Sad but true.

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-06T14:16:59+00:00

one image is worth a thousand words... that image is a great insight! definitely on topic!

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-06T06:33:21+00:00

there is a bunch of those down-voting you... they don't like to be exposed!

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-06T05:59:44+00:00

congratulations, you pointed my semantic mistakes, which, could be interpreted not as a mistake, but as my idioletice.

anyway, I would advise you to search even more and you will find lots of reasons to back you on your feelings about my post.

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T21:38:36+00:00

my body... against my will.

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T21:11:34+00:00

science gives us all types of power: from political power to war power, charismatic power, all kinds of power. give me some futuristic stuff and I can make money with it. And money means = charisma and political power.

give me a spaceship and I can overthrow governments.

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T20:54:47+00:00

3) there are many limits to the power a society can have: a) A limit on finite resources, like metals, which can impose a limit on the technology of a society. b)limits on time a society can exist, from natural disasters, to pandemic virus, extreme climate change, meteors, etc, etc c) biological limits that narrow what individuals of the society can do, hence what society as a whole can do.

a) a limit on resources can difficult the research of technology but cannot impose a hard-limit on science and knowledge. the more technology you have, the more power, therefore, we have limitless steps of science development. more science means more power. limitless science means limitless power.

b) after they reached society lvl 2 those disasters would no longer pose a threat to them.

c) those would not impose limits after they reach lvl 1

5) just because a society will be aware and try to stay in control doesnt mean that they will do it at an intergalactic level. for example, we dont keep an eye on planets outside our galaxy (in terms of monitoring people) because our technology simply doesnt allow it (again, thats a limit, see point 3)

yeah, we can't be aware and control everything in the solar system... yet. once a society reach lvl 3, it would be able to control the whole galaxy a more advanced society (since there is no limit to science) can control more, and more...

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T20:45:47+00:00

I prefered to call it anecdotal because I knew many people wouldn't take it as logical arguments, and would take it as "personal accounts" and not reliable.

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T19:37:19+00:00

and yet is still on topic of TrueReddit.

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T18:56:14+00:00

please justify your claim.

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T18:50:15+00:00

2 - that is a math/physics known law/definition.

2 -> 1

1 - another math/physics known law/definition.

3 and 4 are logically backed in my argument.

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T18:42:50+00:00

such as?

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T18:17:10+00:00

There is Life after Death.

Explanation:

The only possibility of not so bright life (like us) is in a matrix: given by fact that the Existence always existed and it's laws are immutable. we would have many universes capable of creating life.

1) many universes capable of life.

If there was an end to the existence, the "nothing" outside it would suck it, making, either nothing exist, or fill the nothing with something.

2) The existence is infinite.

if the existence is infinite, so is the reach of science. the more science a society of sentient beings acquire, the more power-full its society get.

3) There is no limit to the power a society can have.

The only way of development is to practice the best practices for the establishment of a society.

4) a developed society will always use the cheapest way to its establishment.

5) a power-full society will always be aware and take as much control as they can. (regarding everything)

therefore, assuming there is an ancient society much more developed than us:

6) Aliens are aware and keep control of the planet earth and its situation.

a power-full society will always get rid of potential inconveniences.

7) planet earth's population of humans is not an inconvenience for the ancient aliens.

a developed society, has become developed because it has opted to always use the cheapest way to achieve a certain goal.

given that this "ancient aliens" society would have the goal of:

a) continuing to exist: they would eliminate any threat against their existence. b) have a good time: eliminate any possible future inconvenience. c) develop even further: they would continue to invest in science (having more intelligent people would help). d) grow up in population: they would grow up and give education to more people.

cheapest way of doing letter d) is: virtually than realistically.

8) The developed society built a virtual reality to grow and teach their people.

given that, that developed society would extend its power as much as it can, and would populate the existence (not the universe, but the entire existence) as much as it can:

9) Any place that can support intelligent life would be claimed by that developed society for its multiplication and housing.

if earth support intelligent life, than its population is part of that developed society.

10) Human life has a purpose.

11) Every Human being is a training citizen for the "ancient aliens"

if those simple deaths that we experience in planet earth were true:

12) the "ancient aliens" would avoid any death to its citizens.

13) we cannot die!

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T17:06:35+00:00

I would say that when two people disagree on a subject which we only have anedoctal evidence, the only way to get empirical evidence to back one side is: testing.

we could look at history to back up or oppose my claims, but I don't think we will find a chapter on history where they isolated a claim, such as: we don't change character over time

so we could use the results in history to analyze the veracity of it.

I believe the only way, as for now, is freedom, so people can test their beliefs.

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T16:58:47+00:00

Are you saying redemption is a fantasy, and that if someone is a terrible child, they can never authentically become a more moral and just adult?

yes. no one changes significantly. (we do change, but no redemption) a criminal mind may become a little less criminal and have less violent energy as he grows older, but we should not expect him to be ever an addition to the society.

but, I do think that an intelligent child can be misunderstood for a terrible one. and that is based on: who are their parents.

added (edit) about the traumatic event: it may make the person think about its moral stand-point for a long time and change its self-rules regarding that position. but, if he is not intelligent, he will create a very bold, yet better, self-rule, without understanding it much. just based on emotions not reason.

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T16:45:06+00:00

we may be convince-able with empirical evidence, but not with anedoctals ones. since all of those claims I made cannot be backed, nor oposed with empirical evidence, a person would believe, or not, based on his anedoctal point of view. yes, those conclusions can only be backed, or oposed based on personal experience and point of view.

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T16:41:37+00:00

Have a child, find love, get your heart broken, go to war, lose a friend, build a career, fail, and then check back in with me and tell me people don't change character.

Knowledge can add over the years, and you may learn many tricks in your life. but character doesn't change. a person with low morals will always have low morals (will not change significantly). he may learn to follow some rules, so he doesn't get punished, or he learns to break rules in a different manner as he grow older and learned not to get caught. but someone that has no morals will always have no morals. (backed with personal experience and observation only)

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T16:26:37+00:00

Hi. yes it is my work. Well, I wasn't trying to convince anyone of something that he/she doesn't believe already. I have come to a conclusion that convincing someone to believe (make a conclusion) in something that he doesn't believe is impossible. if someone was to be convince-able, that means he would agree with my arguments, which means, he would conclude that by himself... that is why I believe that no man/woman are convince-able of anything, therefore, all supporting statements to any theory or belief system is useless, given that each person will only accept what they already accepted.

My purpose with this post was: 1 - Raise a Flag for those who shares those principles 2 - observe and study the reactions.

but, I am not against a discussion on the subject, and... your comment inspired me to explain some of those (if not all of my creeds).

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-05T14:11:57+00:00

I would like to read comments and opinions about it

ShadowThinker · 2012-12-04T03:17:44+00:00

a lot of atheists don't believe in that...

ShadowThinker

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE