@OpenTheTrollGate He says that since America meddles in everyone's affairs, and as such clearly America consists of the entire world, he should have the right to run for president.
It does not sound insane. It sound he is right. The majority (of idiots) is steared by media lies and dumpness. The Majority of people is ... just take a look of top 10 books... what junk is there... what people are this majority. Intolerant stupid idiots, who life to consume, fuck and watch TV. I give a shit for every motherfu cking last one of them.
There just needs to be a place for the broken beaten and the dammed of the world to go. The majority will always be happy enough with an oppressive system because they generally have a few main things that the others do not. Those things are a good body, a good income and a successful upbringing. The odds are against everyone else who doesn't have at least 1 or more of those. When they have 2 or more they rarely want change because the oppression benefits them.
You sound familiar, like the Spanish Inquisition, or the numerous riots throughout Africa throughout the 20th century or Scandinavia during the time of the Vikings with mindless reckless killing and pillaging - no concern for consequences.
Those so-called "people" (subhumans) who breed and eat animals do not deserve any property rights. They do not deserve to have any of their laws respected. They live by force and the law of the jungle, so they have zero right to complain if they die by the law of the jungle: i.e. if some other person chooses to muscle in and take control of their lives either by enslaving them or killing them or simply pushing them out of the way.
I got enraged that the fucking rightwing Jap government held this man hostage for 2 years.
The USA needs to nuke Japan over and over again, until they get it - violations of freedom of speech will not be tolerated, and torturing innocent people in the hellhole of Unit 731 pre-WWII will be taught as part of history class in all Japanese schools.
@mphello I would take it one step further. I think all of the planet's nuclear powers need to simultaneously unleash their entire nuclear arsenals on everything in a one big ol' mushroom cloud sendoff. Perhaps first spend a decade or so making new nukes and enhancing the existing ones for maximum effect.
Just go to any video about the horror of long-term sensory deprivation of hostages or prisoners or "enemy combatants" (i.e. brave soldiers) or animals in factory farms or laboratories, and you'll agree, too, that the world should be annihilated.
Everybody will stop their politically correct bullshit that "violence/terrorism is always wrong", "violence never solves anything". You'll CRAVE violence if you were in one of those situations.
Koichi Toyama is a japanese anarchist. He stood as a candidate for the election of Tokyo mayer . He made a speech "douse senkyo jya nanimo kawaranain dayo" means "Nothing changes in an election."
Compare to U.S so called "Liberals" they are center-right compare to this guy. The sad truth is in U.S politics there are no such thing as left wing nut anymore, it just just right wing nut and the rest.
News station is not allowed to edit the candidate is actually something we should do here in the U.S. Giving all candidates all equal air time, even the nut.
@RenGader Actually George Carlin won't destroy the world as disappointed as he is with it.
Wotan - you had DAMNED well better be a vegetarian. Unlike a human or non-human fetus, that is a fully sentient being you are MURDERING, just because you refuse to eat veggie burgers. So, unless you are: STFU, because you have NO say in judging morality or the consequences of things.
And every prisoner and poor person is a full human being, yet you conservaturds don't give a shit about taking all their money and property and giving it to the CEOs and banksters.
@WotanKrieger Why so right-wing my friend? Anyhow, yes it is a clump of cell, no need to play the morality card. And even if it was all of those things, it still does not prove insanity.
LMAO! this muthafucka reminds me of one of them amines where the antagonist's only solution for bringing about the "good" is to destroy everything and start anew. Of course in his mind he's doing the good thing
well you could argue that he is a sceptic person and would enjoy a total breakdown o society - and yeah i think there is place for rationalism in that ;)
This Japanese politicin is a rational thinker, too.
George Carlin never offered any solutions for any problems. He just ranted and pointed out the injustices and hypocrisies that everybody else in the world already does, even though he did it more eloquently. But, Carlin never had any ideas on fighting the problems. At least this Japanese politician hero does.
I cannot believe how many TRILLIONS of words are wasted by morons and trying to explain to morons the concept that "does not belief X" != "believes not X".
Ask a pig, an amoeba, a cockroach: do you believe Israel should accept a Palestinian state? Do you believe Goldman Sachs caused the current financial meltdown? I'll bet you'll conclude: "The amoeba does not believe X."
"And its still a BELIEF, no matter if you are conscious of it." - Actually that's contentious. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in so far making it clear you were wrong either way.
"If you BELIEVE your car has no gas, then this provides you with just the right reason to put gas in it." - Correct. I'm glad you've seen the problem with the position you were defending. Unless you've just completely lost the thread and are CAPITALISING words arbitrarily.
As crazy as he comes across, much of his message is right on the money. Elections are a truly a sham and just a dance for the politicians. Nothing ever changes - it's time to bring the house down.
Too bad he's running in Japan. I think that kind of message would go over really well with the GOP base. Plus he's clearly a 'man of conviction'. I could see him coming third in Iowa and taking New Hampshire.
I find this man's policy of "Fuck Everyone and Everything" very refreshing in the modern political scene. For too long SANE politicions have led us in the wrong direction. Perhaps it is time for a change... Vote INSANE to bring real change to the world.
At least this guy would exterminate everyone equally.
That's as fair as he could possibly make it, without some complicated algorithm to decide which minority of people deserve to live and thrive.
In fact, he specifically does NOT say "all" people are bad! He ACKNOWLEDGES the fact that it is ALWAYS ONLY a TINY MINORITY who vote and do good. He proves to be INFINITELY more intelligent and subtle than all regular politicians who speak in meaningless generalities, targeting groups.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Such sinful filth, how can these people call themselves human? we are living in a godless filthy world full of subhuman and moronic ATHEISTS. It is Atheists who cause all the terror in this world. Christians UNITE AND FIGHT against Jewry and FILTHY sinful Atheism.
@98RamMagnum DEFINITELY not. What makes you think that? I am on a mission to spread the word of God. It's not a joke at all and saying it's a joke is a very shameful thing to say. Good day sir.
@daniel32608 Dammit, I know you're a troll, but I'm going to allow myself to get trolled anyways. Religion, all religion, that includes Christianity, is a farce for the wealthy to use your ignorant little mind, into giving them money. I'm not an Atheist because I believe in god, but I'm not religious and think that every religion should be banned.
Scum like daniel are the reason great atheist politicians with high ethics based upon actual observed suffering and injustice - excessive prison sentences for some crimes that were partially justified anyway,
and insufficient or non-existent punishment for ENORMOUS crimes like Wall Street bankers and traders - do not get elected, but evil christians and muslims do.
@98RamMagnum I am NOT a troll. Why do you think i would waste my time on such NONSENSE? I am here to spread the TRUTH! Is that so wrong? i tell it like it is and get called a troll. There is seriously something wrong with this vile and putrid world. Oh i know, it is FULL of filthy Godless SCUM.
@98RamMagnum I think you are right. He's nothing but a troll. Instead of actually addressing comments, he just rants and raves because he KNOWS he can't address what we say.
Its sad when people of a perfect god must lie to support their beliefs in him. SAD!
And it's thing like what you just said about atheists and Jews that make this Japanese politician's policies infinitely more sane and rational than yours, and why he'd get my vote (if I lived in Japan).
@mphello How can you be so IGNORANT? this is clearly the mind of a sick and messed up Godless person who is THREATENING the existence of Japan. I feel very sorry for all the people who are fooled by his nonsense, and like mrnnosfaratu said, he is probably conspiring against Japan. Wake up dear.
What do YOU care? YOU hate Japan, after what they did to Korean and Russian and Chinese prisoners before WWII in Unit731, and what Japan still does today to those poor whales and dolphins. (See "The Cove".)
(note to non-trolls: this is NOT the kind of argument I would make to you, although Japan SHOULD be forced to acknowledge its past war crimes and should be forced to stop torturing whales and dolphins. This argument has been tailored specifically to troll daniel.)
@mphello I do NOT hate Japan. Why would i dwell in the past, and considering i wasn't even here during WW2. I forgive and forget. You sound VERY much like another very deluded and evil little boy im arguing with at the moment. LOL. Are you sure you're not srexob's other account? he has many you know...
