially in terms of knowledge and education.

Elsewhere in this forum

You make your understanding the measure of a theory's validity.

You draw your own interpretations of theories - theories which you admit you cannot see the logic of and fail to understand.

You re-define how science should be performed, bringing it into line with your opinions and your understanding.

You call into question procedures, protocols and paradigms that others are happy to work with and work within.

You will not accept any status quo or established working practice that doesn't agree with your opinions and beliefs.

Elsewhere on the internet

You have created and run a website to promote your alternative theory of cosmology.

You actively and persistently argue your opinions and beliefs in many scientific and religious blogs and forums.

You have been banned and suspended from certain of these sites.

You, your arguments and your theory are the source of scorn and derision on certain sites.

You cannot get your Pan theory of cosmology peer-reviewed or published in any accredited on-line science journal.

.

What I find so worrying Pantheory is the pattern I see in all of the above.

You appear to be a maverick and not a team player. At all points and in all things you seem to believe that you know best or better. You seem to believe that there is no topic, no field and no sphere that you cannot gain access to by learning, knowledge and sheer persistence. You seem to habitually question the professional judgements of others and you prefer to seek the company of those who will agree with you. You seem to habitually question the acquired experience of others, even when you have no experience base of your own to guide you. You also seem to believe that your beliefs and your opinions can, should and must prevail in any area where you apply sufficient effort. Even in areas where you candidly admit to having no experience, no knowledge and no possibility of ever acquiring the necessary knowledge and experience. You seem to be no respecter of what exists and what prevails, always looking to impose your opinions and beliefs where they are neither welcome nor helpful. You seem to be no respecter of established orders and existing hierarchies, always seeking to re-direct things to your own way, which you always deem to be better or best. This pattern worries me.

Now, there's a simple enough way of testing if my worries about you are well-founded or not, Pantheory.

It requires that I describe to you something about this forum which you are currently ignorant of.

Then I will need to ask you a simple Yes/No question about it.

How you answer (or decline to answer) will be significant.

Or if you decline this offer, that will be significant, too.

.

So, may I go ahead and test if I should be worried about you by describing this thing and asking you about it?

Thanks,

BAA.

May 28, 2015

BAA,

You would contest every doctor's diagnosis of your health until you found a doctor who agrees with your diagnosis.

You would contest the professional opinion of a lawyer and in preference would seek out one who agreed with you.

If they explain their reasoning for their opinion, and I agree, maybe most of the time, then I will take their advice. If I disagree with their opinion after their explanation, I will look elsewhere.

You draw your own interpretations of theories - theories which you admit you cannot see the logic of and fail to understand.

I'm not the only one who contends a lack of logic concerning some theories. I read opinions and judgements, read papers, and confer with those who have a similar opinion as I do, some of which are experts in the field.

You declare that you are very different from the majority, especially in terms of knowledge and education.

Not in terms of the amount of knowledge and education, in terms of the very broad range of knowledge and education.

You cannot get your Pan theory of cosmology peer-reviewed or published in any accredited on-line science journal.

Two of the papers have an online version. Besides the hard copy version also available online, two of the papers and journals have an online version.

You actively and persistently argue your opinions and beliefs in many scientific and religious blogs and forums.

"actively and persistently argue your ........." Is too strong a statement. Instead of "actively and persistent" it would be better stated "from time to time." I do not argue. I explain what I need to and when bickering, or worse, begins I drop that conversation.

You appear to be a maverick and not a team player.

I spend a lot of time alone studying, doing research, writing papers, and doing other types of work. In my life I have had a few friends, most of which have been for a lifetime. This is not unusual. What is unusual is that these friends have little or nothing in common with each other, only with me.

When younger I played team sports and consider myself athletic. I work for charities and groups therein, to promote our goals. I am a member of several other groups.

...no field and no sphere that you cannot gain access to by learning, knowledge and sheer persistence.

I'll be 72 next week, and so far I have found no exceptions to the above. I do not easily give up or accept personal defeat. Persistence and hard work usually prevails.

You also seem to believe that your beliefs and your opinions can, should and must prevail in any area where you apply sufficient effort. Even in areas where you candidly admit to having no experience, no knowledge and no possibility of ever acquiring the necessary knowledge and experience.

Sufficient effort means that I have spent quite a bit of time and study on the subject and have a pretty good understanding of what I'm talking about. In areas where I have insufficient knowledge and/ or experience I defer to others.

