What's new

Stop calling this cult a church!

Just call it scientology ... without any adjectives. Let people add their own as they see fit. :biggrin:

The term scientology refers to a subject, and not a specific institution. There are a variety of institutions functioning as the institutional church. Each has its own individual organizational name but the generic term is the Church of Scientology.


Mark A. Baker
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
You mentioned this:

"All thought, as ideas and concepts, on every level, are only and always approximations, models, or theories about some aspect of experiencable reality. The ideas one entertains about some aspect of reality, while often related in some way to some aspect of reality, do not EVER fully delineate this aspect of reality. Thought always operates on the level of a model. In other words, from General Semantics, the MAP is NOT the terrain. Never. Or, the model that exists in thought as an idea or concept is NEVER the actuality it pretends to define and describe."

If this is true then how can you make that statement?

For if what you said is true, then it can't be true, in can only be an approximation.

The point I'm making is that you have stated some conclusion and all your conclusion does is imply that no precise and accurate conclusions are possible.

So that is what I call spinning.

Pragmatically, your idea here has no basis in reality; You idea about thoughts etc. are obviously mistaken.

A word or concept can mean a lot of things; but it can't mean everything.

You're just demonstrating what disorganized thought look likes.

To simply survive at a basic level, precision of thought and concepts are necessary. It doesn't have to be exactly correct, but it has to be functionally correct.

But to say that since it isn't 100% precise then it is meaningless is ridiculous.

If you acted that way (you may think that way, but you don't act that way) you would not be able to even feed yourself.

And that is why it is spinning, just like the old scholasticism that made it a full time activity to figure out how many angels could fit on a head of a pin.

Simply put, your definitin of the terms and concepts you are using can't be right because it it was you could not function as a conscious being and also it you are right then what you said is meaningless.

That is spinning.

You may enjoy it, but it is spinning.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Actually the only thing that you can be certain of is your consciousness (your experience of consciousness) - the actual "thing" your consciousness tells you that you are experiencing may not in fact be there at all - what you call reality. You make up models of what reality reality consists of - i.e physics - that is where the theory, models and uncertainty lies. That is based on indirect measurement and detection. The only direct perception we have is our experience of consciousness.

And Arnie, yes, that is a great posting - thank you.
 
Actually the only thing that you can be certain of is your consciousness (your experience of consciousness) - the actual "thing" your consciousness tells you that you are experiencing may not in fact be there at all - what you call reality. You make up models of what reality reality consists of - i.e physics - that is where the theory, models and uncertainty lies. That is based on indirect measurement and detection. The only direct perception we have is our experience of consciousness.

And Arnie, yes, that is a great posting - thank you.

Yes, but this is not how you function. If it was, then it would be hypocritical of you to post that.

One has to be consistent. You can't just espouse part of Kant's nounomena but ignore the corrolary of his phenomenon.

If you do, they you are implying that science or mathematics doesn't exist.

There is such a thing as disciplined thought. And taking bits of pieces from philosophical views and ignoring all other ramifications of it is irrational thinking.

Mixing pieces of Kant, out of context, with Gorgias and Derrida, both out of context, is philosophically lazy.

You have to think the thought and its ramifications through.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
The only thing that's *really real* is the felt presence of immediate experience, but other things can be treated *as if they are real* for certain useful purposes, which vary from person to person.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Yes, but this is not how you function. If it was, then it would be hypocritical of you to post that.

One has to be consistent. You can't just espouse part of Kant's nounomena but ignore the corrolary of his phenomenon.

One does NOT "have to be consistent". That is a BIG arbitrary.

If you do, they you are implying that science or mathematics doesn't exist.

Sure, they "exist", they just aren't what they often pretend or claim to be. They are largely "creations", more than being any actual deep or legitimate "understanding" of "what is".

There is such a thing as disciplined thought. And taking bits of pieces from philosophical views and ignoring all other ramifications of it is irrational thinking.

Mixing pieces of Kant, out of context, with Gorgias and Derrida, both out of context, is philosophically lazy.

You have to think the thought and its ramifications through.

I do.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Corollary - not "corrolary". (I had to look it up yesterday when I too spelled it wrong in another post) :ohmy:

OK, let me tackle this from another angle.