@mphello Absolute TRASH and LIES. It is no secret that Atheism is the TRUE cause of evil today. Anyone who disagrees CLEARLY has a problem with seeing the truth. Time to wake up child and see your false beliefs for what they really are: LIES. Lies told by Godless people who have no faith in the one and only TRUE God.
@daniel32608 It is no secret that Atheism is the TRUE cause of evil today."
You DUMB ASS. Actions are based on beliefs, not a lack of beliefs. This means that any action(whether good or bad) cannot come from atheism. The longer it takes you to understand this and the longer you keep lying..............doesn't make your religion look good. You shouldn't have to lie for your religion.
@daniel32608 So it is YOU that is spreading lies and trash. And the fact that you don't know any better is proof that you have no intelligence and are completely stupid.
NOW, try to prove me wrong or run away because you know you cant! let's see what you do! LMAO!
@srexob715 Don't try and pollute me srexob.. it will never work. My mind is too open to the truth, and i will not allow some dumb Atheist to come along and try and change that. I feel very sorry for you, i really do, because it must feel so dirty to believe in such lies. I was really hoping i could change you, but i guess some people are just completely blind to the TRUTH. Stop running away little dirty slob, stop running away from the fact you cannot even ask me the question again.
@daniel32608 Prove that actions are not based on beliefs. If you CANT, then you have no reason to understand that they are..........unless you are extremely stupid.
TRY instead of running away because you CANT fool. LMAO!
@srexob715 Can you see that there is a distinction between believing that something is the case in so far as the content of that belief form a part of your worldview and believing in something in so far as you have an emotional attachment to the content of that belief? Actions are based upon beliefs in the former sense. Atheism (in theory) only fails to be a belief of the latter sense, not the former. Your argument equivocated between these two kinds of 'belief'.
@Faboba And BELIEFS, whether they play an integral part in the formation of your worldview OR whether they are part of your emotional attachments...................CAUSE actions; not a lack of beliefs.
Not believing in something(whether its a worldview or an emotional attachment) doesn't cause actions.
@srexob715 Let me clarify what you are claiming (worth noting, I'm also an atheist); according to you Christopher Hitchens wrote a book arguing in favour of an atheistic world view in no way caused by his belief that atheism is true. Likewise the French Revolutionaries set about guillotining priests in the belief that religion was a fraud perpetrated by the rich and powerful upon the masses but this belief in no way was constituted by a belief that there was not a god. Can you see the problem?
@Faboba And you never answered my statement. Not believing in something doesn't cause actions. You need to prove they(lack of beliefs) DO cause someone to act.
@Faboba guillotining priests in the belief that religion was a fraud"
And this ACTION of guillotining priests was done because of BELIEFS...............not a lack of belief. Big difference! AGain, again, again, BELIEFS cause actions, not a lack of beliefs. Now, you are welcome to prove me wrong by showing me that a lack of beliefs will cause you to act, but I have yet to find an example of ANYONE acting because of what they DONT believe in.
@srexob715 My actions, in so far as they are rational, are caused by the sum total of my propositional attitudes ('caused' used with caveats, I'm with Dennett on propositional attitudes) thus when I step out into the road my action is caused by my belief that there are no cars advancing towards me (as evidenced by the counterfactual that I would not do it if they were, and as evidence that it is a belief; it might be the case that there are but I do so anyway); I don't believe in the cars.
@srexob715 The trouble is that you are equivocating between the fact that an adherence to atheism is not a belief in the sense of being a 'conviction' or a faith based claim ('believing in') and it being a propositional attitude (I hold the claim 'there are no Gods to be true' therefore I am an atheist (and visa versa)) which it is. Actions are informed by (I don't want to say 'caused' a) because of Dennett-like concerns but b) because EVEN IF propositional attitudes were things in the head...
@srexob715 ...things in the head ala Fodor it would still be the case that my actions are the causal upshot of a large number of propositional attitudes and therefore it would be difficult to attribute the cause to one in particular. But the problem with what you're saying isn't with the minutae of how to understand mental causation, it's a much more elementary error of equivocating between two different ways the word 'belief' is uses colloquially.
@srexob715 You and Faboba are getting into some awesome non-trivial analyses of cause and effect.
(Sorry - I've not followed your back-and-forth from the beginning.)
My interest is in how do we logically consistently define cause and effect, that is consistent with quantum mechanics?
Example: 1 subatomic particle X "coming towards" another Y. But, the coulombic forces of repulsion happen instantaneously and at all times. We can set up the differential equations of motion for both particles
@nahaymath .. but these equations do not give us a distinguished particle, X or Y, as the one "causing" the other to move. The equations require initial conditions, but the purely objective way to define CAUSE in this case is that the diff-eqns themselves "caused' the motion of both X and Y. In other words, saying "X caused Y to move, because X had an initial vector more directed to Y than Y's initial vector was to X" is an ARBITARILY chosen definition of cause.
@nahaymath But now, WHATEVER my chosen definitions of "cause and effect" are for subatomic particles that I just discussed HAVE to be SCALED UP LOGICALLY CONSISTENTLY to the macroscopic world.
Now, if X is a moving billiard ball and Y is a (to our macroscopic eyes, only) stationary ball, and X hits Y, we somehow think "X caused Y to move". But quantum rules still operate.
Now, let X be someone's fist, and Y is someone else's face. We use verbs, like, "X punched Y", to indicate
And now it gets even more complex with black boxes called "sentient beings" or "organisms" or in a more restricted case "human beings". Let A have an idea, and A pays B to carry it out, even though B has NO personal interest in A's ideas. And event X is the effect, with a sum total of positive and negative net effects. Who (or what) caused X to happen? A? B? Both A and B?
Whatever definition we choose, it must be consistent for all events.
@nahaymath Conventionally you treat cause and effect as macroscopic phenomena and hope that the relationship between the macroscopic and the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is resolved in some favourable way ;) But in all seriousness, the subjects tend to be dealt with piecemeal, not least because a lot of people are inclined to be Humean regarding causation (broadly speaking) so any minor errors in our causal attribution aren't taken to matter particularly.
@nahaymath To reply to the example more directly; the trouble is that quantum mechanical phenomena appear to be inconsistent with a number of norms of macroscopic metaphysics; now whether you see the problem as being one of ontology, or action-at-a-distance, or time and causation (action-at-a-distance can be explained as backwards causation) isn't the issue so much as whether it's acceptable to have a different set of norms of quantum phenomena and what that means for the macroscopic. The...
@nahaymath ...the original point of Schrodinger's cat thought experiment after all was to point out (what Schrodinger felt were) absurd consequences of the Copenhagen interpretation (an ontological thesis) applied 'up into' the macroscopic world, into which you can read an argument that commonsensically the rules governing quantum phenomena really ought to apply to the macroscopic world too. Personally I'd suggest going with Feynman and assuming we just don't understand it at all.
@Faboba set about guillotining priests in the belief that religion was a fraud"
EXACTLY my point. BELIEFS caused the French to kill priests. Can you find me an example of the French or anyone acting according to what they don't believe in. You can even include yourself in this. Tell me something that you ACTED on, even though you didn't believe it was true????? Prove a lack of beliefs causes you to act.............because I say they CANT!
@srexob715 Okay I thought that part was just obvious when I said you were equivocating. Let me make it more explicit. You are right in so far as propositional attitudes are causes of deliberate actions (the only causes? I would like to think my beliefs are more truth-tracking than that, but no matter) but you are wrong in thinking that atheism is a lack of belief in that sense. Atheism is a lack of belief in the other sense of belief (believing in); it is however a propositional attitude.
@Faboba And for some very strange reason I thought you were going to be able to prove me wrong by providing an example. But oh well, maybe next time.
When you can provide me with an example of someone, or ANYONE, acting according to things they DON"T believe in..................then my statement stands.
@srexob715 Did you miss the example about crossing the road? My action is caused by my belief there are no cars (likewise; my belief there is no god) in so far as did I not have this belief I would not so act, and it is a belief in so far as it might be wrong (there may be cars). I could be conscious of this belief that there are no cars, or unconscious of it, either way my belief that there are no cars, or that I don't believe there are cars, was a necessary cause of my action.