You seem to be no respecter of established orders and existing hierarchies, always seeking to re-direct things to your own way, which you always deem to be better or best. This pattern worries me.

I respect the establishment. For those aspects I think can be improved I vote to make changes. Would I want to be president? It's a grueling and demanding job that is often thankless. I prefer science, but would not shrink from the Presidency of US if it were offered me (however unlikely) In such a case I think the scientific prospects and budgets would increase in some areas and decrease in others. I expect NASA would be one of the big beneficiaries. Of course congress would have to be in agreement.

Now, there's a simple enough way of testing if my worries about you are well-founded or not, Pantheory.

It requires that I describe to you something about this forum which you are currently ignorant of.

Then I will need to ask you a simple Yes/No question about it.

How you answer (or decline to answer) will be significant.

Or if you decline this offer, that will be significant, too.

.

.

So, may I go ahead and test if I should be worried about you by describing this thing and asking you about it?

Go ahead but you must promise no sarcasm or negative remarks in the rest of this thread, which IMO does a discredit to this forum. And remember, often just a "yes and no" answer can be misleading to a reader, so probably I will clarify my "yes or no" answer.

Let's make this short, otherwise it will be time to talk about EmDrive again or we can talk about you instead of me, both of which would be more interesting for me Quid pro quo!

May 29, 2015

Hello Pantheory.

As agreed, here is what I was referring to yesterday, concerning this forum.

.

As the Terms of Service (TOS) and Community Rules make clear, Ex-Christian.net is open to all and we strongly believe in the principle of the freedom of speech. Anyone may post anything, provided they do so within the TOS, the Community Rules and the posting guidelines that apply to various sub-forums. The purpose of Ex-C is to encourage those people who have decided to leave religion (usually Christianity) behind.

People from non-religious backgrounds usually treat Ex-C as an standard debate and discussion forum.

For them, this is all this forum really amounts to. Because their lives haven't been affected in any significant way by the Christian religion, this forum's express purpose is irrelevant to them and issues relating to that purpose are of no interest to them. Because they were never Christians in the first place, these people fail to comprehend what it means for a doubting Christian to finally break all ties with the beliefs that dominated their lives for so long. They just can't see what all the fuss is about, can't see why people get so upset about it and can't see why deconversion is such a big deal.

New members who are trying to deconvert from Christianity soon realize that Ex-C is not just another, ordinary debate and discussion forum. They rapidly see that the Ex-Christian members (us) can relate to and communicate with them like no other people on the planet Earth! We've shared a common experience and have walked the same path as them. New members read our posted Testimonies and see that the troubles, doubts, anxieties and hurts they're experiencing have already been felt and experienced by us. The questions they're now asking themselves have already been asked and answered by us. They find that the very best people to help them are people like themselves - who are just further down the road.

And this is how Ex-C fulfils it's prime function and express purpose.

Even though there's nothing specific enshrined in the rules and regs about this process, this is the way that Ex-Christians help doubting Christians to deconvert and become Ex-Christians themselves. This is the way this forum works. Fearful, confused and doubt-ridden Christians arrive, lurk for a while, register for membership, ask for help in deconverting from us, receive that help, deconvert, post their deconversion testimony (known as an Extimony, because they are finally exiting the Christian religion) and then go on to become strong enough and confident enough to help others thru the same process. In this way Ex-C becomes stronger as more and more Ex-Christians swell our ranks.

So it's a cardinal error for anyone to treat Ex-C as just another debate and discussion forum.

Where only the usual and accepted, Internet-wide principles of debate and discussion apply. Ok, non-religious members can (for the most part) use this forum in that way. But because they were never Christians, never deconverted and never became Ex-Christians they will usually fail to appreciate just how much this forum means to it's deconverted members. That is, to us.

Ex-Christian.net is not just a self-help community - it's a family.

It's a family that's bound together by trust. In the past we used to put our trust in God, in the Bible and in our fellow Christians. But now we put our trust in the community and family of people we belong to here. Even though we usually look to the facts and the evidence to guide us, if the need arises, we will rely on the honesty and integrity of our fellow members and put our trust in them. Where evidence fails, trust prevails.

The family analogy also explains how we stronger members of Ex-C protect the weaker ones.

