NationStates Jolt Archive

Job 1:8 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

See, 'god' brings it up...

Job 1:11 "But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."

See, HaSatan tells god to test Job... he says that if god abused Job, Job would curse him...

Job 1:12 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

And then god orders HaSatan to go and 'test' Job.

Well thats giving him permission to do it isnt it.

Read it whatever way you like. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with scripture.

I do agree with scripture, but your twisting it around to suit your arguement.

How is that me twisting scripture? That's what it says in the book, it's not out of context, or even out of order... have you EVER read the bible?

I seem to recall that when one reaches nirvana they meet the Atman. It's been over 30 years but I recall that Atman is the godhead.

If you have taken the Wiccan beliefs but left behind the dieties you no longer have religion but are philosophically disposed toward the Wiccan matrix. If I discount Christ but hold to the precepts of Christianity I am no longer in a religion but, similarly, have a philosophical disposition that accepts the Judeo-Christian moral matrix.

Atman is not a god. It is simple the part of the universe that exists within each person. Brahman is the part that exists everywhere else. The process of reaching enlightenment, or nirvana, is the the process of realising exactly what the atman inside us is. The idea is that it is a very difficult concept and only someone who is sufficiently clear of mind can understand it.

I would agree with what you say about the philosphy as opposed to religion, but for one thing. It seems to me that it is rather narrow to be saying that one cannot have religion without a diety. The dictionary (Websters 1997) defines religion as "1) a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs. 2) a specific fundamental set of beliefs or practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. ... 5) the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6) something a person believes in and follows devotedly."
I left out 3. and 4. because they just dealt with the state of a particular person or sect being religious

So, from this you can see that religion has a much broader definition than the one that many people use. Each one of those definitions is mutually exclusive. They stand alone. I can call Wicca my religion without the enclusion of any diety just simply because it is something I believe in and follow devotedly.

If their threatening you why not?
Some were seen as a threat to society, and so were in those times dealt with in the only way that was fast, their werent many Jails around then.

Ive read alot of the old testament actually, funny that a Christian should do that.

What if some tribe went out to go massacre the Hebrews, you probably wouldnt worry about that I'd bet.
It was a dog eat world then, the Hebrews were only doing what everyone else was, why should they have to be the exception, they would have got wiped out pretty soon if they had been.



And 'witches' were threatening the Hebrews how, exactly? By the process of having a different philosophy...

And you're doing it again... making stuff up... WHO was massacring the Hebrews? We're talking about Canaan here - where the Canaanites carried out the horrendous and warlike activity of just living there, till the Hebrews came and killed the men and children, and raped the women.

Read your bible again.

Please see Buddhism response above and clarifications below.

"Interspersed throughout the hymns collected in the Rig Veda are references to a single god or single principle which is the source or the totality of all other divinities and phenomenon in the universe. . ." link (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ATMAN.HTM)

What is Zen? (the simple question)
Zen is short for Zen Buddhism. It is sometimes called a religion and sometimes called a philosophy. Choose whichever term you prefer; it simply doesn't matter.

Historically, Zen Buddhism originates in the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama. Around 500 B.C. he was a prince in what is now India. At the age of 29, deeply troubled by the suffering he saw around him, he renounced his privileged life to seek understanding. After 6 years of struggling as an ascetic he finally achieved Enlightenment at age 35. After this he was known as the Buddha (meaning roughly "one who is awake"). In a nutshell, he realized that everything is subject to change and that suffering and discontentment are the result of attachment to circumstances and things which, by their nature, are impermanent. By ridding oneself of these attachments, including attachment to the false notion of self or "I", one can be free of suffering.

The teachings of the Buddha have, to this day, been passed down from teacher to student. Around 475 A.D. one of these teachers, Bodhidharma, traveled from India to China and introduced the teachings of the Buddha there. In China Buddhism mingled with Taoism. The result of this mingling was the Ch'an School of Buddhism. Around 1200 A.D. Ch'an Buddhism spread from China to Japan where it is called (at least in translation) Zen Buddhism. link (http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/faq.html)

The rig veda is Hindu, but since it influenced Siddhartha, I guess it deserves mention.

Zen Buddhism is specifically the Buddhism that developed in Japan after the Chinese invasion. Buddhism existed long before zen developed.

Dear oh me, the New Testament is the main focal point of Christianity, not the Old one.


Nice. Discounted the Old Testament.

So - Christians are New Testament people, and the Jews are Old Testament people.

Of course, when the followers of jesus wanted to claim he was divine, it was Old Testament prophecy they used, wasn't it?

And you said that you believed god created the world.

Terminalia Christianity: Believe the New Testament, and some bits of the Old Testament... if you want to... in fact, you don't really even need to read it...

You know that when Terminalia comes back online, he will quote all arguments spoken against him, contradict himself in trying to prove them wrong, insult the authors and atheist, then complain that people are insulting him. Yet every time he posts it make me smile. like watching a 2d man try to grasp a 3d peice of paper but without the openmindedness to comprehend it. Go ahead, quote me, ill just smile that little bit more.

You know that when Terminalia comes back online, he will quote all arguments spoken against him, contradict himself in trying to prove them wrong, insult the authors and atheist, then complain that people are insulting him. Yet every time he posts it make me smile. like watching a 2d man try to grasp a 3d peice of paper but without the openmindedness to comprehend it. Go ahead, quote me, ill just smile that little bit more.

There are alot of things that will take an eternity to comprehend.

I Corinthians 2:9 but as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him.
10 But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.
12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in words which man?s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words .
14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Err, no offence, but was that directed at me? And was it sarcastic? plus it seems to be numbered in binary then denary.. Did you make it up?

Jesus was too humble to acept that kind of abasement.

And I dont think he liked Bullies either.
Matthew 10:37, 19:29, Luke 9:59-62

This soulds like somthing out of India or Rome or maybe Egypt not Nazareth.
He was dying and unable to move. Ever heard of stretchers?

I dont think this kind of bird was mentioned at all in the new testament.
1 Samuel 26:20, Jeremiah 17:11, Ecclesiasticus 11:30 (the last one is from the Apocrypha, not to be confused with Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament).

More self abasement which Jesus despised.

And again Jesus would not have tolerated fools like this to be around him and praising him in this manner, sorry but the whole things starting to stink.
2 Corinthians 5:10, and much, much, more that I can't be bothered to track down right now.

'Kill' is not a word Jesus would use to get rid of a dangerous creature, 'got rid of' or 'rid thyself of' Id belive maybe.
It is a well-known fact that children's vocabulary becomes more advanced as they grow up. I guess that at this point, Jesus hadn't yet decided to follow the path that he describes in Matthew 13:10-15, Mark 4:11-12, and Luke 8:10 (intentionally complicating his speach so people don't understand and therefore will go to hell).

Harharharharhar, sorry but Im just imagining the snake swelling up and going boom, pure comedy. :)
Harharharharhar, sorry but I'm just imagining Noah cramming all the Earth's animals into one ark, pure comedy. :)

Atman is not a god. It is simple the part of the universe that exists within each person. Brahman is the part that exists everywhere else. The process of reaching enlightenment, or nirvana, is the the process of realising exactly what the atman inside us is. The idea is that it is a very difficult concept and only someone who is sufficiently clear of mind can understand it.

I would agree with what you say about the philosphy as opposed to religion, but for one thing. It seems to me that it is rather narrow to be saying that one cannot have religion without a diety. The dictionary (Websters 1997) defines religion as "1) a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs. 2) a specific fundamental set of beliefs or practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. ... 5) the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6) something a person believes in and follows devotedly."
I left out 3. and 4. because they just dealt with the state of a particular person or sect being religious

So, from this you can see that religion has a much broader definition than the one that many people use. Each one of those definitions is mutually exclusive. They stand alone. I can call Wicca my religion without the enclusion of any diety just simply because it is something I believe in and follow devotedly.

Websters is covering all usages of the word from the literal to the figurative and general usages. For example; to call adherance to a school of thought and practice a religion would then include psychoanaylsis as the religion of Freudianism. Some have in fact done so to highlight their argument, but their usage is figurative.

If you ask the average Manhattanite to point to the east or west they will point directly at the East or Hudson Rivers respectively. Although generally accepted as fact, they would be mistaken.

There are alot of things that will take an eternity to comprehend.

I Corinthians 2:9-16
"That's why we have this Scripture text:

"No one's ever seen or heard anything like this,
Never so much as imagined anything quite like it--
What God has arranged for those who love him.

"But you've seen and heard it because God by his Spirit has brought it all out into the open before you.
"The Spirit, not content to flit around on the surface, dives into the depths of God, and brings out what God planned all along. Who ever knows what you're thinking and planning except you yourself? The same with God --except that he not only knows what he's thinking, but he lets us in on it. God offers a full report on the gifts of life and salvation that he is giving us. We don't have to rely on the world's guesses and opinions. We didn't learn this by reading books or going to school; we learned it from God, who taught us person-to-person through Jesus, and we're passing it on to you in the same firsthand, personal way.
"The unspiritual self, just as it is by nature, can't receive the gifts of God's Spirit. There's no capacity for them. They seem like so much silliness. Spirit can be known only by spirit --God's Spirit and our spirits in open communion. Spiritually alive, we have access to everything God's Spirit is doing, and can't be judged by unspiritual critics. Isaiah's question, "Is there anyone around who knows God's Spirit, anyone who knows what he is doing?" has been answered: Christ knows, and we have Christ's Spirit."

-The Message

You know that when Terminalia comes back online, he will quote all arguments spoken against him, contradict himself in trying to prove them wrong, insult the authors and atheist, then complain that people are insulting him. Yet every time he posts it make me smile. like watching a 2d man try to grasp a 3d peice of paper but without the openmindedness to comprehend it. Go ahead, quote me, ill just smile that little bit more.

Whether or not he does, I'm going to...

Just to make sure it gets repeated.

Love the 2d/3d thing... :)

I know that I probably spelled dieing wrong but you kew what I meant, right?
Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?) :headbang:
Me? I feel its rather neccescary, I don't dwell on it like I used to a year ago, when I went to sleep each day contemplating that I may die the next day.

I don't know what happens, I guess I will find out. It would be nice to have reincarnation/afterlife, but I have no faith or evidence that proves or disproves anything. Basicly, I'm going to sit it out and see what happens. But I'm far from death, no need to think about such things.

[QUOTE=Goed]
[quote][B]Even if the law is unjustified?

What right have you got to say it was unjustified, did you live back then under their conditions, you have got no idea and even less reason to judge.
A rational, thinking human being. I'm going to assume you weren't a large fan of the holocaust. But did you live under germany's conditions? What about Pol Pot. You weren't there. You have got no idea and even less reason to judge.

And yet we do, because we DO have reason to judge. Because we as human beings believe (HOPEFULLY) that other human beings have the right to life.

What would you call it? WHen I see a spade, I call it a spade. When I see murder, I call it murder.

I call it the laws they lived and functioned under, would you, if you could, go back and tell them any differently?
Yes, I would.

Laws stop being laws when they are no longer just.

I could go at length on unjust laws that have thankfully been repealed. Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's right.

I'm pointing out that you have no standing moral highg ground.

And who made you the judge of my moral high ground?
I'm not judging you, I'm judging your religion

Sorry champ, but the Old Testament is part of your holy book, so it's part of your religion.

Dear oh me, the New Testament is the main focal point of Christianity, not the Old one.
Nevertheless, the Old Testament is a part of your holy book-therefore, it is a part of your religion.

It was a joke. Laugh much, eh?

Um dont ever try to be a comedian, you might get a stunned silence instead of the reaction you were looking for.
Actually, most people comment on me having a good sense of humour. You just don't get it :p

That would be against your religion, though.

Oh well better than killing a relation, I'll accept the consequences.
So why do you continue to follow said religion?

This is what I don't understand. Why would you WANT further faith in this religion? As stated above, God had previously asked someone to kill his daughter as a sacrifice. Of course, he did the same shit to Abraham, but at least God told him to stop before the deed was done. You're telling me that you want to increase your faith...how much? To the point where if God asks you to sacrifice your daughter, you'll do it?

I think Ive already explained to you enough I wouldnt kill a relation for anyone.

If God calls me weak for not going through with it then I'll accept the consequences.
Your having a great go at my amount of faith, which is ironic for someone who never had any.
People in glass houses you know..
I have plenty of faith-just not in your religion. Just as I have no faith in Allah. Or Buddah. THe only difference would be, I USED to think I had faith in your religion. Don't you understand? In saying "I'll simply accept the consequences," you're already showing that you don't follow your religion completely. If just because of this, you arn't following christianity-you're following a religion based on christianity.

One majorly big difference: they don't shove it in my face, and try to force me to believe it.

Well I think if anyones shoving anything or pushing an agenda around here its you, burn any Churches lately?
Of course not, don't be silly. I'm mostly pacifistic. I don't go out of my way to attack others. But this is an online debate forum-if you don't like debating, leave.

Oh, and to be completely honest, I have a larger...distaste for christianity, since I was fooled into believing it for some time.


Im sure when you mature a bit more, that you will get over it.

No, as I said before, I have completely turned my back to that religion, and in my belief it is a false one. And how am I not mature? Nice way of attacking me. SHould I whine about how all christians are evil because of it?

Jephthah wasn't a Hebrew, he just went to work for them. The Israelites needed a great general and hired him to lead them in war. Sacrificing the first-born was a common practice among pagans to bring victory in war. His daughter went willingly, because she understood this; she was a pagan. This story is a good example of the slant that people looking at an incident from only one point of view put on a story --the story-teller saw it as if Jephthah didn't expect to sacifice his daughter, and fell to his knees in grief. He saw what he wanted to see.

Judges 10:6 says, "Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD . They served the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines." The reason for this is that people settling in the region (i.e. new Israelites) were expected to simply adopt the religion of the region; some did, some didn't. Jephthah was given special consideration, because he fought so well for Israel in the wars. His sons were born Israelites, and so adopted the religion of the country they resided in, and eventually drove their father away because of his beliefs.

Interesting, did not know that.

However, in both 1st and 2nd Kings, it talks about Josiah killing pagan priests on their shrines, then burning their bones on their alters in order to desecrate it. Fun times.

Me? I feel its rather neccescary, I don't dwell on it like I used to a year ago, when I went to sleep each day contemplating that I may die the next day.

I don't know what happens, I guess I will find out. It would be nice to have reincarnation/afterlife, but I have no faith or evidence that proves or disproves anything. Basicly, I'm going to sit it out and see what happens. But I'm far from death, no need to think about such things.

Like you say - we'll find out soon enough.

Anyone who claims to have the answers must be deluding themselves, because none of us have first-person experience. Obviously.

I agree - reincarnation, afterlife - would be nice. The idea that you'll somehow maintain a consciousness after the final moment is an attractive thought, but, I agree, there is no sound basis for optimism.

I live each day like it's my last. Every time I leave the house, I kiss my wife and girl and tell them I love them. My waking hours (outside of work) are mainly filled with spending 'quality time' and my writing.

None of us is ever further than a heartbeat from death. We just don't know which heartbeat.

I think oblivion is both more desirable and more likely. When I die, I don't want any kind of continued consciousness, I want nothing.

My opinion is that you should try to experience everything that you feel is meaningful now, which, as far as I can see, defeats the purpose of reincarnation or an afterlife anyway.

Me? I feel its rather neccescary, I don't dwell on it like I used to a year ago, when I went to sleep each day contemplating that I may die the next day.
I remember the first time I grasped the idea of death (though not how it was introduced to me). I must have been about 10. I remember being terrified, crying, but not for myself --I was afraid because of the thought that my mother would pass away before I would.

You know... 'cause she was old. ;-)

Well, I've barely read any of the conversation, so I'm just going to post my answer to the original question.

I suppose I could loosely be called an atheist. I don't directly believe in a God, but I don't deny that there could be something after death. There may be a name for it, but I've never bothered to find out. I'm not afraid of dying. I don't *want* to die, especially not any time soon. If I've lived a good life, I won't be afraid to die. I figure if there is an afterlife, I'll find out once I'm dead. If not, I won't really care, because I'll be dead.

I don't see death as a scary thing. It happens to everyone at some point. And just because I don't really believe that for sure there is something after this life doesn't mean I don't care about it. One of the things that bothers me the most about some people is that they seem to think because I don't believe in God that I don't think my actions matter.

Truthfully, it's quite the opposite. I'm not sure there's anything after this life, so I want to make the most of it. I think the only reason for a person to be afraid of death (except if they feel they'll be missing something, especially if they're dying young) is if they regret what they did with their life.

[QUOTE=Goed]A rational, thinking human being. I'm going to assume you weren't a large fan of the holocaust.

No I wasnt a fan, I'll asume the same about you.

But did you live under germany's conditions? What about Pol Pot. You weren't there. You have got no idea and even less reason to judge.

Im not judging them, thats what your doing.

And yet we do, because we DO have reason to judge. Because we as human beings believe (HOPEFULLY) that other human beings have the right to life.

Even if those human beings have broken laws that are essential to the importance of the tribes ability to function properly?

In that case you would be seen by them as an idiot and would be encouraged for his own well being to keep quiet until he knew abit better.

Sorry mate but you would be treated as a fool.


Laws stop being laws when they are no longer just.

Thats right, can you be abit more specific in this regard to the Hebrews, instead of the sweeping generalisations?



I could go at length on unjust laws that have thankfully been repealed. Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's right.

Laws also can be largely subjective to their times and conditions as well, whats right today of which you approve of, may be seen as wrong in a hundred years time, you are not at some apex of social justice




I'm not judging you, I'm judging your religion

But you have said repeatedly I dont measure up to my faith, something you dont even believe in anymore, so sorry but you are judging me.


Nevertheless, the Old Testament is a part of your holy book-therefore, it is a part of your religion.

But its not the essential part, what is it about that you cant comprehend?

Actually, most people comment on me having a good sense of humour. You just don't get it :p

I dont want to either really:

QUOTE= GOED: Once again, you can't take a moral high ground if you lower yourselves to others. "Thou shalt not kill. Unless I tell you to. Oh, and unless you're burning it. That shit smells good. Hey, don't look at me like that, I'm fucking GOD. Back off, bitch."


Gee your funny mate, my ribs are still hurting.

So do you continue to follow said religon?

No incredibly after thirty plus years of following Jesus Christ I've decided instead to become an Atheist like you have, after listening to Atheists and their hatred of Christ for the last five days, it seemed like the logical decision to make.
Do you have any Atheist philospheys on life and its wonderful nilhilism I should embrace?

Out of curiosity, do you intend on telling your own kids theres nothing once your dead, or will you let them come to their own conclusions on that, remembering how much you hated being brainwahed as a child yourself, you wouldnt want to inflict the same conditioning on them would you?

I have plenty of faith-just not in your religion. Just as I have no faith in Allah. Or Buddah. THe only difference would be, I USED to think I had faith in your religion. Don't you understand? In saying "I'll simply accept the consequences," you're already showing that you don't follow your religion completely. If just because of this, you arn't following christianity-you're following a religion based on christianity.

No Im following my faith in Jesus, to the best of my ability, I'll worry about how he judges it not you.

Of course not, don't be silly. I'm mostly pacifistic. I don't go out of my way to attack others. But this is an online debate forum-if you don't like debating, leave.

No Im quite enjoying this discussion actually, if you find it a bit hard to handle perhaps you could leave instead.


No, as I said before, I have completely turned my back to that religion, and in my belief it is a false one.

Well I think its a true one, and you dont seem to have much to offer in replacing it.

And how am I not mature?

Arrogant.

Nice way of attacking me. SHould I whine about how all christians are evil because of it?

I dont care really, you whine all the time anyway.

But did you live under germany's conditions? What about Pol Pot. You weren't there. You have got no idea and even less reason to judge.

And Im not judging them, thats your thing remember?
Then allow me to force the judgement on you-did you approve of their actions?

And yet we do, because we DO have reason to judge. Because we as human beings believe (HOPEFULLY) that other human beings have the right to life.

Even if those human beings have broken laws that are essential to the importance of the tribes ability to function properly?

In that case you would be seen by them as an idiot and would be encouraged for his own well being to keep quiet until he knew abit better.

Sorry mate but you would be treated as a fool.

Yes, I would.
Funny a religious person says this. Do you recall psuedo-communist Russia under Stalin, and the religious persecutions? By your own logic, a good christian would stop being a christian during those times, because those laws were seen as being of the essential to the importance of their ability to function properly.

Laws stop being laws when they are no longer just.

Thats right, can you be abit more specific in this regard to the Hebrews, instead of the sweeping generalisations?
You mean aside from mass murder of epic poportions?

Well, lets talk about rape then.

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

That's right, if you don't yell load enough or if nobody comes to help you, you don't just get raped-you get stoned to death, too!

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

This is absolutly disgusting. If a woman is raped...she's forced to marry her rapist?! Oh, but it's ok-after all, the father gets fifty pieces of silver.

"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

This should speak for itself.


Satisfied?

I could go at length on unjust laws that have thankfully been repealed. Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's right.

Laws are can be largely subjective to their times as well, whats right today of which you approve of may be seen as wrong in a hundred years time, you are not at some apex of social justice
In Russia, religion was illegal. According to you, the right thing to do would be to give up your religion.

Oh, and I never once pretended that I was at some apex of social justice. After all, gay marrige is still unallowed, for example. That strikes me as unjust.


Nevertheless, the Old Testament is a part of your holy book-therefore, it is a part of your religion.

But its not the essential part, what is it about that you cant comprehend?
I don't think you understand. It's like this statement:

George Bush is a Republican. Kerry is a Democrat. The easter bunny is real. This statement is either completely true or false.

Well? Choose. You can't pick and choose which parts of the bilbe to follow, and which not-it's all or nothing.

QUOTE= GOED: Once again, you can't take a moral high ground if you lower yourselves to others. "Thou shalt not kill. Unless I tell you to. Oh, and unless you're burning it. That shit smells good. Hey, don't look at me like that, I'm fucking GOD. Back off, bitch."
So why do you continue to follow said religion?

Gee your just so funny, my ribs are still recovering, do you tour?[/quote]
It's known as "overexageration." One stretches something to obviously false poportions. By the way, was there some kind of subtle point in there that I missed?

I have plenty of faith-just not in your religion. Just as I have no faith in Allah. Or Buddah. THe only difference would be, I USED to think I had faith in your religion. Don't you understand? In saying "I'll simply accept the consequences," you're already showing that you don't follow your religion completely. If just because of this, you arn't following christianity-you're following a religion based on christianity.

No Im following my faith in Jesus, to the best of my ability, I'll worry about how he judges it not you.
But, as we saw above, you're willing to negate parts of the holy book. In doing such, you negate your own christianity. It's all or nothing.

Of course not, don't be silly. I'm mostly pacifistic. I don't go out of my way to attack others. But this is an online debate forum-if you don't like debating, leave.

No Im quite enjoying this discussion actually, if you find it abit hard to handle you could leave instead.
I wouldn't dream of it. You kidding? This is fun.

No, as I said before, I have completely turned my back to that religion, and in my belief it is a false one.

Well I think its a true one, and you dont seem to have much to offer to replace it.
I follow my own spirituality, borrowing slightly out of some various faiths. At heart, I am a deist.

And how am I not mature?

Arrogant.
Granted ;)

Nice way of attacking me. SHould I whine about how all christians are evil because of it?

I dont care really, all you ever do is whine.

Once again, I love you attacks on me in the end. And you say I'm immature?

added from edits:

So do you continue to follow said religon?

No incredibly after thirty plus years of following Jesus Christ I've decided instead to become an Atheist like you have, after listening to Atheists and their hatred of Christ for the last five days, it seemed like the logical decision to make.
Do you have any Atheist philospheys on life and its wonderful nilhilism I should embrace?

Out of curiosity, do you intend on telling your own kids theres nothing once your dead, or will you let them come to their own conclusions on that, remembering how much you hated being brainwahed as a child yourself, you wouldnt want to inflict the same conditioning on them would you?

Actually, I'm not an athiest.

Score for you: 0

I'm a deist.

www.deism.com

Enjoy.

Oh, and as for my children? As another poster (I forget whom) stated in another thread, the wisest decision would be to allow my child to choose on their own which religion/beliefs they wish to have.

I'm not judging you, I'm judging your religion

But you have said repeatedly I dont measure up to my faith, something you dont even believe in anymore, so sorry but you are judging me.
I'm trying to show you that you could not, in full conciousness, adhere to everything your religion wants. And, in doing so, to show you what nature the religion really is.

In short, yes, it is an attack on your religion.

I want to do it before I get too old and decrepit, preferably with an erection and high on some illicit drug.

[QUOTE=Goed]Then allow me to force the judgement on you-did you approve of their actions?

The Hebrews yes, it was survival, there was no right or wrong in those days, just winners and loosers.

Funny a religious person says this. Do you recall psuedo-communist Russia under Stalin, and the religious persecutions? By your own logic, a good christian would stop being a christian during those times, because those laws were seen as being of the essential to the importance of their ability to function properly.

Actually Christianity usually thrives under persecution, and emerges stronger, something you should bear in mind.

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

That's right, if you don't yell load enough or if nobody comes to help you, you don't just get raped-you get stoned to death, too!

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

This is absolutly disgusting. If a woman is raped...she's forced to marry her rapist?! Oh, but it's ok-after all, the father gets fifty pieces of silver.

Not pretty I admit, but those were the laws probably to stop rape and lewd behaviour, would you be game enough to tell them they were wrong if you could?

"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."



Satisfied?

Yes.

They were tough times.


In Russia, religion was illegal. According to you, the right thing to do would be to give up your religion.

I would practice in secret until a rebellion happened.

Oh, and I never once pretended that I was at some apex of social justice. After all, gay marrige is still unallowed, for example. That strikes me as unjust.

Well you seem pretty judgemental of people in previous times.
Gay marriage... that was practiced in Sodom and Gormorrah wasnt it? :p



George Bush is a Republican. Kerry is a Democrat. The easter bunny is real. This statement is either completely true or false.

The first parts are true and the last bit is false, not that Id tell a kid that, so its not completely true or false is it.

Well? Choose. You can't pick and choose which parts of the bilbe to follow, and which not-it's all or nothing.

Sorry but this is a terrible annalogy, and as I've already proved it doesnt even work.

It's known as "overexageration." One stretches something to obviously false poportions. By the way, was there some kind of subtle point in there that I missed?

Yes, I didnt find you that funny, sorry, dont worry Im sure your all mates will laugh.

But, as we saw above, you're willing to negate parts of the holy book. In doing such, you negate your own christianity. It's all or nothing.

Christianity is a lifetime experience, what I negate today I may accept in the future and vicerverca, anyway as long as I keep excepting Jesus as my Saviour and follow his commandments I should be right.

I wouldn't dream of it. You kidding? This is fun.

Good, me too.

I follow my own spirituality, borrowing slightly out of some various faiths. At heart, I am a deist.

Right, so you can pick and disregard what you like from different religons, but I cant do the same with the bible, seems to be a little hypocrisy building up here.

Granted ;)

That you take that as a compliment proves to me that Christianity is right, which teaches pride in ones self goes directly before a fall.



Once again, I love you attacks on me in the end. And you say I'm immature?

I think your being overdramatic now, which also is a sign of a lack of maturity.



Actually, I'm not an athiest.

Score for you: 0

I'm a deist.

www.deism.com

Enjoy.

Oh so now your a Deist.

Oh, and as for my children? As another poster (I forget whom) stated in another thread, the wisest decision would be to allow my child to choose on their own which religion/beliefs they wish to have.

Well lets hope for yours and their sake that they dont take up Satanism, or even worse for you probably,born again Christians and lecture you in your own house every night.

I'm trying to show you that you could not, in full conciousness, adhere to everything your religion wants. And, in doing so, to show you what nature the religion really is.

Like I already said human sacrifice was a big part of the Ancient world among all religons, as was slavery and the acceptance of taking many wives.
I dont think Jesus expects me to follow these practices today.