@srexob715 I have reasons to act upon beliefs that things don't exist; I might write a briefing memo saying 'there are no WMD in Iraq, don't invade'. Or to act upon not believing in something; I might say 'don't become a nun, catholicism is a sham'. Or to act in a manner informed by my lack of belief in things; I cross the road informed by my lack of belief in oncoming traffic because I want to get home for supper. But as I said 'belief in' is not 'belief that', atheism is a 'belief that'.
@Faboba And I keep telling you, but it seems as though you are not going to grasp it no matter how rudimentary I get. But I will keep trying as long as it takes.
Now, whether atheism is a "belief in" or a "belief that" doesn't matter................for actions come from BELIEFS and I keep asking you to provide me with an example of actions coming from a LACK OF BELIEF, but you can't find me one. TRY! LOL
@Faboba You keep wanting this to be about "believe in" vs "believe that".................when this is really about "belief" vs. "lack of belief". Big difference!
Things you BELIEVE will and can cause you to act and any action is considered logical, no matter if the BELIEF is logical. Things you DON"T BELIEVE will not cause you to act, since you have no reason/belief to do so.
@srexob715 1) I've given you three counterexamples and an explanation of the underlying problem with your argument, this is growing tedious. 2) "Any action is considered logical, no matter if the BELIEF is logical" - is nonsensical. Do you mean 'rational'? 3) You've said you are indifferent to whether a belief is conscious or not, so I ask you; what then is the distinction between someone who doesn't believe there is a god and one who unconsciously believes there isn't one? (Mut. mut. for cars)
@Faboba 1) Your counter examples are based on "believe in" vs. "believe in" and I explained the difference. So, I am still waiting for an example based on the issues I pointed out.
@srexob715 "Your counter examples are based on 'belief in' vs 'belief that'" - Not so. Go back and read them. Three different ways you might understand 'doesn't belief that P' or 'believes that not P' informing action. Nothing to do with 'belief in' vs 'belief that'. It is your misunderstanding of the propositional content of atheism (claiming it isn't a 'belief that' when it is, self-evidently) which is the underlying cause of your error but the examples did not hinge upon that.
@srexob715 Okay. Let's start from the beginning then. Clarify for me what you mean by a 'belief'. Do you believe I need to be consciously aware that I believe something for it to be a belief? Or can it simply be an implicit part of my worldview? (We'll ignore for then moment the question of what the ontology of a belief is; whether it's a thing in the brain or a kind of behavioural description, but we may come back to that).
@Faboba Again, PROVE me wrong. Prove that a lack of beliefs does not cause you to act. You should be able to come up with something that you don't believe in and then TELL me of the action it caused you to perform.
@srexob715 Okay. These will be my last replies. If you're not willing to be civil and answer preliminary questions put to you, despite the fact I've said that I'm willing to restart the discussion from scratch, I have better things to do.
Suppose that by 'belief' you meant implicit beliefs; which is to say that I might have any number of things I believe, such that there are no cars on the road, nor no teapot going around the sun, nor unicorns and so on without ever having consciously thought..
@srexob715 thought about it. In that case the problem is that your characterisation of Atheism as a 'belief that something doesn't exist' is mistaken; on such an understanding of 'belief' the content of 'Joe believes there is no god' is identical to the content of 'Joe doesn't believe there is a god' therefore the original premise of your argument, that atheism some how does not affect belief, fails.
If on the other hand you insist that one does need to be consciously aware of a propositional attitude for it to be a belief, then there are indeed some atheists who have a propositional attitude that god does not exist which is different from the belief that god doesn't exist in so far as the former is implicit and the latter is not (n.b. this is still only true of some atheists). But in that case you would be wrong in thinking that their behaviour is not...
@srexob715 Their behaviour is affected by the sum of their propositional attitudes and as such they will behave in a different manner from those who hold the opposing view. As in the car example where my behaviour is affected by an implicit propositional attitude I am not consciously aware of (an attitude which, let's safe for the sake of argument, is false - let's say there are cars approaching when I cross).
Let me explain it another way; which view the culture takes to be the default...
@srexob715 It isn't difficult to imaging a culture in which everyone implicitly assumed unicorns existed and named the proposition that they did not 'the belief in the unicornlessness'. These people would then go around talking about who did or did not believe in the unicornlessness and there would no doubt be some srexob715 proxy saying "I lack a belief in the unicornlessness, therefore my actions cannot be affected by my beliefs about unicornlessness because how can you...
@srexob715 can you be affected by something which doesn't exist?" and going about his day engaging in pro-unicorn actions which, to him, seem like the backdrop of a life lived normally. Of course we see his implicit pro-unicorn as being a distinct propositional attitude and his lack of belief in unicornlessness to be equivalent to what we would call a belief in unicorns, so we 'know' full well that his belief in unicorns can and does affect his actions. he actual propositional content of...
@srexob715 content of 'I don't believe in unicorns' and 'I believe in the unicornlessness' is identical therefore it's irrelevant which we describe as being the 'lack of belief' and which the 'belief'. The person saying 'I believe there isn't a God' is expressing the same attitude to the proposition 'there is a God' as the person saying 'I don't believe there is a God'. And as we've seen in the car example that an implicit attitude can be a causal contributor to my actions.
@Faboba because how can you be affected by something which doesn't exist?""
No, I said and still maintain that you are not affected/you don't ACT according to things you don't believe. You can define and twist and rationalize "belief" all you want. But if I am wrong, there should be some example of where you ACTED according to something you don't believe and WHY! Not only should you provide your ACTION, but you must justify it; by reason.
@Faboba If you have no reason, then why perform those specific acts. Why perform the action of filling your gas tank when you believe its already full. You COULD, if you wanted to, but you have no reason, you have no reason to BELIEVE that you need gas; you believe its full.
In other words, tell me an act you performed and let's see if you ACTED because of your beliefs or because you do not believe. LET"S SEE!
@Faboba Any act you want. Brushing your teeth. Betting on college football games. Washing your car. Lifting weights, etc.
Do you perform these acts because of things you believe IN and believe THAT...............or do you perform these acts in accordance to what you DONT believe???????
@srexob715 I don't really want to rehash the car example again, it was clear enough the 1st time. It constitutes the example you were so intently demanding, provided you accept the (I thought obvious) equivalence between prop. attitudes with identical contents (x believes that P, x doesn't believe that not P) which I've now laboriously explained. As I said, this will be my last reply.
I would suggest (can't post the link) reading the entry on 'belief' in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
@Faboba For instance. I don't believe in unicorns. I lack a belief in unicorns and I can't find one action that I have done because of this lack of belief.
TELL me something that you don't believe in and TELL me what or how it causes you to act. If you CANT, then my point stands.
@srexob715 I say: "You've said you are indifferent to whether a belief is conscious or not" to which you say "Nope" when you earlier said "I could be conscious of this belief that there are no cars, or unconscious of it And its still a BELIEF, no matter if you are conscious of it."If you're not going to discuss this honestly I see even less of a point in having the discussion. So what (IYO) is the difference between someone who doesn't believe in God and who passively believes there is no god?
@srexob715 "you CANT come up with where I said this" I was quoting you. Verbatim. "And its still a BELIEF, no matter if you are conscious of it."
"SEE? Here is what I am talking about." - The use of the word 'but' serves to highlight the implicit; the thought which follows is discontinuous with what preceded it.
"Why are you lying? LMAO!" - And that's where I take my leave of you. You're a fool. That you can't see it might be a shame if you weren't to self-satisfied about your own foolishness
@Faboba I could be conscious of this belief that there are no cars, or unconscious of it "
And this doesn't mean I am indifferent, for I clearly claimed it doesn't matter...................because BOTH are beliefs. Big difference, but if you are just going to continue to lie so you don't have to understand and look stupid in public. Have it your way!!! LMAO!
@Faboba Brother, this should be very easy for you to do. TRY one last time.