Just as a parent will guard their child from harm and ask that child to trust in them, so we strong members will protect our more easily-influenced members from things we judge will be harmful to them. And we ask them to trust our judgement, just as a parent asks their child to trust their judgement. Usually we can demonstrate with evidence that this person or that website is wrong or false and shouldn't be trusted. But an additional level of protection for our weaker members comes in the form of the trust they put in us - their family, who are looking out for them.

This is the way this forum works, Pantheory.

Now you know. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. You may not understand it. But this is how it works. You may not understand why it needs to work this way. If so, that would be because you never were a deeply-committed, truly-believing Christian in the first place. You simply don't have the experience base that we Ex-Christians share with each other. Nor can you ever acquire it, no matter how much you try. No amount of intelligence, education and learning will ever give you what we Ex-Christians share with each other. No amount of effort, persistence and hard work on your part will ever give you success in this. There are no books you can read, no courses you can take and no night classes you can attend that will ever give you the familial bond of trust that binds us together. You can never be one of us and so you can never be as fully trusted as we are by each other. You can never earn that level of trust. Never.

.

So now we come to that Yes/No question.

How you answer and what you do and don't write are all... significant.

.

Do you agree that trust should play the role it does in this forum? Y/N?

May 29, 2015

Duplicate post deleted.

May 29, 2015

Hello Pantheory.

As agreed, here is what I was referring to yesterday, concerning this forum.

.

.

.

As the Terms of Service (TOS) and Community Rules make clear, Ex-Christian.net is open to all and we strongly believe in the principle of the freedom of speech. Anyone may post anything, provided they do so within the TOS, the Community Rules and the posting guidelines that apply to various sub-forums.  The purpose of Ex-C is to encourage those people who have decided to leave religion (usually Christianity) behind.

People from non-religious backgrounds usually treat Ex-C as an standard debate and discussion forum.

For them, this is all this forum really amounts to. Because their lives haven't been affected in any significant way by the Christian religion, this forum's express purpose is irrelevant to them and issues relating to that purpose are of no interest to them. Because they were never Christians in the first place, these people fail to comprehend what it means for a doubting Christian to finally break all ties with the beliefs that dominated their lives for so long. They just can't see what all the fuss is about, can't see why people get so upset about it and can't see why deconversion is such a big deal.

New members who are trying to deconvert from Christianity soon realize that Ex-C is not just another, ordinary debate and discussion forum. They rapidly see that the Ex-Christian members (us) can relate to and communicate with them like no other people on the planet Earth! We've shared a common experience and have walked the same path as them. New members read our posted Testimonies and see that the troubles, doubts, anxieties and hurts they're experiencing have already been felt and experienced by us. The questions they're now asking themselves have already been asked and answered by us.   They find that the very best people to help them are people like themselves - who are just further down the road.

And this is how Ex-C fulfils it's prime function and express purpose.

Even though there's nothing specific enshrined in the rules and regs about this process, this is the way that Ex-Christians help doubting Christians to deconvert and become Ex-Christians themselves.   This is the way this forum works. Fearful, confused and doubt-ridden Christians arrive, lurk for a while, register for membership, ask for help in deconverting from us, receive that help, deconvert, post their deconversion testimony (known as an Extimony, because they are finally exiting the Christian religion) and then go on to become strong enough and confident enough to help others thru the same process. In this way Ex-C becomes stronger as more and more Ex-Christians swell our ranks.

So it's a cardinal error for anyone to treat Ex-C as just another debate and discussion forum.

Where only the usual and accepted, Internet-wide principles of debate and discussion apply. Ok, non-religious members can (for the most part) use this forum in that way.  But because they were never Christians, never deconverted and never became Ex-Christians they will usually fail to appreciate just how much this forum means to it's deconverted members. That is, to us.

Ex-Christian.net is not just a self-help community - it's a family.

It's a family that's bound together by trust.  In the past we used to put our trust in God, in the Bible and in our fellow Christians. But now we put our trust in the community and family of people we belong to here. Even though we usually look to the facts and the evidence to guide us, if the need arises, we will rely on the honesty and integrity of our fellow members and put our trust in them. Where evidence fails, trust prevails.

The family analogy also explains how we stronger members of Ex-C protect the weaker ones.