Take the idea of an "atom". This model or theory (IDEA) was created to somehow allow people to imagine that they knew what was happening at very small sizes and levels of resolution. TAJ, I am sure you are aware of the philosophical parents to the idea off the "atom". The evolution of IDEAS can be an interesting study, but thye need to be viewed as "ideas".

Originally, at least after the "atomists" and others, there was the notion that little balls were spinning around other little balls. Now, yes, this abstract and completely BULLSHIT model did correlate to something, and it did allow various predictions to be made, along with additional theories about "electrons occupying different energy zones, etc.). The Periodic Table developed along with this model (as I recall).

Then the ideas changed about whatever "reality" was actually there, and the electrons and protons and such became "energy clouds". There were now highly active, super-dynamic, very fast "vibrations" that seemed to have "frequencies". But, that was all make-believe too.

I think now the primary model being promoted is "string theory", where "things like tightly stretched rubber bands or violin strings", on TEN DIMENSIONS, explain the various sub-atomic particles and their interactions. But the honest scientists explain and describe it best, "we have NO IDEA what is actually there, but we can PREDICT BEHAVIOR with complex mathematical equations". It is all metaphor and analogy, the likes of which create an illusion of understanding.

People get this absurd notion that just because they can name or describe something, that they somehow "understand it". The same is true for gravity. First, the apple fell and hit Newton in the head. Um, "things always fall to the ground". That became "the law of gravity", which later morphed along the lines of "heavy bodies exert an attractive influence on each other", and on and on. Now, there are various "fields" or distortions in the "fabric of time-space" that cause things to "appear to attract". It is desirable (to me) to be familiar with all of this, but one needs to keep perspective and grasp all of this as the mental "ideas" they are, and the great gulf that separates them from the corresponding "reality". Ideas are creations of minds.

In truth, the ONLY thing anyone ever does is observe behavior, and describe it. That IS useful, and can allow many predictions about all sorts of things. People NAME things, and define, and go off on this wild illusion that they therefore "understand something". NOBODY knows WHY things stick together. Nobody knows WHY things appear to fall. Yes, there are many IDEAS. There are MANY THEORIES, and most people mistakenly take them to actually define or describe "something real".

Take an electron. Nobody has ever "seen" an electron. People made up the term to explain certain observable phenomena in electronics. Nobody has ever detected an electron. It is an ABSTRACT IDEA that while "relating to something", has no actual REAL thing that the term correlates to.

This is the realm of HARD SCIENCE, and for the most part the IDEAS involved have VERY LITTLE to do with "reality". It only gets worse, FAR worse, with things that fall away from science, such as the social sciences, history, and philosophy.

On consistency. There can be a consistency in IDEAS. But, just as with the idea of "zero" or "equality", consistency does not exist ANYWHERE in observable reality. What is the ACTUAL state of affairs? Everything is changing into something else, quickly or slowly, but nothing remains the same, and "consistency" is an IDEA foisted upon reality, both physical and mental. Now, if you want to discuss some set of IDEAS, that was created in MIND, as a fiction of a sort, with various made-up definitions and relationships, as in the mental creations known as math or logic, YES, you can find consistency, because it was DEFINED INTO THE SYSTEM to start with! :duh:

Consistency can be found in these realms because it was "mocked up" to be there in the first place.

Now, as Smilla commented, one need not actually "understand", one need only have an approximation that can be "useful". THus, models can be useful - but in the end, the MAP is NOT the "terrain". Thinking so is an error of a thinking mind.

I mean, really, if I am honest, I don't know what a tree REALLY IS. I don't know where trees came from, I don't know WHY the seeds can bring about new life, and I may be familiar with all sorts of plant processes such as photosynthesis, and imagine that I "understand". But, in practical life, I need not understand much of anything at all, other than the generalized notion that I can cut it down, let the wood set for a bit, and either use it as lumber or firewood.

There is something that often "parades itself" as "understanding", and it CAN be very useful (pragmatic). But, on a certain level it IS a delusion. This gets much truer in the abstract humanities, where the ruminations of philosophy often exist as the extreme opposite of strict physics.

There is a physical universe and behaviors can be observed as part of theis experience. One can get familiar with these behaviors and thus predict future events. That is a sort of "understanding". I find it very useful. It is based on honest and careful observation (as are most hard sciences, and the various fields of engineering). There is also a mental universe, that is filled with mental objects, such as ideas, concepts, relationships, and more. These do not need to, but the content of THIS universe often relates to and connects up with aspects of the physical universe (through the mental act of placing attention with observation).