Think about scenarios in your life or just come up with something that is logical/rational. Tell me something that you dont believe in and why this would cause you to ACT. SOMETHING? Im beginning to think you can't, even though you claim you can. Oh well.
@Faboba But as I said 'belief in' is not 'belief that', atheism is a 'belief that'."
SEE? Here is what I am talking about. You think I am focusing on whether atheism is a "belief in" vs. a "belief that". But that's NOT what I am saying. Go back and read it.
@Faboba Either you believe your car is full of gas or you don't. If you BELIEVE your car is full of gas, you will not ACT by putting more in it. Why would you? If you BELIEVE your car has no gas, then this provides you with just the right reason to put gas in it.
@srexob715 (More trivially; Hitchen's statement 'I am an atheist' is caused by his belief that there is no god. Either this is equivalent to (in your sense) the fact that he doesn't (sorry, DOESN'T) believe there is a god or your understanding of atheism in terms of your belief must be wrong in so far as (unless he's having some sort of epileptic episode) Hitchen's statement that he is an atheist is the causal upshot of his atheism.
@daniel32608 And this is why I can and do call you a dumb ass. The truth is a perception; not reality. Reality can never be the truth, for it can never be falsified. There is nothing truthful about reality.........it is your perception of reality that is either true or false.
So...if you are open to the truth, then which perception of reality are you open to? And which perception of reality is true vs. false?
One day you will get this or maybe not. We will see!
@daniel32608 because it must feel so dirty to believe in such lies."
REally, but yet YOU are the one that maintains FAITH.......which is a belief without any evidence. A complete DUMB ASS! And you wonder why I question your intelligence?
And I am still here chasing you down because you are RUNNING and then lying by pretending you have answered my questions. I am so glad I could expose you in an open PUBLIC forum. So much more fun this way. YOu will RUN SOON!
@srexob715 Typical Atheist slob. YOU just won't admit that you don't want to ask me your question again because either a) you cannot remember what you asked me, or b) you never asked me anything in the first place and you're just trying to fool me into believing you did. So which one is it slob? If you don't admit to any, i'll just assume it's you that's running away. Good day Atheist garbage boy.
@daniel32608 Such atrocious behavior always come from those that believe in a fairy tale. Its a shame, but it always happens when they realize they can't debate an atheist honestly.
@daniel32608 Sadly you never considered the REAL reason I don't want to ask my question again. Since you FAILED to answer it the first time and RAN like a coward..............I got the evidence I need to believe you are scared of answering because of what the answer reveals.
The answer would cause you to have to admit your beliefs are wrong and that's something you CANT do without the FEAR of getting punished. You are controlled in your beliefs!!!
@srexob715 Such an atrocious accusation srexob. I kindly asked you to ask me the question again and you didn't, thus proving you are too scared to admit you never asked me anything and are just trying to cover it up. But keep going! you're doing a great job in proving yourself to me. Next step is to improve you and help you see the truth.
He's not insane.
coxg90 2 days ago
He ran for President of the USA in 08.
* per his YouTube page
RodgerPugh 2 days ago
@RodgerPugh he is not elligible to run as a president, you stupid fuck.
OpenTheTrollGate 2 days ago
@OpenTheTrollGate He says that since America meddles in everyone's affairs, and as such clearly America consists of the entire world, he should have the right to run for president.
Vengrence 2 days ago
@Vengrence Koichi makes sense on that point.
mphello 1 day ago
I'd vote for him
Skraad 3 days ago
SCRAP
AND
SCRAP
ANNIHILATE EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS
maikutx 4 days ago
Premise: Politics that focus on pandering to the majority can have unfortunate side effects.
Conclusion: Burn the nation to the ground.
Ok, your train of thought lost me at some point (just kidding, you had me at annihilate)!
5000Waffles 6 days ago
Toyama Koichi 2012!
mphello 1 week ago
It does not sound insane. It sound he is right. The majority (of idiots) is steared by media lies and dumpness. The Majority of people is ... just take a look of top 10 books... what junk is there... what people are this majority. Intolerant stupid idiots, who life to consume, fuck and watch TV. I give a shit for every motherfu cking last one of them.
Madowstone 1 week ago
@Madowstone
Agreed! With both you and this politician.
You mean you DON'T give a shit about every last one of them.
It is always only a small minority that is ever politically right.
mphello 1 week ago
@mphello yeah me grenhlisch is getting worse latley ;-)
Madowstone 1 week ago
@Madowstone Excellent comment!
mphello 5 days ago
There just needs to be a place for the broken beaten and the dammed of the world to go. The majority will always be happy enough with an oppressive system because they generally have a few main things that the others do not. Those things are a good body, a good income and a successful upbringing. The odds are against everyone else who doesn't have at least 1 or more of those. When they have 2 or more they rarely want change because the oppression benefits them.
Kitt0000 1 week ago
@Kitt0000 FANTASTIC mathematical-based analysis! Keep up the awesome work!
mphello 1 week ago
ANNIHILATE EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS.
AnonNewsman 2 weeks ago 9
ALL HAIL BRITANNIA !
ALL HAIL BRITANNIA !
ALL HAIL BRITANNIA !
vivEnergy 2 weeks ago
ANNIHILATE EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS.
He should start by annihilating that bald head of his with some Rogaine.
Zharen82 3 weeks ago
@Zharen82 BAhahahaah. That was a good call.
AblazeWithin 2 weeks ago
@Besetho
You sound familiar, like the Spanish Inquisition, or the numerous riots throughout Africa throughout the 20th century or Scandinavia during the time of the Vikings with mindless reckless killing and pillaging - no concern for consequences.
mphello 3 weeks ago
@MrKalleJC
Sorry - fucking YT has caused all videos to which one replies to freeze. So, I had to reply here, from a random one.
CO ain't a humane way. Lethal injection is the maximal humane way.
As long as you don't mind paying the exorbitant price that meat would cost if each and every chicken and cow were killed that way, then fine.
mphello 3 weeks ago
Those so-called "people" (subhumans) who breed and eat animals do not deserve any property rights. They do not deserve to have any of their laws respected. They live by force and the law of the jungle, so they have zero right to complain if they die by the law of the jungle: i.e. if some other person chooses to muscle in and take control of their lives either by enslaving them or killing them or simply pushing them out of the way.
mphello 3 weeks ago
@mphello
Y u mad thou?
aguyyaknow 2 weeks ago
I got enraged that the fucking rightwing Jap government held this man hostage for 2 years.
The USA needs to nuke Japan over and over again, until they get it - violations of freedom of speech will not be tolerated, and torturing innocent people in the hellhole of Unit 731 pre-WWII will be taught as part of history class in all Japanese schools.
mphello 3 weeks ago
@mphello I would take it one step further. I think all of the planet's nuclear powers need to simultaneously unleash their entire nuclear arsenals on everything in a one big ol' mushroom cloud sendoff. Perhaps first spend a decade or so making new nukes and enhancing the existing ones for maximum effect.
vycka1234 2 weeks ago
is he flippin everyone off at 5:10?
MickeyMacaroney 3 weeks ago
makes me sad
shiroazumari 4 weeks ago
Bring this man over to the states, we'll fix him up to pass off as an inaugurable figure and his determination will do the rest!
Tenshiiryu 1 month ago
Just go to any video about the horror of long-term sensory deprivation of hostages or prisoners or "enemy combatants" (i.e. brave soldiers) or animals in factory farms or laboratories, and you'll agree, too, that the world should be annihilated.
Everybody will stop their politically correct bullshit that "violence/terrorism is always wrong", "violence never solves anything". You'll CRAVE violence if you were in one of those situations.
mphello 1 month ago
Behold the glorious President of Japan!
ED FOR LIFE
tHeWasTeDYouTh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck anarchists! Communisms where its at!
RasenganXSpirit 1 month ago
Hiroshima and Nagasaki radiations effects ! US atomic bombs in 1945 created monsters
pitounight 1 month ago
Not the most crazy politician out there, but crazy indeed
Cadejosdelascadenas 1 month ago
My vote def!!!
