NationStates Jolt Archive

And this is so because you say it is?

That's an opinion, not a statement of facts.


Wrong, communism does not work.

Alright; now we're peeking at a message in the tale. Well done.


Yeah right.

Wrong, communism does not work.

And religion does not work either.

Anyways to all the bitches-
It is interesting to see it is the christian and catholic people that originally are getting all shitty and testy about this situation and throwing insults. You go against your own religion, Love thy neighbour? Clearly you couldn't care about thy neighbour, don't god damn preach your religion if you won't even let others voice their's. Study your religion in a humble way, you have no right to enforce it. The question called for Athiest to voice their opinions, nobody wanted rude, ignorant religious nuts to speak, and in RaidersNation's case...breathe.

"Theres blood on your hands, and a cross on your back".
-Shake Like You, Deliverance.
Corrosion of Conformity.

Wrong, communism does not work.

Again, because you say so? Come on, if you're so sure you're right, it shouldn't be that hard to prove...

And religion does not work either.

Anyways to all the bitches-
It is interesting to see it is the christian and catholic people that originally are getting all shitty and testy about this situation and throwing insults. You go against your own religion, Love thy neighbour? Clearly you couldn't care about thy neighbour, don't god damn preach your religion if you won't even let others voice their's. Study your religion in a humble way, you have no right to enforce it. The question called for Athiest to voice their opinions, nobody wanted rude, ignorant religious nuts to speak, and in RaidersNation's case...breathe.
It's a good thing athiests don't have to be humble. Or even polite.

Christianity's like communism - they're both good in theory...:p


Well I'm new to this thread, so pardon the interruption, but I just have to make a comment. Now everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But it seems to me that I need to point out that religion whatever one it may be, has good people and bad people as members. Sure anything in theory could be good, or maybe not. Now I am a devoted Christian but I also respect what other people believe, but it's the people and how they put what they believe into practice, that makes a religion what it is. Now I'm not trying to be preachy or anything, but everyone has to agree with me, that none of us are perfict. All of us sin. Correct? But because you have met a few bad apples in a certian religion doesn't mean that they are not what they say they are. Now i know from my experience that sometimes I have been a hipocrit, but who isn't. It seems to me that more people are readily avalible to point fingers, when they should be looking at their own lives. Nobody is perfict, not even you. Give someone a break for once.

Sorry that was a little long. :)

Yeah right.
You read the story; you gained humility. You sound skeptical; is the miessage not worthwhile?

It's a good thing athiests don't have to be humble. Or even polite.

Thats one thing I don't get, because I'm a "Christian" I have to be humble, but if you are not, then you can be as mean as you want. But if a Christian is mean, they are a hipocrit. I think that's a double standard if I do say so myself.

Anyways to all the bitches-
It is interesting to see it is the christian and catholic people that originally are getting all shitty and testy about this situation and throwing insults. You go against your own religion, Love thy neighbour? Clearly you couldn't care about thy neighbour, don't god damn preach your religion if you won't even let others voice their's. Study your religion in a humble way, you have no right to enforce it. The question called for Athiest to voice their opinions, nobody wanted rude, ignorant religious nuts to speak, and in RaidersNation's case...breathe.

What an asshole.

Yea I agree with you on that one. Sounds like she unfortunatly got burned my someone who was really religious. It's sad when there are people out there who give Christians, or anyone for that matter. Sounds like she likes to be bitter.

=Willamena]You read the story;

To me its an account, not a story

you gained humility.

Always had that, this just enforces it more.

You sound skeptical; is the miessage not worthwhile?

I wasnt being skeptical of the message, and yes its very worthwhile.

Well I'm new to this thread, so pardon the interruption, but I just have to make a comment. Now everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But it seems to me that I need to point out that religion whatever one it may be, has good people and bad people as members. Sure anything in theory could be good, or maybe not. Now I am a devoted Christian but I also respect what other people believe, but it's the people and how they put what they believe into practice, that makes a religion what it is. Now I'm not trying to be preachy or anything, but everyone has to agree with me, that none of us are perfict. All of us sin. Correct? But because you have met a few bad apples in a certian religion doesn't mean that they are not what they say they are. Now i know from my experience that sometimes I have been a hipocrit, but who isn't. It seems to me that more people are readily avalible to point fingers, when they should be looking at their own lives. Nobody is perfict, not even you. Give someone a break for once.