The nature of my faith is one of love and compassion.


In short, yes, it is an attack on your religion.

Do you have the same anger towards Islam, they still follow a lot of the practices in the Old Testament, maybe you dont have the stomach to follow your convictions to tell them directly of issues like the wrongness of stoning a woman to death under their Sharia laws, like you do so bravely with us Christians.

I want to do it before I get too old and decrepit, preferably with an erection and high on some illicit drug.
How sad.

I'm definitely classed as atheist. I'm not religious partly because I can't believe that any deity would let a world he created turn as bad as this one, and partly because the majority of religions, Christianity most of all, read far too deeply into their holy books. I'm fairly sure the world wasn't LITERALLY created in six days. Besides, most wars are started through religion.

With regards to dying; if I was religious and had to deal with what I wrote above, I think it would drive me mad. Heaven, I have no doubt, would be as bigoted, hypocritical and sometimes fanatical as down here. I think when one dies, the lights just go out. Thats it, like going to sleep without dreams.

[QUOTE=Hakartopia]I'll bet.

Ohhh..
there there.

Actually, I don't care about the insult itself, more about the fact that almost every page in this thread has you complaining about being insulted or telling people you're no longer talking to them because they were rude.

Thats a huge over exaggeration and you know it.

Can you put up the quotes on here of all the people I told I would'nt talk to again?
If you cant then you've made yourself out to be an ass.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]You really don't read other peoples posts do you...?

Yes I do actually.

I said most people were illiterate, and asked why you thought fishermen would be capable of writing a book - but a woman wouldn't.

Well for a start I dont think women were encouraged to write that much.

I didn't say the fishermen were illiterate. But, they probably were, now that you mention it.

Your assuming they were, and were the disciples who wrote the Gospels fishermen to begin with?

And what have you got against women? Feminist rant? Everyone else was doing it, why shouldn't we...?

There we go, right on cue, I could write your responses I think, I dont like feminism which I admit is true, therefore I must have something against women, which is I'm sorry to dissapoint you false.
I like women generally, the ones I dont like are the sexist pigs who feel it neccessary to attack men all the time, and Im not Robinson Crusoe in that one.

Was everyone else doing what?
Writing?
Sorry but everyone wasnt, and you admitted yourself that the fishermen were illiterate, even though thats just an assumption.

Interesting, did not know that.

However, in both 1st and 2nd Kings, it talks about Josiah killing pagan priests on their shrines, then burning their bones on their alters in order to desecrate it. Fun times.
Funny, too, how desecration in one culture is consecration in another.

Even if those human beings have broken laws that are essential to the importance of the tribes ability to function properly?


It is the height of arrogance to automatically assume that the rules for your society are entirely right, and those for others must be totally wrong.

The laws of the Hebrews SHOULD have been tempered to allow for the other people they encountered (and in some cases, they were).

'Witchcraft' is not a threat to Hebrews, and yet they were unwilling to tolerate it, even in people that WERE NOT IN their community.

You are beginning to sound like some of the people around here (where I live) that argue we should "Bomb all the Towel-Heads" because they follow a different god.


In that case you would be seen by them as an idiot and would be encouraged for his own well being to keep quiet until he knew abit better.


Sometimes, the people perceived as fools are actually wise.



But its not the essential part, what is it about that you cant comprehend?


So the Old Testament is not essential? So why bring up the Ten Commandments? And HOW do you KNOW Jesus was 'Christ'?


No incredibly after thirty plus years of following Jesus Christ I've decided instead to become an Atheist like you have, after listening to Atheists and their hatred of Christ for the last five days, it seemed like the logical decision to make.


Yes. It would be logical. Maybe there is hope for you yet.



Do you have any Atheist philospheys on life and its wonderful nilhilism I should embrace?


Atheism isn't a religion. There is no church of atheism where atheist go to get it preached to them...


Out of curiosity, do you intend on telling your own kids theres nothing once your dead, or will you let them come to their own conclusions on that, remembering how much you hated being brainwahed as a child yourself, you wouldnt want to inflict the same conditioning on them would you?



I told my little girl that I believe there is nothing after death. I also told her that Christians believe in Heaven, and read her the description of Heaven from Revelations and told her about it. I also told her about the concepts of reincarnation, Gaia principles, and the ideas of post-life from a variety of modern religions, and even threw in the beliefs of Ancient Egypt, just for variety.

I respect her intelligence enough to let her make up her own mind.

But then, I consider the 'training up' of children to be a form of abuse.

I know that I probably spelled dieing wrong but you kew what I meant, right?
Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?) :headbang:

I'm all kinds of new, and I'm not about to go through 36 pages, so I'll bring this topic back to the beginning.

First off, it's spelled dying.

Second, Atheists think that death will be about the same as before we were born. That is to say that our conscience will no longer exist (since human consciousness depends completely on our brains) so we'll have no knowledge of it.

Like anyone, I think we hope not to die early or painfully of course. Most people are probably afraid most of the process of dying rather than what happens afterward.

Now, for all the people who think that Atheism is a religion. The very definition of religion is: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Furthermore, the definition of theism is: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. Adding the prefix "a" means "without". So as you can see, just by definition, atheism means without the belief in any god or gods, and without a belief in (or reverance for) any god or gods you cannot be following a religion. Thus, atheism is not a religion.

But let's be pragmatic shall we? The one and only reason that the religious feel the need to label atheists as religious is so the religious can attempt to either put atheism in a context for which the religious can understand, or the religious can attempt to "lower the floor" and claim that atheism (and the atheists who claim that religion is bad) is no better than their particular religion.

Someone else said (a long time ago -- forgive me, I'm new) that atheists believe in the non-existence of things and go around trying to prove that things don't exist. First, everyone needs to understand how ridiculous that statement is. For one thing, anyone who takes the time to understand anything about the world, knows that you cannot prove anything with 100% certainty (unless you're proving a theorem in the wholly imaginary realm of mathematics). Furthermore, you absolutely cannot prove a negative without knowing absolutely everything. That is to say that no atheist can ever claim to know for 100% certainty that no God exists just as no one can know for 100% certainty that invisible fairies do not exist. Why one person feels free to believe the former with such fervency and scoff at the latter is really beyond us.

There is one quote that I like particularly well. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Steven F. Roberts.

Well for a start I dont think women were encouraged to write that much.

I don't think fishermen were encouraged to write that much either.

Your assuming they were, and were the disciples who wrote the Gospels fishermen to begin with?

I don't believe the men you refer to as 'disciples' even wrote the books, so it becomes somewhat irrelevent.

There we go, right on cue, I could write your responses I think, I dont like feminism which I admit is true, therefore I must have something against women, which is I'm sorry to dissapoint you false.
I like women generally, the ones I dont like are the sexist pigs who feel it neccessary to attack men all the time, and Im not Robinson Crusoe in that one.

You probably couldn't write my responses - since mine usually have good grammar and syntax.

You act like a 'sexist pig' yourself, in your dismissal of women, but I guess it's okay if guys do it?

You don't seem to be able to handle the concept of strong, independant women - and I guess that isn't all your fault. Maybe it was a poor role model for father-figure, or maybe you have had this opinion rammed into you by your church. That doesn't mean I understand it, just that I can understand where it comes from. And just because I understand, doesn't make it right.

Was everyone else doing what?
Writing?


It's a reference to your justification for biblical mistreatment of women. You imply that the Hebrews and early christians are okay to treat women like possessions, because 'everyone else was doing it'.

You have successfully established christianity as the 'teenager' of religion.

I'm all kinds of new, and I'm not about to go through 36 pages, so I'll bring this topic back to the beginning.

First off, it's spelled dying.

Second, Atheists think that death will be about the same as before we were born. That is to say that our conscience will no longer exist (since human consciousness depends completely on our brains) so we'll have no knowledge of it.

Like anyone, I think we hope not to die early or painfully of course. Most people are probably afraid most of the process of dying rather than what happens afterward.

Now, for all the people who think that Atheism is a religion. The very definition of religion is: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Furthermore, the definition of theism is: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. Adding the prefix "a" means "without". So as you can see, just by definition, atheism means without the belief in any god or gods, and without a belief in (or reverance for) any god or gods you cannot be following a religion. Thus, atheism is not a religion.

But let's be pragmatic shall we? The one and only reason that the religious feel the need to label atheists as religious is so the religious can attempt to either put atheism in a context for which the religious can understand, or the religious can attempt to "lower the floor" and claim that atheism (and the atheists who claim that religion is bad) is no better than their particular religion.

Someone else said (a long time ago -- forgive me, I'm new) that atheists believe in the non-existence of things and go around trying to prove that things don't exist. First, everyone needs to understand how ridiculous that statement is. For one thing, anyone who takes the time to understand anything about the world, knows that you cannot prove anything with 100% certainty (unless you're proving a theorem in the wholly imaginary realm of mathematics). Furthermore, you absolutely cannot prove a negative without knowing absolutely everything. That is to say that no atheist can ever claim to know for 100% certainty that no God exists just as no one can know for 100% certainty that invisible fairies do not exist. Why one person feels free to believe the former with such fervency and scoff at the latter is really beyond us.

There is one quote that I like particularly well. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Steven F. Roberts.

Well Said.

I totally agree with you on the 'lowering the floor' thing. They try to undermine the scientific or logical base of atheism, by trying to imply that it is just another 'taught' concept, just another 'leap of faith'.

Those who fervently oppose the idea of gods are of the school of 'strong atheism', in that they strongly oppose religion. The other, more tolerant atheist are 'weak atheists' (a term which I find inappropriate) in that they are not ardent in any religious belief, pro- or anti- god.

Well Said.

I totally agree with you on the 'lowering the floor' thing. They try to undermine the scientific or logical base of atheism, by trying to imply that it is just another 'taught' concept, just another 'leap of faith'.

Those who fervently oppose the idea of gods are of the school of 'strong atheism', in that they strongly oppose religion. The other, more tolerant atheist are 'weak atheists' (a term which I find inappropriate) in that they are not ardent in any religious belief, pro- or anti- god.

I choose to say that we're all agnostic in that we simply cannot know for certain. It is the side on which we fall that determines what we call ourselves. I am atheistically agnostic. Others are theistically agnostic. Those two choices are the only reasonable choices, claiming absolute knowledge one way or the other (what you would call hard atheist or, I suppose, hard theist which is typically called a fundie) is inherantly unreasonable.

I choose to say that we're all agnostic in that we simply cannot know for certain. It is the side on which we fall that determines what we call ourselves. I am atheistically agnostic. Others are theistically agnostic. Those two choices are the only reasonable choices, claiming absolute knowledge one way or the other (what you would call hard atheist or, I suppose, hard theist which is typically called a fundie) is inherantly unreasonable.

Most atheists I have ever known, or even encountered, have openly admitted that they would quite happily change their viewpoint if there were sufficient reason.

You know, someone finds the video footage of jesus rising after the crucifixion, that kind of thing.

I'm all kinds of new, and I'm not about to go through 36 pages, so I'll bring this topic back to the beginning.

First off, it's spelled dying.

Second, Atheists think that death will be about the same as before we were born. That is to say that our conscience will no longer exist (since human consciousness depends completely on our brains) so we'll have no knowledge of it.

Like anyone, I think we hope not to die early or painfully of course. Most people are probably afraid most of the process of dying rather than what happens afterward.

Now, for all the people who think that Atheism is a religion. The very definition of religion is: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Furthermore, the definition of theism is: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. Adding the prefix "a" means "without". So as you can see, just by definition, atheism means without the belief in any god or gods, and without a belief in (or reverance for) any god or gods you cannot be following a religion. Thus, atheism is not a religion.

But let's be pragmatic shall we? The one and only reason that the religious feel the need to label atheists as religious is so the religious can attempt to either put atheism in a context for which the religious can understand, or the religious can attempt to "lower the floor" and claim that atheism (and the atheists who claim that religion is bad) is no better than their particular religion.

Someone else said (a long time ago -- forgive me, I'm new) that atheists believe in the non-existence of things and go around trying to prove that things don't exist. First, everyone needs to understand how ridiculous that statement is. For one thing, anyone who takes the time to understand anything about the world, knows that you cannot prove anything with 100% certainty (unless you're proving a theorem in the wholly imaginary realm of mathematics). Furthermore, you absolutely cannot prove a negative without knowing absolutely everything. That is to say that no atheist can ever claim to know for 100% certainty that no God exists just as no one can know for 100% certainty that invisible fairies do not exist. Why one person feels free to believe the former with such fervency and scoff at the latter is really beyond us.

There is one quote that I like particularly well. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Steven F. Roberts.

Your definition of religion fails is you remove the word "supernatural", as I would, because I don't see "god" as super-to-nature.

Also, "theist" does not necessarily imply that "god" is "creator or ruler".

It implies only a belief in god or gods.

The foundation of religion is belief in "something".

The atheist merely believes that there is no god or gods.

The atheist has a belief.

The atheist has a religion, as he believes in that "something".

It is all pure semantics, because belief is pure semantics.

The thing that truly transcends the semantics, is the "feeling" of true belief, as it is extra-verbal and experiential.

If the atheist TRULY BELIEVES his beliefs, he has that feeling, and he feels his religion.

It doesn't really matter what I think of death. It'll happen, sooner and later. My best bet is to deal with it as truthfully as I can, without distorting it so it's less painful. It'd be better to live my life knowing the awful truth rather than a pleasant lie, in my opinion. I'm not sure I could pretend God exists and there is an afterlife just to fulfil Pascals wager, and if there was a God, I think he/she/it would prefer me to live happily and truthfully as I see fit rather than lying to myself (and, presumably, him) just so I could get into the kingdom of heaven.

In my opinion, death is an integral part of enjoying life. I couldn't enjoy everything I enjoy if I thought I'd have it forever. The fact that life is short leads me to take so much joy in Paradise on earth. The knowledge that I won't be able to enjoy it forever means I take advantage of it while I can. I recognise everything must die, or nothing new could be created. All I have after death is my lifes work (be it works of art, literature, the home I make or the children I raise) and a hope that in the future things might be a bit better for other people. And the fact that one day my body will make up the body of somebody else, hopefully someone great.

[QUOTE=Goed]Then allow me to force the judgement on you-did you approve of their actions?

The Hebrews yes, it was survival, there was no right or wrong in those days, just winners and loosers.[.quote]
Incorrect. The same could be said of today. "It's survival." There is right and wrong, always.

And you never answered my question. Did you approve of the actions of those like Hitler and Pol Pot?

[quote]Funny a religious person says this. Do you recall psuedo-communist Russia under Stalin, and the religious persecutions? By your own logic, a good christian would stop being a christian during those times, because those laws were seen as being of the essential to the importance of their ability to function properly.

Actually Christianity usually thrives under persecution, and emerges stronger, something you should bear in mind.
You didn't answer my statement. According to your logic, it would be your duty to stop practicing christianity. After all, to you, the laws are always right. Is this true or false?

"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

That's right, if you don't yell load enough or if nobody comes to help you, you don't just get raped-you get stoned to death, too!

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

This is absolutly disgusting. If a woman is raped...she's forced to marry her rapist?! Oh, but it's ok-after all, the father gets fifty pieces of silver.

Not pretty I admit, but those were the laws probably to stop rape and lewd behaviour, would you be game enough to tell them they were wrong if you could?
Of COURSE I would. If a person stole, the punishment USED to be DEATH way back when. Are you saying that was completely justified and that there was nothing wrong with it? Once again, you fail to understand that laws arn't just by default.

Furthermore, the fact that you defend this sickens me. You married? Poor girl.

"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."



Satisfied?

Yes.

They were tough times.
If I was poor, and I robbed a house, while shooting and killing the owner of said house, then proceeded to rape his wife and child-would I be justified? According to you I would. Do you even comprehend the things you're saying?

In Russia, religion was illegal. According to you, the right thing to do would be to give up your religion.

I would practice in secret until a rebellion happened.
And that, right there, would be a "flip flop." You stated earlier that laws are just automatically-and therefore, regardless of what the law is, it is your duty to follow it.

Oh, and I never once pretended that I was at some apex of social justice. After all, gay marrige is still unallowed, for example. That strikes me as unjust.

Well you seem pretty judgemental of people in previous times.
Gay marriage... that was practiced in Sodom and Gormorrah wasnt it? :p
Incorrect. Your knowledge of your own holy book astounds me. Show me where it says "God struck them down for being gay." Good luck. I'll give you a hint-you won't, it doesn't exist.


George Bush is a Republican. Kerry is a Democrat. The easter bunny is real. This statement is either completely true or false.

The first parts are true and the last bit is false, not that Id tell a kid that, so its not completely true or false is it.
You don't seem to understand. That entire statement is either true or false. You can't pick and choose.

Well? Choose. You can't pick and choose which parts of the bilbe to follow, and which not-it's all or nothing.

Sorry but this is a terrible annalogy, and as I've already proved it doesnt even work.
You missed the point completely, and I'm starting to think you're showing such ignorance purposefully. You cannot say "this is right and this is wrong" in reference to your holy book. It's either all right, or all wrong.

It's known as "overexageration." One stretches something to obviously false poportions. By the way, was there some kind of subtle point in there that I missed?

Yes, I didnt find you that funny, sorry, dont worry Im sure your all mates will laugh.
I'm sure they will

But, as we saw above, you're willing to negate parts of the holy book. In doing such, you negate your own christianity. It's all or nothing.

Christianity is a lifetime experience, what I negate today I may accept in the future and vicerverca, anyway as long as I keep excepting Jesus as my Saviour and follow his commandments I should be right.
But isn't it your duty as a christian to follow everything you can, weither or not it adheres to your experiences?

I follow my own spirituality, borrowing slightly out of some various faiths. At heart, I am a deist.

Right, so you can pick and disregard what you like from different religons, but I cant do the same with the bible, seems to be a little hypocrisy building up here.
Not at all. For example, I borrow from the Wiccan Rede the belief of "An it harm none, do as ye will." Not because of any religious reasons-I feel this is a wise way to act. The only hypocrasy is what you've invented in your head.

Granted ;)

That you take that as a compliment proves to me that Christianity is right, which teaches pride in ones self goes directly before a fall.
When did I say I take it as a compliment? I agreed with you, and added a little smiley to lighten the mood. Chill out a bit.

Once again, I love you attacks on me in the end. And you say I'm immature?

I think your being overdramatic now, which also is a sign of a lack of maturity.
How am I being overdramatic? You seem slightly obsessive about attatching the "lack of maturity" tag on my. Obsession...that can't be very mature ;)

Actually, I'm not an athiest.

Score for you: 0

I'm a deist.

www.deism.com

Enjoy.

Oh so now your a Deist.
Have been for quite some time now, ever since I turned away from christianity. List ONCE where I said otherwise.

Oh, and as for my children? As another poster (I forget whom) stated in another thread, the wisest decision would be to allow my child to choose on their own which religion/beliefs they wish to have.

Well lets hope for yours and their sake that they dont take up Satanism, or even worse for you probably,born again Christians and lecture you in your own house every night.
Yes, I can only hope. However, in the end, it is their decision to make, not mine.

I'm trying to show you that you could not, in full conciousness, adhere to everything your religion wants. And, in doing so, to show you what nature the religion really is.

Like I already said human sacrifice was a big part of the Ancient world among all religons, as was slavery and the acceptance of taking many wives.
I dont think Jesus expects me to follow these practices today.

The nature of my faith is one of love and compassion.
Then why is it in your holy book?

In short, yes, it is an attack on your religion.

Do you have the same anger towards Islam, they still follow a lot of the practices in the Old Testament, maybe you dont have the stomach to follow your convictions to tell them directly of issues like the wrongness of stoning a woman to death under their Sharia laws, like you do so bravely with us Christians.

And you bring up extremists to make your point. Nice. Only, I know several muslims, and none of them stone any women. Furthermore, I've said it multiple times already-I have a sore spot for christianity, because I used to be one.

Christianity is a lifetime experience, what I negate today I may accept in the future and vicerverca, anyway as long as I keep excepting Jesus as my Saviour (...) I should be right.



Sorry, I can't resist....

Looks like we have more in common than I thought...


'paging Dr Freud"...

Sorry, I can't resist....

Looks like we have more in common than I thought...


'paging Dr Freud"...

The English language keeps offering us Freudian bananas, huh?

The English language keeps offering us Freudian bananas, huh?

I DID try to resist...really I did.

Your definition of religion fails is you remove the word "supernatural", as I would, because I don't see "god" as super-to-nature.

Also, "theist" does not necessarily imply that "god" is "creator or ruler".

It implies only a belief in god or gods.

The foundation of religion is belief in "something".

The atheist merely believes that there is no god or gods.

The atheist has a belief.

The atheist has a religion, as he believes in that "something".

It is all pure semantics, because belief is pure semantics.

The thing that truly transcends the semantics, is the "feeling" of true belief, as it is extra-verbal and experiential.

If the atheist TRULY BELIEVES his beliefs, he has that feeling, and he feels his religion.

No, the foundation of religion is the belief in a very specific something. That something is a God or Gods considered to be the creator and/or sustainer of all things. One can argue that God is a part of nature (or part of God is a part of nature); however, if you believe that God created the Universe, then that God must necessarily be supernatural since that God existed and will continue to exist when nature does not. If there is one theistic dogma that does not consider God or one of their Gods to be the creator of all things, then name it. The fact of the matter is, without exception all religions have this one fact in common: the belief of a God or Gods who they consider to be the creator of all things. To call religion the belief in something one, is meaningless (I believe that my fingers are touching my keypad, is that a religion?) and two, is an attempt to hijack the word to suit a different purpose. And that purpose is, I believe, two fold. First, they want to marginalize atheism by equating it with religion (which atheists themselves are happy to denegrate), and second, the religious want to equate scientific ideas like evolution (which many hold to be an inherently atheistic - and therefore religious by their logic - study) with creationism (the unquestionably religious dogma that they can't seem to weasle into the public schools).

And, as I mentioned earlier, all of the atheists that I know would never make a positive claim like "God does not exist". They all recognize that they cannot prove *anything* with absolute certainty and that they certainly can't even begin to prove a negative. That is why atheists (the ones that I know anyhow) are atheistaclly agnostic (some would say weak or soft atheists) which means that they do not hold any positive beliefs about any God or Gods. That is to say they hold at least a shred of a doubt about the idea that God doesn't exist. It would appear that this would not qualify as an atheist "TRULY BELIEV[ING]". So any atheist that doesn't make the positive assertion that God doesn't exist (which is nearly every atheist), even by your definition, isn't religious.

No, atheism is not a religion in any circumstances. Any attempt to equate atheism to a religion simply shows how uncomfortable the religious are with their beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your definition of religion fails is you remove the word "supernatural", as I would, because I don't see "god" as super-to-nature.

Also, "theist" does not necessarily imply that "god" is "creator or ruler".

It implies only a belief in god or gods.

The foundation of religion is belief in "something".

The atheist merely believes that there is no god or gods.

The atheist has a belief.

The atheist has a religion, as he believes in that "something".

It is all pure semantics, because belief is pure semantics.

The thing that truly transcends the semantics, is the "feeling" of true belief, as it is extra-verbal and experiential.

If the atheist TRULY BELIEVES his beliefs, he has that feeling, and he feels his religion.


No, the foundation of religion is the belief in a very specific something. That something is a God or Gods considered to be the creator and/or sustainer of all things. One can argue that God is a part of nature (or part of God is a part of nature); however, if you believe that God created the Universe, then that God must necessarily be supernatural since that God existed and will continue to exist when nature does not. If there is one theistic dogma that does not consider God or one of their Gods to be the creator of all things, then name it. The fact of the matter is, without exception all religions have this one fact in common: the belief of a God or Gods who they consider to be the creator of all things. To call religion the belief in something one, is meaningless (I believe that my fingers are touching my keypad, is that a religion?) and two, is an attempt to hijack the word to suit a different purpose. And that purpose is, I believe, two fold. First, they want to marginalize atheism by equating it with religion (which atheists themselves are happy to denegrate), and second, the religious want to equate scientific ideas like evolution (which many hold to be an inherently atheistic - and therefore religious by their logic - study) with creationism (the unquestionably religious dogma that they can't seem to weasle into the public schools).

And, as I mentioned earlier, all of the atheists that I know would never make a positive claim like "God does not exist". They all recognize that they cannot prove *anything* with absolute certainty and that they certainly can't even begin to prove a negative. That is why atheists (the ones that I know anyhow) are atheistaclly agnostic (some would say weak or soft atheists) which means that they do not hold any positive beliefs about any God or Gods. That is to say they hold at least a shred of a doubt about the idea that God doesn't exist. It would appear that this would not qualify as an atheist "TRULY BELIEV[ING]". So any atheist that doesn't make the positive assertion that God doesn't exist (which is nearly every atheist), even by your definition, isn't religious.

No, atheism is not a religion in any circumstances. Any attempt to equate atheism to a religion simply shows how uncomfortable the religious are with their beliefs.

The one thing that all religions have in common is the "feeling" of "the absolute".

Some religions are NOT theist, for example mine, in the sense that gods (I reserve singular god to "it is") are anything more than representations, at whatever level of detail, of natural "things or concepts".

Thus, I can see the god Iaki as representing "all things fish-like and the protector of them".

But I realize that Iaki is a device. But a device that connects me with "it is", the great absolute, as a "part" of the absolute that is "more refined" than myself.

To my people, to call religion anything BUT the recognition of "it is" is foolish, and unhelpful.

We do not seek to marginalize "Atheism", as we consider atheism just another way to state that we can't know everything, and therefore classify it with all other religions.

We also have no interest in proving or disproving anything scientific.

Science is the art of knowing. The only thing TO know is "it is", and therefore the more we know, the more wonders of "it is" we can enjoy..!

Your proclivity toward paranoid persecution is a curious thing to people who simply know that they believe "it is" and that it gives them comfort.

Your legalistic rambling reasonings concerning "who is and isn't religious" are meaningless to my people because all humans are religious, by nature, according to our thinking, simply because we all think and feel.

You have your ways to comfort yourself in a world of infinite phenomena, and your way is to doubt what you see and feel, and argue that you are right and superior.

That is your belief. That is your religion.

It will help you in all that you do, not because it can, but because it must.

It is your connection to "it is", and as such will draw you toward itself inexorably.

Thus, I can see the god Iaki as representing "all things fish-like and the protector of them".
How can a subjective concept be the protector of physical entities?

How can a subjective concept be the protector of physical entities?
Through the human who identifies with it. Man becomes a part of what "it is." In the same way a woman in Summeria identifies with Aruru, the creator of man, through childbirth. The god is a symbol that connects man with its "function".

Modern "Western" man tends to minimalize the importance of this process. I was going to quote Chief Seattle here, but then I found on the Internet that the truer translation of his letter to the U.S. government was pretty bland --but the first text is worth reading again, if just to see how man, through participation with his creator, is a protector of nature.

Through the human who identifies with it.
How many fish (or fish-like things) have you protected?

How many fish (or fish-like things) have you protected?
I live 3,000 miles from any ocean or sea. ;-) But I have supported Green Peace and the Nature Conservancy, not in aid of identifying with any fish-god, but in support of protecting our wildlife areas.

The one thing that all religions have in common is the "feeling" of "the absolute".
There is no such feeling for most atheists, thus atheism by even your definition is not a religion.

Some religions are NOT theist, for example mine, in the sense that gods (I reserve singular god to "it is") are anything more than representations, at whatever level of detail, of natural "things or concepts".
I think I follow, maybe it'll become more clear...

Thus, I can see the god Iaki as representing "all things fish-like and the protector of them".
I see. It appears that your religion (what is your religion's name again?) is an extension of Aristotle's potentiality/actuality concept. What I mean by that is that the god of a particular group of things is defines what that group can potentially live up to. The god of salmon is the perfect salmon, the ideal salmon, the one to which all others are judged against with their salmon-ness (for lack of a better term). For most people, the ideal is something that is internalized, they have an idea of what a salmon should look and act like and can judge the fish to be a salmon. It would appear that your religion has animated this internalized Aristotilian idea.

What is most interesting, and what qualifies you as a religion under my definition, is the "protector of them" comment. Looking more closely at the definition of religion, we see that it is the belief in or reverence of the god or gods that are considered to be the creator and/or sustainer of all things. Protection would be part of sustainment and would very well indicate that god "rules" its subjects or its subjects are to revere that god for that protection. So yes, you follow a theistic religion.

But I realize that Iaki is a device. But a device that connects me with "it is", the great absolute, as a "part" of the absolute that is "more refined" than myself.
Right, "Iaki" is the means for you to understand your theistic religion's potentiality/protector dogma. You are a part of "it is" in that you are the actuality and "it is" is the potentiality. "It is" is "more refined" than you because "it is" is the potentiality and you are the actuality. Yeah, I get it.

To my people, to call religion anything BUT the recognition of "it is" is foolish, and unhelpful.
Who are your people again? You may not revere this "it is" character; however, you recognize it as your protector. That counts towards being a religion.

We do not seek to marginalize "Atheism", as we consider atheism just another way to state that we can't know everything, and therefore classify it with all other religions.
You may not seek to marginalize atheism, I may very well have misjudged your intentions. It should be recognized that this is the intent of a great many conservative Christians in the USA. Beliefs like yours are even more rare than beliefs like mine, and that's saying something.

We also have no interest in proving or disproving anything scientific.
Again, I may have misjudged. I think it is particularly understandable given the general tone of discussions on boards and in the US in general.

Science is the art of knowing. The only thing TO know is "it is", and therefore the more we know, the more wonders of "it is" we can enjoy..!
Science deals with what actually exists not the potentiality. It isn't the quest for the potentiality that makes life enjoyable it is the understanding of the actuality.

Your proclivity toward paranoid persecution is a curious thing to people who simply know that they believe "it is" and that it gives them comfort.
Have you read the papers? Have you seen how the conservative Christians are trying to invade the public schools and the government with their ideology? One of the main justifications for that is that atheism is a religion, no different than any other religion.

Your legalistic rambling reasonings concerning "who is and isn't religious" are meaningless to my people because all humans are religious, by nature, according to our thinking, simply because we all think and feel.
Again, who are "your people" again? You define all humans as being religious, that doesn't make it so. Thinking and feeling no more makes one religious than urinating makes you a water fountain.

You have your ways to comfort yourself in a world of infinite phenomena, and your way is to doubt what you see and feel, and argue that you are right and superior.
I don't doubt what I see or feel. I doubt the things that can't be seen, felt, heard, smelled, tasted, or can't be inferred from the same. I am comfortable with the idea that the universe (and the phenomena therein) is finite, it is accepting the infinite which I simply cannot do.

That is your belief. That is your religion.
Wrong, and wrong.

It will help you in all that you do, not because it can, but because it must.
I do not choose to believe as I do because it gives me comfort. It would be much easier, much more comfortable to believe in a God, any God. Yet that belief, for me, given what we know, doesn't make sense.

It is your connection to "it is", and as such will draw you toward itself inexorably.[/FONT][/COLOR]
This "it is" is your belief system, not mine. So what? That means that connecting my beliefs to yours is as meaningless to me as a Christian telling me that the bible says I'm going to hell. You may be right, but I doubt it.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]It is the height of arrogance to automatically assume that the rules for your society are entirely right, and those for others must be totally wrong.


But you are applying what you think is right for the Hebrews.
So does this mean you are the height of arrogance, Id agree on that one now easily.

The laws of the Hebrews SHOULD have been tempered to allow for the other people they encountered (and in some cases, they were).

And maybe the laws of the Midianites, and Amorites and Hitittes, and Amalakites, and Assyrians, and Babylonians and Egyptians and Hykranians should have been tempered when they encountered the Hewbrews instead of just conquering them and dragging them off into slavery, but they werent were they.

Stop throwing all the crimes of humanity at just the Israelites, they lived in a world you couldnt last a week in.
Wake up!


'Witchcraft' is not a threat to Hebrews, and yet they were unwilling to tolerate it, even in people that WERE NOT IN their community.

You say its not, but they thought it was, so they must have had a pretty good reason to do so, so who are you thousands of years later to judge them.

You are beginning to sound like some of the people around here (where I live) that argue we should "Bomb all the Towel-Heads" because they follow a different god.

Now your being extreme, I have some friends who are muslims, and they respect my faith a lot more than you do, and I respect their faith in their religon admittedly one is now a Christian.

And Ive never expressed any view or even thought of such views, to them of blowing up Mecca or such and such, some advice Grave dont assume things about people you dont know, especially over the internet, because it makes you look pretty dumb.


Sometimes, the people perceived as fools are actually wise.

Only in their minds and ones such as yourself.



So the Old Testament is not essential? So why bring up the Ten Commandments?

I didnt say it wasnt essential just not the most essential part of the Bible to Christians

And HOW do you KNOW Jesus was 'Christ'?

I like to believe he was.


Yes. It would be logical. Maybe there is hope for you yet.

The last thing I could ever be or for that matter even want to be, is an Atheist.


Atheism isn't a religion. There is no church of atheism where atheist go to get it preached to them...

Id call the internet a sort of Church for Atheists, they praise their belief in it when religon is discussed just as passionately as any religous person.

I told my little girl that I believe there is nothing after death.

How sad.

I also told her that Christians believe in Heaven, and read her the description of Heaven from Revelations and told her about it. I also told her about the concepts of reincarnation, Gaia principles, and the ideas of post-life from a variety of modern religions, and even threw in the beliefs of Ancient Egypt, just for variety.

Great.


I respect her intelligence enough to let her make up her own mind.

Id laugh if she went born again Christian on you then.

But then, I consider the 'training up' of children to be a form of abuse.

Provided their not physically abusing their kids in an undisciplinary manner or molesting them, it really isnt any of your business, as to how other parents raise their kids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The one thing that all religions have in common is the "feeling" of "the absolute".


There is no such feeling for most atheists, thus atheism by even your definition is not a religion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Some religions are NOT theist, for example mine, in the sense that gods (I reserve singular god to "it is") are anything more than representations, at whatever level of detail, of natural "things or concepts".


I think I follow, maybe it'll become more clear...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Thus, I can see the god Iaki as representing "all things fish-like and the protector of them".


I see. It appears that your religion (what is your religion's name again?) is an extension of Aristotle's potentiality/actuality concept. What I mean by that is that the god of a particular group of things is defines what that group can potentially live up to. The god of salmon is the perfect salmon, the ideal salmon, the one to which all others are judged against with their salmon-ness (for lack of a better term). For most people, the ideal is something that is internalized, they have an idea of what a salmon should look and act like and can judge the fish to be a salmon. It would appear that your religion has animated this internalized Aristotilian idea.

What is most interesting, and what qualifies you as a religion under my definition, is the "protector of them" comment. Looking more closely at the definition of religion, we see that it is the belief in or reverence of the god or gods that are considered to be the creator and/or sustainer of all things. Protection would be part of sustainment and would very well indicate that god "rules" its subjects or its subjects are to revere that god for that protection. So yes, you follow a theistic religion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
But I realize that Iaki is a device. But a device that connects me with "it is", the great absolute, as a "part" of the absolute that is "more refined" than myself.


Right, "Iaki" is the means for you to understand your theistic religion's potentiality/protector dogma. You are a part of "it is" in that you are the actuality and "it is" is the potentiality. "It is" is "more refined" than you because "it is" is the potentiality and you are the actuality. Yeah, I get it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
To my people, to call religion anything BUT the recognition of "it is" is foolish, and unhelpful.


Who are your people again? You may not revere this "it is" character; however, you recognize it as your protector. That counts towards being a religion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
We do not seek to marginalize "Atheism", as we consider atheism just another way to state that we can't know everything, and therefore classify it with all other religions.


You may not seek to marginalize atheism, I may very well have misjudged your intentions. It should be recognized that this is the intent of a great many conservative Christians in the USA. Beliefs like yours are even more rare than beliefs like mine, and that's saying something.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
We also have no interest in proving or disproving anything scientific.


Again, I may have misjudged. I think it is particularly understandable given the general tone of discussions on boards and in the US in general.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Science is the art of knowing. The only thing TO know is "it is", and therefore the more we know, the more wonders of "it is" we can enjoy..!


Science deals with what actually exists not the potentiality. It isn't the quest for the potentiality that makes life enjoyable it is the understanding of the actuality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your proclivity toward paranoid persecution is a curious thing to people who simply know that they believe "it is" and that it gives them comfort.


Have you read the papers? Have you seen how the conservative Christians are trying to invade the public schools and the government with their ideology? One of the main justifications for that is that atheism is a religion, no different than any other religion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your legalistic rambling reasonings concerning "who is and isn't religious" are meaningless to my people because all humans are religious, by nature, according to our thinking, simply because we all think and feel.


Again, who are "your people" again? You define all humans as being religious, that doesn't make it so. Thinking and feeling no more makes one religious than urinating makes you a water fountain.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You have your ways to comfort yourself in a world of infinite phenomena, and your way is to doubt what you see and feel, and argue that you are right and superior.


I don't doubt what I see or feel. I doubt the things that can't be seen, felt, heard, smelled, tasted, or can't be inferred from the same. I am comfortable with the idea that the universe (and the phenomena therein) is finite, it is accepting the infinite which I simply cannot do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
That is your belief. That is your religion.


Wrong, and wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
It will help you in all that you do, not because it can, but because it must.


I do not choose to believe as I do because it gives me comfort. It would be much easier, much more comfortable to believe in a God, any God. Yet that belief, for me, given what we know, doesn't make sense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
It is your connection to "it is", and as such will draw you toward itself inexorably.[/FONT][/COLOR]


This "it is" is your belief system, not mine. So what? That means that connecting my beliefs to yours is as meaningless to me as a Christian telling me that the bible says I'm going to hell. You may be right, but I doubt it.

Ooooo.... too many words. :)

You make your statements.

I make mine.

I do not argue against you.

I explain my own thinking.

You attack my thinking as wrong.

I do not attack your thinking as wrong, I merely explain my view of what you say to me.

You may believe as you wish. :)

May you find what you need, as I have faith that you will.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]I don't think fishermen were encouraged to write that much either.

Course not, they just caught fish and grunted when people talked to them didnt they?


I don't believe the men you refer to as 'disciples' even wrote the books, so it becomes somewhat irrelevent.

Oh right so their not even the authors of their own Gospels now.


You probably couldn't write my responses - since mine usually have good grammar and syntax.

Mines not that bad either.

You act like a 'sexist pig' yourself, in your dismissal of women, but I guess it's okay if guys do it?

Im not dismissing them at all, Im just trying to point out to you that education wasnt usually taught to women then.

You don't seem to be able to handle the concept of strong, independant women -

I have no problem with women being strong and independent provided their not sexist pigs, do you have any problems with strong independant men?


Maybe it was a poor role model for father-figure

He was pretty good actually, and if yours was any better then he would have been an exceptional father to have.
And heres some advice also Grave, it isnt really smart to assume grubby stuff about peoples parents when you have never met them, particularly over the internet.

or maybe you have had this opinion rammed into you by your church. That doesn't mean I understand it, just that I can understand where it comes from. And just because I understand, doesn't make it right.

I had a normal Catholic upbringing, nothing was rammed down my throat as you say.
And not understanding doesnt make it wrong either.



It's a reference to your justification for biblical mistreatment of women. You imply that the Hebrews and early christians are okay to treat women like possessions, because 'everyone else was doing it'.

Gee do you think it was just women who were the only ones treated as possessions, slavery was widespread and made no issue of sex or age, how about you go read your bible better this time and take your feminist tunnel vision glasses off.

You have successfully established christianity as the 'teenager' of religion

Thats sounds so dumb I cant even believe that you wrote that.

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.

First you say it is a religion then in the next sentance you say it is not?!?!?!?! :mp5:

[QUOTE]
Thats sounds so dumb I cant even believe that you wrote that.

Funny thats what I was thinking about your entire post. :D

Funny thats what I was thinking about your entire post. :D

*yawns* then pushes Clontopia down aflight of stairs. :p

First you say it is a religion then in the next sentance you say it is not?!?!?!?! :mp5:
It's called sarcasm. ;-)

I dont beleave in anything i havent felt or seen... Still my biggest wish in life is to beleave in a god or something like it. The day a god shows itself to me I will become a beleaver and defenetly do prayers and stuff.

To all u releigious peapole out there wath will u do when a god shows up and it is not the god u beleave in? Allso I wonder do u religious peapole beleave in life beond earth(green little men or just bakteria)?

I dont beleave in anything i havent felt or seen... Still my biggest wish in life is to beleave in a god or something like it. The day a god showsitself to me I will become relidgious and defenetly devote my life to that god.

To all u releigious ppl out there wath will u do when a god shows up and it is not the god u have worshipped? Allso I wonder do u religious ppl beleave in life beond earth?

If you would try and repeat what you just said in a decent attempt at English, I will attempt to answer you, at the moment I am still rubbing my eyes from having been unnesscessarily tortured by your 5th rate spelling and correct use of grammer.

Changes made try again

I dont beleave in anything i havent felt or seen... Still my biggest wish in life is to beleave in a god or something like it. The day a god shows itself to me I will become a beleaver and defenetly do prayers and stuff.

To all u releigious peapole out there wath will u do when a god shows up and it is not the god u beleave in? Allso I wonder do u religious peapole beleave in life beond earth(green little men or just bakteria)?
Are you posting that from a cell phone or something?

sweden...

But you are applying what you think is right for the Hebrews.
So does this mean you are the height of arrogance, Id agree on that one now easily.


How very rude of you. Still, I guess I shouldn't expect any better. I am not applying what I think is right for the Hebrews - you have stated, as have I, and others, that other peoples at the time acted similarly. My contention is that god's perfect people should have acted better than their contemporaries, not worse.

Not sure where you think I was arrogant. But, considering how rude you are, I'm not really sure I care.

And maybe the laws of the Midianites, and Amorites and Hitittes, and Amalakites, and Assyrians, and Babylonians and Egyptians and Hykranians should have been tempered when they encountered the Hewbrews instead of just conquering them and dragging them off into slavery, but they werent were they.

Stop throwing all the crimes of humanity at just the Israelites, they lived in a world you couldnt last a week in.
Wake up!


The Babylonians didn't enslave the Hebrews. Sure they conquered them, and took people back to their strongholds, but the Hebrews were there given training and materials that enabled them to write their holy books, and were employed in Babylon. In fact, did you pay no attention to HOW the Hebrews managed to build their Great Temple?

I guess not.

And why wouldn't I last a week?

You say its not, but they thought it was, so they must have had a pretty good reason to do so, so who are you thousands of years later to judge them.


You have no evidence they thought witchcraft a threat.

Stop just making stuff up.

It says in the bible that they shouldn't tolerate people who interpreted dreams, or used other forms of divining. this is nothing to do with 'threats', this is persecution of others on religious grounds.


Now your being extreme, I have some friends who are muslims, and they respect my faith a lot more than you do, and I respect their faith in their religon admittedly one is now a Christian.

And Ive never expressed any view or even thought of such views, to them of blowing up Mecca or such and such, some advice Grave dont assume things about people you dont know, especially over the internet, because it makes you look pretty dumb.


I respect your faith, I just don't respect your stance on faith.

And, please don't lie. It's just a forum.

I DO actually have Muslim friends... and I have actually met people who make those "bomb the towel-heads" references - and they act with the same inflated sense of religious self-importance, and misplaced assurance that you do.

Pride, remember what happens...

I'll ignore your 'pretty dumb' reference, although it is the second direct insult in one post, so you're not improving my opinion of you.


Only in their minds and ones such as yourself.


I'm not sure what you THINK you just said, but you actually said I was wise... I assume you meant to say something insulting?


I didnt say it wasnt essential just not the most essential part of the Bible to Christians.


Then I really suggest you read it again.


I like to believe he was.

You don't know do you. Do you even know what christ means? or messiah, come to that?

The last thing I could ever be or for that matter even want to be, is an Atheist.


And it IS the last thing you'll be. As all the lights fade, and you realise you spent a lifetime preaching delusion.


Id call the internet a sort of Church for Atheists, they praise their belief in it when religon is discussed just as passionately as any religous person.


You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word church, then.
And, I assume you don't use the internet much, either.

How sad.

I don't see that as sad. How pompous of you to say that. I told her I THINK there is nothing. I didn't preach my beliefs to her. I have too much respect for her. Maybe you should learn something about respect.


Id laugh if she went born again Christian on you then.


She's unlikely to be 'born-again', as she is 6.

She is a Southern Baptist. I don't know why that would make you laugh, I assume you are easily pleased.


Provided their not physically abusing their kids in an undisciplinary manner or molesting them, it really isnt any of your business, as to how other parents raise their kids.

I didn't say it was my business. Once again, you have no control over your attitude to attack people. You should really try to keep it in check, it's very unchristian.

I consider that 'training up a child' is a form of mental cruelty - I notice that you didn't include that in your list. I can probably guess why.

I have to ask... you act like a young teenager... how old are you? I don't want to spend my time 'bashing' someone who is not yet old enough to know better.

Course not, they just caught fish and grunted when people talked to them didnt they?


There is a big difference between being able to talk, and learning the required combinations of characters to write.


Oh right so their not even the authors of their own Gospels now.


I never claimed they WERE the authors of the Gospels. The gospels, like most of the rest of the book, was commited to paper hundred of years after the alleged characters were dead. It is unlikely that ANY of the canonical texts were actually witten by people who's names were attached to them.


Mines not that bad either.


I think you mean "Mine's not that bad, either".

Thank you for making my point.

Im not dismissing them at all, Im just trying to point out to you that education wasnt usually taught to women then.


Or men. Or pretty much anyone at all, except for the lucky few.

At least, in Islam they get around this problem...

I have no problem with women being strong and independent provided their not sexist pigs, do you have any problems with strong independant men?


I have no problems with storng, independent persons of either gender. Considering the attitude you 'portray' online, it's hard to imagine what you would consider 'sexist' in a female.

He was pretty good actually, and if yours was any better then he would have been an exceptional father to have.
And heres some advice also Grave, it isnt really smart to assume grubby stuff about peoples parents when you have never met them, particularly over the internet.


He was an exceptional father. then he got sick, and was absolute hell for more than a decade. Then he finally died of his illness.

I assumed nothing... a poor role model for father figure was one of several options - although you did pick that one to highlight.

I had a normal Catholic upbringing, nothing was rammed down my throat as you say.
And not understanding doesnt make it wrong either.


If you had a catholic upbringing, there was nothing 'normal' about it. And, unless you had VERY progressive catholics for parents, they most likely preached their religion to you, from a very young age - so it was rammed down your throat, you were just too young to know that that was what they were doing.


Gee do you think it was just women who were the only ones treated as possessions, slavery was widespread and made no issue of sex or age, how about you go read your bible better this time and take your feminist tunnel vision glasses off.


You could try reading the bible again, and look at the short shrift females are given. You are in a bad position to be talking about people being blinkered.

Thats sounds so dumb I cant even believe that you wrote that.
As Clontopia said.... good last words, and true on so many levels.

If you would try and repeat what you just said in a decent attempt at English, I will attempt to answer you, at the moment I am still rubbing my eyes from having been unnesscessarily tortured by your 5th rate spelling and correct use of grammer.

Paging Dr Freud...

You actually upbraided this guy for his "correct use of grammar"? Way to go, Terminalia... and you spelled grammar wrong, too...

Paging Dr Freud...

You actually upbraided this guy for his "correct use of grammar"? Way to go, Terminalia... and you spelled grammar wrong, too...

Live by the grammar critique, die by the grammar critique.

I dont beleave in anything i havent felt or seen... Still my biggest wish in life is to beleave in a god or something like it. The day a god shows itself to me I will become a beleaver and defenetly do prayers and stuff.

To all u releigious peapole out there wath will u do when a god shows up and it is not the god u beleave in? Allso I wonder do u religious peapole beleave in life beond earth(green little men or just bakteria)?
That's a lovely sentiment, but don't go looking for him with your eyes. You need to look with your heart.

What will I do when a "real" god shows up? For one thing, I'll eat my hat --prior obligations, and all. Then I would most certainly wave at him or her and say, "Hi!".

I do believe that there is life beyond Earth. I don't believe it would come in the form of little green men, though the possibility cannot be ruled out. Also, if intelligence happened here on this planet, I see no reason why it couldn't develop elsewhere. Still, it's nice to think we're very special in that regard.

The above rant merely shows why atheism exists in such numbers. Who on earth wants to get tied up in the nitty gritty of my god vs your god? I don't run into churches on Sundays screaming 'You're all wrong!'; I resent somebody parked on my doorway saying 'Repent now!'.

Religion is similar to all clubs and cliques in providing a collective belonging and therefore reassurance that an individual is in step with peers. The rest of us who don't belong to such clubs ignore you and the barriers you put up to prevent you belonging to more than one club.

...not everyone on the forum has english as his native tongue, bare that in mind when you read the threads. How many of you anglos can write perfect French, Dutch, Spanish,...?

Anyhoo, athiests dieing. I suppose an athiest can believe in something considering death, but it doesn't have to come out of a lousy book that was written, collaged, translated and rewritten about a hundred times in several ancient languages in several pre medieval and medieval ages. Suppose you create your own beliefs, your personal interpretation of what you have learned, sensed and experienced. The good thing about it is that you aren't bounded by some weiner in a white suit who tells you that condoms are spreading aids (yes i am a non practicing, and non bible-lieving catholic). If you want to be truly free, don't let any of the world religions (institutions filled with fosiles who follow an ancient book from a time that isn't relevant for our current situation) tell you how to feel, to live, not to practice casual sex or that you will go to an infernal place for a couple of centuries for masturbating to often. Just follow your own path to enlightenment and if you, after all your reflecting, end up with a world religion, than you must be a true believer of that religion. I much respect believers if they have chosen to become believers after being sceptic at first. It shows some common sense and intelligence.

Think about this: are you following an institution or are you following a religion?

I still haven't figuered out what will happen with me after I die. The closest I'm now is that I'll probably reincarnate in a couple billions of bacteria and maggets.

:) how's that for a "foreigner" giving a speech about something he doesn't believe in?

This is my people's impression of Atheists, such as Grave exemplifies:


Very logical. With their own logic, which precludes and denies any other logic.

Very legalistic. A simple extension of their logic.

Very literalistic. Another simple extension of their logic.

Very absolutist. An absolute conviction in "the power of doubt".

Untrusting toward the world in general, and toward the vagueries of humanity in particular.

Very angry. Angry at being persecuted for their beliefs. Angry for being a minority opinion. Angry at being "right all the time", and not being worshiped for their rightness, as they are the true enlightened ones.



We are all individuals.

We all have our own logic.

We are all prone to legalisms, as it helps us to "convince" others, if that is our way, or to merely "show" others, if that is our way.

We are all literalistic. We have our meanings for words, and use them as we see them.

We are all prone to absolutism. In the realm of "religion" and "belief", particularly, humans need have some concrete "yardstick".

It is the human condition to be wary of uncertainty. And what is more uncertain than people..?

Anger is a normal reaction to perceived threat. Atheists are by definition "doubters" and have an ingrained habit of "challenging reality" to test it for "validity". This always initiates conflict. And as they live for conflict, to "convince" and to "win", everything tends to be seen as a threat.

Atheists have their place. I sincerely hope that Atheists never give up their quest for clarity. It is a most valuable quest, and is a pointer for the complacent "believer" that the "world" (the "it is"), is to be explored and tested, and not merely mindlessly accepted and bowed to.

We all have our beliefs, and their's are as valuable to them as mine are to me.

May they continue to worship at the great alter of fine distinctions, and discuss the fruits of their warrior gods of learning, in their individual quests to become gods themselves..!

To know, to practice "science", the art of knowing and finding, is to make more of the "it is" available to all of us to appreciate and marvel at.

Thank the atheists for their religion. They will hate you for using a word they find objectionable to describe what they believe, but that simply energizes them to "fight a little harder to be RIGHT" and to "win".

These are warriors of the mind. Warriors that are needed to battle complacency. Warriors sometimes fall and are consumed by the tools of war. But elder warriors become tested leaders. And my people believe "it is" will direct them correctly, or break them with their own tools of war.

My want them to try to "win", as it will bring them, and us, closer to "it is".

I don't think its possible to change what god/ or lack of, that you believe in. Belief is not a choice, you cant say "Today i think i'll believe in reincarnation" (unless, of course, you already did). Unless, some evidence comes to light. Mabey one religion 'feels' right, or mabey you become athiest due to lack of such evidence, but i dont think such a mindset-changing experience can come from someone who is biased towards one already.

On a different note:
How dare Terminalia insult one group of people! How could you possibly know all Athiests?
I would never call Christians "sad" because of their beliefs, and i hope few would. My closest friend is Christian. How dare you. And you had the cheek to call someone else arrogant.

In response to Iakeokeo in his last post (too large to post):

Athiesm denies no logic, for logic is on which it is build.
And i despise patronisation. *shudders* Athiests are not angry,spoilt children who wish everything, they are open minded people who accept that there is nothing.
You speak well however, and seemingly objectively. Would you be offended if i asked of what religion you speak from?

Atheism is not a religion, that is the whole concept. Nor is belief in a concept a trademark of religion. Atheists do not believe in nothing they believe that god* does not exist and that religion is false. I am not afraid of death. Plague, disease and death are natural merely a progression of time. And as for the pearly gates Do hamsters go to heaven as well? I have never heard that before. Why not they are living creatures as well as humans it just happens that we are the only living creatures that change our habitats to suit our needs, we do not adapt or evolve to suit it. God is a crutch for the weak, that is not too say that all followers of religion are weak minded that would be arrogant. What I'm saying is that in some point in our lives we experience an event that weakens us and many look for strength in the form of a definite assurance from a celestial being, god*. Or too explain the unexplainable, in a period where science was not yet developed enough to offer and prove the truth behind it. Christianity for example is a large compilation of ideas across the century's in the form the bible, no single idea in its contents is original and many additions have been made to suite the social climate and put it into context. It was not until the Victorian ages that the concept of hell came into fruition to put the fear of god into little children in an attempt to discipline them. I apologise if I am deviating from the initial topic, but its a subject that I have strong beliefs about. I believe in the power of the human mind, as there is only a small percentage of our minds that we actually use. this for me explains "miracles" that people see coupled with the fact that the human mind has the uncanny ability to see patterns. and if you believe in something enough, chances are you will start to see signs that aren't actually there. As for prayer, again the human mind our subconscious collects information without us actively realising. Prayer is not talking to god* it is meditation, focusing on the answer that is already buried within our own minds. I may disagree with religious practices, but as a point of principal I never force my idea's on another (or at least not intentionally). But as many fellow Atheists will tell you, it is often the case that we have religion forced upon us in schools on television even on our own doorsteps. The concept of religion is getting out of hand. If I have to respect the beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslim's and other religions that are considered to be "Kosher" (excuse the pun) should I also respect the recently ordained religions such as the Jedi faith. If not why not? is it not a religion like any other. As much as I disagree with religious practice I respect a person's right to believe in whatever they want without criticism I hope religious members participating in this thread will do the same.

i'm an agnostic.

personally, i'm hoping for reincarnation... which doesn't need a diety to work, really.

and at the worst case, there's nothing, which is quite terrifying really, i like existing.

To know, to practice "science", the art of knowing and finding, is to make more of the "it is" available to all of us to appreciate and marvel at.
I don't usually post props or jeers that don't contribute to the conversation, but in this case I'd just like to say: Power on, Iakeokeo.

I am an atheist, and I believe that nothing will happen when I die. Ill just die.

For me, gov Ventura said it best -

"Organized religion is a SHAM and a CRUTCH for WEAK-MINDED people who need strength in numbers"

In response to Iakeokeo in his last post (too large to post):

Athiesm denies no logic, for logic is on which it is build.
And i despise patronisation. *shudders* Athiests are not angry,spoilt children who wish everything, they are open minded people who accept that there is nothing.
You speak well however, and seemingly objectively. Would you be offended if i asked of what religion you speak from?

Don't worry, it's not you... he's just nipping at my heels again, I think...

I know that I probably spelled dieing wrong but you kew what I meant, right?
Anyway I just want to know how any Atheists feel about dieing. (spelled it wrong again didn't I?) :headbang:

i dont like it

I would like to say one thing about athieism that I have noticed just since I began on these boards. It would seem that athiests seek to "debunk" religion using tools that are entirely inappropriate to the task. Science will not work, since the exterior of religion --what you see of it in the physical world, can measure and analyze --is not what religion is about. Religion is about the experience of religion. Logical, rational thinking will not work, since belief defies logic and is stronger than logic for the simple reason that it is experienced by the "self". Labelling it irrational, delusional, subjective or prone to emotion (all insults flung by logic in an attempt to dismiss it) serves no purpose; it is an attempt for logic to understand it, but it does not result in understanding the experience, doesn't make it go away, and doesn't make it any less "real" to the people experiencing it, therefore they will not abandon their beliefs and embrace reason.

Athiests, have you noticed how I have personified the faculty of logic in the above statement? I have made the personification of logic a metaphor for the faculty of logic within the human mind. I can express ideas about logic using this metaphor as if logic had thought, reason, a plan, a goal, even a physical presence in the universe. God is a similar symbol --the symbol is not "real" with a presence in the physical world, but the meaning behind the symbol is very real. The symbol is anthropomorphized, but the symbol and its meaning undoubtedly exist. God exists.

By the same "logic", so does Santa Claus. After all, all these children do get presents on Christmas, right?

Willamena:"Athiesm is a religion so God exists" ?

Isn't anthropomorphism used to show when an object has been changed to fit for better use? I think i missed something.. What? Confused..

This is my people's impression of Atheists, such as Grave exemplifies:


Very logical. With their own logic, which precludes and denies any other logic.

Very legalistic. A simple extension of their logic.

Very literalistic. Another simple extension of their logic.

Very absolutist. An absolute conviction in "the power of doubt".

Untrusting toward the world in general, and toward the vagueries of humanity in particular.

Very angry. Angry at being persecuted for their beliefs. Angry for being a minority opinion. Angry at being "right all the time", and not being worshiped for their rightness, as they are the true enlightened ones.



We are all individuals.

We all have our own logic.

We are all prone to legalisms, as it helps us to "convince" others, if that is our way, or to merely "show" others, if that is our way.

We are all literalistic. We have our meanings for words, and use them as we see them.

We are all prone to absolutism. In the realm of "religion" and "belief", particularly, humans need have some concrete "yardstick".

It is the human condition to be wary of uncertainty. And what is more uncertain than people..?

Anger is a normal reaction to perceived threat. Atheists are by definition "doubters" and have an ingrained habit of "challenging reality" to test it for "validity". This always initiates conflict. And as they live for conflict, to "convince" and to "win", everything tends to be seen as a threat.

Atheists have their place. I sincerely hope that Atheists never give up their quest for clarity. It is a most valuable quest, and is a pointer for the complacent "believer" that the "world" (the "it is"), is to be explored and tested, and not merely mindlessly accepted and bowed to.

We all have our beliefs, and their's are as valuable to them as mine are to me.

May they continue to worship at the great alter of fine distinctions, and discuss the fruits of their warrior gods of learning, in their individual quests to become gods themselves..!

To know, to practice "science", the art of knowing and finding, is to make more of the "it is" available to all of us to appreciate and marvel at.

Thank the atheists for their religion. They will hate you for using a word they find objectionable to describe what they believe, but that simply energizes them to "fight a little harder to be RIGHT" and to "win".

These are warriors of the mind. Warriors that are needed to battle complacency. Warriors sometimes fall and are consumed by the tools of war. But elder warriors become tested leaders. And my people believe "it is" will direct them correctly, or break them with their own tools of war.

My want them to try to "win", as it will bring them, and us, closer to "it is".

You started off okay - way back in the thread. Now you just resort to taunts and insults, and it's very unbecoming.

I didn't make the rules for 'logic'... I do not consider that I have my own brand of logic, and I suppose the only reason I am literal about words is because that is what 'literal' is.

Your passage about anger seems misplaced... the person who seems to be having an 'issue' is the person who sets up a post of taunts and insults, but I'm willing to let it slide for the harmony of the forum.

I think you are also wrong about your later 'anger' reference. I agree that iconoclasts are important, but I do not believe they necessarily must be angry. In fact, going back to logic... the cold precision of logic is a much better iconoclastic tool than rage, in my opinion.

Oh look... more bait. You are picking at a scab... let it heal.

I won't even bother to address the petty 'atheism as religion' elements - it's been done in other threads, more completely than I would want to attempt.

The problem I perceive here, is that you are trying to blanket the whole thread with your 'it is' symbolism. Just because 'your culture' believes in an omnipresence, does not make that omnipresence real. You seem to be unable to differentiate your world view from the world - you have no subjective/objective buffer.

That basically means that you cannot debate, only preach.

If you want to set up a preaching thread, I will happily join you, as you expound further on your theory - and maybe we can debate the intricacies... but that thread is not THIS thread...

Tell me one thing, other than God (your belief, not mine,) that can't be seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted, but is known to exist

There are a lot of things people believe in everyday that we can not examine with our five senses, such as: love, consciousness, an undieing devotion to a political party. just about our entire inner worlds are unexplainable.

There are a lot of things people believe in everyday that we can not examine with our five senses, such as: love, consciousness, an undieing devotion to a political party. just about our entire inner worlds are unexplainable.
At least the political party actually exists.

I would like to say one thing about athieism that I have noticed just since I began on these boards. It would seem that athiests seek to "debunk" religion using tools that are entirely inappropriate to the task. Science will not work, since the exterior of religion --what you see of it in the physical world, can measure and analyze --is not what religion is about. Religion is about the experience of religion. Logical, rational thinking will not work, since belief defies logic and is stronger than logic for the simple reason that it is experienced by the "self". Labelling it irrational, delusional, subjective or prone to emotion (all insults flung by logic in an attempt to dismiss it) serves no purpose; it is an attempt for logic to understand it, but it does not result in understanding the experience, doesn't make it go away, and doesn't make it any less "real" to the people experiencing it, therefore they will not abandon their beliefs and embrace reason.

Athiests, have you noticed how I have personified the faculty of logic in the above statement? I have made the personification of logic a metaphor for the faculty of logic within the human mind. I can express ideas about logic using this metaphor as if logic had thought, reason, a plan, a goal, even a physical presence in the universe. God is a similar symbol --the symbol is not "real" with a presence in the physical world, but the meaning behind the symbol is very real. The symbol is anthropomorphized, but the symbol and its meaning undoubtedly exist. God exists.

See - you disagree with most religious people I have encountered. You seem willing to accept that god is a subjective concept - rather than peddle a messiah-on-earth-death-soon vision, or a code of rules and regulations.

Science is the only tool that CAN debate religion... religion can only ever be used as a tool to attack other religion, never to verify it - since each (organised) religion has it's laws (codified or implied).

I don't want to make religion 'less real' to others.

With your metaphor for logic, you are half-right. The concept definitely does exist, but the 'symbol' is your artifact.. it didn't work for me.

I guess similarly, we have to agree that religion is a concept that exists, but we are still no closer to ascertaining the truth of the 'symbol' of religion.

Religion is a cop out by people who cannot handle the fact that there is no appearent reason for our existance. And then, paradoxally, religious people claim to be better and more moral because they hold on to a set of beliefs that has no factual substance what so ever.

I don't particulary look forward to dying, and I hope my death will be painless when it comes, but thats all there is to it for me. For a religious person on the other hand, death is the point where he hopes he will finally get confirmation that all he has unfoundedly believed is true. Therefor, death is much more important to the believer than the nonbeliever, who thinks that it is life that matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
This is my people's impression of Atheists, such as Grave exemplifies:


Very logical. With their own logic, which precludes and denies any other logic.

Very legalistic. A simple extension of their logic.

Very literalistic. Another simple extension of their logic.

Very absolutist. An absolute conviction in "the power of doubt".

Untrusting toward the world in general, and toward the vagueries of humanity in particular.

Very angry. Angry at being persecuted for their beliefs. Angry for being a minority opinion. Angry at being "right all the time", and not being worshiped for their rightness, as they are the true enlightened ones.



We are all individuals.

We all have our own logic.

We are all prone to legalisms, as it helps us to "convince" others, if that is our way, or to merely "show" others, if that is our way.

We are all literalistic. We have our meanings for words, and use them as we see them.

We are all prone to absolutism. In the realm of "religion" and "belief", particularly, humans need have some concrete "yardstick".

It is the human condition to be wary of uncertainty. And what is more uncertain than people..?

Anger is a normal reaction to perceived threat. Atheists are by definition "doubters" and have an ingrained habit of "challenging reality" to test it for "validity". This always initiates conflict. And as they live for conflict, to "convince" and to "win", everything tends to be seen as a threat.

Atheists have their place. I sincerely hope that Atheists never give up their quest for clarity. It is a most valuable quest, and is a pointer for the complacent "believer" that the "world" (the "it is"), is to be explored and tested, and not merely mindlessly accepted and bowed to.

We all have our beliefs, and their's are as valuable to them as mine are to me.

May they continue to worship at the great alter of fine distinctions, and discuss the fruits of their warrior gods of learning, in their individual quests to become gods themselves..!

To know, to practice "science", the art of knowing and finding, is to make more of the "it is" available to all of us to appreciate and marvel at.

Thank the atheists for their religion. They will hate you for using a word they find objectionable to describe what they believe, but that simply energizes them to "fight a little harder to be RIGHT" and to "win".

These are warriors of the mind. Warriors that are needed to battle complacency. Warriors sometimes fall and are consumed by the tools of war. But elder warriors become tested leaders. And my people believe "it is" will direct them correctly, or break them with their own tools of war.

My people want them to try to "win", as it will bring them, and us, closer to "it is".



You started off okay - way back in the thread. Now you just resort to taunts and insults, and it's very unbecoming.

If you want to debate the truth of the word 'true', then I would advise you to start a thread on that topic... here, we were, allegedly, discussing the 'truth' of reality.

I didn't make the rules for 'logic'... I do not consider that I have my own brand of logic, and I suppose the only reason I am literal about words is because that is what 'literal' is.

Your passage about anger seems misplaced... the person who seems to be having an 'issue' is the person who sets up a post of taunts and insults, but I'm willing to let it slide for the harmony of the forum.

I think you are also wrong about your later 'anger' reference. I agree that iconoclasts are important, but I do not believe they necessarily must be angry. In fact, going back to logic... the cold precision of logic is a much better iconoclastic tool than rage, in my opinion.

Oh look... more bait. You are picking at a scab... let it heal.

I won't even bother to address the petty 'atheism as religion' elements - it's been done in other threads, more completely than I would want to attempt.

The problem I perceive here, is that you are trying to blanket the whole thread with your 'it is' symbolism. Just because 'your culture' believes in an omnipresence, does not make that omnipresence real. You seem to be unable to differentiate your world view from the world - you have no subjective/objective buffer.

That basically means that you cannot debate, only preach.

If you want to set up a preaching thread, I will happily join you, as you expound further on your theory - and maybe we can debate the intricacies... but that thread is not THIS thread...

I simply state my impression of you and your people, the Atheists.

I don't wish to convince you of anything.

You take my observations as insults. That is to be expected as that is your way.

You do not wish to hear other's opinions, you wish to displace other's opinions.

You use the tools and special words and methods of your culture to belittle mine. That is rude, but not unexpected, and forgivable, as you are the self-proclaimed "superior" and such arrogance is normal behavior for your people.

I do not debate. I state.

Those who try to "convert" others are rude in my culture. Those who try to "show" others are generous in my culture.

I also listen. And what I hear from your people is your admirable quest for "reality", and your deplorable disregard of others.

My people learn much from your people. You serve a useful function in the world. As do we.

That does not mean that we must become you, as you would have it,.. and it does not mean that you must appreciate our view, as we would have it.

You have become what you say you dislike most. An angry proselytizing arrogant absolutist who uses the tools of the mind to carry out his work.

This is what I see.

i'm an agnostic.

personally, i'm hoping for reincarnation... which doesn't need a diety to work, really.

and at the worst case, there's nothing, which is quite terrifying really, i like existing.

YAM&ICM5Reincarnations :)

Except the two things about dying that I most 'fear' (for want of a better word) are:
A) The process of dying. I'm really not looking forward to any concious and mortal agony preceding my actual death. This may or may not also cover the mental equivalent of seeing certain death approaching (e.g. from the moment the reserve parachute fails to the moment of impact upon the ground), though something like that may also allow a sense of inner calm. Who knows?
B) The earthly aftermath. My life is too untidy, at the moment, and if I were to die this instant there'd be a whole lot of baggage left behind that I would prefer not to. Not unfulfilled ambitions, as that it just a matter of regret, but there are things I've promised to do and possessions that I've hoarded that I'd prefer to personally resolve the fate of (i.e. give to specific people, or at least let my nearest and dearest know what to do with them).

Should I be sufficiently reassured about (or unbothered by) those two items, I would then like to have some say in my legacy (not that I'm rich enough to pay for a hospital wing, by any stretch of the imagination :) ) but that's just a vanity issue and I really can't see myself having a succesfully arguement with the grim reaper over that issue.

I know I'm quite probably going to have to accept (in advance, if not afterwards) the possibility of not avoiding the above circumstances, and neither am I particularly keen to pursue any opportunity to choose the time and manner of my death, but who knows what the future brings and what fate has in store?

Religion is a cop out by people who cannot handle the fact that there is no appearent reason for our existance. And then, paradoxally, religious people claim to be better and more moral because they hold on to a set of beliefs that has no factual substance what so ever.

I don't particulary look forward to dying, and I hope my death will be painless when it comes, but thats all there is to it for me. For a religious person on the other hand, death is the point where he hopes he will finally get confirmation that all he has unfoundedly believed is true. Therefor, death is much more important to the believer than the nonbeliever, who thinks that it is life that matters.

My people see death as death. The end of being able to do anything more in the world.

What lives on, for us, is what we DID do, our influence on others, and how we affected the world.

Religion for us is not about death. It's about doing things while you CAN do them (while alive), while keeping in mind the simple fact that you have a limited time to do them in.

This "limitedness" of our time in the world creates the anxieties of "do I really matter?" and "why should I not take everything I can regardless of others?"

Our wish to be known, after we can do no more, as "listeners of the ways of the world", which to us means we listened to the world and tried to follow the paths suggested to promote "the good" of the world, gives us direction and comfort in dealing with our "limitedness".

Therefore, I must disagree with your statement that "the non-believer values life, while the believer values death".

We would rather state it as:

The non-believer values what he values out of joy at being presently alive, while the believer values what he values out of joy at knowing that there is direction and comfort in the world in which we have such little time to do things.

I simply state my impression of you and your people, the Atheists.

Which, you must surely realise, is an enormous generalisation.
I, myself, cannot group myself as tightly with 'atheists' as you seem able to. Perhaps you generalise a little too much.

I don't wish to convince you of anything.

Your repeated assertions tell a different story. Perhaps it is a failure to understand the proper course of debate, perhaps. Merely stating your 'opinion' over and over is not debate - it is lecturing. Implying that the other view is silly because it doesn't fit that view isn't debate, it's patronising. I, at least, have provided reasoning for my conclusions.

You take my observations as insults. That is to be expected as that is your way.

I take your insults as insults because they are insulting. Perhaps you lack social graces, and think it acceptable to act in such a rude fashion? If not, then I am forced to assume that you are just unrepentently insulting.
"That is my way"... cryptic? My way?

You do not wish to hear other's opinions, you wish to displace other's opinions.

Wrong again. I am actually very tolerant of others ideas - and all I ask in return is the same courtesy. I happily debate those ideas in fora, because that is the purpose.

You use the tools and special words and methods of your culture to belittle mine. That is rude, but not unexpected, and forgivable, as you are the self-proclaimed "superior" and such arrogance is normal behavior for your people.

And, what, pray tell, is "MY" culture? And who are "MY" people. You allow your own prejudices to dig holes for you to climb into. I am glad you forgive me, although I am not sure why you thought me superior in the first place... but thank you. It almost makes up for the insults.

I do not debate. I state.

I noticed. I wonder why you are active in a debate forum, then?

Those who try to "convert" others are rude in my culture. Those who try to "show" others are generous in my culture.

And, you may not have noticed... not everyone here is from your culture. And many people, of many cultures, do not react well to hectoring tones of a browbeating oppressor... be he carrying a bible, or preaching 'it is'

I also listen. And what I hear from your people is your admirable quest for "reality", and your deplorable disregard of others.

Once again with my people.... onc again with the disregard. The only way in which I am disregarding you, is that I am not accepting of your lectures or your bile. Others I am freely accepting of. I may debate their concepts, but that is the purpose of the forum.

My people learn much from your people. You serve a useful function in the world. As do we.

Again with my people... I am glad that you feel valued, however.

That does not mean that we must become you, as you would have it,.. and it does not mean that you must appreciate our view, as we would have it.

I don't want you to become me. My perfect world would be one where every individual had a personal relationship with their gods, if they had them. I do not want 'atheist' eugenics, as you seem to be implying

You have become what you say you dislike most. An angry proselytizing arrogant absolutist who uses the tools of the mind to carry out his work.

You really need me to be angry here, I feel.
And, for someone who abhors my use of words... you seem keen to spew several of them in my direction.

Once again you fail to fit me into the shape you would like... and it seems to be boiling vitriol on your soul.

Be calm. There is enough hate in this world already.

This is what I see.


That, I presume, is because you choose to see it.

But that is just my opinion.

Does anyone else feel threatened by Iakeokeo? He talks like he has wisdom, but his words suggest otherwise. His red text is cool tho.
"hear hear! Long live Grave n idle! He speaks the truth!"

Does anyone else feel threatened by Iakeokeo? He talks like he has wisdom, but his words suggest otherwise. His red text is cool tho.
"hear hear! Long live Grave n idle! He speaks the truth!"

Lol. *bows to audience*

I, for one, feel threatened by Iakeokeo's habit of lecturing; by his habit of making stuff up about you so he can argue against it; by his insults to anyone that doesn't agree and by the fact that he seems to get almost irrationally agressive if you don't back down.

But, I'm sure he's lovely, really.

Spoken like a true hero. 8)

This "limitedness" of our time in the world creates the anxieties of "do I really matter?" and "why should I not take everything I can regardless of others?"

That's just what I said though - you believe because you fear that there is nothing more to life than life itself.

Our wish to be known, after we can do no more, as "listeners of the ways of the world", which to us means we listened to the world and tried to follow the paths suggested to promote "the good" of the world, gives us direction and comfort in dealing with our "limitedness".

You do not have to be religious to want to promote the good of the world, nor to feel that that gives you direction and comfort. Religion really only comes into that when you expect extranatural consequences of those actions, now or after you are dead.

Therefore, I must disagree with your statement that "the non-believer values life, while the believer values death".

I did not say that, so please don't make up quotes as if I did. I said that death is more important to religious people as it for them has consequenses further than just ending life, whereas life is all there is to the atheist.

I'm an atheist, but i went to a catholic school and ive both sides of the coin in all honesty.

The thing i found most interesting was being told by my catholic associates that atheist were fools because they didn't believe merely because they couldn't comprehend the idea of afterlife. Personally, i found this quite amusing as i see the world filled with religious types who just can't comprehend the idea of death actually being the end.

Personally, i view death as the end of my life. Full stop. I will never know i'm dead, and i imagine it will be very much like before my birth. I hate to this religous people, but at least atheists have some basis for their belief not ancient scriptures which are no longer applicable to modern society.

Finally, i find it quite annoying how religious people have the cheek to slander atheism and insult atheists and yet would object most profoundly if any person were to be for example anti-christian or anti-islamic. I rarely hear of atheists blowing people up for their belief.

By the same "logic", so does Santa Claus. After all, all these children do get presents on Christmas, right?
Santa Claus (Sinter Claus) is also embodied in myth, but it isn't a personification of a feeling/state of being within us. It is (or has become) the embodiment of an ideal.

Willamena:"Athiesm is a religion so God exists" ?

Isn't anthropomorphism used to show when an object has been changed to fit for better use? I think i missed something.. What? Confused..
I didn't say athieism is a religion.

"Athropo" means human. To anthropomorphize something is to give it human characteristics.

The problem I perceive here, is that you are trying to blanket the whole thread with your 'it is' symbolism. Just because 'your culture' believes in an omnipresence, does not make that omnipresence real. You seem to be unable to differentiate your world view from the world - you have no subjective/objective buffer.

That basically means that you cannot debate, only preach.
He is not preaching, only attempting to explain. If I understand correctly, when he says, "it is", he means just that. His "omnipresence" is the universe, which is. It's quite real.

In this case, I would say that it is reality that is a symbol of Godhood.

In this thingy you can make a Nation, a State, yes? You get a state, with a flag, a brief description, there is evolution. It exists? I think you can discus on a certain level in how far your little nation exists. Do thoughts exist? If they do, than the God you believe in, or "the denial of the god" you believe in exists. But only in your mind or the collective mind of the followers of one religion. If every believer of one religion believes in the God they made with their thoughts, then there must be a whole bunch of Gods...but a "true" believer doesn't aknowledge multiple Gods (in the great monotheistic religions), so they deny someone elses God. You can find proof of this in the contradictory statements of several believers. One time God is loving, the other time he will smite everyone who dares oppose to his will. Fuck 'em. No one has ever met "God", no one has ever been able to ask what he stands for.

If we can believe Nietzsche, you can kill God if you get him out of the thoughts of the people. Once they stop believing, for them God doesn't exist anymore.

Religion isn't bad...it can give some confort, for instance when dieing (unless your local priest says you'll definitaly will go to hell because you bought some rubbers). But religion can also be used as a tool to demonise your enemies and make your stands the right ones in the eyes of the people. Americans...your president is a fine example...as are your "enemies" in the Middle East. They both call each other devils and pagans AND they both use God's name idle to defend their murders. I'm very pleased our country is being conducted by enlightened, moderate believers and agnosts instead of zealot puritans who shit their pants if they see a nipple exposed on TV. A muslim "terrorist" could hit America twice as hard if they just broadcasted a brief pirate pornmovie on CNN or FOX. Don't be offended but American TV spent an equal ammount of time on the nipple of Janet Jackson as on the events on septembre 11. You should consider a change of government once in a while. Previous election I stood amazed that about 50% of the american people elected an ex cocain abusing alcoholic with the IQ of a fried shrimp to run one of the worlds leading nations. Thank god he has his puppetmasters to pull his strings. You change the president, maybe you should change the puppetmasters too? hmm I think I deverged a bit from the original topic. Concluding: religion is being abused to guide misguided sheep.


Don't bother making a list of the typos in this text, English isn't my mother tongue.


"we can kill, because in God we trust" - Eddie Vedder.

Dying? Personally, i don't believe in an afterlife, hell or heaven or any other plane of existence.

I'm not afraid of death, and i can pretty much tell you for sure that when i'm too old to live under personal standards, death will be bliss. The question of what follows will reveal itself when it's time, so i can't be bothered wondering about it.

Oh, and i am atheist in the meaning i don't believe in gods or a God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
This "limitedness" of our time in the world creates the anxieties of "do I really matter?" and "why should I not take everything I can regardless of others?"


That's just what I said though - you believe because you fear that there is nothing more to life than life itself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Our wish to be known, after we can do no more, as "listeners of the ways of the world", which to us means we listened to the world and tried to follow the paths suggested to promote "the good" of the world, gives us direction and comfort in dealing with our "limitedness".


You do not have to be religious to want to promote the good of the world, nor to feel that that gives you direction and comfort. Religion really only comes into that when you expect extranatural consequences of those actions, now or after you are dead.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Therefore, I must disagree with your statement that "the non-believer values life, while the believer values death".


I did not say that, so please don't make up quotes as if I did. I said that death is more important to religious people as it for them has consequenses further than just ending life, whereas life is all there is to the atheist.


..death is more important to religious people as it for them has consequenses further than just ending life, whereas life is all there is to the atheist.

If you are a part of a family, and you have seen relatives die, while you live, then you know that you too will die and some of them will live beyond you.

The "further consequences" of death are that there are those we leave behind.

If "life" (one's present personal life) is all there is, then there's no sense in "doing good" to help one's family.

Of course that's not what you meant,.. you simply meant that the atheist values life because it "life". Period.

I'm just trying to convey my thinking to you.

Do not take offense, as I'm just showing you my thoughts. You are free to see things as you wish. :)

See - you disagree with most religious people I have encountered. You seem willing to accept that god is a subjective concept - rather than peddle a messiah-on-earth-death-soon vision, or a code of rules and regulations.
The rites and rituals have their place, too. They prepare the mind to be receptive to the ideas presented in the myths and the lectures.

Science is the only tool that CAN debate religion... religion can only ever be used as a tool to attack other religion, never to verify it - since each (organised) religion has it's laws (codified or implied).
Science is the only tool that can DEBATE religion. It's not necessary to debate it --religion and science can co-exist. As I said on another thread, you can see with your eyes as well as with your heart.

Verification isn't necessary, or some would say done by the individual for himself.

I don't want to make religion 'less real' to others.

With your metaphor for logic, you are half-right. The concept definitely does exist, but the 'symbol' is your artifact.. it didn't work for me.

I guess similarly, we have to agree that religion is a concept that exists, but we are still no closer to ascertaining the truth of the 'symbol' of religion.
Well, then, I might get to the part that says this concept is what the mind can grasp of what goes on inside the "self"; the individual's concept of God is another symbol of God, but that God transcends that. But maybe I should stop while I'm ahead. :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
The problem I perceive here, is that you are trying to blanket the whole thread with your 'it is' symbolism. Just because 'your culture' believes in an omnipresence, does not make that omnipresence real. You seem to be unable to differentiate your world view from the world - you have no subjective/objective buffer.

That basically means that you cannot debate, only preach.

He is not preaching, only attempting to explain. If I understand correctly, when he says, "it is", he means just that. His "omnipresence" is the universe, which is. It's quite real.

In this case, I would say that it is reality that is a symbol of Godhood.

:)

Grave has a need to be very logical and feel persecuted.

It's inherent in his thinking, which he is more than welcomed to.

This is a classic incongruity of cultures.

His culture refuses to see anything more than aggression and conquest, using the tools at his disposal.

He must always be right, even if "being right" is not the issue.

He considers all territory to be his territory, because it IS territory.

We (Grave and I) have landed on a neutral island, and we are talking about our cultures.

He will not see that my describing my culture is not saying that my culture is poised in ships over the horizon, preparing to conquer his culture.

As we are savages, he knows that he is superior, and that his ships are, in fact, poised to conquer my culture.

Do I care..? Only in so much as I can be conquered, which in this case is not possible.



None are so blind..... :)

If you are a part of a family, and you have seen relatives die, while you live, then you know that you too will die and some of them will live beyond you.

The "further consequences" of death are that there are those we leave behind.

If "life" (one's present personal life) is all there is, then there's no sense in "doing good" to help one's family.

Of course that's not what you meant,.. you simply meant that the atheist values life because it "life". Period.

I'm just trying to convey my thinking to you.

Do not take offense, as I'm just showing you my thoughts. You are free to see things as you wish. :)
I don't take offence and you do succeed in conveying your thought - or at least you do in all areas but one, namely: what has any of this got to do with religion?

:)

Grave has a need to be very logical and feel persecuted.

It's inherent in his thinking, which he is more than welcomed to.

This is a classic incongruity of cultures.

His culture refuses to see anything more than aggression and conquest, using the tools at his disposal.

He must always be right, even if "being right" is not the issue.