SlavicFront88 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Koichi Toyama is a japanese anarchist. He stood as a candidate for the election of Tokyo mayer . He made a speech "douse senkyo jya nanimo kawaranain dayo" means "Nothing changes in an election."
jprommel 1 month ago
Destroy Japan? Yep, he gets my vote.
soundwave010 1 month ago
And the finger at the end! Haha!
Pitchguest 1 month ago
Ahahahahahahahaha
The way he leans into the microphone at the start!
Pitchguest 1 month ago
He is 100% right and I wish he was prime minister of my country and all the nations of this gay earth
tsohgtlvka 1 month ago 7
"An election is simply a festival for the majority"- indeed
ready2roll 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
"I do not have a single constructive proposal" hahaha
turdmaflurd 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@turdmaflurd rofl yea, why the fuck would he get elected then ? XD
Hey he is an HONEST politician at least :D
cr4yv3n 1 month ago
See, this is an actual left wing lunatic.
Compare to U.S so called "Liberals" they are center-right compare to this guy. The sad truth is in U.S politics there are no such thing as left wing nut anymore, it just just right wing nut and the rest.
News station is not allowed to edit the candidate is actually something we should do here in the U.S. Giving all candidates all equal air time, even the nut.
@RenGader Actually George Carlin won't destroy the world as disappointed as he is with it.
Neosaigo 1 month ago
Well, hes honest.. completely fucking crackers, but honest right?
Klaus1386 1 month ago
Replace minority with crab people. It makes so much more sense.
Blu3W4r10Ck 1 month ago
TOYAMA KOICHI COMMANDS YOU... OBEY ME WORLD!!!
tindirindirintin 1 month ago
Wotan - you had DAMNED well better be a vegetarian. Unlike a human or non-human fetus, that is a fully sentient being you are MURDERING, just because you refuse to eat veggie burgers. So, unless you are: STFU, because you have NO say in judging morality or the consequences of things.
And every prisoner and poor person is a full human being, yet you conservaturds don't give a shit about taking all their money and property and giving it to the CEOs and banksters.
mphello 1 month ago
I never read the intro by the announcer until just now.
Now I'm mad as hell that this guy was imprisoned just for his views.
He's damned right.
mphello 1 month ago
i thought i was watching iron chef
dantonm3h 1 month ago
"I despise each and every one of you". Shame we don't get to see this kind of honesty in the US.
ovician 2 months ago
funny!
12TabulaRasa12 2 months ago
I agred with him up until 1:06 then i got skeptical, and then at 1:22 i just rolled my eyes 'as if Japan can annihilate anything anyways.'
DarPower1 2 months ago
@WotanKrieger Why so right-wing my friend? Anyhow, yes it is a clump of cell, no need to play the morality card. And even if it was all of those things, it still does not prove insanity.
Remember kids; An acorn is not a tree.
ILolAtYourDemise 2 months ago
Hard to believe this isn't his way of trolling.
AltairEgo1 2 months ago
@WotanKrieger Which is somehow bad? Please spare me your bible lecture and give me real justifications on how arbortion constitues insanity.
ILolAtYourDemise 2 months ago
So if he were elected, would he formally be the Governator?
looker999997 2 months ago
i am still having a laughattack :D:D:D:D:D
rushnovodic 2 months ago
Genius.
billscorpse 2 months ago
he has some good points tho
TehRasia 2 months ago
lol everything weird comes from Japan :D
sharamandarata 2 months ago
Meh, he is still more sane than anyone in the GOP.
ILolAtYourDemise 2 months ago
there's one of these guys every year in japan, why is their suddenly one on here now?
Dekker95 2 months ago
LMAO! this muthafucka reminds me of one of them amines where the antagonist's only solution for bringing about the "good" is to destroy everything and start anew. Of course in his mind he's doing the good thing
tatsumakisempyukaku 2 months ago
@tatsumakisempyukaku
= Of course in his mind he's doing the good thing =
Yeah. And so does everybody. So, in no way can you claim that that is a "fault" or "weakness" of this political candidate.
mphello 2 months ago
he got my vote with "Annihilate everything that exists!" XD lol
daraleekmyballz 2 months ago 32
He is right, japan needs to die.
valeforj 2 months ago
This is probably what George Carlin would've been like if he ran for a political position.
RenGader 2 months ago 18
@RenGader Toyama Koichi = Japan's George Carlin
uadfa 2 months ago
@RenGader
George Carlin was a rational thinker, not a batshit crazy motherfucker.
wWHiramWw 1 month ago
@wWHiramWw
well you could argue that he is a sceptic person and would enjoy a total breakdown o society - and yeah i think there is place for rationalism in that ;)
SCX2k 1 month ago
@wWHiramWw
This Japanese politicin is a rational thinker, too.
George Carlin never offered any solutions for any problems. He just ranted and pointed out the injustices and hypocrisies that everybody else in the world already does, even though he did it more eloquently. But, Carlin never had any ideas on fighting the problems. At least this Japanese politician hero does.
mphello 1 month ago
LIKE A BAWS
Lulzmango 2 months ago
But what if the minority gains power and influence, and starts to receive support and new members? they would become the majority.
julianbautista87 2 months ago
I cannot believe how many TRILLIONS of words are wasted by morons and trying to explain to morons the concept that "does not belief X" != "believes not X".
Ask a pig, an amoeba, a cockroach: do you believe Israel should accept a Palestinian state? Do you believe Goldman Sachs caused the current financial meltdown? I'll bet you'll conclude: "The amoeba does not believe X."
Whereas humans can believe X or not X.
mphello 2 months ago
"And its still a BELIEF, no matter if you are conscious of it." - Actually that's contentious. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in so far making it clear you were wrong either way.
"If you BELIEVE your car has no gas, then this provides you with just the right reason to put gas in it." - Correct. I'm glad you've seen the problem with the position you were defending. Unless you've just completely lost the thread and are CAPITALISING words arbitrarily.
Faboba 2 months ago
As crazy as he comes across, much of his message is right on the money. Elections are a truly a sham and just a dance for the politicians. Nothing ever changes - it's time to bring the house down.
ladistar 2 months ago
Too bad he's running in Japan. I think that kind of message would go over really well with the GOP base. Plus he's clearly a 'man of conviction'. I could see him coming third in Iowa and taking New Hampshire.
Faboba 2 months ago
I find this man's policy of "Fuck Everyone and Everything" very refreshing in the modern political scene. For too long SANE politicions have led us in the wrong direction. Perhaps it is time for a change... Vote INSANE to bring real change to the world.
KrazyKommieKiller 2 months ago 2
@KrazyKommieKiller Or abolish the state and there will be freedom for all?
Watchdawg 2 months ago
lol insane video
ulkord 2 months ago
At least this guy would exterminate everyone equally.
That's as fair as he could possibly make it, without some complicated algorithm to decide which minority of people deserve to live and thrive.
In fact, he specifically does NOT say "all" people are bad! He ACKNOWLEDGES the fact that it is ALWAYS ONLY a TINY MINORITY who vote and do good. He proves to be INFINITELY more intelligent and subtle than all regular politicians who speak in meaningless generalities, targeting groups.
mphello 3 months ago
GREATEST POLITICIAN IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!!
mphello 3 months ago
Bring this guy to America! I'm voting for him!
mphello 3 months ago
You got my vote
fuclcjewtube 3 months ago
Insane japs lulz
AlienMagi 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Such sinful filth, how can these people call themselves human? we are living in a godless filthy world full of subhuman and moronic ATHEISTS. It is Atheists who cause all the terror in this world. Christians UNITE AND FIGHT against Jewry and FILTHY sinful Atheism.
daniel32608 3 months ago
@daniel32608 You're joking right? I've been on youtube so much lately, I can't even tell anymore...
98RamMagnum 3 months ago
@98RamMagnum DEFINITELY not. What makes you think that? I am on a mission to spread the word of God. It's not a joke at all and saying it's a joke is a very shameful thing to say. Good day sir.
daniel32608 3 months ago
@daniel32608 Dammit, I know you're a troll, but I'm going to allow myself to get trolled anyways. Religion, all religion, that includes Christianity, is a farce for the wealthy to use your ignorant little mind, into giving them money. I'm not an Atheist because I believe in god, but I'm not religious and think that every religion should be banned.