Just as a parent will guard their child from harm and ask that child to trust in them, so we strong members will protect our more easily-influenced members from things we judge will be harmful to them. And we ask them to trust our judgement, just as a parent asks their child to trust their judgement. Usually we can demonstrate with evidence that this person or that website is wrong or false and shouldn't be trusted. But an additional level of protection for our weaker members comes in the form of the trust they put in us - their family, who are looking out for them.

This is the way this forum works, Pantheory.

Now you know. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. You may not understand it. But this is how it works. You may not understand why it needs to work this way. If so, that would be because you never were a deeply-committed, truly-believing Christian in the first place. You simply don't have the experience base that we Ex-Christians share with each other. Nor can you ever acquire it, no matter how much you try. No amount of intelligence, education and learning will ever give you what we Ex-Christians share with each other. No amount of effort, persistence and hard work on your part will ever give you success in this. There are no books you can read, no courses you can take and no night classes you can attend that will ever give you the familial bond of trust that binds us together. You can never be one of us and so you can never be as fully trusted as we are by each other. You can never earn that level of trust. Never.

.

.

.

So now we come to that Yes/No question.

How you answer and what you do and don't write are all... significant.

.

.

.

Do you agree that trust should play the role it does in this forum? Y/N?

Nice posting. Lots of thought

Yes, Trust can be a very good thing.

But like all good things one must consider what trust means under different circumstances. For instance, when dealing with members of this forum, you are talking about trust in people who have earned your trust over time. Even though one can trust the person concerning their character, intent, and one's well being, does not mean that their judgements and opinions are necessarily better than yours or others. Inside or outside this forum you could trust experts concerning technical matters in their field, better than others in general. But, of course, anyone's judgement or opinion, or a collective judgement of professionals, can change over time as new evidence presents itself. For this reason trust in "expert's" judgement and related assertions should not necessarily outweigh one's own judgement if the ability for such considerations is there. If trust goes wrong, such as in religion, one generally should only blame oneself for misplaced trust, not those that you trusted. This is because honest mistakes in judgement are much more common than deliberate intent to deceive.

cheers

May 29, 2015

Hello Pantheory.

As agreed, here is what I was referring to yesterday, concerning this forum.

.

.

.

As the Terms of Service (TOS) and Community Rules make clear, Ex-Christian.net is open to all and we strongly believe in the principle of the freedom of speech. Anyone may post anything, provided they do so within the TOS, the Community Rules and the posting guidelines that apply to various sub-forums.  The purpose of Ex-C is to encourage those people who have decided to leave religion (usually Christianity) behind.

People from non-religious backgrounds usually treat Ex-C as an standard debate and discussion forum.

For them, this is all this forum really amounts to. Because their lives haven't been affected in any significant way by the Christian religion, this forum's express purpose is irrelevant to them and issues relating to that purpose are of no interest to them. Because they were never Christians in the first place, these people fail to comprehend what it means for a doubting Christian to finally break all ties with the beliefs that dominated their lives for so long. They just can't see what all the fuss is about, can't see why people get so upset about it and can't see why deconversion is such a big deal.

New members who are trying to deconvert from Christianity soon realize that Ex-C is not just another, ordinary debate and discussion forum. They rapidly see that the Ex-Christian members (us) can relate to and communicate with them like no other people on the planet Earth! We've shared a common experience and have walked the same path as them. New members read our posted Testimonies and see that the troubles, doubts, anxieties and hurts they're experiencing have already been felt and experienced by us. The questions they're now asking themselves have already been asked and answered by us.   They find that the very best people to help them are people like themselves - who are just further down the road.

And this is how Ex-C fulfils it's prime function and express purpose.

Even though there's nothing specific enshrined in the rules and regs about this process, this is the way that Ex-Christians help doubting Christians to deconvert and become Ex-Christians themselves.   This is the way this forum works. Fearful, confused and doubt-ridden Christians arrive, lurk for a while, register for membership, ask for help in deconverting from us, receive that help, deconvert, post their deconversion testimony (known as an Extimony, because they are finally exiting the Christian religion) and then go on to become strong enough and confident enough to help others thru the same process. In this way Ex-C becomes stronger as more and more Ex-Christians swell our ranks.

So it's a cardinal error for anyone to treat Ex-C as just another debate and discussion forum.