He considers all territory to be his territory, because it IS territory.

We (Grave and I) have landed on a neutral island, and we are talking about our cultures.

He will not see that my describing my culture is not saying that my culture is poised in ships over the horizon, preparing to conquer his culture.

As we are savages, he knows that he is superior, and that his ships are, in fact, poised to conquer my culture.

Do I care..? Only in so much as I can be conquered, which in this case is not possible.

None are so blind..... :)
Nice use of analogy. You may, however, have more luck with Grave if you avoid getting personal. Just a thought.

I am an athiest and i just wanted to say even though i don't bealive in any god i do bealive that church is a good thing and teaches people certain ethics which are needed in this world... I used to bealive in god when i was younger but i just found looking at things scientificly and using reason makes alot of confusion about life go away... However looking at all this with reason even though many wars have been started in the name of religion i think humans would not be where they are today without it... But thats how i see it with my reasoning and i am sure there are many different theories out there but thats what I bealive...

I'm an agnost/atheist and I don't think very much about dieing(sp?). You better live your life while your still living. I have to say I don't want to die, but when I'm ready to I know I won't be scared cause it's a natural process. The only thing I'm scared of is dieing from something violent.

When I'm ready to die, which I hope is when I'm very old, I'll go with piece of mind because I probably had a nice life to be proud of. After I'm dead I don't know what happens, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have to be anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
If you are a part of a family, and you have seen relatives die, while you live, then you know that you too will die and some of them will live beyond you.

The "further consequences" of death are that there are those we leave behind.

If "life" (one's present personal life) is all there is, then there's no sense in "doing good" to help one's family.

Of course that's not what you meant,.. you simply meant that the atheist values life because it "life". Period.

I'm just trying to convey my thinking to you.

Do not take offense, as I'm just showing you my thoughts. You are free to see things as you wish.

I don't take offence and you do succeed in conveying your thought - or at least you do in all areas but one, namely: what has any of this got to do with religion?

Excellent..! Someone actually ASKS a question when they have a question..!

:)

Religion, to my culture, is how we deal with being alive.

Religion to us is NOT "going to church", a convoluted set of rules, or believing literally in supernatural beings.

Dealing with being alive includes having ways to manage the anxiety of realizing that we have a short time to do things in this world, after which we will have no further opportunity to do anything ever again.

And as it is our observation that the world is a well ordered place, with occassional catastrophies, and that by ever closer observation we can discern "goodness" ("godness"?) within what we see, and lead our lives directed by this observed path.

Very simple really.

And also very threatening, apparently, to many. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo


Grave has a need to be very logical and feel persecuted.

It's inherent in his thinking, which he is more than welcomed to.

This is a classic incongruity of cultures.

His culture refuses to see anything more than aggression and conquest, using the tools at his disposal.

He must always be right, even if "being right" is not the issue.

He considers all territory to be his territory, because it IS territory.

We (Grave and I) have landed on a neutral island, and we are talking about our cultures.

He will not see that my describing my culture is not saying that my culture is poised in ships over the horizon, preparing to conquer his culture.

As we are savages, he knows that he is superior, and that his ships are, in fact, poised to conquer my culture.

Do I care..? Only in so much as I can be conquered, which in this case is not possible.

None are so blind.....

Nice use of analogy. You may, however, have more luck with Grave if you avoid getting personal. Just a thought.

I'm talking to his person.

How can I not be personal?

He shows me aggression. I call it aggression.

He shows me misunderstanding. I call it misunderstanding.

He shows me paranoia. Guess what I call it?

If his culture sees my observations as rude or aggressive, that's fine. :)

Some people see ALL human communication as competition.

He and his culture are a prime example.

Actually, atheism is a religion. Its the belief in nothing which is a belief system, therefore a religion.

The idea behind atheism is a system of belief within proof. At least you got that part right. Atheists tend not to believe anything they cannot see, touch, hear, smell, taste, or prove exists. They then set out to find the things that cannot be defined by such sense and to either prove their existance or non-existance.

As for stupid and pointless, well, we tend to believe that organized religion (such as Christianity) pretty much defines stupid and pointless. I guess that makes us even.It's not a religion in the sence of faith(god(s) worshipping). Most of the time religion is called by the definition of believing in god(s).

We have more believable proof than the christians at the moment, but maybe that will change in the future. Altough I don't think that will happen. Of course you can discuss the true-ness of 'proof'. Atheist mainly have proof based on logic, observation and science. We believe that what we see is the truth.

For example christianism, says to have the proof based on writings made in a very very far past. Considering that people weren't able to immediately write things, since they didn't discovered writing then(in the time of about 1000 pro christ).

"Death would be an awefully big adventure."

For example christianism, says to have the proof based on writings made in a very very far past. Considering that people weren't able to immediately write things, since they didn't discovered writing then(in the time of about 1000 pro christ).
Regardless of the fact that there by definition cannot have been any Christian writing BC this is completely wrong as writing (in its crudest form admittedly) has existed for well over 5,000 years.

He shows me aggression. I call it aggression.

He shows me misunderstanding. I call it misunderstanding.

He shows me paranoia. Guess what I call it?
It's alright to call a spade a spade, but it's rarely necessary. It knows what it is.

It's not a religion in the sence of faith(god(s) worshipping). Most of the time religion is called by the definition of believing in god(s).

We have more believable proof than the christians at the moment, but maybe that will change in the future. Altough I don't think that will happen. Of course you can discuss the true-ness of 'proof'. Atheist mainly have proof based on logic, observation and science. We believe that what we see is the truth.

For example christianism, says to have the proof based on writings made in a very very far past. Considering that people weren't able to immediately write things, since they didn't discovered writing then(in the time of about 1000 pro christ).

You know.... it's AMAZING to me that people get so fixated on these "christian" or "christianoid" definitions of religion.

What of mine,.. a culture that doesn't use that template at all..!

For a group of people that usually profess such extreme opinions of "diversity" and "inclusiveness", it's quite amazing to observe the narrowness of the discussion here..!

When I see "Atheist", I think non-theist. Those who don't believe in "gods".

It doesn't necessarily mean "non-religious". (Or anti-religious.)

My culture is both non-theist (atheist) and religious..!

See new thread: "Atheist Religions and/or Religious Atheists: Possibilities?" (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6924893#post6924893)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

He shows me aggression. I call it aggression.

He shows me misunderstanding. I call it misunderstanding.

He shows me paranoia. Guess what I call it?

It's alright to call a spade a spade, but it's rarely necessary. It knows what it is.

It doesn't know what it is.

Precisely because it is seldom confronted by the simple statement "This is what I see in you."

It is usually argued with, instead of "shown" an alternative.

To argue with it is to do nothing but to hone it's skills.

To discuss with it, to truly talk with it, would be to help all to understand, but it requires two willing parties.

You can not discuss anything with an arguer.

If his culture sees my observations as rude or aggressive, that's fine.
I really think his issue (some of it) is this

Now how do you know what “his culture” is

Honestly … “His culture” is not nessisarly a representative of him in all things

If you can even tell what it is … where is he from … what are the features of his culture sense you seem to be such an expert

Regardless of the fact that there by definition cannot have been any Christian writing BC this is completely wrong as writing (in its crudest form admittedly) has existed for well over 5,000 years.Oh. Ehm, well did writing excisted in the form of the signs we know now?

Why does that matter?

You know.... it's AMAZING to me that people get so fixated on these "christian" or "christianoid" definitions of religion.

What of mine,.. a culture that doesn't use that template at all..!

For a group of people that usually profess such extreme opinions of "diversity" and "inclusiveness", it's quite amazing to observe the narrowness of the discussion here..!

When I see "Atheist", I think non-theist. Those who don't believe in "gods".

It doesn't necessarily mean "non-religious". (Or anti-religious.)

My culture is both non-theist (atheist) and religious..!

See new thread: "Atheist Religions and/or Religious Atheists: Possibilities?" (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6924893#post6924893)Religious = believing in god(s), at least where I live. What you mean is called believes, which is believing something in a group I guess.

Quote:
If his culture sees my observations as rude or aggressive, that's fine.


I really think his issue (some of it) is this

Now how do you know what “his culture” is

Honestly … “His culture” is not nessisarly a representative of him in all things

If you can even tell what it is … where is he from … what are the features of his culture sense you seem to be such an expert

He represents his culture, as I represent my culture.

Any society can have any number of cultures within it.

I speak only to him of my opinions of his culture.

No one but me is represented by my culture,.. unless they wish to be identified as such.

I'm not an expert in his culture. I'm merely an observer of his culture as exhibited by his behaviors.

I'm simply here to talk. :)

The way the talk goes is the way the talk goes..! (More of the blindingly obvious from the lunatic savage that knows english pretty well.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You know.... it's AMAZING to me that people get so fixated on these "christian" or "christianoid" definitions of religion.

What of mine,.. a culture that doesn't use that template at all..!

For a group of people that usually profess such extreme opinions of "diversity" and "inclusiveness", it's quite amazing to observe the narrowness of the discussion here..!

When I see "Atheist", I think non-theist. Those who don't believe in "gods".

It doesn't necessarily mean "non-religious". (Or anti-religious.)

My culture is both non-theist (atheist) and religious..!

See new thread: "Atheist Religions and/or Religious Atheists: Possibilities?"

Religious = believing in god(s), at least where I live. What you mean is called believes, which is believing something in a group I guess.

Religious = believing in god(s)...
...is not what my culture believes.

Can you see how we might do that..?

Atheists. I consider myself one. I've never understood how a preacher can contradict himself so much, to the point where he jeopardises the whole basis of the faith, and still have a following? For a brief example, "Jesus Christ". Yeh, I can entertain the thought of him existing, as a PERSON. Messiah? Pfft. Give me a break. Any religious sect that can thrust their religion down my throat and not whisper one ounce of HYPOCRISY can consider to have me as one of their followers any day. Followers? I prefer to say RECRUITS. The basis of religion is IGNORANCE. People say Atheists are ignorant? I prefer REALISTIC. I will worry about death when I die. SO, "thoughts of a dieing atheist"? Well, will my coffin have triple quilted velvet?

James.

Atheists. I consider myself one. I've never understood how a preacher can contradict himself so much, to the point where he jeopardises the whole basis of the faith, and still have a following? For a brief example, "Jesus Christ". Yeh, I can entertain the thought of him existing, as a PERSON. Messiah? Pfft. Give me a break. Any religious sect that can thrust their religion down my throat and not whisper one ounce of HYPOCRISY can consider to have me as one of their followers any day. Followers? I prefer to say RECRUITS. The basis of religion is IGNORANCE. People say Atheists are ignorant? I prefer REALISTIC. I will worry about death when I die. SO, "thoughts of a dieing atheist"? Well, will my coffin have triple quilted velvet?

James.

The basis of religion is belief.

What you believe is the problem. :)

Do you really only worry about death when you die..?

Do you worry about death when you first learn the concept of death as a child..?

Do you worry about death when you ALMOST get hit by the car..?

Do you worry about death when you have a child and wish to do the best for them while your here because you know you can't help them when you're gone..?

Do not confuse "Goin' to Church" with religion.

Now,... do you in fact never worry about death..?

And if you are an atheist, how do you handle the anxieties of knowing you have only a short time in this world...?

(I'm not saying you don't, or can't,.. just curious how you personally do it..) :)

I'm a-theistic in that I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I'm also very religious, and I use my religion to deal with those anxieties, which is the REAL purpose of religion in the first place.

He represents his culture, as I represent my culture.

Any society can have any number of cultures within it.

I speak only to him of my opinions of his culture.

No one but me is represented by my culture,.. unless they wish to be identified as such.

I'm not an expert in his culture. I'm merely an observer of his culture as exhibited by his behaviors.

I'm simply here to talk. :)

The way the talk goes is the way the talk goes..! (More of the blindingly obvious from the lunatic savage that knows english pretty well.)


But where does it stop being his culture and more personal preferences

For example

I live in the US

That is a culture … and I may represent some of the traits … but not others? So am I an accurate impression of my culture?
I would say no.

Simple if you are in statistics … the sample size is too small and not necessarily completely representative. (me being 1 trying to represent 250 mil)


So lets narrow it down because who says it has to be the whole us

So there is Minnesota which I am also a member of … now again there I represent some of the views and not the others
(me being only one person trying to represent several mil)

Well lets subdivide … my home town

Am I a representative of the whole town? No

Not nearly big enough (sample size should be at LEAST a few hundred)


I reach the point where the culture that I DO represent … is only myself
Can one person be considered a culture


cul•ture P Pronunciation Key (k l ch r)
n.
1.
a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
b. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
c. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
d. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
2. Intellectual and artistic activity and the works produced by it.
3.
a. Development of the intellect through training or education.
b. Enlightenment resulting from such training or education.
c. \

Now the definition of culture being population … technically could be a pop of 1 but not generally considered so

Anyways my reasoning is getting diluted

Culture usually equals a group of peoples accepted statistical mores

One person can not be truly representative of the whole group
So any inflection on his culture by his single point of view is by nature flawed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
He represents his culture, as I represent my culture.

Any society can have any number of cultures within it.

I speak only to him of my opinions of his culture.

No one but me is represented by my culture,.. unless they wish to be identified as such.

I'm not an expert in his culture. I'm merely an observer of his culture as exhibited by his behaviors.

I'm simply here to talk.

The way the talk goes is the way the talk goes..! (More of the blindingly obvious from the lunatic savage that knows english pretty well.)




But where does it stop being his culture and more personal preferences

For example

I live in the US

That is a culture … and I may represent some of the traits … but not others? So am I an accurate impression of my culture?
I would say no.

Simple if you are in statistics … the sample size is too small and not necessarily completely representative. (me being 1 trying to represent 250 mil)


So lets narrow it down because who says it has to be the whole us

So there is Minnesota which I am also a member of … now again there I represent some of the views and not the others
(me being only one person trying to represent several mil)

Well lets subdivide … my home town

Am I a representative of the whole town? No

Not nearly big enough (sample size should be at LEAST a few hundred)


I reach the point where the culture that I DO represent … is only myself
Can one person be considered a culture


cul•ture P Pronunciation Key (k l ch r)
n.
1.
a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
b. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
c. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
d. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
2. Intellectual and artistic activity and the works produced by it.
3.
a. Development of the intellect through training or education.
b. Enlightenment resulting from such training or education.
c. \

Now the definition of culture being population … technically could be a pop of 1 but not generally considered so

Anyways my reasoning is getting diluted

Culture usually equals a group of peoples accepted statistical mores

One person can not be truly representative of the whole group
So any inflection on his culture by his single point of view is by nature flawed

OK. :) Two things...

Firstly, whether a culture is half a person or 200 million is irrelevent.

This is an RP oriented forum. It is the place for experiments of this kind.

Secondly, if I take one person to represent "a culture" in this forum, just as one english guy shipwrecked on an island "represents" a culture to the native islander that just happens to come across him, that is my view of his "culture" just as is the native's view of the english guy's culture.

The "shipwrecked sailor and the native" scenario is a perfect place to exchange ideas on veritably ANY interesting thing to talk about and discuss.

:)

So,... You either enjoy the discourse, or not.

He tended to not enjoy not "winning", as it was impossible to do so because of my refusal to play by his rules.

He was the shipwrecked sailor with no ship, no boat, no weapons, nothing to use to gain an advantage over me.

We were utterly evenly matched, though he would dispute that, because we had perfect freedom to talk right passed each other.

Since we were using language on different "planes", nothing could "connect" that was not granted by the other.

As with any discussion, it relies on the goals of the talkers, which is why so much talking results in other more basic forms of communication, such as war.

You know.... it's AMAZING to me that people get so fixated on these "christian" or "christianoid" definitions of religion.

I think it's more of a "common man's" definition than specifically Christian: what you hear on the street, or, in a more poetic analogy, what you see looking out through your kitchen window.

It doesn't know what it is.

Precisely because it is seldom confronted by the simple statement "This is what I see in you."

It is usually argued with, instead of "shown" an alternative.

To argue with it is to do nothing but to hone it's skills.

To discuss with it, to truly talk with it, would be to help all to understand, but it requires two willing parties.

You can not discuss anything with an arguer.
So I'm beginning to see. ;-)

In reply to previous post by Willamena, i was thinking of anthroprometrics, not anthropomorphism. Sorry 8)

Theory:
Iakeokeo gets kicks from insulting people when they dont know he is. Still despising patronisation. But he's still doing it.

(i haven't readed the before posts except for the last page,so don't mind if i say something almost sayied,and i don't have a good english :D )
So...personally i don't consider God more than a stranger who's passing before me,so when i think on the afterlife,i have no speculations in particular.If our brain stops functioning,i suppose there will be no problem of "afterlife" or "soul".Just folkloristic ideals.And if i will try to believe in something...in what i have to believe?In a Big Book like the Coran or the Bible?If it's so,i prefer the Vala of Tolkien's Silmarillion,they're funny guys,and they not contradict themselves so often.
I also don't trust many in scientific comprovations...it's another Big Book Style Religion.In other words,i haven't an "Atheist Diyng"...and if i can return back from afterlife,i surely will not tell you the truth,or a good part of economic business will fail down like a leaf in autumn :rolleyes:
Tell me your thinkings...i like thread like this,they never finish :D

Terminalia.I had a normal Catholic upbringing, nothing was rammed down my throat as you say. I'm sorry. Really. I know it's an old post. It's just that it made me laugh until I cried.

He is not preaching, only attempting to explain. If I understand correctly, when he says, "it is", he means just that. His "omnipresence" is the universe, which is. It's quite real.

In this case, I would say that it is reality that is a symbol of Godhood.

I disagree. If you debate - if you present arguments and reason with your compatriots, that is a very diffferent thing to repeating over and over "Yes, but this is how it really is".

I appreciate the 'real' universe. I appreciate that, in his view, the universe symbolises 'it is', that the two are indevisible... but, rather than DEBATE that nature of reality, rather than debate that VIEW, he just asserts it over and over, as though it were the ONLY model, and that everyone else is somehow missing the point of such an obvious truth.

And that's where it slips into preach, versus debate. In my opinion.

Fear of death or harm is one of the most primaeval emotions a human being can have. There is a big difference between those who accept death and those who say they do not fear it.
Can you prove everyone fears it? I bet you can't, heresay really.

The rites and rituals have their place, too. They prepare the mind to be receptive to the ideas presented in the myths and the lectures.


Science is the only tool that can DEBATE religion. It's not necessary to debate it --religion and science can co-exist. As I said on another thread, you can see with your eyes as well as with your heart.

Verification isn't necessary, or some would say done by the individual for himself.


Well, then, I might get to the part that says this concept is what the mind can grasp of what goes on inside the "self"; the individual's concept of God is another symbol of God, but that God transcends that. But maybe I should stop while I'm ahead. :-)

Verification isn't necessary. And if you and I met in the park, and talked about the weather, it wouldn't be an issue.

Instead, we have both chosen to enter a debate forum, on a topic relating a) to 'religion' and b) specifically to the atheist view of 'religion'.

Debate is why we are HERE... if not why we are 'here'.

If you look at some of my earlier threads, you would have seen (In a creationist versus evolution thread), that I argued in favour of accepting a model of the creation that featured evolution as the 'mechanism' and a god as the 'creator'. I am happy for science and religion to be united. Just don't try to say that religion is the ONLY answer...

:)

Grave has a need to be very logical and feel persecuted.

It's inherent in his thinking, which he is more than welcomed to.

This is a classic incongruity of cultures.

His culture refuses to see anything more than aggression and conquest, using the tools at his disposal.

He must always be right, even if "being right" is not the issue.

He considers all territory to be his territory, because it IS territory.

We (Grave and I) have landed on a neutral island, and we are talking about our cultures.

He will not see that my describing my culture is not saying that my culture is poised in ships over the horizon, preparing to conquer his culture.

As we are savages, he knows that he is superior, and that his ships are, in fact, poised to conquer my culture.

Do I care..? Only in so much as I can be conquered, which in this case is not possible.



None are so blind..... :)

I do feel the need to be logical. That is true. It is how I interact with my environment.

I do not 'need' to feel persecuted. I do not enjoy the feeling of being persecuted. This is, I think, the third time you have specifically chosen me for such a comment. I feel that says more about you, than about myself.

And now you tell me how I think? Mahalo nui loa.

My 'culture' embraces conquest and aggression? Did we come to a conclusion as to what my culture was, yet? But, thank you for explaining to me what my culture does and thinks, in advance.

I think you feel you are being victimised on the basis of race? 'Conquering', 'ships' over the horizon, 'territory', etc.

I disagree with you on the meaning of religion, on the 'existence' of a unifying force, perhaps. That has nothing to do with your race, or your culture. I have never made a single comment pointed at either - except, perhaps in direct rebuttal to something you have pointed at me and 'my' culture.

Once again. You try to force me into a box.

I'm talking to his person.

How can I not be personal?

He shows me aggression. I call it aggression.

He shows me misunderstanding. I call it misunderstanding.

He shows me paranoia. Guess what I call it?

If his culture sees my observations as rude or aggressive, that's fine. :)

Some people see ALL human communication as competition.

He and his culture are a prime example.

I have not shown you aggression. You cannot, truthfully, say the same.

I show you misunderstanding because I fail to understand. Some of your posts have been somewhat 'erratic'. Perhaps it is MY fault that I could not scope some of your meanings, in which case I apologise. Conversely, perhaps someof your posts are too oblique.

Am I paranoid? (Or are they all REALLY out to get me...)

Me and my culture again. You really should let it lie. You are bordering on racism here, and you don't even know my race.

I don't see all communication as competition - but I do consider debate to be one of the two most valid forms of communication - the other being, in my opinion, poetry. Those are the two forms of communication by which you can learn the most.

Me and my culture are a prime example.... and my culture is? You need to stop spreading division. I have no need for this 'hate'.

Ke aloha nô me ka mahalo kâua!

I really think his issue (some of it) is this

Now how do you know what “his culture” is

Honestly … “His culture” is not nessisarly a representative of him in all things

If you can even tell what it is … where is he from … what are the features of his culture sense you seem to be such an expert

Thank you.

Maybe he can answer that question for you. He doesn't seem to be able to answer it for me.

But where does it stop being his culture and more personal preferences

For example

I live in the US

That is a culture … and I may represent some of the traits … but not others? So am I an accurate impression of my culture?
I would say no.

Simple if you are in statistics … the sample size is too small and not necessarily completely representative. (me being 1 trying to represent 250 mil)


So lets narrow it down because who says it has to be the whole us

So there is Minnesota which I am also a member of … now again there I represent some of the views and not the others
(me being only one person trying to represent several mil)

Well lets subdivide … my home town

Am I a representative of the whole town? No

Not nearly big enough (sample size should be at LEAST a few hundred)


I reach the point where the culture that I DO represent … is only myself
Can one person be considered a culture


cul•ture P Pronunciation Key (k l ch r)
n.
1.
a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
b. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
c. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
d. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
2. Intellectual and artistic activity and the works produced by it.
3.
a. Development of the intellect through training or education.
b. Enlightenment resulting from such training or education.
c. \

Now the definition of culture being population … technically could be a pop of 1 but not generally considered so

Anyways my reasoning is getting diluted

Culture usually equals a group of peoples accepted statistical mores

One person can not be truly representative of the whole group
So any inflection on his culture by his single point of view is by nature flawed

Hail Messiah! Hail Messiah!

Take a bow, dude.

Hail Messiah! Hail Messiah!

Take a bow, dude.


Hehehe just figured I had to point out that he just wasn’t answering the direct challenging or logic that you put forward. He nicely skirted the issue.

I reach the point where the culture that I DO represent … is only myself
Can one person be considered a culture

Now the definition of culture being population … technically could be a pop of 1 but not generally considered so

Culture usually equals a group of peoples accepted statistical mores

One person can not be truly representative of the whole group
So any inflection on his culture by his single point of view is by nature flawed
So one person cannot have culture? One person cannot represent their culture? What is the proper wording for the idea he was trying to express, then? Is a person showing their crafts, or a girl doing a 'native' dance, at a multi-cultural festival demonstrating their culture, and so "re-presenting" it (presenting externally something inherent)? I would have said they were. What is the proper way to word this that won't offend others?

Mister or Misses or Miss Iakeokeo have you ever considered writing like a normal person and not like some new age self proclaimed philosopher, who only speaks in sentences you could find on the back of some second grade calender and thinks he has the answers to everything. If I read your posts right, you even have the nerve to tell how one of the other threadmakers feels or is. I hate it when people tell other people how they think, feel, are or were, while the only person who can realy know is the very person that is being told these things.

Let me (maybe) be the first to say that you seem to think you have a lot of wisdom to distribute and this needs to be written in "did not a wise old man say..." fake hollywood japanese style. You probably saw too many star wars or karate kid movies.

Your inability to write a cohesive statement realy bothers me.

Just for the record...I didn't tell you how you are, think or feel, I just have written how you seem to me.

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

Anyhow, :) Christianity as a culture is a collage of traditions and rituals from several ancient religions and existing religions. Drinking wine for instance, was introduced by the Romans. Believers of the Mithras culture (a persian religion I believe) that existed in Roman times together with early christianity, used to sacrifice a bull and drink its blood. The Romans later used wine as a substitute and introduced this as a christian ritual. This is only one of the things Christian religion is built up from. Another old religion from the same region where Judeaism, Christianity and Islam originate used to worship the coming of the new fertile season in the form of a god that each year reserected from death at the start of this season. Each year christians have a ball around the same period to celebrate Jesus reserection.

Religion is more than just believing in a god or God, you have to take all of these rituals too. Most of them, I think, became hollow sentences and acts. Like mantras that lost their meaning. Quite a shame. Some people worship the institution and rituals more than they worship their so called God.

-a person with a bit of time on his hand-

Christianity as a culture is a collage of traditions and rituals from several ancient religions and existing religions. Drinking wine for instance, was introduced by the Romans. Believers of the Mithras culture (a persian religion I believe) that existed in Roman times together with early christianity, used to sacrifice a bull and drink its blood. The Romans later used wine as a substitute and introduced this as a christian ritual. This is only one of the things Christian religion is built up from. Another old religion from the same region where Judeaism, Christianity and Islam originate used to worship the coming of the new fertile season in the form of a god that each year reserected from death at the start of this season. Each year christians have a ball around the same period to celebrate Jesus reserection.

Religion is more than just believing in a god or God, you have to take all of these rituals too. Most of them, I think, became hollow sentences and acts. Like mantras that lost their meaning. Quite a shame. Some people worship the institution and rituals more than they worship their so called God.

-a person with a bit of time on his hand-

It's good to make that distinction. Rites and rituals are built upon a religion, which is built upon belief and/or faith. You have to seperate what's important and what's not as important. I find it frustrating when people claim that all religion is built up from phallic symbol worship. That's one of the beginnings of ritual, not belief.

And not that I'm acusing you, but there are some of us who still worship God more than the ritual.

If a "religion" is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Gödel has taught us that, not only is mathematics a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one.

The basis of religion is belief.

What you believe is the problem. :)

Do you really only worry about death when you die..?

Do you worry about death when you first learn the concept of death as a child..?

Do you worry about death when you ALMOST get hit by the car..?

Do you worry about death when you have a child and wish to do the best for them while your here because you know you can't help them when you're gone..?

Do not confuse "Goin' to Church" with religion.

Now,... do you in fact never worry about death..?

And if you are an atheist, how do you handle the anxieties of knowing you have only a short time in this world...?

(I'm not saying you don't, or can't,.. just curious how you personally do it..) :)

I'm a-theistic in that I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I'm also very religious, and I use my religion to deal with those anxieties, which is the REAL purpose of religion in the first place.



Sure, when I was a kid, blissfully ignorant as we all were, I ws afraid of dying. But that was because I associated death with ways and means of dying that were perceived as "horrible". But, as time goes on, you realise that you are not in control of when and how you die. So why worry about it? I could walk outside and get flattened by a bus. I could smoke for 60 years and die of cancer. I could spontaneously combust. All these are realistic possiblities. Yeh sure, some are horrible, difficult to even comprehend. My grandad and uncle died of cancer. Were they afraid of death? Who knows?

I do apologise when I said I will "worry about death when I die", because I won't worry about it. I only ask that I have some shot at life before I do die; a "good innings" if you will. And when I die, I will die. It isn't worth debating whether I'm afraid of it, because it is inevitable either way. I could die in the most horrific road accident, or peacefully in my sleep. Again, either way, if that's how I die, then so be it. What am I going to do? Stop driving cars? Stop sleeping?

I have nothing against religion. It belongs in the past, however. Religion was for a time of limited knowledge, when the classes couldn't explain natural phenomenom.

I hope you see my points above.

Tolerate the thought.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]How very rude of you. Still, I guess I shouldn't expect any better. I am not applying what I think is right for the Hebrews - you have stated, as have I, and others, that other peoples at the time acted similarly. My contention is that god's perfect people should have acted better than their contemporaries, not worse.

They acted the only way they could, like everyone else did, they wouldnt have survived if they hadnt.
This is getting boring.


Not sure where you think I was arrogant. But, considering how rude you are, I'm not really sure I care.

OK same to you then.

The Babylonians didn't enslave the Hebrews. Sure they conquered them, and took people back to their strongholds, but the Hebrews were there given training and materials that enabled them to write their holy books, and were employed in Babylon. In fact, did you pay no attention to HOW the Hebrews managed to build their Great Temple?

They took alot of people back and they made alot of them slaves.


And why wouldn't I last a week?

Well lets just say you wouldnt fit in,' your abit too how can I say 'liberated' for those times?


You have no evidence they thought witchcraft a threat.

Hey you guys bought this up on here first by saying witches were killed, so they must have been seen as a threat.



I respect your faith, I just don't respect your stance on faith.

Thats because you dont understand it.

And, please don't lie. It's just a forum.

Im not lying sweetie.

I DO actually have Muslim friends... and I have actually met people who make those "bomb the towel-heads" references - and they act with the same inflated sense of religious self-importance, and misplaced assurance that you do.

Well do you now!
Guess what I do too!
And I dont call them towel heads either, one of them converted to Christianity some years ago as well.


Pride, remember what happens...

Well you should know that one.

I'll ignore your 'pretty dumb' reference, although it is the second direct insult in one post, so you're not improving my opinion of you.

I'll try to care about that.

I'm not sure what you THINK you just said, but you actually said I was wise... I assume you meant to say something insulting?

No way are you wise, you misunderstood thats all, probably just a linguistics thing.


You don't know do you. Do you even know what christ means? or messiah, come to that?

Yes son of God.

And it IS the last thing you'll be. As all the lights fade, and you realise you spent a lifetime preaching delusion.

I promise you to burst into tears if its true.

You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word church, then.
And, I assume you don't use the internet much, either.

Figure of speech get over it.


I don't see that as sad. How pompous of you to say that. I told her I THINK there is nothing. I didn't preach my beliefs to her. I have too much respect for her. Maybe you should learn something about respect.

Yeah well dont get too carried away with respecting her shes just a kid remember, and I know what respect is.

She's unlikely to be 'born-again', as she is 6.

Another figure of speech used by evangelist Christians, Im thinking about undergoing it myself before I leave Australia.

She is a Southern Baptist. I don't know why that would make you laugh, I assume you are easily pleased.

Yes, Im not hard to please at all.


I didn't say it was my business. Once again, you have no control over your attitude to attack people. You should really try to keep it in check, it's very unchristian.

But you can do and say whatever you like I suppose?
Id say your unchristian too then but you would take that as a compliment.

I consider that 'training up a child' is a form of mental cruelty - I notice that you didn't include that in your list.

I can probably guess why.

Unless for previous reasons already stated its none of your business how two adults raise their kids.

And guessing is about all you can do.



I have to ask... you act like a young teenager... how old are you? I don't want to spend my time 'bashing' someone who is not yet old enough to know better.

Dont worry about my maturity, your either a teenager yourself or a bored and frustrated woman. :)
You have my sympathys if you are, and dont worry you will find someone again.

Mister or Misses or Miss Iakeokeo have you ever considered writing like a normal person and not like some new age self proclaimed philosopher, who only speaks in sentences you could find on the back of some second grade calender and thinks he has the answers to everything.
Oh, no! Now I'm really confused. What's a "normal" person? Should a "normal" person be saying "Oh, Fuck!"? Have I been doing it wrong all these years, too? Now I have to wonder how normal I might be...
Oh dear.

I'm athiest.. Here are my thoughts on death if any of you are interested :)

While I'm alive, I don't think about death... It can be depressing so I usually try to have a good time :)

Gonna enjoy life for whatever it brings me.
And on my deathbed I will think about the good memories and good times...

It doesn't really worry me -too- much because when I'm dead I will cease to have thought.. and cease to be able to worry about things.. I shall be "at peace" as it were :)

Death comes for us all.. I just choose to believe that is the end. Does it matter? Even if it matters, does it matter that it matters? :)

As long as I enjoy my life I'm happy with it.

So one person cannot have culture? One person cannot represent their culture? What is the proper wording for the idea he was trying to express, then? Is a person showing their crafts, or a girl doing a 'native' dance, at a multi-cultural festival demonstrating their culture, and so "re-presenting" it (presenting externally something inherent)? I would have said they were. What is the proper way to word this that won't offend others?
I was not saying that he could not represent certain dominant traits in his culture

Rather that he could not represent the whole

Iakeokeo continuously made judgments on his “Culture” by the acts of one person.


Think of it this way … the girl doing an ethnic dance is showing you an example of one aspect of her culture … it is an aspect of her culture because it is prevalent in the rest of her society. She is demonstrating it.

Whereas Iakeokeo has no idea what grave’s culture is … how does he/she know that the traits that were being presented were actually a large part of the society?

The proper way to word it is that you respect graves OPINION not his whole cultures attitude … because the rest of his culture may not be anywhere near his normal presentation of things here. He could be the odd ball only presenting “recessive” traits (I am not saying that he is not presenting some of his culture … rather that there is no way to KNOW that he is so don’t assume)

I only ask that I have some shot at life before I do die; a "good innings" if you will.
Aren't you living life now?

Aren't you living life now?
Yes but even though he is living it that does not necessarily mean he has had a “good shot” at it

Just wants some time to accomplish some goals :)

Terminalia :
"Hey you guys bought this up on here first by saying witches were killed, so they must have been seen as a threat."

If you mean god told them witches were a threat, and to kill them, then they were a threat. I cant see how old ladies who wore black and had funny noses or a cackly laugh could be seen as threatening.

"Yeah well dont get too carried away with respecting her shes just a kid remember, and I know what respect is."

So children deserve no respect, yet you know what respect is. Err..

"Unless for previous reasons already stated its none of your business how two adults raise their kids."

If people understood teaching a child one religion was abuse like a mother telling a child their father was "bad" if they had seperated. If you cant tell the whole story don't tell it.

Childish comments by Terminalia taken from single post:
your abit too how can I say 'liberated' for those times?
Im not lying sweetie.
I'll try to care about that.
No way are you wise, you misunderstood thats all, probably just a linguistics thing.
I promise you to burst into tears if its true.
Figure of speech get over it.
And guessing is about all you can do.
your either a teenager yourself or a bored and frustrated woman.
You have my sympathys if you are, and dont worry you will find someone again.

Ah the days where insults prove your point.

In reply to previous post by Willamena, i was thinking of anthroprometrics, not anthropomorphism. Sorry 8)

Theory:
Iakeokeo gets kicks from insulting people when they dont know he is. Still despising patronisation. But he's still doing it.

Hmmmmm... :)

I get "kicks" from talking with people.

If you see my daring to SAY what I see, my mere opinion, as insult, that's just dandy.

Allowing yourself to be insulted is more a reflection of the insultee than the insulter,... although using "You big fat poo head..!" would definately be a reflection (negatively) on the insulter, IMHO..! :)

Anyway,... clever "insult" is the spice and motive of nearly any discourse.

Especially within subjects like "Atheists Dieing" (which I initially took to mean the "Are Atheists Dying Off..?",.. probably incorrectly.)

Silly me..! :D

I disagree. If you debate - if you present arguments and reason with your compatriots, that is a very diffferent thing to repeating over and over "Yes, but this is how it really is".

I appreciate the 'real' universe. I appreciate that, in his view, the universe symbolises 'it is', that the two are indevisible... but, rather than DEBATE that nature of reality, rather than debate that VIEW, he just asserts it over and over, as though it were the ONLY model, and that everyone else is somehow missing the point of such an obvious truth.

And that's where it slips into preach, versus debate. In my opinion.
What I saw was Iakeokeo and Magnatoria presenting two sides of an argument. Each was perfectly willing to tell the other that they were wrong and present their own ideas of the definition of religion, but as soon as Iakeokeo attempted to put himself in someone else's (your) shoes and look at himself through someone else's eyes, he was accused of all sorts of violations of personal space. I don't think he did it intentionally --I suspect it's just the way he thinks and understands himself.

I saw a wonderful series on public broadcasting the other day called, "Millenium" (unfortunately I can't find it on IMDB to point you to it). In it, the narrator/author explores tribal mentality, the differences between how a tribal society thinks and how our "modern" Western-cultured man thinks. One of the first episodes, if not the first (I forget), stated and demonstrated that the Western man defines himself by what he has --his body, his family, his group, his possessions. The tribal man defines himself by his family and group, too, but he defines himself through the others who are a part of him (it's the whole participatory thing, again) --they are his reflection to understanding himself. He asks a question, and when he gets an answer it is the answer --from his tribesman, mind you --that says, I am a part of the whole. It is this same tribal mentality that also speaks to God, asks questions, and gets answers that inform his life.

I'm not claiming this tribal mentality for Iakeokeo, but to me it is reflected in the way he tries to present his arguments (and is all but ignored by those addressing his arguments). When he put himself in your shoes, it was to present an argument about himself seen through others eyes, i.e. the second part of his post.

"Anyway,... clever "insult" is the spice and motive of nearly any discourse." - Too true, although it is rarely useful.
And i appologise if i am overly aggressive with yourself, but i find your tone often patronising and i see patronisation as threatening.
For example :
"allowing yourself to be insulted is more a reflection of the insultee than the insulter"
- an obvious strike on myself, saying that i offend too easily. You put myself down by implying that yourself is superior as you can shrug off such attacks as nonthreatening. Am i incorrect? I cannot help disliking attacks on myself.

Especially within subjects like "Atheists Dieing" (which I initially took to mean the "Are Atheists Dying Off..?",.. probably incorrectly.)

Silly me..! :D
LOL

Insults are clever when they entertain. Not so clever when they hurt.

"Anyway,... clever "insult" is the spice and motive of nearly any discourse." - Too true, although it is rarely useful.
And i appologise if i am overly aggressive with yourself, but i find your tone often patronising and i see patronisation as threatening.
For example :
"allowing yourself to be insulted is more a reflection of the insultee than the insulter"
- an obvious strike on myself, saying that i offend too easily. You put myself down by implying that yourself is superior as you can shrug off such attacks as nonthreatening. Am i incorrect? I cannot help disliking attacks on myself.
No, he meant a third-person "yourself".

holy fuck Iakeokeo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mister or Misses or Miss Iakeokeo have you ever considered writing like a normal person and not like some new age self proclaimed philosopher, who only speaks in sentences you could find on the back of some second grade calender and thinks he has the answers to everything. If I read your posts right, you even have the nerve to tell how one of the other threadmakers feels or is. I hate it when people tell other people how they think, feel, are or were, while the only person who can realy know is the very person that is being told these things.

Let me (maybe) be the first to say that you seem to think you have a lot of wisdom to distribute and this needs to be written in "did not a wise old man say..." fake hollywood japanese style. You probably saw too many star wars or karate kid movies.

Your inability to write a cohesive statement realy bothers me.

Just for the record...I didn't tell you how you are, think or feel, I just have written how you seem to me.

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

Anyhow, Christianity as a culture is a collage of traditions and rituals from several ancient religions and existing religions. Drinking wine for instance, was introduced by the Romans. Believers of the Mithras culture (a persian religion I believe) that existed in Roman times together with early christianity, used to sacrifice a bull and drink its blood. The Romans later used wine as a substitute and introduced this as a christian ritual. This is only one of the things Christian religion is built up from. Another old religion from the same region where Judeaism, Christianity and Islam originate used to worship the coming of the new fertile season in the form of a god that each year reserected from death at the start of this season. Each year christians have a ball around the same period to celebrate Jesus reserection.

Religion is more than just believing in a god or God, you have to take all of these rituals too. Most of them, I think, became hollow sentences and acts. Like mantras that lost their meaning. Quite a shame. Some people worship the institution and rituals more than they worship their so called God.

-a person with a bit of time on his hand-

Do you hate it when people give their opinions of you..?

Obviousy you do, as my simple savage statements of opinion of someone else seems to have done so.

You hate it when people tell others their opinion of them, because it is "rude" to you and your culture. That's fine. It's called talking in mine. :)

You probably also hate mirrors.

As to my "need to distribute my wisdom"... we call THAT talking too.

I have no unique wisdom, other than my own observations. If others think them wise, or moronic beyond belief, that's nice, but they're only opinions.

If you don't like my style of writing, then you have several choices.

Ignore me.

Try to understand it without asking me.

Try to understand it by asking me.

I'll leave the "cohesiveness" and "writing like a normal person" judgements to others. :)

Your "incomprehension" to this poor simple savage, and his "not normal" thinking and speech obviously bothers you.

Does it feel awful not being my superior..?

Does it feel awful being with someone different than yourself..?

:)

YOu have got to be kidding me, the fact that ppl can think atheism is not a religion? re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


look at the last one. Atheism is a religion..

dieing is diening, woopdedoo, i just think it will be like sleep. Who cares, your dead!

god created the world, god created man, god created aids, and cancer and bombs and carbon monoxide and polio, mental retardation, diabetes, smallpox.

Lets thank god! for all teh cool things he makes us have to deal with and the fact that he supposedly doesnt want humans to use stemcells to fix these things!!!

ill also send my shout outs to santa clause. Your the man :P

If you trip and fall onto the ground, someone might say "its stupid to let yourself fall on the ground". 'Yourself' could be third person, or talking directly to them, but either way it is directed at them in particular.

I am sorry for you Iakeokeo, you have preset thoughts that atheists think themselves superior to all and cannot stand to lose. This is not true. No truer than to say that all Christians try to convert others or all muslims are terrorists. Gerneralisation is wrong in these cases, and ours. My mind is still open to your views, i want to hear your oppinions, i hope that you will hear mine also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo


Grave has a need to be very logical and feel persecuted.

It's inherent in his thinking, which he is more than welcomed to.

This is a classic incongruity of cultures.

His culture refuses to see anything more than aggression and conquest, using the tools at his disposal.

He must always be right, even if "being right" is not the issue.

He considers all territory to be his territory, because it IS territory.

We (Grave and I) have landed on a neutral island, and we are talking about our cultures.

He will not see that my describing my culture is not saying that my culture is poised in ships over the horizon, preparing to conquer his culture.

As we are savages, he knows that he is superior, and that his ships are, in fact, poised to conquer my culture.

Do I care..? Only in so much as I can be conquered, which in this case is not possible.



None are so blind.....


I do feel the need to be logical. That is true. It is how I interact with my environment.

I do not 'need' to feel persecuted. I do not enjoy the feeling of being persecuted. This is, I think, the third time you have specifically chosen me for such a comment. I feel that says more about you, than about myself.

And now you tell me how I think? Mahalo nui loa.

My 'culture' embraces conquest and aggression? Did we come to a conclusion as to what my culture was, yet? But, thank you for explaining to me what my culture does and thinks, in advance.

I think you feel you are being victimised on the basis of race? 'Conquering', 'ships' over the horizon, 'territory', etc.

I disagree with you on the meaning of religion, on the 'existence' of a unifying force, perhaps. That has nothing to do with your race, or your culture. I have never made a single comment pointed at either - except, perhaps in direct rebuttal to something you have pointed at me and 'my' culture.

Once again. You try to force me into a box.


To be logical is good. We find it a very useful thing.

But there is no single logic. Logic is the art of words (logos).

Words are mutable and utterly subjective. So are the various logics.

Your "need to feel persecuted" is my observation of this:

* You NEED to argue anything and everything with the goal of justifying your position, if not outright trying to "convince", because you need to be "proven right" and hopefully "triumpant on the field of word-combat".

* He who sees "justification and triumph" in all things verbal, will always and constantly be fighting.

* To be fought, is to be persecuted.

Eh... ALOHA NUI LOA KAKOU..! :) (And that's about the extent of my olelo until I study some more..!)

(( By the way, I have no sympathy for the hawai'ian separatist movement. I do however fully support making the culture SO rich that the native hawai'ians would be given the land back gratefully. ))

You represent your culture on this beach, dude.

That's all I have to comment on.

This "beach" is my metaphorical playing field. I play with others with words here, as words are all we have here. That's the way I see it.

You can not victimize me on this beach, unless I allow it.

I choose not to allow it. :)

Your definition of religion is yours. Mine is mine. My definition of religion has everything to do with my culture, as it IS my culture. It informs it, and defines it.

You SHOULD comment on your view of my culture. I understand your wish to not be "rude" (politically incorrect) by doing so (which is another habit of your culture), but we enjoy discussing our differing ways. :)

We do not get angry easily, as we understand that all words are opinion, and not weapons.

And we are prohibited from using weapons, by the gods (proabably) <wink>, on this beach.

You force yourself into boxes! I don't need to do that.

It's fun to watch you cram yourself into your various boxes.

In fact it's the primary form of fun in my culture! It is how we show the world, the "it is", to our children.

And teaching, showing the world to, our children is the most important thing that we CAN do..!

ALOHA NUI LOA great one..! :) And keep on smilin' bra..!!
(( Aloha is the spirit of love that "includes". See Aloha (http://www.geocities.com/~olelo/alohaspiritlaw.html) ))

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Especially within subjects like "Atheists Dieing" (which I initially took to mean the "Are Atheists Dying Off..?",.. probably incorrectly.)
Silly me..!

LOL

Insults are clever when they entertain. Not so clever when they hurt.

In my culture, insults are "granted", not "applied".

One "accepts" an insult. And to "accept" an insult is "to lose", to bow to our superior, to us.

To be "insulted" is to become angry at not having a response to someone's observation of you.

If "You are a poo-head..!" is hurled at me, I respond "Show me this POO..!?".

I do not become angry. Just curious.

:)

Now when weapons come out,.. then the result is death by extreme violence.

But weapons are weapons, and words are words. :)

This is another difference of our cultures.

Well religion is a good thing...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am an athiest and i just wanted to say even though i don't bealive in any god i do bealive that church is a good thing and teaches people certain ethics which are needed in this world... I used to bealive in god when i was younger but i just found looking at things scientificly and using reason makes alot of confusion about life go away... However looking at all this with reason even though many wars have been started in the name of religion i think humans would not be where they are today without it... But thats how i see it with my reasoning and i am sure there are many different theories out there but thats what I bealive...

I bow before a great person, of great wisdom.

So one person cannot have culture? One person cannot represent their culture? What is the proper wording for the idea he was trying to express, then? Is a person showing their crafts, or a girl doing a 'native' dance, at a multi-cultural festival demonstrating their culture, and so "re-presenting" it (presenting externally something inherent)? I would have said they were. What is the proper way to word this that won't offend others?

I think the point being made is:

While they can be a REPRESENTATIVE of the culture, they:

a) do not define the culture
b) are not necessarily ACCURATELY representing the culture
c) are only ever statistically representing their culture,
d) only represent their culture to the degree to which they are typical of it, and WANT to represent it.

The native dance idea is representative, but is far from the ONLY aspect of a culture, and the person might be doing it wrong (to the EDUCATED eye)... and that dance might only actually have been typical to about 6 people anyway, from the whole culture.

I'm athiest.. Here are my thoughts on death if any of you are interested :)

While I'm alive, I don't think about death... It can be depressing so I usually try to have a good time :)

Gonna enjoy life for whatever it brings me.
And on my deathbed I will think about the good memories and good times...

It doesn't really worry me -too- much because when I'm dead I will cease to have thought.. and cease to be able to worry about things.. I shall be "at peace" as it were :)

Death comes for us all.. I just choose to believe that is the end. Does it matter? Even if it matters, does it matter that it matters? :)

As long as I enjoy my life I'm happy with it.

We believe the same, in that at death we can "do no more" in this world.

It is silly to us to consider what happens after death, except that we know that those we leave behind will continue.

We do the best we can while we live to help those we will eventually leave behind.

After we die, we can do no more.

I don't believe in any gods. I don't see how it is physically possible; the theory is not scientifically sound, as many have said so far. But believe what you will, what I DO have a complaint about is people TELLING people what to believe. By all means, take part A from religion X and part B from religion Y; but to be told what to believe is stupid. You believe what YOU believe; not what the guy in the local church told you to.
And that's my pointless rant :D

On topic, about death, I fear it being long and painful. Like burning or something. Or falling off cliffs, one of those, I'm going to die, and I know exactly when, and it's nasty. But concerning the afterlife, what was life like before you were created? It wasn't. Nor is there life after death.

I dislike this metaphorical beach. It is the "battleground" of your creation and any and all actions done by you are proof that your culture does the same. Scary stuff.

I'd rather debate on the forum where everyone has different oppinions and theres no sand.

YOu have got to be kidding me, the fact that ppl can think atheism is not a religion?

look at the last one. Atheism is a religion..



zeal P Pronunciation Key (z l)
n.
Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance. See Synonyms at passion.


Now we can start quoting definitions all day…

What is zeal ?

How about dedication.

Can you say that atheists follow a similar cause … or are all their views to dissimilar?

In Fact … can you say people that are religious hold true to a cause to the level required for “Zeal”?


I consider myself atheist … but I don’t seem to have tireless diligence in furthering anything … I just am not convinced that there is a god … lack of zeal for a cause in of itself does not a cause … its not a BELIEF in nothing … rather then a LACK of belief in SOMETHING … (this may seem rather bleak to you but there is a definite difference) most of us are not steadfast in our belief in nothing rather just want to be shown proof that there is something.

We know we can be wrong … we under stand that and work to correct the lack of knowledge in something

I dislike this metaphorical beach. It is the "battleground" of your creation and any and all actions done by you are proof that your culture does the same. Scary stuff.

I'd rather debate on the forum where everyone has different oppinions and theres no sand.

:D

You may see these grounds as you like..!

This "beach" is precisely NOT a battleground..! As I've defined it.

It is a place to talk-talk. Weapons are disallowed by the gods (probably) themselves..!

Everyone on this beach is free to their opinion, encouraged to give it openly and fully, and you may avoid the sand by taking a swim, or pulling up a nice big palm frond.

:)

Believe what you want, But i refuse to go along with you. I trust myself, and what I feel, and feel there is more to life that what I see.

Good. That's part of what being an atheist is all about. Live it out, believe what you believe. If you believe in God, good for you. Personally, I don't believe in God, but I don't have a problem with you following your religion. Just don't attack what I believe, and I won't attack what you believe. Period.

Also, though I don't believe in a God or anything like that, I do believe in an afterlife. Basically, you float around as pure though, flying into other realities, perceiving other dimensions, and having a good or bad time, depending on how you choose to spend eternity. And that's it.

*whoosh!!!*

YOu have got to be kidding me, the fact that ppl can think atheism is not a religion?

look at the last one. Atheism is a religion..

dieing is diening, woopdedoo, i just think it will be like sleep. Who cares, your dead!

god created the world, god created man, god created aids, and cancer and bombs and carbon monoxide and polio, mental retardation, diabetes, smallpox.

Lets thank god! for all teh cool things he makes us have to deal with and the fact that he supposedly doesnt want humans to use stemcells to fix these things!!!

ill also send my shout outs to santa clause. Your the man :P

Ngahahaha! Don't forget hemmorhagic fevers, murder, methyl-ethyl-ketone, greed, lust, and rabid mooses!

Whereas Iakeokeo has no idea what grave’s culture is … how does he/she know that the traits that were being presented were actually a large part of the society?
All I see is him stating what he perceived of Grave, through interaction with Grave through the Internet, that supported some preconceived notions about American culture. I don't think anyone on these boards does much differently; they just don't label it "culture", but then they're not speaking and thinking in a third-person voice either, so they don't have to label it.

Everyone on this beach is free to their opinion, encouraged to give it openly and fully, and you may avoid the sand by taking a swim, or pulling up a nice big palm frond.

:)
Woohoo! palm fronds for me, please!

[QUOTE]
They acted the only way they could, like everyone else did, they wouldnt have survived if they hadnt.
This is getting boring.


No - they acted the way they chose. That is different. The USA invaded Iraq... that is the way the USA 'chose' to act. Did they have to? Was it the only thing they 'could' do?

What you find boring, one assumes, is the fact that you are refuted on your easily refuted arguments.

They took alot of people back and they made alot of them slaves.


And you know this how? From the bible? Wonder if maybe that might be a 'partisan' source?

Well lets just say you wouldnt fit in,' your abit too how can I say 'liberated' for those times?


And so was Jesus... and, sure, they nailed him up for it... but he got 30 years out of it first. I would have assumed you'd know that, if you had read the good book.

Hey you guys bought this up on here first by saying witches were killed, so they must have been seen as a threat.


Witches were put under direct order of death. It doesn't say that it is because they were a threat...


Thats because you dont understand it.


I don't understand YOUR version of it, perhaps.

Im not lying sweetie.

Well, your story doesn't hold water.

Well do you now!
Guess what I do too!
And I dont call them towel heads either, one of them converted to Christianity some years ago as well.

If someone has converted to christianity, they are a christian. So - if you did, indeed, have that friend... he/she would no longer be a muslim.

Well you should know that one.

I do... I just suggested it.

I'll try to care about that.

Thank you, I wish you would.

No way are you wise, you misunderstood thats all, probably just a linguistics thing.


So, I am not wise? That, my friend, is purely your opinion. And a pretty baseless one, at that.

I'd say you are already veering dangerously close to insult territory.

Yes son of God.

No. 'Christ' does not mean 'son of god'. How can you be a 'christ'ian and not even know what 'christ' is?

And messiah?

I promise you to burst into tears if its true.

I really hope not.

Anyway... 'grave' acceptance would be a better response.... *laughs up sleeve*


Yeah well dont get too carried away with respecting her shes just a kid remember, and I know what respect is.


It doesn't sound like it... why should I not 'respect' her, just because she is young?

I prefer her attitude towards her religion, over your attitude to yours.

Another figure of speech used by evangelist Christians, Im thinking about undergoing it myself before I leave Australia.

Born-again is a very specific 'figure of speech', referring to the regeneration of man. If you are, as you claim, a christian by conversion - you must already have been 'born-again'. Perhaps you are confusing 'born-again' with 'baptised'?


But you can do and say whatever you like I suppose?
Id say your unchristian too then but you would take that as a compliment.

What I say or do shouldn't affect YOUR behaviour as a christian... that is supposed to be part of your relationship to christ.

I wouldn't take 'unchristian' as a compliment... I would take it as irrelevent.


Dont worry about my maturity, your either a teenager yourself or a bored and frustrated woman. :)
You have my sympathys if you are, and dont worry you will find someone again.

You 'sympathise' with me, if I am a woman?
Oh, you're good.

No. I am not a teenager, by a few years. I don't feel I am acting immature, but maybe that is just my perspective.

You use the term 'teenager' and the word 'woman' as though they are insults. I fear this says much about your attitudes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
He is not preaching, only attempting to explain. If I understand correctly, when he says, "it is", he means just that. His "omnipresence" is the universe, which is. It's quite real.

In this case, I would say that it is reality that is a symbol of Godhood.



I disagree. If you debate - if you present arguments and reason with your compatriots, that is a very diffferent thing to repeating over and over "Yes, but this is how it really is".

I appreciate the 'real' universe. I appreciate that, in his view, the universe symbolises 'it is', that the two are indevisible... but, rather than DEBATE that nature of reality, rather than debate that VIEW, he just asserts it over and over, as though it were the ONLY model, and that everyone else is somehow missing the point of such an obvious truth.

And that's where it slips into preach, versus debate. In my opinion.

I don't debate anything here..! That is the point. I give my opinions of what I hear from my point of view.

Debating is verbal combat. And worthwhile in those realms where the goal is to "clarify some aspect of the world".

But my opinions regarding what I hear in this realm, the realm of "religion", are not verbal combat.

They are simply "showing". My showing. Showing coming from ME. Opinion.

An opinion can never be the only view. Just "an opinion". A view. Not the view.

Thus you are hallucinating. Your statement (mine is the only model), by your rules, with these facts, is silly and to laugh at.

Which I'll do right now... laughing is a good thing, not an insult. :)

Laugh with me..! Then give your own "showing"...!

I don't debate anything here..! That is the point. I give my opinions of what I hear from my point of view.

Debating is verbal combat. And worthwhile in those realms where the goal is to "clarify some aspect of the world".

But my opinions regarding what I hear in this realm, the realm of "religion", are not verbal combat.

They are simply "showing". My showing. Showing coming from ME. Opinion.

An opinion can never be the only view. Just "an opinion". A view. Not the view.

Thus you are hallucinating. Your statement (mine is the only model), by your rules, with these facts, is silly and to laugh at.

Which I'll do right now... laughing is a good thing, not an insult. :)

Laugh with me..! Then give your own "showing"...!

de•bate P Pronunciation Key (d -b t )
v. de•bat•ed, de•bat•ing, de•bates
v. intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.

v. tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete. To fight or argue for or over.

n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete. Conflict; strife.
Even though
Sometimes it is verbal combat it is also just the discussing of opposing view points… really you are doing more of an informal debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The basis of religion is belief.

What you believe is the problem.

Do you really only worry about death when you die..?

Do you worry about death when you first learn the concept of death as a child..?

Do you worry about death when you ALMOST get hit by the car..?

Do you worry about death when you have a child and wish to do the best for them while your here because you know you can't help them when you're gone..?

Do not confuse "Goin' to Church" with religion.

Now,... do you in fact never worry about death..?

And if you are an atheist, how do you handle the anxieties of knowing you have only a short time in this world...?

(I'm not saying you don't, or can't,.. just curious how you personally do it..)

I'm a-theistic in that I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I'm also very religious, and I use my religion to deal with those anxieties, which is the REAL purpose of religion in the first place.




Sure, when I was a kid, blissfully ignorant as we all were, I ws afraid of dying. But that was because I associated death with ways and means of dying that were perceived as "horrible". But, as time goes on, you realise that you are not in control of when and how you die. So why worry about it? I could walk outside and get flattened by a bus. I could smoke for 60 years and die of cancer. I could spontaneously combust. All these are realistic possiblities. Yeh sure, some are horrible, difficult to even comprehend. My grandad and uncle died of cancer. Were they afraid of death? Who knows?

I do apologise when I said I will "worry about death when I die", because I won't worry about it. I only ask that I have some shot at life before I do die; a "good innings" if you will. And when I die, I will die. It isn't worth debating whether I'm afraid of it, because it is inevitable either way. I could die in the most horrific road accident, or peacefully in my sleep. Again, either way, if that's how I die, then so be it. What am I going to do? Stop driving cars? Stop sleeping?

I have nothing against religion. It belongs in the past, however. Religion was for a time of limited knowledge, when the classes couldn't explain natural phenomenom.

I hope you see my points above.

Tolerate the thought.


I am glad that you are not afraid of death. :)

Being dead is an unknowable, so why worry.

But the fear I refer to is "The fear of not being able to do more, to correct mistakes, to have provided for others better."

To leave religion in the past would be like leaving blood in the past.

We need blood to function.

We need religion to function.

WHAT your religion IS is the issue.

This my culture believes. This belief encompasses you in that you are considered "one of us as a fellow human being", but you are free to your own beliefs about your "need" for religion.

But we find statements like "Religion belongs in the past" to be as funny and cause for laughter as "If I cut off my pee-pee am I a girl..!?" coming from a four-year-old.

You may enjoy our amusement, or be offended by it,.. that's up to you.

We simple savages very much value our open and humorous ways, and invite you to comment on our amusement.

How do you handle a big smile and a hardy laugh at your most clever joke..!?

The savages await your response.... :)

All I see is him stating what he perceived of Grave, through interaction with Grave through the Internet, that supported some preconceived notions about American culture. I don't think anyone on these boards does much differently; they just don't label it "culture", but then they're not speaking and thinking in a third-person voice either, so they don't have to label it.

So you suspect Iakeokeo labours under the impression that I am 'American'?

I wonder why?

If you see my daring to SAY what I see, my mere opinion, as insult, that's just dandy. Allowing yourself to be insulted is more a reflection of the insultee than the insulter,... although using "You big fat poo head..!" would definately be a reflection (negatively) on the insulter.If you trip and fall onto the ground, someone might say "its stupid to let yourself fall on the ground". 'Yourself' could be third person, or talking directly to them, but either way it is directed at them in particular.

I am sorry for you Iakeokeo, you have preset thoughts that atheists think themselves superior to all and cannot stand to lose. This is not true. No truer than to say that all Christians try to convert others or all muslims are terrorists. Gerneralisation is wrong in these cases, and ours. My mind is still open to your views, i want to hear your oppinions, i hope that you will hear mine also.
The third person can also address no-one, i.e. the reader, i.e. posterity, and not be directed at anyone.

You misunderstand the "superiority" bits, too. You are, even in your second paragraph above, talking as if you were superior to him.

So you suspect Iakeokeo labours under the impression that I am 'American'?

I wonder why?
Does it matter? If that is the preconceived notion that is supported by your words and behaviours, can't we look past his wrong assumption (if it is so) and address what point he is making?

So you suspect Iakeokeo labours under the impression that I am 'American'?

I wonder why?


EXACTLY my point!


And the way Willamena stated it , it seemed rather like he/she thought so too :) (you may be but there is no obvious way to know)

Hmm.. If you asked me I'd say we don't -need- religion to function...

All we need is a good blood supply, a good supply of oxygen, vitamins nutrients etc..

What I found as a definition to religion is this:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe

I believe no such thing as this... I am athiest.
Personally I feel I don't -need- religion..

But naturally how you feel about it may be a different matter :)

Which I'll do right now... laughing is a good thing, not an insult. :)

Laugh with me..! Then give your own "showing"...!
I, for one, would love to see more showing and sharing, and less debating and contradicting.

What I saw was Iakeokeo and Magnatoria presenting two sides of an argument. Each was perfectly willing to tell the other that they were wrong and present their own ideas of the definition of religion, but as soon as Iakeokeo attempted to put himself in someone else's (your) shoes and look at himself through someone else's eyes, he was accused of all sorts of violations of personal space. I don't think he did it intentionally --I suspect it's just the way he thinks and understands himself.

I saw a wonderful series on public broadcasting the other day called, "Millenium" (unfortunately I can't find it on IMDB to point you to it). In it, the narrator/author explores tribal mentality, the differences between how a tribal society thinks and how our "modern" Western-cultured man thinks. One of the first episodes, if not the first (I forget), stated and demonstrated that the Western man defines himself by what he has --his body, his family, his group, his possessions. The tribal man defines himself by his family and group, too, but he defines himself through the others who are a part of him (it's the whole participatory thing, again) --they are his reflection to understanding himself. He asks a question, and when he gets an answer it is the answer --from his tribesman, mind you --that says, I am a part of the whole. It is this same tribal mentality that also speaks to God, asks questions, and gets answers that inform his life.

I'm not claiming this tribal mentality for Iakeokeo, but to me it is reflected in the way he tries to present his arguments (and is all but ignored by those addressing his arguments). When he put himself in your shoes, it was to present an argument about himself seen through others eyes, i.e. the second part of his post.

What I saw was Iakeokeo and Magnatoria conversing, and Iakeokeo accusing Magnatoria of a paranoid persecution complex, followed by the alledging that Magnatoria was somehow trying to attack Iakeokeo's 'religion'.

Next thing I know, Iakeokeo is posting a comment about angry, absolutist atheists - name-checking ME specifically.

I have yet to attack Iakeokeo's culture. I have not even really had a chance to discuss his religious beliefs.

Instead I have tried to 'debate' with someone who has a grudge against my culture, but can't tell me what 'my' culture is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
So one person cannot have culture? One person cannot represent their culture? What is the proper wording for the idea he was trying to express, then? Is a person showing their crafts, or a girl doing a 'native' dance, at a multi-cultural festival demonstrating their culture, and so "re-presenting" it (presenting externally something inherent)? I would have said they were. What is the proper way to word this that won't offend others?


I think the point being made is:

While they can be a REPRESENTATIVE of the culture, they:

a) do not define the culture
b) are not necessarily ACCURATELY representing the culture
c) are only ever statistically representing their culture,
d) only represent their culture to the degree to which they are typical of it, and WANT to represent it.

The native dance idea is representative, but is far from the ONLY aspect of a culture, and the person might be doing it wrong (to the EDUCATED eye)... and that dance might only actually have been typical to about 6 people anyway, from the whole culture.

Willamena's constant urge to "not offend" is quite nice, and REALLY humorous.

I just find it humorous,.. that's all. No biggy..!

Grave's constant and relentless combativeness is THE BEST comedy routine that I've seen in quite a while..!

Watching the beautiful motion and expert choice of weaponry and parry-riposte is delightful..!

And yet,.. all this motion and effort over the meaning of a joke..!?

The Iakeokeoians are thrashing around in the sand, convulsing in laughter and barely able to breath from the pleasure of the most MARVELOUS performance of these folks.

"Damn,... We better not let nobody know these guys are 'round here, 'cause we never get NOTHING done if more people find out about dis great show, eh cousin..!?" said Iakohoh.

"Heh he he... damn straight, man..!" replied Iakuraii.

I would like to say one thing about athieism that I have noticed just since I began on these boards. It would seem that athiests seek to "debunk" religion using tools that are entirely inappropriate to the task. Science will not work, since the exterior of religion --what you see of it in the physical world, can measure and analyze --is not what religion is about. Religion is about the experience of religion. Logical, rational thinking will not work, since belief defies logic and is stronger than logic for the simple reason that it is experienced by the "self". Labelling it irrational, delusional, subjective or prone to emotion (all insults flung by logic in an attempt to dismiss it) serves no purpose; it is an attempt for logic to understand it, but it does not result in understanding the experience, doesn't make it go away, and doesn't make it any less "real" to the people experiencing it, therefore they will not abandon their beliefs and embrace reason.

Athiests, have you noticed how I have personified the faculty of logic in the above statement? I have made the personification of logic a metaphor for the faculty of logic within the human mind. I can express ideas about logic using this metaphor as if logic had thought, reason, a plan, a goal, even a physical presence in the universe. God is a similar symbol --the symbol is not "real" with a presence in the physical world, but the meaning behind the symbol is very real. The symbol is anthropomorphized, but the symbol and its meaning undoubtedly exist. God exists.


Interestingly, you can use a sound logical arguement to disprove God.

Hmm.. If you asked me I'd say we don't -need- religion to function...

All we need is a good blood supply, a good supply of oxygen, vitamins nutrients etc..

What I found as a definition to religion is this:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe

I believe no such thing as this... I am athiest.
Personally I feel I don't -need- religion..

But naturally how you feel about it may be a different matter :)

I believe there is a natural tendency of the human psyche to desire gods. Something 'more'. I'm not sure why this should be the case... although I have spent several years trying to work that out.

I agree it is very clear to see what is 'needed' in life.

I also agree with your definition of religion - and, similarly, feel no need for the 'creator' and 'governor' image.

Perhaps people desire gods for the same reason they gang together to support a sports-team... maybe it fills some need for unity, some collectivisation function.

Or maybe people just don't like mystery... and being able to point to a thing and say... "I don't know why, but god does..." makes it easier to tolerate the unknown.

Like I say. I don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I don't debate anything here..! That is the point. I give my opinions of what I hear from my point of view.

Debating is verbal combat. And worthwhile in those realms where the goal is to "clarify some aspect of the world".

But my opinions regarding what I hear in this realm, the realm of "religion", are not verbal combat.

They are simply "showing". My showing. Showing coming from ME. Opinion.

An opinion can never be the only view. Just "an opinion". A view. Not the view.

Thus you are hallucinating. Your statement (mine is the only model), by your rules, with these facts, is silly and to laugh at.

Which I'll do right now... laughing is a good thing, not an insult.

Laugh with me..! Then give your own "showing"...!



de•bate P Pronunciation Key (d -b t )
v. de•bat•ed, de•bat•ing, de•bates
v. intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.

v. tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete. To fight or argue for or over.

n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete. Conflict; strife.

Even though sometimes it is verbal combat it is also just the discussing of opposing view points… really you are doing more of an informal debate

Cool book you got there, by the way..! :)

My view doesn't oppose anyone's view, so where does that leave us..?

We believe the same, in that at death we can "do no more" in this world.

It is silly to us to consider what happens after death, except that we know that those we leave behind will continue.

We do the best we can while we live to help those we will eventually leave behind.

After we die, we can do no more.
My speculation about death is much the same. I believe when I die my concept of God (or "relationship with" as the Catholics say) will go with me, my body returned to the Earth to become something more useful (ash is the current plan). Burial plots are such a waste of real estate.

I don't believe in any gods. I don't see how it is physically possible; the theory is not scientifically sound, as many have said so far. But believe what you will, what I DO have a complaint about is people TELLING people what to believe. By all means, take part A from religion X and part B from religion Y; but to be told what to believe is stupid. You believe what YOU believe; not what the guy in the local church told you to.
And that's my pointless rant :D
A great man (and good friend of mine, named Dr. Bob) once said, If you have to have someone tell you what to believe then you are not doing it right. :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Which I'll do right now... laughing is a good thing, not an insult.

Laugh with me..! Then give your own "showing"...!

I, for one, would love to see more showing and sharing, and less debating and contradicting.

Me too,... but they apparently have to go through "debating" (fighting) and "contradicting" (fighting) before they get to anywhere else.

Gee,... what culture does THAT sound like..!? :)

BUT, you see,... I LOVE that culture..!

It provides much amusement,.. and many very cool things,.. even to the savages, like myself and my people.

I just choose, now, to be Iakeokeoian.

To be NOT,.. that other culture. :D

Does it matter? If that is the preconceived notion that is supported by your words and behaviours, can't we look past his wrong assumption (if it is so) and address what point he is making?

It matters to me. Iakeokeo has demonised 'my' culture.

Either I am demonised because I am an American - which I'm not, incidentally...

or, Americans are demonised by their association with me.

If everyone immediately assumes I am American, they make assumptions about me based on my 'American-ness'. This will colour their image of me through debate, and they probably won't even be aware of it.

I have seen the same thing happen with 'newbies'... I got treated very differently when I had a low post-count to the way I was treated with my former nation: "Western_Shinma".

Believe what you want, But i refuse to go along with you. I trust myself, and what I feel, and feel there is more to life that what I see.
Good on you! That's what religion is about. Don't listen to anyone but your heart.

In response to Willamena about my post, i appologise about it being left open to interpretation that i felt "superior" i just have a problem with patronisation is all.
I also have a problem with people who leave out information (ie religion or lack thereof) that others give freely in discussion, in an attempt to make themselves 'immune' from cryticism and free to attack others.
"no biggie"

Me too,... but they apparently have to go through "debating" (fighting) and "contradicting" (fighting) before they get to anywhere else.

Gee,... what culture does THAT sound like..!? :)

BUT, you see,... I LOVE that culture..!

It provides much amusement,.. and many very cool things,.. even to the savages, like myself and my people.

I just choose, now, to be Iakeokeoian.

To be NOT,.. that other culture. :D

It will never heal if you don't stop picking at it.

Just let it lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
What I saw was Iakeokeo and Magnatoria presenting two sides of an argument. Each was perfectly willing to tell the other that they were wrong and present their own ideas of the definition of religion, but as soon as Iakeokeo attempted to put himself in someone else's (your) shoes and look at himself through someone else's eyes, he was accused of all sorts of violations of personal space. I don't think he did it intentionally --I suspect it's just the way he thinks and understands himself.

I saw a wonderful series on public broadcasting the other day called, "Millenium" (unfortunately I can't find it on IMDB to point you to it). In it, the narrator/author explores tribal mentality, the differences between how a tribal society thinks and how our "modern" Western-cultured man thinks. One of the first episodes, if not the first (I forget), stated and demonstrated that the Western man defines himself by what he has --his body, his family, his group, his possessions. The tribal man defines himself by his family and group, too, but he defines himself through the others who are a part of him (it's the whole participatory thing, again) --they are his reflection to understanding himself. He asks a question, and when he gets an answer it is the answer --from his tribesman, mind you --that says, I am a part of the whole. It is this same tribal mentality that also speaks to God, asks questions, and gets answers that inform his life.

I'm not claiming this tribal mentality for Iakeokeo, but to me it is reflected in the way he tries to present his arguments (and is all but ignored by those addressing his arguments). When he put himself in your shoes, it was to present an argument about himself seen through others eyes, i.e. the second part of his post.



What I saw was Iakeokeo and Magnatoria conversing, and Iakeokeo accusing Magnatoria of a paranoid persecution complex, followed by the alledging that Magnatoria was somehow trying to attack Iakeokeo's 'religion'.

Next thing I know, Iakeokeo is posting a comment about angry, absolutist atheists - name-checking ME specifically.

I have yet to attack Iakeokeo's culture. I have not even really had a chance to discuss his religious beliefs.

Instead I have tried to 'debate' with someone who has a grudge against my culture, but can't tell me what 'my' culture is.

I call the other an angry paranoid. It's true..! I did. With a smile.

The other takes offense, and attacks with his "weaponry".

The weaponry is deflected "by the gods (probably)", as they are useless here.

I say, "That is how I see you. What is your view?" With a smile. And a chukle.

The other claims I have a grudge against his culture (paranoid?).

I say, "Show me your culture, that I (don't actually) have a grudge against?" With a smile. And more chuckles.

The other gets more agitated...

....and the play talk-talk continues. :)

Willamena's constant urge to "not offend" is quite nice, and REALLY humorous.

I just find it humorous,.. that's all. No biggy..!
I'll take that as a compliment. :-)

And yet,.. all this motion and effort over the meaning of a joke..!?

The Iakeokeoians are thrashing around in the sand, convulsing in laughter and barely able to breath from the pleasure of the most MARVELOUS performance of these folks.
Damn role-players. ;-)

(PS I *loved* the sand analogy.)

[FONT=Century Gothic]

The other claims I have a grudge against his culture (paranoid?).

FONT]

A few quotes from one post:

"His culture refuses to see anything more than aggression and conquest, using the tools at his disposal".

"He must always be right, even if "being right" is not the issue".

"As we are savages, he knows that he is superior, and that his ships are, in fact, poised to conquer my culture".

I don't think I'm paranoid.

Let it lie.

Stop picking at it.

Interestingly, you can use a sound logical arguement to disprove God.
Rather disprove what I consider to be an incorrection notion about the nature of god.

Atheist arent dying! I mean maybe of natural causes or over dose or suicide...but they are not diein becuz of being an atheist! If we were dying because of being atheist i would be dead! :| but ya! It's cool that you want opnions from people! :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
We believe the same, in that at death we can "do no more" in this world.

It is silly to us to consider what happens after death, except that we know that those we leave behind will continue.

We do the best we can while we live to help those we will eventually leave behind.

After we die, we can do no more.


My speculation about death is much the same. I believe when I die my concept of God (or "relationship with" as the Catholics say) will go with me, my body returned to the Earth to become something more useful (ash is the current plan). Burial plots are such a waste of real estate.

Indeed..!

That big volcano in the middle of the island is very userful for this function.

The person is gone. They, and we, have no use for the meat part, although sometimes the bone parts help people remember what the person did and had helped them with.

But the things that they made, images of them, things that remind people of them, we revere as things and places that help us to remember that we too can do things that people will remember us for.

And we thank them for reminding us.

And we thank "it is" for our opportunity to be reminded, and that all we have now.

Wow

I have just finished reading through this entire thread. What I have observed dismays me.

Several of the conversations going on in here have focussed entirely on whose interpretation of a particular religion, the definition of religion, or atheism is correct. People have insulted each other's grammar, and spelling with no regard for the possibility that the other may not use english as their first language, or that they may be rather younger than one might assume. There has been no allowance made for typos, even. Also, I have not seen anyone take into consideration the fact that posting one's thoughts doesn't allow for sufficient explanation. It becomes too easy to take the words at face value, thus misinterpreting them. There is little room for concession. I am sorry to say that I participated in some of these pointless arguements.

I wonder if anyone has thought about the fact that what they (and I speak specifically to a couple of the loudest posters) are doing is taking sides in the oldest war of humankind: US and THEM. It doesn't matter what your particular views are regarding any religion or philosophy. If you only concentrate on telling other people that they are wrong, you are taking sides, blinding yourselves to the fact that it doesn't matter.

That's right. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

In one church, synagogue, temple, coven, whatever, of, say 100 people members, there will be 100 different interpretations of whatever sacred text or document is on the table. There will be 100 different methods of worship, prayer, and casting spells. If every single one of those people jumped up and yelled, "You are wrong!", what do you think that peaceful place of worship would turn into? Can you say, "the Dark Ages", or "Europe of Martin Luther's time"? How 'bout, "the middle east"?

But they don't do that. They accept that there may be differences between them (or assume that there aren't any, but I won't get into that), but they are united under one roof and that is the important thing. Why can't we do that globally? Probably for the same reasons why we can't seem to do it on a forum. No one wants to give an inch to the enemy. To THEM.

I commend the original poster. He/she demonstrated a desire to understand another group of people without trying to classify them, define them, or ridicule them. Asking one question can be the first step to peace. Understanding. Agreeing to disagree.

Maybe we should all take a page out of that book. Let's drop the arguements and just listen to what the people who answer the question have to say. Maybe we can come up with a few more questions for each other and learn something new.

Or maybe people just don't like mystery... and being able to point to a thing and say... "I don't know why, but god does..." makes it easier to tolerate the unknown.

Like I say. I don't know.
Hehe. I would say rather that people who believe in such a God, a great unknowable, enjoy mystery.

I am sorry, I read the thing wrong. I think atheists would be like any other person, maybe afraid of dying...i dont thnk anyone is happy or excited to die...unless they are in agony! Atheists are normal people who just have no belief in god nor the devil...I mean I see it this way, What's the point of believing something that you, physically, can't tell is there? *Shrugs* it's just my opnion..

Me too,... but they apparently have to go through "debating" (fighting) and "contradicting" (fighting) before they get to anywhere else.

Gee,... what culture does THAT sound like..!? :)

BUT, you see,... I LOVE that culture..!

It provides much amusement,.. and many very cool things,.. even to the savages, like myself and my people.

I just choose, now, to be Iakeokeoian.

To be NOT,.. that other culture. :D


Debating is not just fighting it is a tool … a tool to work out opinions peacefully without forcing them on the other… it is a sharing of ideas … and a tool for finding out things from a different perspective …

If you don’t like debating then I would recommend you look somewhere else for entertainment … this really is a debate forum … in fact the whole style of it is setup for active debate …

Why bother talking about much if all they say is “that is nice” or “good point” … ever go to threads like that … boring!

It has its place in life … as does debating (formalized discussion)

Hehe. I would say rather that people who believe in such a God, a great unknowable, enjoy mystery.
I would say they actually more “consolidate the no’s”

Meaning they take all the little “I don’t know why this happens”

And just attribute them to a god … then the only really have to try to decide if or not the god does exist … if he/she does … bam you can attribute everything to him/her

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Does it matter? If that is the preconceived notion that is supported by your words and behaviours, can't we look past his wrong assumption (if it is so) and address what point he is making?


It matters to me. Iakeokeo has demonised 'my' culture.

Either I am demonised because I am an American - which I'm not, incidentally...

or, Americans are demonised by their association with me.

If everyone immediately assumes I am American, they make assumptions about me based on my 'American-ness'. This will colour their image of me through debate, and they probably won't even be aware of it.

I have seen the same thing happen with 'newbies'... I got treated very differently when I had a low post-count to the way I was treated with my former nation: "Western_Shinma".

This is where the simple savage Iakeokeoian hugs the other, and makes calm, soothing noises.

"No, no, no.... don't cry..!" I say, taking a consoling, firm, "parental" tone.

"There is nothing 'demolished' here..! All is as it was. Nothing has changed." I say.

"You, or your culture, are not judged here. Merely used as something to talk about. As am I, and mine. You are a person, not a culture. And no one can judge you or your culture, other than to describe it as they see it." I say slowly.

"Just remember.... No insult can 'land', or harm come to you here, that you do not allow." I say, holding the other's face in my hands, and a few seconds before hurling his head into the sand.

"Now,... get real and let's play, or not!" says the idiot savage with a HUGE smile on his face, flailing around in the sand like a four-year-old, and threatening to leap into the surf.

It matters to me. Iakeokeo has demonised 'my' culture.

Either I am demonised because I am an American - which I'm not, incidentally...

or, Americans are demonised by their association with me.
I don't think so. Remember, it was me, not Iakeokeo, who labelled what he might see in you 'American'. I don't think he has demonized your culture --that would imply hatred, too --so much as set himself up to be different from it --not opposed to, as the Babylonian and Canaanite religions were demonized by the Israelites --but different in order to present contrasts. I am willing to bet he is perfectly willing to amend his 'opinion' if given sufficient reason.

If everyone immediately assumes I am American, they make assumptions about me based on my 'American-ness'. This will colour their image of me through debate, and they probably won't even be aware of it.
This is very true, but not necessarily a bad thing. Do I come off as American? (Just curious.)

I have seen the same thing happen with 'newbies'... I got treated very differently when I had a low post-count to the way I was treated with my former nation: "Western_Shinma".

And yes, he does get very patronizing. ;-) (superior?)

Debating is not just fighting it is a tool … a tool to work out opinions peacefully without forcing them on the other… it is a sharing of ideas … and a tool for finding out things from a different perspective …

If you don’t like debating then I would recommend you look somewhere else for entertainment … this really is a debate forum … in fact the whole style of it is setup for active debate …

Why bother talking about much if all they say is “that is nice” or “good point” … ever go to threads like that … boring!

It has its place in life … as does debating (formalized discussion)

See, that is why I debate. I learn from the debating process. I honestly do.

Also, I enjoy debate... not all of it, not all the time... but I do enjoy the activity of interchanging ideas, and contesting each other's assertions.

I am not against just saying "Good Point" if all the points are good... but I am not against saying "I disagree" if I disagree.

Like I say... debate is good - it is learning, and I am always happy to learn.

I would say they actually more “consolidate the no’s”

Meaning they take all the little “I don’t know why this happens”

And just attribute them to a god … then the only really have to try to decide if or not the god does exist … if he/she does … bam you can attribute everything to him/her

That's kind of the thought I was aiming at...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Waywatchers
Hmm.. If you asked me I'd say we don't -need- religion to function...

All we need is a good blood supply, a good supply of oxygen, vitamins nutrients etc..

What I found as a definition to religion is this:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe

I believe no such thing as this... I am athiest.
Personally I feel I don't -need- religion..

But naturally how you feel about it may be a different matter


I believe there is a natural tendency of the human psyche to desire gods. Something 'more'. I'm not sure why this should be the case... although I have spent several years trying to work that out.

I agree it is very clear to see what is 'needed' in life.

I also agree with your definition of religion - and, similarly, feel no need for the 'creator' and 'governor' image.

Perhaps people desire gods for the same reason they gang together to support a sports-team... maybe it fills some need for unity, some collectivisation function.

Or maybe people just don't like mystery... and being able to point to a thing and say... "I don't know why, but god does..." makes it easier to tolerate the unknown.

Like I say. I don't know.

Indeed. You do not know.

Your statement "I agree it is very clear to see what is 'needed' in life" violates your own rules, as you don't have enough information to say it.

More living spent NOT worrying about gods and organized religion would help you enormously.

Life (the time during which we do things) and living (the act of doing things) will help you enormously to discover why YOU do what you do, and what you really mean by the words you use.

Nothing can help you understand why others do what they do, other than observing them, and seeing how those observations fit yourself.

You can't argue with life.

If you don't need QQQ to live, then QQQ will never be "invoked" for you.

May you be happy with what you need and don't need. :)

In response to Willamena about my post, i appologise about it being left open to interpretation that i felt "superior" i just have a problem with patronisation is all.
I also have a problem with people who leave out information (ie religion or lack thereof) that others give freely in discussion, in an attempt to make themselves 'immune' from cryticism and free to attack others.
"no biggie"

Nobody likes to be told what to do.

Nobody likes their individuality violated.

Nobody should ever tolerate having their individuality violated...!

My people NEVER allow such a thing.



What is the "left out" part again..? :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Me too,... but they apparently have to go through "debating" (fighting) and "contradicting" (fighting) before they get to anywhere else.

Gee,... what culture does THAT sound like..!?

BUT, you see,... I LOVE that culture..!

It provides much amusement,.. and many very cool things,.. even to the savages, like myself and my people.

I just choose, now, to be Iakeokeoian.

To be NOT,.. that other culture.


It will never heal if you don't stop picking at it.

Just let it lie.

What "wound" is this that you're talking about..?

Do you have a wound..? That's odd, as there are no weapons that work around here..!?

What "wound" is this that you're talking about..?

Do you have a wound..? That's odd, as there are no weapons that work around here..!?


He means you reffered to his culture

People wont forget your wrong assumptions on his culture if you keep pointing them out (basically saying let the issue about culture lie)

Wow

I have just finished reading through this entire thread. What I have observed dismays me.

Several of the conversations going on in here have focussed entirely on whose interpretation of a particular religion, the definition of religion, or atheism is correct. People have insulted each other's grammar, and spelling with no regard for the possibility that the other may not use english as their first language, or that they may be rather younger than one might assume. There has been no allowance made for typos, even. Also, I have not seen anyone take into consideration the fact that posting one's thoughts doesn't allow for sufficient explanation. It becomes too easy to take the words at face value, thus misinterpreting them. There is little room for concession. I am sorry to say that I participated in some of these pointless arguements.

I wonder if anyone has thought about the fact that what they (and I speak specifically to a couple of the loudest posters) are doing is taking sides in the oldest war of humankind: US and THEM. It doesn't matter what your particular views are regarding any religion or philosophy. If you only concentrate on telling other people that they are wrong, you are taking sides, blinding yourselves to the fact that it doesn't matter.

That's right. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

In one church, synagogue, temple, coven, whatever, of, say 100 people members, there will be 100 different interpretations of whatever sacred text or document is on the table. There will be 100 different methods of worship, prayer, and casting spells. If every single one of those people jumped up and yelled, "You are wrong!", what do you think that peaceful place of worship would turn into? Can you say, "the Dark Ages", or "Europe of Martin Luther's time"? How 'bout, "the middle east"?

But they don't do that. They accept that there may be differences between them (or assume that there aren't any, but I won't get into that), but they are united under one roof and that is the important thing. Why can't we do that globally? Probably for the same reasons why we can't seem to do it on a forum. No one wants to give an inch to the enemy. To THEM.

I commend the original poster. He/she demonstrated a desire to understand another group of people without trying to classify them, define them, or ridicule them. Asking one question can be the first step to peace. Understanding. Agreeing to disagree.

Maybe we should all take a page out of that book. Let's drop the arguements and just listen to what the people who answer the question have to say. Maybe we can come up with a few more questions for each other and learn something new.

Hear hear..!

Geniune genius..!

Excellent..! :)

Well, I can't really answer for Athiests, as I am not one. Neither am I religous. I happen to be agnostic, and I believe that there are quite a few people who believe themselves to be athiests that are as well, and that quite a few of you religous sorts don't know, or don't care about the difference.

The Athiests are very correct in saying that Athiesm is not a religion, because indeed, they are completely against the idea that there is some sort of greater being. However, while they are NOT a religion, they ARE a belief system. They have faith. Faith that there is no god, a faith every bit as strong and unprovable as your average Christian's belief that there IS one.

Agnosticism is not a religion, though neither is it a belief system. We simply admit that we don't know. A Christian will assure you that an afterlife awaits, an Athiest will tell you oblivion. An agnostic simply shrugs his/her shoulders. There could be a god, there could not be a god, there could be Heaven, Hell, Nirvana, Valhalla, The Elysian Fields, The Underworld, or The Giant Hill of Unstoppable Bunny Robots waiting for me when I shuffle off this mortal coil, or nothing at all. I just don't know.

A lack of proof that something exists does not prove that it DOESN'T exist, just makes it unprovable.

SO as for the question, death? I fear it. It is unknown to me what happens after I die, so being a human being, I fear the unknown. It's only natural. For those of you who are sure of what hapens after you die, I wish the best of luck to you. I figure, hey, one of you guys has to be right huh? Or maybe what you believe IS what happens to you after death, regardless of your beliefs.

But in the case that your ALL wrong... I'll save a seat on The Giant Hill of Unstoppable Bunny Robots for yah. ;)

Balth

Iakeokeo, your religion. I think you left it out to avoid people cryticising it while allowing yourself the freedom of not needing to defend yourself. Most people have declared their stance allowing them to 'debate' rather than 'state'. We have had Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Atheists and a multitude that i cannot remember yet you have hidden your own. Do not take offence to my request, if you would prefer do not state it but please, a reason if you would.

I don't think so. Remember, it was me, not Iakeokeo, who labelled what he might see in you 'American'. I don't think he has demonized your culture --that would imply hatred, too --so much as set himself up to be different from it --not opposed to, as the Babylonian and Canaanite religions were demonized by the Israelites --but different in order to present contrasts. I am willing to bet he is perfectly willing to amend his 'opinion' if given sufficient reason.


This is very true, but not necessarily a bad thing. Do I come off as American? (Just curious.)


I had not even considered cultural origins, to be honest. I have talked to people with 'names' for their Nations that would imply all kinds of origins, but which had little relation to the actual culture of the person. I don't really look at the names except as that, purely as names.

Aside from that, there isn't much of a way to tell someone's culture from their posting - unless it is given away by text IN the posts, or spelling (for example), or from a recurrent theme - e.g. one person in another thread who seemed to have issues with the French and with immigration of Islamic people - who turned out to be German... It's possible you could have placed him in Europe because of his issues with the French.

I wouldn't like to make a decision about your culture - I would have enough trouble deciding which country you came from, let alone what your ethnicity and creed might be, within that culture.

Maybe I can come back to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Me too,... but they apparently have to go through "debating" (fighting) and "contradicting" (fighting) before they get to anywhere else.

Gee,... what culture does THAT sound like..!?

BUT, you see,... I LOVE that culture..!

It provides much amusement,.. and many very cool things,.. even to the savages, like myself and my people.

I just choose, now, to be Iakeokeoian.

To be NOT,.. that other culture.



Debating is not just fighting it is a tool … a tool to work out opinions peacefully without forcing them on the other… it is a sharing of ideas … and a tool for finding out things from a different perspective …

If you don’t like debating then I would recommend you look somewhere else for entertainment … this really is a debate forum … in fact the whole style of it is setup for active debate …

Why bother talking about much if all they say is “that is nice” or “good point” … ever go to threads like that … boring!

It has its place in life … as does debating (formalized discussion)

Debating is the combat of words to eliminate the dross.

It is inherently violent, which is fine, as is any form of combat.

Since I don't debate, yet have been a relatively active nucleus for "contention", it might be more than ONLY debate that supports interesting discourse.

Could that possibly be..!? :eek:

And yes, he does get very patronizing. ;-) (superior?)


WHO...!?


ME..!!?

:D

Debating is the combat of words to eliminate the dross.

It is inherently violent, which is fine, as is any form of combat.

Since I don't debate, yet have been a relatively active nucleus for "contention", it might be more than ONLY debate that supports interesting discourse.

Could that possibly be..!? :eek:
Where did you get this idea that debate is only combat? I don’t think you understand the connotations of the word


Debate boils down to this

I have one point of view

You have another
We discuss
We share information

We try to find out which points of my ideas are good and what of yours are good


Sometimes this is aggressive
Sometimes this is formalized

Not always

But just the fact of you discussing it with me on any level really can be considered an informal “debate”

I think i know why i fear death now (after careful deliberation).

I have a mildly childish view of life, it being that we are all like characters in an MMORPG. I have skills that i train up with practice, i meet people who become friends and progress through life to the end. (i like my metaphors)

Anyhow. I dislike the idea of my experiences and skills being lost, as i define who i am by them. I dont like not being around, having done it before i was born. Was REALLY dull.

He means you reffered to his culture

People wont forget your wrong assumptions on his culture if you keep pointing them out (basically saying let the issue about culture lie)

That is certainly part of it...

You can't move on if you keep bringing up the same issues.

I have attempted to let the 'culture' thing go.

I have attempted to let the 'angry' thing go.

I have attempted to let the 'paranoid' thing go.

I have attempted to let the 'must be right' thing go.

I have attempted to let the 'must fight every point' thing go.

I am trying to continue with the debate.

I am trying to leave behind that which does not truly matter.

Iakeokeo does not like my debating technique (he says), yet he uses it to dissect my posts.

Leave what is passed in the past.

It will never heal if you pick at it.

The Athiests are very correct in saying that Athiesm is not a religion, because indeed, they are completely against the idea that there is some sort of greater being. However, while they are NOT a religion, they ARE a belief system. They have faith. Faith that there is no god, a faith every bit as strong and unprovable as your average Christian's belief that there IS one.

Agnosticism is not a religion, though neither is it a belief system. We simply admit that we don't know.


Wise words :) (in my view anyway, yours may differ :) )

With the info you've given me about agnosticism...

I am athiest, and I believe there to be no gods. I wouldn't say, however, that I had faith there is no God, because I honestly have no idea as to what might come later.

I may be wrong in believing there to be nothing but nothingness when you die. I still believe it though.. I suppose I'm an agnostic athiest :)

I believe there to be no gods or afterlife.. but I cannot provide proof of it, and therefore have to admit it could be any number of things :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Hehe. I would say rather that people who believe in such a God, a great unknowable, enjoy mystery.


I would say they actually more “consolidate the no’s”

Meaning they take all the little “I don’t know why this happens”

And just attribute them to a god … then the only really have to try to decide if or not the god does exist … if he/she does … bam you can attribute everything to him/her

More comments of a 6 year-old.

Describing his fellow 6 year-olds.

It's utterly valid, of course, because if you don't feel the need to feel (as regards religion), then feeling is inherently silly.

But if you DO feel..... :)

(( The savage says "Is that too provocative and mean..?", followed by him screwing up his face and shaking his head in self reproach for even considering considering 'political correctness' as anything to worry about. ))

I would say they actually more “consolidate the no’s”

Meaning they take all the little “I don’t know why this happens”

And just attribute them to a god … then the only really have to try to decide if or not the god does exist … if he/she does … bam you can attribute everything to him/her
And Iakeokeo and I have presented different concepts of God that don't involve blind belief for the sake of release from fear, silly excuses of the unknown, or worshiping large invisible men. And our beliefs are not unique, even amongst Christians.

I have been in exactly 3 churches in my time (unless you count St. Sofia's Basillica). The last time was a Catholic wedding that took place in Chicago. I was very impressed --first, by the architecture and the stained glass windows, that inspired a sense reverence, and secondly by the Catholic priest's sermon before the vows. He was aware that he was speaking to an audience of mixed beliefs, and had adjusted his ideas accordingly. He explained, in careful detail, the ideas he was presenting as he presented them, with an impressive grasp of the meaning behind the rituals of wedding and the Biblical passages that support the idea of marriage. This was not a man who could be easily dismissed as believing in faeries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
What "wound" is this that you're talking about..?

Do you have a wound..? That's odd, as there are no weapons that work around here..!?



He means you reffered to his culture

People wont forget your wrong assumptions on his culture if you keep pointing them out (basically saying let the issue about culture lie)

I made observations of his culture as represented by him.

Are you saying that my opinion is "wrong", invalid..!?

If I were to say that your opinion was wrong... what would be your reaction..?

Are we not allowed our opinions..?

(( EDIT: Oh...! I forgot the smiley..! :) ))

Back to the original topic (good plan God Emperor)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think i know why i fear death now (after careful deliberation).

I have a mildly childish view of life, it being that we are all like characters in an MMORPG. I have skills that i train up with practice, i meet people who become friends and progress through life to the end. (i like my metaphors)

Anyhow. I dislike the idea of my experiences and skills being lost, as i define who i am by them. I dont like not being around, having done it before i was born. Was REALLY dull.

Bingo..!

We have a winner..!

And this "dislike" is the spawning force of religion.

And religion is nothing more than all humans reaction to that force.

Excellent...!!

Bingo..!

And this "dislike" is the spawning force of religion.

And religion is nothing more than all humans reaction to that force.



So you deny that gods can exist other than to save us from fears? I dont, although im liking the 6year old bit in your past post. Very mature. 8)

none of us know what death brings until is upon us, no matter what holy book we've read or what we've heard or what we tink we're quite sure if; maybe a new life, maybe Elysia, Heaven or Hell, maybe just our spiritual energy continues, rid of this life and not carrying it weight, or maybe it is oblivion, and just our physical energy that continues, in a decomposition that gives birth to knew life, which is not a depressing but a renewing thought. Or maybe something no religion or school of thought has even concieved of yet.

death is inevitable, let's cross that bridge when we come to it, theres no since worrying, as death is as natural as life.

More comments of a 6 year-old.

Describing his fellow 6 year-olds.

It's utterly valid, of course, because if you don't feel the need to feel (as regards religion), then feeling is inherently silly.

But if you DO feel..... :)

(( The savage says "Is that too provocative and mean..?", followed by him screwing up his face and shaking his head in self reproach for even considering considering 'political correctness' as anything to worry about. ))




Somehow insulting (they really were right when they said you thought you were superior)

As for the Feel the need to feel part … I was born catholic … I felt the need to feel included for a long time … then I had the feeling to use my brain rather then being emotionally driven.

More comments of a 6 year-old.

Describing his fellow 6 year-olds.

It's utterly valid, of course, because if you don't feel the need to feel (as regards religion), then feeling is inherently silly.

But if you DO feel..... :)

(( The savage says "Is that too provocative and mean..?", followed by him screwing up his face and shaking his head in self reproach for even considering considering 'political correctness' as anything to worry about. ))



Don't know about 'mean'.

It certainly wasn't needed.

Just because you feel you have 'grown' beyond a concept, doesn't make that concept childlike.

It could be construed as mean to tell someone they are acting like a child, I suppose.

That said... my 6 year old daughter has impressive insight (which, I have to admit, I think she got from her mother) - and anyone being compared to that 6 year old should take it as a compliment.

Don't know about 'mean'.

It certainly wasn't needed.

Just because you feel you have 'grown' beyond a concept, doesn't make that concept childlike.

It could be construed as mean to tell someone they are acting like a child, I suppose.

That said... my 6 year old daughter has impressive insight (which, I have to admit, I think she got from her mother) - and anyone being compared to that 6 year old should take it as a compliment.


Then I will take it as a complement (I am sure it was not intended as such) :) you are right sometimes kids have the best insight so un tainted with life … minds so open

Its such a shame when that leaves

And Iakeokeo and I have presented different concepts of God that don't involve blind belief for the sake of release from fear, silly excuses of the unknown, or worshiping large invisible men. And our beliefs are not unique, even amongst Christians.

I have been in exactly 3 churches in my time (unless you count St. Sofia's Basillica). The last time was a Catholic wedding that took place in Chicago. I was very impressed --first, by the architecture and the stained glass windows, that inspired a sense reverence, and secondly by the Catholic priest's sermon before the vows. He was aware that he was speaking to an audience of mixed beliefs, and had adjusted his ideas accordingly. He explained, in careful detail, the ideas he was presenting as he presented them, with an impressive grasp of the meaning behind the rituals of wedding and the Biblical passages that support the idea of marriage. This was not a man who could be easily dismissed as believing in faeries.

A little more strident than most of your usual posts?

Trying to understand the roots of religion must surely be a good thing, even for the religious persons themselves? If someone suggests that religions are a coping mechanism, or are a way of expalining the inexplicable, that doesn't make that idea silly... it might be right. It might be wrong. It's an idea - and not a 'bad' one.

Interesting point about the fairies, though; the Celtic faeries are, for the most part, the later incarnations of the Celtic Gods, fallen out of favour since the introduction of christianity.

The Catholic church even has a faerie as a saint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Bingo..!

And this "dislike" is the spawning force of religion.

And religion is nothing more than all humans reaction to that force.




So you deny that gods can exist other than to save us from fears? I dont, although im liking the 6year old bit in your past post. Very mature. 8)

"So you deny that gods can exist other than to save us from fears?"

You'll have to explain what you mean by that. I'll try though.

Gods exist to inspire us.

Gods exist to scare us. To infuriate us. To tempt us. Etc...

The 6 year-old bit was the quickest way to describe what I saw, which was someone exhibiting the mindset of a six year-old.

Then I will take it as a complement (I am sure it was not intended as such) :) you are right sometimes kids have the best insight so un tainted with life … minds so open

Its such a shame when that leaves

She would be happy to refute the insults of another just by being who she is. :)

Some just seem to consider an open mind to be something to grow out of.

It's sad. But it's true.:(

"So you deny that gods can exist other than to save us from fears?"

You'll have to explain what you mean by that. I'll try though.

Gods exist to inspire us.

Gods exist to scare us. To infuriate us. To tempt us. Etc...

The 6 year-old bit was the quickest way to describe what I saw, which was someone exhibiting the mindset of a six year-old.


And what exactly is the mindset of a 6 year old?

Again I point out my post that to me the mindset of a child really is a gloriously open thing until people try to shape their views

But this is obviously not the meaning you intended

So what is the mindset of a 6 year old

And what did I … or anyone else say to remind you of that



Or maybe I should take it like you do

Sees the little people talking about statements and laughs
Sees them “combating” over little thoughts of wisdom scratching heads

Something about sand and rolling in it

(yes I know being sarcastic … not because of lack of understanding)

Iakeokeo, your religion. I think you left it out to avoid people cryticising it while allowing yourself the freedom of not needing to defend yourself. Most people have declared their stance allowing them to 'debate' rather than 'state'. We have had Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Atheists and a multitude that i cannot remember yet you have hidden your own. Do not take offence to my request, if you would prefer do not state it but please, a reason if you would.

My "stance" is that my religion is the native and ancient religion of the Iakeokeoian Islands (Well,.. Island, actually, but that's irrelevent here.)

You will simply have to accept that,.. or not. :)

Judge me, or not, by what I say, as your only source of my culture.

(( this is one of the reasons I really hate the "flat display" [unthreaded] forum configuration. ))

Now,... we are a-theistic in that we see gods as representations of fragments of "it is".

"It is" is the only absolute,.. and is best described as "absolutely everything".

We have no afterlife. The time after death is "the time when we can no longer do anything".

Our culture is entirely religious. We do what we do to make ourselves feel good about the possiblity that those we leave behind will feel good about what we did in life.

We use religion, the observation and use of what we learn about "it is", to comfort and lead us toward our goal of having others appreciate us when we can do no more.

Can you say what you believe..?

:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
More comments of a 6 year-old.

Describing his fellow 6 year-olds.

It's utterly valid, of course, because if you don't feel the need to feel (as regards religion), then feeling is inherently silly.

But if you DO feel.....

(( The savage says "Is that too provocative and mean..?", followed by him screwing up his face and shaking his head in self reproach for even considering considering 'political correctness' as anything to worry about. ))



Somehow insulting (they really were right when they said you thought you were superior)

As for the Feel the need to feel part … I was born catholic … I felt the need to feel included for a long time … then I had the feeling to use my brain rather then being emotionally driven.

I simply describe what I see.

You merely demonstrate more 6-year-old-ness with the "not being emotionally driven" part.

But then,.. what others see in you may be different. And in me as well.

That's fine.

I just like to talk.. :)

That is certainly part of it...

You can't move on if you keep bringing up the same issues.

I have attempted to let the 'culture' thing go.

I have attempted to let the 'angry' thing go.

I have attempted to let the 'paranoid' thing go.

I have attempted to let the 'must be right' thing go.

I have attempted to let the 'must fight every point' thing go.

I am trying to continue with the debate.

I am trying to leave behind that which does not truly matter.

Iakeokeo does not like my debating technique (he says), yet he uses it to dissect my posts.

Leave what is passed in the past.

It will never heal if you pick at it.
I love how everyone talk like Iakeokeo now.

Believe what you want, But i refuse to go along with you. I trust myself, and what I feel, and feel there is more to life that what I see.


Please tell me - Do you share my belief that religion was invented by man, because he did not have the answer and solution to all his problems?

Do you too mean that the Bible is nothing more than a good story written by this people?

Or do you honestly believe that the old tellings must be accepted word by word?

I love how everyone talk like Iakeokeo now.


Not quite … majority correct sentences

And intelligible :) so not quite the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
More comments of a 6 year-old.

Describing his fellow 6 year-olds.

It's utterly valid, of course, because if you don't feel the need to feel (as regards religion), then feeling is inherently silly.

But if you DO feel.....

(( The savage says "Is that too provocative and mean..?", followed by him screwing up his face and shaking his head in self reproach for even considering considering 'political correctness' as anything to worry about. ))


Don't know about 'mean'.

It certainly wasn't needed.

Just because you feel you have 'grown' beyond a concept, doesn't make that concept childlike.

It could be construed as mean to tell someone they are acting like a child, I suppose.

That said... my 6 year old daughter has impressive insight (which, I have to admit, I think she got from her mother) - and anyone being compared to that 6 year old should take it as a compliment.

:)

I agree about 6 year-olds. Very unbiased insights. Very un-"polluted" by overly rational thought.

It's only an insult to he who sees it as an insult.

Ask your child:

"Is love real..?"

"Does it feel good to make you're mom happy..?"

That's how my people feel about our "it is", and about what we do to "make our mom happy".

Somehow insulting (they really were right when they said you thought you were superior)

As for the Feel the need to feel part … I was born catholic … I felt the need to feel included for a long time … then I had the feeling to use my brain rather then being emotionally driven.
But God is found with the heart, not the brain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
And Iakeokeo and I have presented different concepts of God that don't involve blind belief for the sake of release from fear, silly excuses of the unknown, or worshiping large invisible men. And our beliefs are not unique, even amongst Christians.

I have been in exactly 3 churches in my time (unless you count St. Sofia's Basillica). The last time was a Catholic wedding that took place in Chicago. I was very impressed --first, by the architecture and the stained glass windows, that inspired a sense reverence, and secondly by the Catholic priest's sermon before the vows. He was aware that he was speaking to an audience of mixed beliefs, and had adjusted his ideas accordingly. He explained, in careful detail, the ideas he was presenting as he presented them, with an impressive grasp of the meaning behind the rituals of wedding and the Biblical passages that support the idea of marriage. This was not a man who could be easily dismissed as believing in faeries.


A little more strident than most of your usual posts?

Trying to understand the roots of religion must surely be a good thing, even for the religious persons themselves? If someone suggests that religions are a coping mechanism, or are a way of expalining the inexplicable, that doesn't make that idea silly... it might be right. It might be wrong. It's an idea - and not a 'bad' one.

Interesting point about the fairies, though; the Celtic faeries are, for the most part, the later incarnations of the Celtic Gods, fallen out of favour since the introduction of christianity.

The Catholic church even has a faerie as a saint.

"Trying to understand the roots of religion must surely be a good thing.."

Absolutely..! :)

But it eventually all boils down to how you feel about yourself in the midst of the universe.

Eventually, nothing else matters.

I simply describe what I see.

You merely demonstrate more 6-year-old-ness with the "not being emotionally driven" part.

But then,.. what others see in you may be different. And in me as well.

That's fine.

I just like to talk.. :)

See, I totally respect the 6-year-old comment now that you fill in the backstory.

One wonders why you don't 'fill-in' upfront, and avoid the confusion.

But God is found with the heart, not the brain.


Exactly my point

I believe (again the language is making things very ambiguous)


Iakeokeo pointed out that it you couldn’t understand unless you FEEL it (religion) well I used to FEEL it (that was my point) then I thought and “Felt” that something wasn’t right with faith as I have seen it now

Not only with my brain did it not make sense but also my heart. And those two combined are more then each individualy

I love how everyone talk like Iakeokeo now.


NOOOOOOOOOOO...!

I'm da savage..!!

Well,.. OK... if you wanna..! :)

A little more strident than most of your usual posts?

Trying to understand the roots of religion must surely be a good thing, even for the religious persons themselves? If someone suggests that religions are a coping mechanism, or are a way of expalining the inexplicable, that doesn't make that idea silly... it might be right. It might be wrong. It's an idea - and not a 'bad' one.

Interesting point about the fairies, though; the Celtic faeries are, for the most part, the later incarnations of the Celtic Gods, fallen out of favour since the introduction of christianity.

The Catholic church even has a faerie as a saint.
I had to look up "strident" at dictionary.com; no one's ever called me that before. :-) (I'm as quiet as a mouse.) I meant no harshness in my tone, though it was a bit petulant in the first line. To me, the "roots of religion" can be found in mythology; it seem so obvious, yet no one takes it seriously. I even found there poetic and descriptive metaphors that describe well (I would dare say precisely) the phenomenon I experienced when I had my "religious experience", and that many, many years after the fact.

I agree, it's a good thing to strive for understanding.

See, I totally respect the 6-year-old comment now that you fill in the backstory.

One wonders why you don't 'fill-in' upfront, and avoid the confusion.


Also agree that if ya had stated that up front it would not have seemed so much like insult throwing

Not quite … majority correct sentences

And intelligible :) so not quite the same
Iakeokeo is intelligible to me. ;-) If he wasn't, I'd have to ask for clarification, and that's entirely too much work for me, here, under my palm frond.

EDIT: I meant not intelligible. Typing too fast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I simply describe what I see.

You merely demonstrate more 6-year-old-ness with the "not being emotionally driven" part.

But then,.. what others see in you may be different. And in me as well.

That's fine.

I just like to talk..


See, I totally respect the 6-year-old comment now that you fill in the backstory.

One wonders why you don't 'fill-in' upfront, and avoid the confusion.

Well,.. two reasons...

1) It more fun to have have ha-ha talk-talk with people.

2) The world (and my freakin' mind) is too big to get it all down up-front.

(( And lest I be mis-undertook again,... YOUR MIND IS THE SAME AS MINE..! ))

Ah, harmony. You wont find that often. 8)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
But God is found with the heart, not the brain.

Exactly my point

I believe (again the language is making things very ambiguous)


Iakeokeo pointed out that it you couldn’t understand unless you FEEL it (religion) well I used to FEEL it (that was my point) then I thought and “Felt” that something wasn’t right with faith as I have seen it now

Not only with my brain did it not make sense but also my heart. And those two combined are more then each individualy

And NO ONE should be allowed to impose ANYTHING on you..! You should certainly not allow it yourself.

And I believe that you, Up, will someday find it both in brain and heart, because there are those, like me and Willamena, that have done so.

And.... if you "never do",.. that's OK too.

Though, to us, a shame that you missed it.

Aloha is love, to you..! :)

consciousness ends. energy
is released, as it is neither created
nor destroyed. a new life arises. it
goes on.

but then, i'm a zen wiccan. what would i know about dying, other than how to spell the word.