98RamMagnum 3 months ago
@98RamMagnum Rock on! Keep up the fight!
Scum like daniel are the reason great atheist politicians with high ethics based upon actual observed suffering and injustice - excessive prison sentences for some crimes that were partially justified anyway,
and insufficient or non-existent punishment for ENORMOUS crimes like Wall Street bankers and traders - do not get elected, but evil christians and muslims do.
mphello 3 months ago
@98RamMagnum I am NOT a troll. Why do you think i would waste my time on such NONSENSE? I am here to spread the TRUTH! Is that so wrong? i tell it like it is and get called a troll. There is seriously something wrong with this vile and putrid world. Oh i know, it is FULL of filthy Godless SCUM.
daniel32608 2 months ago
@daniel32608 If you're not a troll, you would realize what you're saying, is going to send you to hell.
98RamMagnum 2 months ago
@98RamMagnum I think you are right. He's nothing but a troll. Instead of actually addressing comments, he just rants and raves because he KNOWS he can't address what we say.
Its sad when people of a perfect god must lie to support their beliefs in him. SAD!
srexob715 2 months ago
@98RamMagnum Telling the TRUTH is not going to send me to hell dear.
daniel32608 2 months ago
@daniel32608
And it's thing like what you just said about atheists and Jews that make this Japanese politician's policies infinitely more sane and rational than yours, and why he'd get my vote (if I lived in Japan).
mphello 3 months ago
@mphello How can you be so IGNORANT? this is clearly the mind of a sick and messed up Godless person who is THREATENING the existence of Japan. I feel very sorry for all the people who are fooled by his nonsense, and like mrnnosfaratu said, he is probably conspiring against Japan. Wake up dear.
daniel32608 3 months ago
@daniel32608
What do YOU care? YOU hate Japan, after what they did to Korean and Russian and Chinese prisoners before WWII in Unit731, and what Japan still does today to those poor whales and dolphins. (See "The Cove".)
(note to non-trolls: this is NOT the kind of argument I would make to you, although Japan SHOULD be forced to acknowledge its past war crimes and should be forced to stop torturing whales and dolphins. This argument has been tailored specifically to troll daniel.)
mphello 3 months ago
@mphello I do NOT hate Japan. Why would i dwell in the past, and considering i wasn't even here during WW2. I forgive and forget. You sound VERY much like another very deluded and evil little boy im arguing with at the moment. LOL. Are you sure you're not srexob's other account? he has many you know...
daniel32608 2 months ago
@daniel32608
Oh, and by the way: FUCK YOU, you mentally deranged shithead. Clearly you don't know cause and effect,
thinking that anyone's atheism CAUSES any atrocities whatsoever.
Know this: from what logical inconsistency, EVERYthing follows. First law of EVERYTHING.
So blowing your head off with a flamethrower would be FUN for you and would cause NO pain.
mphello 3 months ago
@mphello Absolute TRASH and LIES. It is no secret that Atheism is the TRUE cause of evil today. Anyone who disagrees CLEARLY has a problem with seeing the truth. Time to wake up child and see your false beliefs for what they really are: LIES. Lies told by Godless people who have no faith in the one and only TRUE God.
daniel32608 2 months ago
@daniel32608 It is no secret that Atheism is the TRUE cause of evil today."
You DUMB ASS. Actions are based on beliefs, not a lack of beliefs. This means that any action(whether good or bad) cannot come from atheism. The longer it takes you to understand this and the longer you keep lying..............doesn't make your religion look good. You shouldn't have to lie for your religion.
DUMB ASS!
srexob715 2 months ago
@daniel32608 So it is YOU that is spreading lies and trash. And the fact that you don't know any better is proof that you have no intelligence and are completely stupid.
NOW, try to prove me wrong or run away because you know you cant! let's see what you do! LMAO!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Don't try and pollute me srexob.. it will never work. My mind is too open to the truth, and i will not allow some dumb Atheist to come along and try and change that. I feel very sorry for you, i really do, because it must feel so dirty to believe in such lies. I was really hoping i could change you, but i guess some people are just completely blind to the TRUTH. Stop running away little dirty slob, stop running away from the fact you cannot even ask me the question again.
daniel32608 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daniel32608 SEE? You CANT prove me wrong. So keep running until you do! FOOL!
srexob715 2 months ago
@daniel32608 Prove that actions are not based on beliefs. If you CANT, then you have no reason to understand that they are..........unless you are extremely stupid.
TRY instead of running away because you CANT fool. LMAO!
srexob715 2 months ago
@daniel32608 Since actions are based on beliefs, this PROVES that atheism cannot cause any actions.............BELIEFS DO!
Stop being stupid unless you want me to think you are. LMAO!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Can you see that there is a distinction between believing that something is the case in so far as the content of that belief form a part of your worldview and believing in something in so far as you have an emotional attachment to the content of that belief? Actions are based upon beliefs in the former sense. Atheism (in theory) only fails to be a belief of the latter sense, not the former. Your argument equivocated between these two kinds of 'belief'.
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba And BELIEFS, whether they play an integral part in the formation of your worldview OR whether they are part of your emotional attachments...................CAUSE actions; not a lack of beliefs.
Not believing in something(whether its a worldview or an emotional attachment) doesn't cause actions.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Let me clarify what you are claiming (worth noting, I'm also an atheist); according to you Christopher Hitchens wrote a book arguing in favour of an atheistic world view in no way caused by his belief that atheism is true. Likewise the French Revolutionaries set about guillotining priests in the belief that religion was a fraud perpetrated by the rich and powerful upon the masses but this belief in no way was constituted by a belief that there was not a god. Can you see the problem?
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba And you never answered my statement. Not believing in something doesn't cause actions. You need to prove they(lack of beliefs) DO cause someone to act.
TRY!
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba guillotining priests in the belief that religion was a fraud"
And this ACTION of guillotining priests was done because of BELIEFS...............not a lack of belief. Big difference! AGain, again, again, BELIEFS cause actions, not a lack of beliefs. Now, you are welcome to prove me wrong by showing me that a lack of beliefs will cause you to act, but I have yet to find an example of ANYONE acting because of what they DONT believe in.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 My actions, in so far as they are rational, are caused by the sum total of my propositional attitudes ('caused' used with caveats, I'm with Dennett on propositional attitudes) thus when I step out into the road my action is caused by my belief that there are no cars advancing towards me (as evidenced by the counterfactual that I would not do it if they were, and as evidence that it is a belief; it might be the case that there are but I do so anyway); I don't believe in the cars.
Faboba 2 months ago
@srexob715 The trouble is that you are equivocating between the fact that an adherence to atheism is not a belief in the sense of being a 'conviction' or a faith based claim ('believing in') and it being a propositional attitude (I hold the claim 'there are no Gods to be true' therefore I am an atheist (and visa versa)) which it is. Actions are informed by (I don't want to say 'caused' a) because of Dennett-like concerns but b) because EVEN IF propositional attitudes were things in the head...
Faboba 2 months ago
@srexob715 ...things in the head ala Fodor it would still be the case that my actions are the causal upshot of a large number of propositional attitudes and therefore it would be difficult to attribute the cause to one in particular. But the problem with what you're saying isn't with the minutae of how to understand mental causation, it's a much more elementary error of equivocating between two different ways the word 'belief' is uses colloquially.
Faboba 2 months ago
@srexob715 You and Faboba are getting into some awesome non-trivial analyses of cause and effect.
(Sorry - I've not followed your back-and-forth from the beginning.)
My interest is in how do we logically consistently define cause and effect, that is consistent with quantum mechanics?