Where only the usual and accepted, Internet-wide principles of debate and discussion apply. Ok, non-religious members can (for the most part) use this forum in that way.  But because they were never Christians, never deconverted and never became Ex-Christians they will usually fail to appreciate just how much this forum means to it's deconverted members. That is, to us.

Ex-Christian.net is not just a self-help community - it's a family.

It's a family that's bound together by trust.  In the past we used to put our trust in God, in the Bible and in our fellow Christians. But now we put our trust in the community and family of people we belong to here. Even though we usually look to the facts and the evidence to guide us, if the need arises, we will rely on the honesty and integrity of our fellow members and put our trust in them. Where evidence fails, trust prevails.

The family analogy also explains how we stronger members of Ex-C protect the weaker ones.

Just as a parent will guard their child from harm and ask that child to trust in them, so we strong members will protect our more easily-influenced members from things we judge will be harmful to them. And we ask them to trust our judgement, just as a parent asks their child to trust their judgement. Usually we can demonstrate with evidence that this person or that website is wrong or false and shouldn't be trusted. But an additional level of protection for our weaker members comes in the form of the trust they put in us - their family, who are looking out for them.

This is the way this forum works, Pantheory.

Now you know. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. You may not understand it. But this is how it works. You may not understand why it needs to work this way. If so, that would be because you never were a deeply-committed, truly-believing Christian in the first place. You simply don't have the experience base that we Ex-Christians share with each other. Nor can you ever acquire it, no matter how much you try. No amount of intelligence, education and learning will ever give you what we Ex-Christians share with each other. No amount of effort, persistence and hard work on your part will ever give you success in this. There are no books you can read, no courses you can take and no night classes you can attend that will ever give you the familial bond of trust that binds us together. You can never be one of us and so you can never be as fully trusted as we are by each other. You can never earn that level of trust. Never.

.

.

.

So now we come to that Yes/No question.

How you answer and what you do and don't write are all... significant.

.

.

.

Do you agree that trust should play the role it does in this forum? Y/N?

Nice posting. Lots of thought

Yes, Trust can be a very good thing.

But like all good things one must consider what trust means under different circumstances. For instance, when dealing with members of this forum, you are talking about trust in people who have earned your trust over time. Even though one can trust the person concerning their character, intent, and one's well being, does not mean that their judgements and opinions are necessarily better than yours or others. Inside or outside this forum you could trust experts concerning related matters, better than others. But, of course, anyone's judgement or opinion, or a collective judgement of professionals, can change over time, so that trust in their judgements and related assertions should not necessarily outweigh one's own judgement if the ability for such considerations is there. If trust goes wrong, such as in religion, one generally should only blame oneself for misplaced trust, not those that you trusted. This is because honest mistakes in judgement are much more common than deliberate intent to deceive.

cheers

Thank you for confirming that you accept the role of trust (as per my description of it) in this forum, Pantheory.

I also thank you for your comments about what trust means under different circumstances.

But there is a problem!

You Pantheory, can never know about the circumstances under which trust is given and received between Ex-Christians in this forum. Therefore your comments cannot and do not apply to us. They would only be valid if you had been and no longer were a Christian - just like us. But you never were, so that knowledge is forever denied to you.

You see my friend, there are some things that you cannot learn about - no matter how hard you try. You just have to have experienced them yourself to know and understand them.

So, once again I thank you for your concern, but your comments simply don't apply to us as you think they do.

Cheers to you too,

BAA.

May 29, 2015

Hello Pantheory.

As agreed, here is what I was referring to yesterday, concerning this forum.

.

.

.

As the Terms of Service (TOS) and Community Rules make clear, Ex-Christian.net is open to all and we strongly believe in the principle of the freedom of speech. Anyone may post anything, provided they do so within the TOS, the Community Rules and the posting guidelines that apply to various sub-forums.  The purpose of Ex-C is to encourage those people who have decided to leave religion (usually Christianity) behind.

People from non-religious backgrounds usually treat Ex-C as an standard debate and discussion forum.

For them, this is all this forum really amounts to. Because their lives haven't been affected in any significant way by the Christian religion, this forum's express purpose is irrelevant to them and issues relating to that purpose are of no interest to them. Because they were never Christians in the first place, these people fail to comprehend what it means for a doubting Christian to finally break all ties with the beliefs that dominated their lives for so long. They just can't see what all the fuss is about, can't see why people get so upset about it and can't see why deconversion is such a big deal.