Sorry that was a little long. :)

Very true about the putting into practice part, and I forgive you for the long sermon.

Thanks I usually can't seem to have short posts. Oh wait here is one. LOL

To me its an account, not a story
A relating of events is a story; it doesn't have to be fictional. Today, I went to the store and bought a new catfood that I hope my littlest one will eat.
"That's my story, and I'm sticking to it."

Willamena]

A relating of events is a story; it doesn't have to be fictional.

Ok I'll accept that, true story etc

Today, I went to the store and bought a new catfood that I hope my littlest one will eat.

Catfood all the same, just different wrapper.

Thanks I usually can't seem to have short posts. Oh wait here is one. LOL

Have you met Grave yet?
Christian hater.

I'm an atheist, and I want to make a few simple points.

1. Atheism is not a religion, that is moronic, yet many religious people say this. There are many belief systems that are not a religion, such as communism.

2. Just becuase someone is an atheist does not mean that they dislike or have issues with people who are religious. I personally wish the rest of the world was religious as from my experience most atheists tend to be narrow minded retards. Religious poeple also tend to be narrow minded retards, but atleast they have a working structure to function within, rather than simply be rebelious.

3. Immature atheists tend to be rebelious. Note my prior point. I have been an atheist for over 20 years and I have very few atheist friends I can stomach for very long, and most of them tend to be older themselves (past 20's).

4. To be an atheist is not about being anti-religion. It is simply a state of mind to be at peace with the world, universe etc without involving any religious icon as the basis for everything. I attribute my atheism more to being a naturalist than a spiritualist.

5. Specifically regarding death. I take pleasure in the fact that my body will return to the earth from which it came when I die. I accept that there will be nothing afterwards, no different than when your goldfish dies, or you smash an insect on your car window. I do not fear this nothingness. This thought process allows me to make the most out of what I have here on earth while I am alive. I kiss my boys every chance I get, I love my wife with more passion than I ever thought I could, and I take nothing for granted as once it's over, it's over.

Atheism is an incredibly liberating feeling for me. I feel more love for everything around me, and more at peae with myself. When I was young and involved with religion I was more confused, and always felt as though I was being led astray. I have very solid reasons for my beliefs and nothing would ever change that.

I can even joke around at will...such as, SEE YOU ASLL IN HELL!!! :fluffle:

Catfood all the same, just different wrapper.
Not to the cat, it isn't. ;-)

I wanted to make one more important observation. Atheists and Christians tend to get into shouting matches fast as a result of both wanting to make converts or both being uncomfortable with the other. Atheists tend to accept people such as monks or buddhists as they do not try to challenge the atheist beliefs nor vice-versa. For whatever reason Christians and Atheists will be fighting withing two or three posts, everytime lol.

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:


Well, think of it this way: It wasn't so bad before you were alive so why would it be so bad when you cease to be alive? You wouldn't know the difference because you'd be...dead. :eek:

I have no problem with a lack of an afterlife; and I frankly wouldn't want to live forever. The paradigm of eternal life sort of makes people less appreciative of the here and now so they put too much thought and worry into an afterlife which there really is no proof of.

Thats one thing I don't get, because I'm a "Christian" I have to be humble, but if you are not, then you can be as mean as you want. But if a Christian is mean, they are a hipocrit. I think that's a double standard if I do say so myself.


Dumb. It's part of your beliefs not to be "mean". Atheists act based on their own, personal moral system, not preaching on about how grand it is to be a good Christian.

To the posed question, there will be nothing. This is a concept I do not fully understand, but I'm aware of it's reality. It works.

here's my view on what the christians are trying to say.
i think they are just trying to tell the atheists that there is a God, that there is a heaven and hell.
it is commendable that they are trying to save souls even here.
however, i do think that they are pushing it.
there is no need for enforcing the religion onto someone by force or verbal abuse, whether mild or otherwise.
we arent muslim or hindu (trying to say this without insulting anyone)
the atheists are entitled to their own opinion about the afterlife.

there are many 'divisions' in the christian faith.
some practice this 'pushing' method (not being nasty here)
others believe in something we like to call 'the elect'
whereby we are chosen to be christians before we were even created.
so there isnt really too much point in shoving people into a faith,
but rather tell someone and let them think about it.

i know lots of atheist people, most of them are my friends.
some are confused, some are oblivion people, some dont care, some like to think they will star in the next ghost busters movie.
whatever, you know what i mean?
if its meant to be, its meant to be.