Example: 1 subatomic particle X "coming towards" another Y. But, the coulombic forces of repulsion happen instantaneously and at all times. We can set up the differential equations of motion for both particles
nahaymath 2 months ago
@nahaymath .. but these equations do not give us a distinguished particle, X or Y, as the one "causing" the other to move. The equations require initial conditions, but the purely objective way to define CAUSE in this case is that the diff-eqns themselves "caused' the motion of both X and Y. In other words, saying "X caused Y to move, because X had an initial vector more directed to Y than Y's initial vector was to X" is an ARBITARILY chosen definition of cause.
nahaymath 2 months ago
@nahaymath But now, WHATEVER my chosen definitions of "cause and effect" are for subatomic particles that I just discussed HAVE to be SCALED UP LOGICALLY CONSISTENTLY to the macroscopic world.
Now, if X is a moving billiard ball and Y is a (to our macroscopic eyes, only) stationary ball, and X hits Y, we somehow think "X caused Y to move". But quantum rules still operate.
Now, let X be someone's fist, and Y is someone else's face. We use verbs, like, "X punched Y", to indicate
nahaymath 2 months ago
@nahaymath "X caused Y to get punched".
And now it gets even more complex with black boxes called "sentient beings" or "organisms" or in a more restricted case "human beings". Let A have an idea, and A pays B to carry it out, even though B has NO personal interest in A's ideas. And event X is the effect, with a sum total of positive and negative net effects. Who (or what) caused X to happen? A? B? Both A and B?
Whatever definition we choose, it must be consistent for all events.
nahaymath 2 months ago
@nahaymath Conventionally you treat cause and effect as macroscopic phenomena and hope that the relationship between the macroscopic and the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is resolved in some favourable way ;) But in all seriousness, the subjects tend to be dealt with piecemeal, not least because a lot of people are inclined to be Humean regarding causation (broadly speaking) so any minor errors in our causal attribution aren't taken to matter particularly.
Faboba 2 months ago
@nahaymath To reply to the example more directly; the trouble is that quantum mechanical phenomena appear to be inconsistent with a number of norms of macroscopic metaphysics; now whether you see the problem as being one of ontology, or action-at-a-distance, or time and causation (action-at-a-distance can be explained as backwards causation) isn't the issue so much as whether it's acceptable to have a different set of norms of quantum phenomena and what that means for the macroscopic. The...
Faboba 2 months ago
@nahaymath ...the original point of Schrodinger's cat thought experiment after all was to point out (what Schrodinger felt were) absurd consequences of the Copenhagen interpretation (an ontological thesis) applied 'up into' the macroscopic world, into which you can read an argument that commonsensically the rules governing quantum phenomena really ought to apply to the macroscopic world too. Personally I'd suggest going with Feynman and assuming we just don't understand it at all.
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba set about guillotining priests in the belief that religion was a fraud"
EXACTLY my point. BELIEFS caused the French to kill priests. Can you find me an example of the French or anyone acting according to what they don't believe in. You can even include yourself in this. Tell me something that you ACTED on, even though you didn't believe it was true????? Prove a lack of beliefs causes you to act.............because I say they CANT!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Okay I thought that part was just obvious when I said you were equivocating. Let me make it more explicit. You are right in so far as propositional attitudes are causes of deliberate actions (the only causes? I would like to think my beliefs are more truth-tracking than that, but no matter) but you are wrong in thinking that atheism is a lack of belief in that sense. Atheism is a lack of belief in the other sense of belief (believing in); it is however a propositional attitude.
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba And for some very strange reason I thought you were going to be able to prove me wrong by providing an example. But oh well, maybe next time.
When you can provide me with an example of someone, or ANYONE, acting according to things they DON"T believe in..................then my statement stands.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Did you miss the example about crossing the road? My action is caused by my belief there are no cars (likewise; my belief there is no god) in so far as did I not have this belief I would not so act, and it is a belief in so far as it might be wrong (there may be cars). I could be conscious of this belief that there are no cars, or unconscious of it, either way my belief that there are no cars, or that I don't believe there are cars, was a necessary cause of my action.
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba my belief that there are no cars, or that I don't believe there are cars"
And you have no reason to ACT on things you dont BELIEVE in.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 I have reasons to act upon beliefs that things don't exist; I might write a briefing memo saying 'there are no WMD in Iraq, don't invade'. Or to act upon not believing in something; I might say 'don't become a nun, catholicism is a sham'. Or to act in a manner informed by my lack of belief in things; I cross the road informed by my lack of belief in oncoming traffic because I want to get home for supper. But as I said 'belief in' is not 'belief that', atheism is a 'belief that'.
Faboba 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Faboba And I keep telling you, but it seems as though you are not going to grasp it no matter how rudimentary I get. But I will keep trying as long as it takes.
Now, whether atheism is a "belief in" or a "belief that" doesn't matter................for actions come from BELIEFS and I keep asking you to provide me with an example of actions coming from a LACK OF BELIEF, but you can't find me one. TRY! LOL
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba You keep wanting this to be about "believe in" vs "believe that".................when this is really about "belief" vs. "lack of belief". Big difference!
Things you BELIEVE will and can cause you to act and any action is considered logical, no matter if the BELIEF is logical. Things you DON"T BELIEVE will not cause you to act, since you have no reason/belief to do so.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 1) I've given you three counterexamples and an explanation of the underlying problem with your argument, this is growing tedious. 2) "Any action is considered logical, no matter if the BELIEF is logical" - is nonsensical. Do you mean 'rational'? 3) You've said you are indifferent to whether a belief is conscious or not, so I ask you; what then is the distinction between someone who doesn't believe there is a god and one who unconsciously believes there isn't one? (Mut. mut. for cars)
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba 1) Your counter examples are based on "believe in" vs. "believe in" and I explained the difference. So, I am still waiting for an example based on the issues I pointed out.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 "Your counter examples are based on 'belief in' vs 'belief that'" - Not so. Go back and read them. Three different ways you might understand 'doesn't belief that P' or 'believes that not P' informing action. Nothing to do with 'belief in' vs 'belief that'. It is your misunderstanding of the propositional content of atheism (claiming it isn't a 'belief that' when it is, self-evidently) which is the underlying cause of your error but the examples did not hinge upon that.
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba Not so. Go back and read them."
That's what you said. Go back and read it.
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba Maybe this is a better idea. Show me how a lack of belief causes you to act. SHOW ME. TELL ME!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Okay. Let's start from the beginning then. Clarify for me what you mean by a 'belief'. Do you believe I need to be consciously aware that I believe something for it to be a belief? Or can it simply be an implicit part of my worldview? (We'll ignore for then moment the question of what the ontology of a belief is; whether it's a thing in the brain or a kind of behavioural description, but we may come back to that).
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba Again, PROVE me wrong. Prove that a lack of beliefs does not cause you to act. You should be able to come up with something that you don't believe in and then TELL me of the action it caused you to perform.
TRY!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Okay. These will be my last replies. If you're not willing to be civil and answer preliminary questions put to you, despite the fact I've said that I'm willing to restart the discussion from scratch, I have better things to do.
Suppose that by 'belief' you meant implicit beliefs; which is to say that I might have any number of things I believe, such that there are no cars on the road, nor no teapot going around the sun, nor unicorns and so on without ever having consciously thought..
Faboba 2 months ago
@srexob715 thought about it. In that case the problem is that your characterisation of Atheism as a 'belief that something doesn't exist' is mistaken; on such an understanding of 'belief' the content of 'Joe believes there is no god' is identical to the content of 'Joe doesn't believe there is a god' therefore the original premise of your argument, that atheism some how does not affect belief, fails.
Faboba 2 months ago
@srexob715
If on the other hand you insist that one does need to be consciously aware of a propositional attitude for it to be a belief, then there are indeed some atheists who have a propositional attitude that god does not exist which is different from the belief that god doesn't exist in so far as the former is implicit and the latter is not (n.b. this is still only true of some atheists). But in that case you would be wrong in thinking that their behaviour is not...
Faboba 2 months ago
@srexob715 Their behaviour is affected by the sum of their propositional attitudes and as such they will behave in a different manner from those who hold the opposing view. As in the car example where my behaviour is affected by an implicit propositional attitude I am not consciously aware of (an attitude which, let's safe for the sake of argument, is false - let's say there are cars approaching when I cross).