New members who are trying to deconvert from Christianity soon realize that Ex-C is not just another, ordinary debate and discussion forum. They rapidly see that the Ex-Christian members (us) can relate to and communicate with them like no other people on the planet Earth! We've shared a common experience and have walked the same path as them. New members read our posted Testimonies and see that the troubles, doubts, anxieties and hurts they're experiencing have already been felt and experienced by us. The questions they're now asking themselves have already been asked and answered by us.   They find that the very best people to help them are people like themselves - who are just further down the road.

And this is how Ex-C fulfils it's prime function and express purpose.

Even though there's nothing specific enshrined in the rules and regs about this process, this is the way that Ex-Christians help doubting Christians to deconvert and become Ex-Christians themselves.   This is the way this forum works. Fearful, confused and doubt-ridden Christians arrive, lurk for a while, register for membership, ask for help in deconverting from us, receive that help, deconvert, post their deconversion testimony (known as an Extimony, because they are finally exiting the Christian religion) and then go on to become strong enough and confident enough to help others thru the same process. In this way Ex-C becomes stronger as more and more Ex-Christians swell our ranks.

So it's a cardinal error for anyone to treat Ex-C as just another debate and discussion forum.

Where only the usual and accepted, Internet-wide principles of debate and discussion apply. Ok, non-religious members can (for the most part) use this forum in that way.  But because they were never Christians, never deconverted and never became Ex-Christians they will usually fail to appreciate just how much this forum means to it's deconverted members. That is, to us.

Ex-Christian.net is not just a self-help community - it's a family.

It's a family that's bound together by trust.  In the past we used to put our trust in God, in the Bible and in our fellow Christians. But now we put our trust in the community and family of people we belong to here. Even though we usually look to the facts and the evidence to guide us, if the need arises, we will rely on the honesty and integrity of our fellow members and put our trust in them. Where evidence fails, trust prevails.

The family analogy also explains how we stronger members of Ex-C protect the weaker ones.

Just as a parent will guard their child from harm and ask that child to trust in them, so we strong members will protect our more easily-influenced members from things we judge will be harmful to them. And we ask them to trust our judgement, just as a parent asks their child to trust their judgement. Usually we can demonstrate with evidence that this person or that website is wrong or false and shouldn't be trusted. But an additional level of protection for our weaker members comes in the form of the trust they put in us - their family, who are looking out for them.

This is the way this forum works, Pantheory.

Now you know. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. You may not understand it. But this is how it works. You may not understand why it needs to work this way. If so, that would be because you never were a deeply-committed, truly-believing Christian in the first place. You simply don't have the experience base that we Ex-Christians share with each other. Nor can you ever acquire it, no matter how much you try. No amount of intelligence, education and learning will ever give you what we Ex-Christians share with each other. No amount of effort, persistence and hard work on your part will ever give you success in this. There are no books you can read, no courses you can take and no night classes you can attend that will ever give you the familial bond of trust that binds us together. You can never be one of us and so you can never be as fully trusted as we are by each other. You can never earn that level of trust. Never.

.

.

.

So now we come to that Yes/No question.

How you answer and what you do and don't write are all... significant.

.

.

.

Do you agree that trust should play the role it does in this forum? Y/N?

Nice posting. Lots of thought

Yes, Trust can be a very good thing.

But like all good things one must consider what trust means under different circumstances. For instance, when dealing with members of this forum, you are talking about trust in people who have earned your trust over time. Even though one can trust the person concerning their character, intent, and one's well being, does not mean that their judgements and opinions are necessarily better than yours or others. Inside or outside this forum you could trust experts concerning related matters, better than others. But, of course, anyone's judgement or opinion, or a collective judgement of professionals, can change over time, so that trust in their judgements and related assertions should not necessarily outweigh one's own judgement if the ability for such considerations is there. If trust goes wrong, such as in religion, one generally should only blame oneself for misplaced trust, not those that you trusted. This is because honest mistakes in judgement are much more common than deliberate intent to deceive.

cheers

Thank you for confirming that you accept the role of trust (as per my description of it) in this forum, Pantheory.

I also thank you for your comments about what trust means under different circumstances.

But there is a problem!

You Pantheory, can never know about the circumstances under which trust is given and received between Ex-Christians in this forum. Therefore your comments cannot and do not apply to us. They would only be valid if you had been and no longer were a Christian - just like us. But you never were, so that knowledge is forever denied to you.

You see my friend, there are some things that you cannot learn about - no matter how hard you try. You just have to have experienced them yourself to know and understand them.

So, once again I thank you for your concern, but your comments simply don't apply to us as you think they do.

Cheers to you too,

BAA.

Yes, I was a Christian up to the age of 15. Not a born-again Christian, but one that went to church with my parents and grandparents, one that learned the prayers by heart, knew the words and melodies to the songs, prayed, and did things that Christians do. I was not disillusioned by Christianity then or afterwards, nor was I influenced by any non-believer in particular for my disbelief. Through the studies of numerous religions at the time I realized that all religions were a fairytale not unlike the Santa Clause fable. When I turned from Christianity my behavior did not change much excepting my confidence, which greatly improved once I realized I was in complete control of my own life.

with best regards

May 29, 2015

Hello Pantheory.

As agreed, here is what I was referring to yesterday, concerning this forum.

.

.

.

As the Terms of Service (TOS) and Community Rules make clear, Ex-Christian.net is open to all and we strongly believe in the principle of the freedom of speech. Anyone may post anything, provided they do so within the TOS, the Community Rules and the posting guidelines that apply to various sub-forums.  The purpose of Ex-C is to encourage those people who have decided to leave religion (usually Christianity) behind.

People from non-religious backgrounds usually treat Ex-C as an standard debate and discussion forum.

For them, this is all this forum really amounts to. Because their lives haven't been affected in any significant way by the Christian religion, this forum's express purpose is irrelevant to them and issues relating to that purpose are of no interest to them. Because they were never Christians in the first place, these people fail to comprehend what it means for a doubting Christian to finally break all ties with the beliefs that dominated their lives for so long. They just can't see what all the fuss is about, can't see why people get so upset about it and can't see why deconversion is such a big deal.

New members who are trying to deconvert from Christianity soon realize that Ex-C is not just another, ordinary debate and discussion forum. They rapidly see that the Ex-Christian members (us) can relate to and communicate with them like no other people on the planet Earth! We've shared a common experience and have walked the same path as them. New members read our posted Testimonies and see that the troubles, doubts, anxieties and hurts they're experiencing have already been felt and experienced by us. The questions they're now asking themselves have already been asked and answered by us.   They find that the very best people to help them are people like themselves - who are just further down the road.

And this is how Ex-C fulfils it's prime function and express purpose.

Even though there's nothing specific enshrined in the rules and regs about this process, this is the way that Ex-Christians help doubting Christians to deconvert and become Ex-Christians themselves.   This is the way this forum works. Fearful, confused and doubt-ridden Christians arrive, lurk for a while, register for membership, ask for help in deconverting from us, receive that help, deconvert, post their deconversion testimony (known as an Extimony, because they are finally exiting the Christian religion) and then go on to become strong enough and confident enough to help others thru the same process. In this way Ex-C becomes stronger as more and more Ex-Christians swell our ranks.

So it's a cardinal error for anyone to treat Ex-C as just another debate and discussion forum.

Where only the usual and accepted, Internet-wide principles of debate and discussion apply. Ok, non-religious members can (for the most part) use this forum in that way.  But because they were never Christians, never deconverted and never became Ex-Christians they will usually fail to appreciate just how much this forum means to it's deconverted members. That is, to us.

Ex-Christian.net is not just a self-help community - it's a family.

It's a family that's bound together by trust.  In the past we used to put our trust in God, in the Bible and in our fellow Christians. But now we put our trust in the community and family of people we belong to here. Even though we usually look to the facts and the evidence to guide us, if the need arises, we will rely on the honesty and integrity of our fellow members and put our trust in them. Where evidence fails, trust prevails.

The family analogy also explains how we stronger members of Ex-C protect the weaker ones.

Just as a parent will guard their child from harm and ask that child to trust in them, so we strong members will protect our more easily-influenced members from things we judge will be harmful to them. And we ask them to trust our judgement, just as a parent asks their child to trust their judgement. Usually we can demonstrate with evidence that this person or that website is wrong or false and shouldn't be trusted. But an additional level of protection for our weaker members comes in the form of the trust they put in us - their family, who are looking out for them.

This is the way this forum works, Pantheory.

Now you know. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. You may not understand it. But this is how it works. You may not understand why it needs to work this way. If so, that would be because you never were a deeply-committed, truly-believing Christian in the first place. You simply don't have the experience base that we Ex-Christians share with each other. Nor can you ever acquire it, no matter how much you try. No amount of intelligence, education and learning will ever give you what we Ex-Christians share with each other. No amount of effort, persistence and hard work on your part will ever give you success in this. There are no books you can read, no courses you can take and no night classes you can attend that will ever give you the familial bond of trust that binds us together. You can never be one of us and so you can never be as fully trusted as we are by each other. You can never earn that level of trust. Never.

.

.

.

So now we come to that Yes/No question.

How you answer and what you do and don't write are all... significant.

.

.

.

Do you agree that trust should play the role it does in this forum? Y/N?

Nice posting. Lots of thought

Yes, Trust can be a very good thing.

But like all good things one must consider what trust means under different circumstances. For instance, when dealing with members of this forum, you are talking about trust in people who have earned your trust over time. Even though one can trust the person concerning their character, intent, and one's well being, does not mean that their judgements and opinions are necessarily better than yours or others. Inside or outside this forum you could trust experts concerning related matters, better than others. But, of course, anyone's judgement or opinion, or a collective judgement of professionals, can change over time, so that trust in their judgements and related assertions should not necessarily outweigh one's own judgement if the ability for such considerations is there. If trust goes wrong, such as in religion, one generally should only blame oneself for misplaced trust, not those that you trusted. This is because honest mistakes in judgement are much more common than deliberate intent to deceive.

cheers

Thank you for confirming that you accept the role of trust (as per my description of it) in this forum, Pantheory.

I also thank you for your comments about what trust means under different circumstances.

But there is a problem!

You Pantheory, can never know about the circumstances under which trust is given and received between Ex-Christians in this forum. Therefore your comments cannot and do not apply to us. They would only be valid if you had been and no longer were a Christian - just like us. But you never were, so that knowledge is forever denied to you.

You see my friend, there are some things that you cannot learn about - no matter how hard you try. You just have to have experienced them yourself to know and understand them.

So, once again I thank you for your concern, but your comments simply don't apply to us as you think they do.

Cheers to you too,

BAA.

Yes, I was a Christian up to the age of 15. Not a born-again Christian, but one that went to church with my parents and grandparents, one that learned the prayers by heart, knew the words and melodies to the songs, prayed, and did things that Christians do. I was not disillusioned by Christianity then or afterwards, nor was I influenced by any non-believer in particular for my disbelief. I finally realized that all religion was a fairytale not unlike the Santa Clause fable. When I turned from Christianity my behavior did not change much excepting my confidence, which greatly improved once I realized I was in complete control of my own life.

with best regards

Thank you for further confirming that you have had no experiences comparable to or in common with ours, Pantheory.

This reemphasizes my point. Whatever you believe applies to us... doesn't. You only believe it does.

You should therefore reconsider your reasons for being in this forum. Whatever good you believe you're doing here is based on the false notion that you know what's good for us and can help us. Since you've confirmed that you don't know what's good for us, you therefore can't help us.

A wise and sensible course of action for an intelligent man like you would be for you to take your considerable talents elsewhere. Any other decision would be foolish.

Thanks,

BAA.

May 30, 2015

Pantheory, get off BAA's lawn! :-)

May 31, 2015

How 'off topic' is this thread?

just sayin'

May 31, 2015

Myself, I hope that if this thread does go off topic, it will devolve into a discussion about whether NASA may have accidentally figured out how to make a warp drive, or something interesting like that. But that's just me.

May 31, 2015

How 'off topic' is this thread?

just sayin'

It started to derail on page 2 post #28 and by page 5 it was no longer the EmDrive. The irony of it is i was bashed about 2 posts i made off topic by the same person who was the biggest culprit of keeping this thread off topic. Oh well.

I do hope NASA or one of the other private agencies find some useful data from the EmDrive and put it to some actual useful projects.

May 31, 2015

I'm not sure if the EmDrive is repeatable but unless we find some kind of improved space drive manned

missions to the local planets will be seriously hindered.

Nasa May Have Accidentally Figured Out How To Make A Warp Drive.

Recommended Posts

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

RogueScholar

RogueScholar

bornagainathiest

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

midniterider

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ravenstar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

duderonomy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

EyesOpened