But the two are very different, following very different "laws" of "behavior".

It seems that approximations, using various "models", can be quite useful. But, the models always fall far short of actually imparting any REAL "understanding" about WHAT is "going on" (i.e. "why"). This is true in all fields of study, and while an awareness of that HAS surfaced in Quantum Physics, it is late coming in most OTHER subjects and fields. But, it will come, sooner or later. :biggrin:

The above is simply one viewpoint, one way to look at all of this, and is the result of connecting various ideas and observations together in a certain manner. Some may agree, and some may disagree. Some may find various faults with this view. I am sure that in 10 munites I myself could look at it a different way, and find fault with it. :unsure: :nervous: :ohmy:
 

Gadfly

Crusader
The only thing that's *really real* is the felt presence of immediate experience, but other things can be treated *as if they are real* for certain useful purposes, which vary from person to person.

And, that experience can be of the physical, mental or emotional (or spiritual). It can also be highly agreed with or agreed with not at all.

This whole "what is real" thing is no easy subject, and has been the object of study for MANY thousands of years by a great many minds and souls. Some might also say that, in the end, it is much ado about nothing. :confused2:

Why think about it or be concerned with it, at least to any great or overly-serious degree, when one could (or should) be simply living?

Also, to some people, for some poeple, the world of IDEAS is FAR more "real" than anything else. Look at a writer like Stephen King, who resides often in a world of the imagination. Or, look at Stephen Hawking, who while directing attention at things related to the physical, also very much often lives entirely a world of thought and ideas. THAT is what is REAL to HIM!

And, for some people "a forest", "bubbling brook", or "wildlife" are the most "real things".

In the end it comes down to what you BREATHE into any aspect of it all. You look, you aim the light of meaning onto some area of life (physical or mental), and BANG, it is REAL to and for you.

Reality exists only to the degree that a consciousness or mind makes it so.

That rings true for me, and while there may be something "out there", it doesn't exist until some observer looks at it, and brings it to life. Einstein says the same thing when he declares that any expererience of any aspect of this universe is relative ONLY to the state of some observer.

HOW the universe is experienced may be entirely dependant on who is doing the looking and how. That is true for physics and it is probably also true for psychology and the realm of consciousness. The relationship of the observer with the observed, and how that influneces the experience of reality, probably runs throughout every level of creation.

What does that have to do with this thread?

How YOU see the subject of Scientology, how you see Hubbard, and how you view the entity known as the "Church of Scientology", has as much to do with YOU as it does about anything exisiting "objectively out there". :ohmy:

It takes two to tango - always. :biggrin:
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Something can be a church and also be a cult worthy of heap-loads of criticism. Jehovah's Witness seem to also be a cult from the stories I've read and they are part of the Christian segment. If I remember correctly, in their beginnings Christians were the cult of choice for the Romans to bash. Until they pulled in their ... oh wait -- nevermind....

This is exactly what I've been saying. Ya!
 

Gadfly

Crusader
For some people the Earth is flat, and for others it isn't. What's the problem problem with that?

Flatearth1.jpg




I think the problem is that the people who believe it to be flat will still NEVER "fall off the end" when they keep their ship going forever in one direction.

As I see it, part of being "aware" is having a good grasp of the realm of ideas, and how these ideas connect to honest observations and experiences of reality. Nobody, no matter what one thinks or believes to the contrary, is going to "fall off the edge". Recognizing THAT seems relevant (to me).

The person who imagines otherwise exists at a lower level, within a smaller framework, where his or her unqiue and arbitrary views supercedes an aware understanding of others and how THEY experience things.

There is ones own universe, and there are other people's universes. I see that being aware of the universes of others, and recognizing how all universes of ideas connect to the OBJECTS of these ideas, is a heathier state of mind.

That is my opinion and value in the matter.

Also, it probably doesn't matter or "hurt" anything if some people believe that the Earth is flat. But, there IS a large "disconnection from honest observation" involved here, which to me is a cardinal sin of "intellectual integrity". Believing other things to be than what you and most others perceive by honest observation is a recipe for personal disaster.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
I think the problem is that the people who believe it to be flat will still NEVER "fall off the end" when they keep their ship going forever in one direction.

As I see it, part of being "aware" is having a good grasp of the realm of ideas, and how these ideas connect to honest observations and experiences of reality. Nobody, no matter what one thinks or believes to the contrary, is going to "fall off the edge". Recognizing THAT seems relevant (to me).