Let me explain it another way; which view the culture takes to be the default...
Faboba 2 months ago
@srexob715 It isn't difficult to imaging a culture in which everyone implicitly assumed unicorns existed and named the proposition that they did not 'the belief in the unicornlessness'. These people would then go around talking about who did or did not believe in the unicornlessness and there would no doubt be some srexob715 proxy saying "I lack a belief in the unicornlessness, therefore my actions cannot be affected by my beliefs about unicornlessness because how can you...
Faboba 2 months ago
@srexob715 can you be affected by something which doesn't exist?" and going about his day engaging in pro-unicorn actions which, to him, seem like the backdrop of a life lived normally. Of course we see his implicit pro-unicorn as being a distinct propositional attitude and his lack of belief in unicornlessness to be equivalent to what we would call a belief in unicorns, so we 'know' full well that his belief in unicorns can and does affect his actions. he actual propositional content of...
Faboba 2 months ago
@srexob715 content of 'I don't believe in unicorns' and 'I believe in the unicornlessness' is identical therefore it's irrelevant which we describe as being the 'lack of belief' and which the 'belief'. The person saying 'I believe there isn't a God' is expressing the same attitude to the proposition 'there is a God' as the person saying 'I don't believe there is a God'. And as we've seen in the car example that an implicit attitude can be a causal contributor to my actions.
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba because how can you be affected by something which doesn't exist?""
No, I said and still maintain that you are not affected/you don't ACT according to things you don't believe. You can define and twist and rationalize "belief" all you want. But if I am wrong, there should be some example of where you ACTED according to something you don't believe and WHY! Not only should you provide your ACTION, but you must justify it; by reason.
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba If you have no reason, then why perform those specific acts. Why perform the action of filling your gas tank when you believe its already full. You COULD, if you wanted to, but you have no reason, you have no reason to BELIEVE that you need gas; you believe its full.
In other words, tell me an act you performed and let's see if you ACTED because of your beliefs or because you do not believe. LET"S SEE!
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba Any act you want. Brushing your teeth. Betting on college football games. Washing your car. Lifting weights, etc.
Do you perform these acts because of things you believe IN and believe THAT...............or do you perform these acts in accordance to what you DONT believe???????
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 I don't really want to rehash the car example again, it was clear enough the 1st time. It constitutes the example you were so intently demanding, provided you accept the (I thought obvious) equivalence between prop. attitudes with identical contents (x believes that P, x doesn't believe that not P) which I've now laboriously explained. As I said, this will be my last reply.
I would suggest (can't post the link) reading the entry on 'belief' in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba For instance. I don't believe in unicorns. I lack a belief in unicorns and I can't find one action that I have done because of this lack of belief.
TELL me something that you don't believe in and TELL me what or how it causes you to act. If you CANT, then my point stands.
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba Ooop. Your examples are based on "believe in" vs. "believe that" and I explained the difference to you.
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba 3) You've said you are indifferent to whether a belief is conscious or not"
Nope, so your argument is built on a misunderstanding of what I said. TRY again!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 I say: "You've said you are indifferent to whether a belief is conscious or not" to which you say "Nope" when you earlier said "I could be conscious of this belief that there are no cars, or unconscious of it And its still a BELIEF, no matter if you are conscious of it."If you're not going to discuss this honestly I see even less of a point in having the discussion. So what (IYO) is the difference between someone who doesn't believe in God and who passively believes there is no god?
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba YOU say: "You've said you are indifferent to whether a belief is conscious or not,
And when I say NOPE..........you CANT come up with where I said this. Why are you lying? LMAO!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 "you CANT come up with where I said this" I was quoting you. Verbatim. "And its still a BELIEF, no matter if you are conscious of it."
"SEE? Here is what I am talking about." - The use of the word 'but' serves to highlight the implicit; the thought which follows is discontinuous with what preceded it.
"Why are you lying? LMAO!" - And that's where I take my leave of you. You're a fool. That you can't see it might be a shame if you weren't to self-satisfied about your own foolishness
Faboba 2 months ago
@Faboba Again, PROVE Me wrong. Prove that a lack of beliefs doesn't cause you to act..........or just admit you CANT! LOL
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba Yep, you are very close to RUNNING away. I can feel it! LMAO!
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba I could be conscious of this belief that there are no cars, or unconscious of it "
And this doesn't mean I am indifferent, for I clearly claimed it doesn't matter...................because BOTH are beliefs. Big difference, but if you are just going to continue to lie so you don't have to understand and look stupid in public. Have it your way!!! LMAO!
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba Oic, I see where I am wrong.
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba But I am not wrong for saying that BELIEFS cause you to act.
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba Brother, this should be very easy for you to do. TRY one last time.
Think about scenarios in your life or just come up with something that is logical/rational. Tell me something that you dont believe in and why this would cause you to ACT. SOMETHING? Im beginning to think you can't, even though you claim you can. Oh well.
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba But as I said 'belief in' is not 'belief that', atheism is a 'belief that'."
SEE? Here is what I am talking about. You think I am focusing on whether atheism is a "belief in" vs. a "belief that". But that's NOT what I am saying. Go back and read it.
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba Either you believe your car is full of gas or you don't. If you BELIEVE your car is full of gas, you will not ACT by putting more in it. Why would you? If you BELIEVE your car has no gas, then this provides you with just the right reason to put gas in it.
srexob715 2 months ago
@Faboba I could be conscious of this belief that there are no cars, or unconscious of it"
And its still a BELIEF, no matter if you are conscious of it.
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 (More trivially; Hitchen's statement 'I am an atheist' is caused by his belief that there is no god. Either this is equivalent to (in your sense) the fact that he doesn't (sorry, DOESN'T) believe there is a god or your understanding of atheism in terms of your belief must be wrong in so far as (unless he's having some sort of epileptic episode) Hitchen's statement that he is an atheist is the causal upshot of his atheism.
Faboba 2 months ago
@daniel32608 And this is why I can and do call you a dumb ass. The truth is a perception; not reality. Reality can never be the truth, for it can never be falsified. There is nothing truthful about reality.........it is your perception of reality that is either true or false.
So...if you are open to the truth, then which perception of reality are you open to? And which perception of reality is true vs. false?
One day you will get this or maybe not. We will see!
srexob715 2 months ago
@daniel32608 because it must feel so dirty to believe in such lies."
REally, but yet YOU are the one that maintains FAITH.......which is a belief without any evidence. A complete DUMB ASS! And you wonder why I question your intelligence?
srexob715 2 months ago 2
@daniel32608 Stop running away little dirty slob"
And I am still here chasing you down because you are RUNNING and then lying by pretending you have answered my questions. I am so glad I could expose you in an open PUBLIC forum. So much more fun this way. YOu will RUN SOON!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Typical Atheist slob. YOU just won't admit that you don't want to ask me your question again because either a) you cannot remember what you asked me, or b) you never asked me anything in the first place and you're just trying to fool me into believing you did. So which one is it slob? If you don't admit to any, i'll just assume it's you that's running away. Good day Atheist garbage boy.
daniel32608 2 months ago
@daniel32608 Such atrocious behavior always come from those that believe in a fairy tale. Its a shame, but it always happens when they realize they can't debate an atheist honestly.
srexob715 2 months ago
@daniel32608 Sadly you never considered the REAL reason I don't want to ask my question again. Since you FAILED to answer it the first time and RAN like a coward..............I got the evidence I need to believe you are scared of answering because of what the answer reveals.
The answer would cause you to have to admit your beliefs are wrong and that's something you CANT do without the FEAR of getting punished. You are controlled in your beliefs!!!
srexob715 2 months ago
@srexob715 Such an atrocious accusation srexob. I kindly asked you to ask me the question again and you didn't, thus proving you are too scared to admit you never asked me anything and are just trying to cover it up. But keep going! you're doing a great job in proving yourself to me. Next step is to improve you and help you see the truth.
daniel32608 2 months ago
@daniel32608 SEE? Nothing but atrocious behavior and he's an idiot!
srexob715 2 months ago