Yea I agree with you on that one. Sounds like she unfortunatly got burned my someone who was really religious. It's sad when there are people out there who give Christians, or anyone for that matter. Sounds like she likes to be bitter.

For one, I'm a guy lol. And no I'm not bitter, and three I'm religious, and four I didn't get burned. Wow, misinterpretation central *claps* I thought I was actually being nice, heh, I close a door, I open a window.

Now to actually answer the question:

I'll go with the thought of "whatever happens, happens" I have no control over it: If I'm reincarnated, great! If I'm sent to heaven with a bearded man in a dress, great! If I'm sent to a land with many virgins..I hope their not woman, but great! And finally if nothing at all happens and I just stop, then who am I going to be to complain. What am I gonna file a better ending with the Department of Earth-Worms?

"For one, I'm a guy lol. And no I'm not bitter, and three I'm religious, and four I didn't get burned. Wow, misinterpretation central *claps* I thought I was actually being nice, heh, I close a door, I open a window"

LOL whoops I'm sorry the name sounded like a girls. I was reading fast cause I had to leave to go to the store real quick. To me your post sounded angry. My bad and my apologies. :(

Forgive me? :D

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

Actually, no, nihilism is the belief in nothing. Atheism is the fact that you think you have solid proof with common sense that a supernatural being does not /cannot exist.

Dumb. It's part of your beliefs not to be "mean". Atheists act based on their own, personal moral system, not preaching on about how grand it is to be a good Christian.

To the posed question, there will be nothing. This is a concept I do not fully understand, but I'm aware of it's reality. It works.

And sorry for that, I just assume that most people should be nice, despite who they are. You should be honest but there is no reason not to be nice. Sorry that some people don't care if you are considerate or not to other people, that for me that does not excuse their behavior. I believe that in a society people should try to be nice to people, even if they are mad and surrly.

"For one, I'm a guy lol. And no I'm not bitter, and three I'm religious, and four I didn't get burned. Wow, misinterpretation central *claps* I thought I was actually being nice, heh, I close a door, I open a window"

LOL whoops I'm sorry the name sounded like a girls. I was reading fast cause I had to leave to go to the store real quick. To me your post sounded angry. My bad and my apologies. :(

Forgive me? :D

Haha your forgiven! Haha if you think my nation sounds girly, you should check out my whole region LOL. We're a little bit glittery if ya get me. But anyway I think I've stated my opinion on my views of the question and for the sake of taking my own medicine, unless anything not cool pops up, I'll leave it there. Toodles!

I'll use this metaphor to explain my views: Everyone can sing, not everyone is in tune.

I've died before, thanks to my beloved heart condition that sees fit to stop my heart every now and again. Let me tell you, from firsthand experience, dying is horrible. It's painful and frightening, and there's nothing on the other side. Coming back feels even worse. The sensation of dying is kinda like melting. Like an ice cube in hot water. Except the ice cube is your mind. It slowly dissolves, and you're aware of it. It's a horrible experience. It's not like falling asleep! Not in the slightest!

Yes, I'm an atheist, but I used to be a christian. I suppose I was a christian out of desperation. Life CAN'T be this bad, can it? God can help?

No, nobody's listening.

Haha your forgiven! Haha if you think my nation sounds girly, you should check out my whole region LOL. We're a little bit glittery if ya get me.

LOL thanks, I feel much better now, my life is complete. LOL :D

I've died before, thanks to my beloved heart condition that sees fit to stop my heart every now and again. Let me tell you, from firsthand experience, dying is horrible. It's painful and frightening, and there's nothing on the other side. Coming back feels even worse. The sensation of dying is kinda like melting. Like an ice cube in hot water. Except the ice cube is your mind. It slowly dissolves, and you're aware of it. It's a horrible experience. It's not like falling asleep! Not in the slightest!

Yes, I'm an atheist, but I used to be a christian. I suppose I was a christian out of desperation. Life CAN'T be this bad, can it? God can help?

No, nobody's listening.

Whoa, so do you still enjoy life? Although I highly respect you courage, I don't think death should be feared and I don't think life should be lead with pessimism.

I've died before, thanks to my beloved heart condition that sees fit to stop my heart every now and again. Let me tell you, from firsthand experience, dying is horrible. It's painful and frightening, and there's nothing on the other side. Coming back feels even worse. The sensation of dying is kinda like melting. Like an ice cube in hot water. Except the ice cube is your mind. It slowly dissolves, and you're aware of it. It's a horrible experience. It's not like falling asleep! Not in the slightest!

Yes, I'm an atheist, but I used to be a christian. I suppose I was a christian out of desperation. Life CAN'T be this bad, can it? God can help?

No, nobody's listening.

You didn't die. Sorry. I had the same sensation when I got anastethic (or whatever, that thing when they make you unconscious for surgery).

here's my view on what the christians are trying to say.
i think they are just trying to tell the atheists that there is a God, that there is a heaven and hell.
it is commendable that they are trying to save souls even here.
however, i do think that they are pushing it.
there is no need for enforcing the religion onto someone by force or verbal abuse, whether mild or otherwise.
we arent muslim or hindu (trying to say this without insulting anyone)
the atheists are entitled to their own opinion about the afterlife.

there are many 'divisions' in the christian faith.
some practice this 'pushing' method (not being nasty here)
others believe in something we like to call 'the elect'
whereby we are chosen to be christians before we were even created.
so there isnt really too much point in shoving people into a faith,
but rather tell someone and let them think about it.

i know lots of atheist people, most of them are my friends.
some are confused, some are oblivion people, some dont care, some like to think they will star in the next ghost busters movie.
whatever, you know what i mean?
if its meant to be, its meant to be.

Im not telling anyone to be a Christian, I highly recommend it, but its your choice not mine.

To us Death is merely the end of our lives. Its it for us as far as we're concerned.

So we make the most of our time down here!

Not to the cat, it isn't. ;-)

He'll eat it sooner or later, my cat Big fella likes crunchy dog food cause thats all I ever give him, and hes a picture of health.
He also eats alot of mice and birds.
Bad puddytat

To us Death is merely the end of our lives. Its it for us as far as we're concerned.

So we make the most of our time down here!

You Atheists have something in common, your very depressing to listen to.

They are more of the glass is half empty kind of people. I'll pray for all you atheists.

You didn't die. Sorry. I had the same sensation when I got anastethic (or whatever, that thing when they make you unconscious for surgery).

Yes, I suppose lying face down on the kitchen floor, no pulse, no respiration, for a good eight minutes isn't nearly as close to death as being ANESTHETIZED IN A HOSPITAL UNDER CONTROLLED CIRCUMSTANCES, WHILE YOUR HEART AND LUNGS ARE STILL FUNCTIONING.

They are more of the glass is half empty kind of people. I'll pray for all you atheists.

Please don't. We find that horribly patronising.

And my atheism makes me happier than religion ever could, so praying for me would be pretty darn silly anyway :p.

They are more of the glass is half empty kind of people. I'll pray for all you atheists.

Yeah me too, poor empty Godless ones.

Yeah me too, poor empty Godless ones.

I find the notion that mythology and superstitions are a necessary part of a fulfilling life amusing. Some of us are above wallowing in self-deciet and willful ignorance.

You Atheists have something in common, your very depressing to listen to.

Actually, I find christianity more depressing.

I mean, if I had a choice between

You will simply cease conciousness
and
BURN IN HELL! FIREY DAMNATION!

I'd go with the nothingness myself.

They are more of the glass is half empty kind of people. I'll pray for all you atheists.

Actually, I'm a diest, and I'm incredibly optimistic, as are quite a few athiest frinds of mine. If anything, they're happier. Since, you know, they don't have the Big Bad Bully starring over their shoulder all the time.

If anything, they're happier. Since, you know, they don't have the Big Bad Bully starring over their shoulder all the time.

Exactly. I don't need to delude myself with fairytales to find happiness.

[QUOTE]I find the notion that mythology and superstitions are a necessary part of a fulfilling life amusing.

What you call mythology, is usually based on fact.
And dont underate superstitions.


Some of us are above wallowing in self-deciet and willful ignorance.

Thats my version of an Atheist. :)

=Goed]
Actually, I find christianity more depressing.

Why its fascinating!


Actually, I'm a diest, and I'm incredibly optimistic, as are quite a few athiest frinds of mine. If anything, they're happier. Since, you know, they don't have the Big Bad Bully starring over their shoulder all the time.