The person who imagines otherwise exists at a lower level, within a smaller framework, where his or her unqiue and arbitrary views supercedes an aware understanding of others and how THEY experience things.

There is ones own universe, and there are other people's universes. I see that being aware of the universes of others, and recognizing how all universes of ideas connect to the OBJECTS of these ideas, is a heathier state of mind.

That is my opinion and value in the matter.

Also, it probably doesn't matter or "hurt" anything if some people believe that the Earth is flat. But, there IS a large "disconnection from honest observation" involved here, which to me is a cardinal sin of "intellectual integrity". Believing other things to be than what you and most others perceive by honest observation is a recipe for personal disaster.

I know. I know. Was giving a poke to the "it's only a cult if you think it's a cult" presence.

Having said that, letting the Earth be flat for a while can be fun :)

As long as you stay away from the edge!
 
Will you please quit derailing this vital and important thread already! :whistling: :unsure:

Let me philosophically consider and debate the deeper cognitive aspects of nuances of the word "derail", and indeed, the nature of reality, or at least what one may choose to use the phrase, "nature of reality" to signify. Call me on my deathbed and see if I am done with that to the point I can move on. :)
 
Corollary - not "corrolary". (I had to look it up yesterday when I too spelled it wrong in another post) :ohmy:

OK, let me tackle this from another angle.

Take the idea of an "atom". This model or theory (IDEA) was created to somehow allow people to imagine that they knew what was happening at very small sizes and levels of resolution. TAJ, I am sure you are aware of the philosophical parents to the idea off the "atom". The evolution of IDEAS can be an interesting study, but thye need to be viewed as "ideas".

Originally, at least after the "atomists" and others, there was the notion that little balls were spinning around other little balls. Now, yes, this abstract and completely BULLSHIT model did correlate to something, and it did allow various predictions to be made, along with additional theories about "electrons occupying different energy zones, etc.). The Periodic Table developed along with this model (as I recall).

Then the ideas changed about whatever "reality" was actually there, and the electrons and protons and such became "energy clouds". There were now highly active, super-dynamic, very fast "vibrations" that seemed to have "frequencies". But, that was all make-believe too.

I think now the primary model being promoted is "string theory", where "things like tightly stretched rubber bands or violin strings", on TEN DIMENSIONS, explain the various sub-atomic particles and their interactions. But the honest scientists explain and describe it best, "we have NO IDEA what is actually there, but we can PREDICT BEHAVIOR with complex mathematical equations". It is all metaphor and analogy, the likes of which create an illusion of understanding.

People get this absurd notion that just because they can name or describe something, that they somehow "understand it". The same is true for gravity. First, the apple fell and hit Newton in the head. Um, "things always fall to the ground". That became "the law of gravity", which later morphed along the lines of "heavy bodies exert an attractive influence on each other", and on and on. Now, there are various "fields" or distortions in the "fabric of time-space" that cause things to "appear to attract". It is desirable (to me) to be familiar with all of this, but one needs to keep perspective and grasp all of this as the mental "ideas" they are, and the great gulf that separates them from the corresponding "reality". Ideas are creations of minds.

In truth, the ONLY thing anyone ever does is observe behavior, and describe it. That IS useful, and can allow many predictions about all sorts of things. People NAME things, and define, and go off on this wild illusion that they therefore "understand something". NOBODY knows WHY things stick together. Nobody knows WHY things appear to fall. Yes, there are many IDEAS. There are MANY THEORIES, and most people mistakenly take them to actually define or describe "something real".

Take an electron. Nobody has ever "seen" an electron. People made up the term to explain certain observable phenomena in electronics. Nobody has ever detected an electron. It is an ABSTRACT IDEA that while "relating to something", has no actual REAL thing that the term correlates to.

This is the realm of HARD SCIENCE, and for the most part the IDEAS involved have VERY LITTLE to do with "reality". It only gets worse, FAR worse, with things that fall away from science, such as the social sciences, history, and philosophy.

