Rilles

I cringe when I run into my old Actualized forum comments.

"According to science" has become a phrase anyone can write in articles or videos to seem more trustworthy. This presupposes 3 things. 1.That the scientific study presented is accurate. 2.That the video or article hasn't cherry picked their research. 3.That science itself is 100% trustworthy. But how many people actually look up the studies after they read an article or watched a video... Go do a Google and Youtube search for "According to Science" and see how many use that specific phrase, youll be shocked.

Science Through a Religious Framework The Origin Myth Big Bang Primordial Soup Evolution Billions of years Sperm race Holy Places Laboratories, Universities Institutes Outer Space Holy Places are hard to get into, only the for the most intelligent and hardworking. Philosophy One life to live, Hedonism, Success, Progress Metaphysics Materialism/Physicalism Linear Time Objective reality behind the scenes Randomness/chance Death is the end The brain Practices The Scientific Method Salvation The Scientific Progress will save humanity. Holy Men Science educators, professors that are all-knowing - Questioning them is taboo. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan etc. Authority University Degrees, Peer reviews, PhDs Persecution Story Struggle against the church, Galileo, Copernicus, Enlightenment saved Humanity from the Dark Ages. Religion held us back. Scripture Scientific literature, peer reviewed papers, best-selling pop science. Dogmatism Rationalism, mocks pseudo-science or post-rationalism as woo-woo, quackery Creates cult like followings Wont hesitate to censor "pseudoscience." Science is the only truth.

Because most humans are not at the level of development where they see insects and other animals as living conscious creatures, and its not conducive to our survival, if every slaughterhouse closed today humanity would go extinct, we need time. Sad truth, yes.

1.Because I have been taught to. I makes me feel horrible to lay a finger on another person. Plus, I would have to live with guilt and shame for the rest of my life, being outcasted by friends and family. You may say "So its all about your feelings and not mine?" Certainly, but heres the genius strange-loopy design, me feeling bad hurting you also prevents you from feeling bad by me hurting you, so egotism turns around on itself. Basically if I feel good by being peaceful and not hurting you then you will also feel good. Empathy always has to start from my subjective ego. 2.I dont want to want to waste my life going to jail.

Of course. Atheism is supposed to be a secular/rational stepping stone you can use to get into real Spirituality, for example without empiricism its hard to understand what direct experience means. Unfortunetaly some people get stuck in their Atheist phase thinking its the end of the road, there is so much more.

I disagree.

Haha, so true. However, Stoicism itself might have come from Hinduism and Buddhism, The Greco-Roman world had contact with them through their expansion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnosophists

No, youre projecting that I am projecting! Jk. Youre allowed to have an opinion.

Sigh, these Stage Orange rationalist takes are getting predictable...

Low hanging fruit??? The guy is literally giving you cutting edge wisdom that is super hard to find in mainstream society, be grateful, and he is sizing it down to 2 hour videos. If its low hanging thats because youre not implementing it or understanding the depth.

Mythology. You have to realize the culture around Jesus time was Purple/Red maybe a little Blue... Plus, keep in mind the game of telephone that the Bible has been through over 2000 years.

Okay, Im tired of this discussion, lets get back to the main point of this thread, I will keep contemplating this by myself.

Im not dismissing Emerald, shes brilliant, I like some of her videos, Im not attacking the person, only the ideas, and btw Im not saying shes Green, only that this concept seems to me to be a dogma thrown around by people in Stage Green.

All I have seen is woman behaving like people, some more energetic and some more reserved, it doesnt prove anything. I have met men who are reserved and men who are more outgoing. I didnt see or feel any energy, just different personalities. Are we talking about sexual attraction? What am I suppose to look for?

Im arguing that the idea of feminine or masculine energy is more of a construct than something we can actually observe. A buzzword people throw around without contemplating what it really means. Anyone who can somehow prove to me it is real gets a cookie. To me it seems like Stage Green dogma that has been overlooked.

I have met masculine women and feminine women. So that doesnt prove anything. Now youll say "Ah but they mustve had more male energy or not in been in touch with their feminine side" and so we go in a circle.

How? Okay so the energies are not really feminine or masculine... we just call them that? How do they create the female and male roles? Does a passive man have alot of female energy or a lack of masculine energy? Can we measure it? Sorry to sound so overly materialistic/rational but sometimes thats a tool thats useful. As a symbolic construct I can see its usefulness. But thats all I see it as now, a philosophical idea, like seeing the ocean as a deep and mysterious woman or something, lol.

Please provide me with an observable view of the Yin and Yang, that would be the discovery of the century. Im open to it. How do you know you experienced that? Are you sure? 50% 70% 99%? @Cykaaaa Thanks for your reply, guess Im somewhat satisified with that, or just tired of talking about it. whatever works for people I guess.

But why feel the need to divide your personality into two? Why are you "feminine" when you dive into your feelings? Why cant you just own all your sides without making them feminine or masculine? This I dont get. When people say "feel into your feminine" it is almost as if they can accept this part of themselves as just... human... And not based on gender.

When it comes to attraction thats different, I agree that a huge amount of acting is necessary when it comes to dating. Im just saying realize that is what it is, posturing and acting to fit into cultural norms, just like how women will wear more make-up and a short skirt when they go on a date and not at home sitting on the sofa, eating potato chips.

Why do you assume being king of the world is masculine? Once again youre being deliberatly obscure by saying like the other guy "Its just exists". That doesnt cut the mustard. Why not let go of made up distinctions? Heres the real relative truth (lol). You are male. Thats it. Nothing more needed to add. No need to "act" masculine, keyword there is act, acting is inauthentic, just be you, without all the extra baggage, youll be happier and freer.