On consistency. There can be a consistency in IDEAS. But, just as with the idea of "zero" or "equality", consistency does not exist ANYWHERE in observable reality. What is the ACTUAL state of affairs? Everything is changing into something else, quickly or slowly, but nothing remains the same, and "consistency" is an IDEA foisted upon reality, both physical and mental. Now, if you want to discuss some set of IDEAS, that was created in MIND, as a fiction of a sort, with various made-up definitions and relationships, as in the mental creations known as math or logic, YES, you can find consistency, because it was DEFINED INTO THE SYSTEM to start with! :duh:

Consistency can be found in these realms because it was "mocked up" to be there in the first place.

Now, as Smilla commented, one need not actually "understand", one need only have an approximation that can be "useful". THus, models can be useful - but in the end, the MAP is NOT the "terrain". Thinking so is an error of a thinking mind.

I mean, really, if I am honest, I don't know what a tree REALLY IS. I don't know where trees came from, I don't know WHY the seeds can bring about new life, and I may be familiar with all sorts of plant processes such as photosynthesis, and imagine that I "understand". But, in practical life, I need not understand much of anything at all, other than the generalized notion that I can cut it down, let the wood set for a bit, and either use it as lumber or firewood.

There is something that often "parades itself" as "understanding", and it CAN be very useful (pragmatic). But, on a certain level it IS a delusion. This gets much truer in the abstract humanities, where the ruminations of philosophy often exist as the extreme opposite of strict physics.

There is a physical universe and behaviors can be observed as part of theis experience. One can get familiar with these behaviors and thus predict future events. That is a sort of "understanding". I find it very useful. It is based on honest and careful observation (as are most hard sciences, and the various fields of engineering). There is also a mental universe, that is filled with mental objects, such as ideas, concepts, relationships, and more. These do not need to, but the content of THIS universe often relates to and connects up with aspects of the physical universe (through the mental act of placing attention with observation).

But the two are very different, following very different "laws" of "behavior".

It seems that approximations, using various "models", can be quite useful. But, the models always fall far short of actually imparting any REAL "understanding" about WHAT is "going on" (i.e. "why"). This is true in all fields of study, and while an awareness of that HAS surfaced in Quantum Physics, it is late coming in most OTHER subjects and fields. But, it will come, sooner or later. :biggrin:

The above is simply one viewpoint, one way to look at all of this, and is the result of connecting various ideas and observations together in a certain manner. Some may agree, and some may disagree. Some may find various faults with this view. I am sure that in 10 munites I myself could look at it a different way, and find fault with it. :unsure: :nervous: :ohmy:

(Just to stay on track--How about that Church of Scientology. I hear that the Church of Scientology has a lot of money.)

This is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with what I was talking about other than it proves my point.

Your first comment to me on this thread was when II disputed the Jekyll Island meeting as haveing any relevance.

You said "I don't get how seemingly intelligent people can deny certain facts."
and then went on and made a long posst of facts and information about the Federal Reserve and Jekyll Island.

Then I said there are facts and there are interpetations of facts. And I provided facts with context regarding the place and time and events of those facts.

Then you gave someone information about Hegel's dialectic.

I then gave some information to someone who was going to look into what I had said.

Then you said "I stopped trying to 'Learn' by examining details some time ago."

Then you went on about understandings.

After that you said "No one can really and truly understand anything."

Now you are giving me information about atoms, etc.


My point is this: It is inconsistent to make a charge that you can't understand why I deny facts, then when I show you facts in context you say that facts are suddenly not important and no one can really understand anything and then give me more facts and information.

So all I am saying this is very inconsistent and irrational reasoning.

If no one can really and truly understand anything, then why are you posting things here if you know that you don't really understand what you are saying and that no one else could understand what you are saying either?

Understand?

Do you not think the Hoover Dam exists? Because if you are right, then how could the engineers understand the architects and how could the laborers understand the engineers? So how could the Hoover Dam have been built?

How could the engineers and architects learn their trade if they can't understand.

You get my point. The philosophical viewpoint you keep falling back upon negates all the points you make in conversation. You give your views but when I challenge them you use a nihilists argument to negate when I said.

You can't have it both ways.

I think the flaw in your reasoning is your definition of understanding.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Gadfly

Crusader
(Just to stay on track--How about that Church of Scientology. I hear that the Church of Scientology has a lot of money.)

This is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with what I was talking about other than it proves my point.

Your first comment to me on this thread was when II disputed the Jekyll Island meeting as haveing any relevance.

You said "I don't get how seemingly intelligent people can deny certain facts."
and then went on and made a long posst of facts and information about the Federal Reserve and Jekyll Island.

Then I said there are facts and there are interpetations of facts. And I provided facts with context regarding the place and time and events of those facts.

Then you gave someone information about Hegel's dialectic.

I then gave some information to someone who was going to look into what I had said.

Then you said "I stopped trying to 'Learn' by examining details some time ago."

Then you went on about understandings.

After that you said "No one can really and truly understand anything."

Now you are giving me information about atoms, etc.


My point is this: It is inconsistent to make a charge that you can't understand why I deny facts, then when I show you facts in context you say that facts are suddenly not important and no one can really understand anything and then give me more facts and information.

So all I am saying this is very inconsistent and irrational reasoning.

If no one can really and truly understand anything, then why are you posting things here if you know that you don't really understand what you are saying and that no one else could understand what you are saying either?

Understand?

Do you not think the Hoover Dam exists? Because if you are right, then how could the engineers understand the architects and how could the laborers understand the engineers? So how could the Hoover Dam have been built?

How could the engineers and architects learn their trade if they can't understand.

You get my point. The philosophical viewpoint you keep falling back upon negates all the points you make in conversation. You give your views but when I challenge them you use a nihilists argument to negate when I said.

You can't have it both ways.

I think the flaw in your reasoning is your definition of understanding.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I don't hold consistency in any great regard, or as any sort of sacred cow. I don't aspire to it, or expect others to. I have the view that it is a HUGE arbitrary consideration that people often exhibit who get a bit too immersed in their own self-created "thinkingness". The only other person who pushes this "conistsency" thing, as if it is some "thing" that "exist out there" separate from the mind that actually CREATES it, has been Vin. I guess, depending on the reader, that may be good or bad . . . . :confused2:

I am sure you have some or many allies who also give extra importance and value to this notion of "consistency". I am sure MB probably does, being the "dictator of logic" that he can be. That is said in complete kindness.

And, I agree, about the Fed, that I probably could study about it all EVEN MORE than I already have. But, for me, there are just SO MANY more IMPORTANT things to do than to bother with it.

I wasn't making any sort of "argument", other than I was expressing my view in response to some things that you said, as I felt, and in a "stream of consciousness" sort of way. Of course there will be inconsistencies - I wasn't ever trying to BE consistent. :biggrin:

Anyway, I am getting bored with this as I am sure you also are.

I will get back to what some may feel I do better at - slamming Scientology! Hip-hip-hooray! :happydance:

If I keep derailing threads like this that Veda likes so much, somebody might eventually begin accusing me of being a "troll".
 
I don't hold consistency in any great regard, or as any sort of sacred cow. I don't aspire to it, or expect others to. I have the view that it is a HUGE arbitrary consideration that people often exhibit who get a bit too immersed in their own self-created "thinkingness". The only other person who pushes this "conistsency" thing, as if it is some "thing" that "exist out there" separate from the mind that actually CREATES it, has been Vin. I guess, depending on the reader, that may be good or bad . . . . :confused2:

I am sure you have some or many allies who also give extra importance and value to this notion of "consistency". I am sure MB probably does, being the "dictator of logic" that he can be. That is said in complete kindness.

And, I agree, about the Fed, that I probably could study about it all EVEN MORE than I already have. But, for me, there are just SO MANY more IMPORTANT things to do than to bother with it.

I wasn't making any sort of "argument", other than I was expressing my view in response to some things that you said, as I felt, and in a "stream of consciousness" sort of way. Of course there will be inconsistencies - I wasn't ever trying to BE consistent. :biggrin:

Anyway, I am getting bored with this as I am sure you also are.

I will get back to what some may feel I do better at - slamming Scientology! Hip-hip-hooray! :happydance:

If I keep derailing threads like this that Veda likes so much, somebody might eventually begin accusing me of being a "troll".

Fair enough. but you are over thinking consistency just like you were over-thinking understand, just like you were overthinking facts.

All consistency means is that if you tell someone that it is hot today and then they ask you "How hot?" You don't then jump and say "Well temperture is such an arbitrary thing and I have more mportant things to worry about."

When you are inconsistent with your reasoning and statements you can frustrate people.

I notice you consistently use the name Gadfly. So you do obviously hold consistency with some regard.

All I'm saying is that if you were inconsistent with your name, and changed it constantly from conversation to conversation it would frustrate people just as it does when you change your position and statements from post to post.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Last edited:
Top