I see him as a guide and helper, above all friend, not a bully.

What you call mythology, is usually based on fact.
And dont underate superstitions.

Oh, so there just might be a Thor or a Zeus? They're just as likely as your Jahova.
Sorry, but anything that forgoes logic, denies science, and ignores facts cannot be truth. But you keep dreaming that happy dream. :rolleyes:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Exactly. I don't need to delude myself with fairytales to find happiness.

So why worry if other people do?
And what if their not the fairy tales you think they are?

Oh, so there just might be a Thor or a Zeus? They're just as likely as your Jahova.
Sorry, but anything that forgoes logic, denies science, and ignores facts cannot be truth. But you keep dreaming that happy dream. :rolleyes:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

No problem, you keep dreaming about your nothing.

The universe had a begining, it had to be created, then you add quantum mechanics which allows free will and you have the basis of Christianity and other religions

So why worry if other people do?

I don't. In fact, a lot of my family and friends are Christian. People are free to believe whatever they want to believe. They can deify and worship a can of creamed corn for all I care. But it's when they try to force their beliefs upon others (esp through legislation) that it becomes a problem.

And what if their not the fairy tales you think they are?

Well, what if Thor is the one true god, eh? Then you and I are both screwed. ;)

So why worry if other people do?
And what if their not the fairy tales you think they are?


Who worries?
If they want to belive in a fairy tale, thats their perrogative.
As long as they dont come knocking on my door with it, I dont care.
Although, I do like to understand where some of them are coming from, on certain issues.

If I'm wrong, and there is a God, and I go to hell for not believing....

I guess I'll have lots of time to argue the point with most of the christians I know.

No problem, you keep dreaming about your nothing.

Life is nothing? Why do christians loathe life so much?

we don't loathe life, some people just object to you have your opinion about death because in our opinion your are damming yourself to an eternal hell

Someone i know is Indian was told by a Christian friend that he was gonna burn in hell just because he was Indian! I find that quite depressing. Anyway, I'm an atheist/Buddhist who’s tolerant towards all religion but i really doesn't like Christianity as it is often used to justify many evil things. Why does every Christian i meet always want to pray for me? Any ideas?

read my above post in our opinion your are damming yourself to an eternal hell

we don't loathe life, some people just object to you have your opinion about death because in our opinion your are damming yourself to an eternal hell


Objecting to someone else having a different opinion is called "Intolerance".

Many Athiests feel that your religion preaches it.

Since you object to me having this opinion, it would seem to be working.

Someone i know is Indian was told by a Christian friend that he was gonna burn in hell just because he was Indian! I find that quite depressing. Anyway, I'm an atheist/Buddhist who’s tolerant towards all religion but i really doesn't like Christianity as it is often used to justify many evil things. Why does every Christian i meet always want to pray for me? Any ideas?

I'll pray for you too toaster.

we don't loathe life, some people just object to you have your opinion about death because in our opinion your are damming yourself to an eternal hell

It's the implication that our life on earth is "nothing" is what gets me. Our experienses, our accomplishments, our memories, our expressions, our emotions, our thoughts, ideas, our friends, our family, what we build and create, etc. all equal "nothing" because we don't believe in a magical and invisible boogyman in the clouds? Doesn't make much sense to me.

If there was a god that wanted me to believe in him, he'd tell me. But he doesn't, so I won't.



Oh, shit! They're praying! Noooooooo...... *melts*

Life is nothing? Why do christians loathe life so much?

Um something about taking someones words out of context springs to mind here.

We dont loathe life, just believe death is the end of our physical body, not our spiritual one.
American indians believed the same, did they loathe life too?

I'll pray for you too toaster.
Pray for me? No thanks. Pray/worship the sacred toaster :)
(couldn't resist)
Why do you have to burn in etenal pain even if you are a good person? I would say that i and almost everyone should get haven if they are good people. Faith is not really as important as carrying out teachings

Um something about taking someones words out of context springs to mind here.

We dont loathe life, just believe death is the end of our physical body, not our spiritual one.
American indians believed the same, did they loathe life too?


Native Americans didn't tell me to "dream about my nothing". You were implying my life is nothing, correct?

=New Vinnland]
It's the implication that our life on earth is "nothing" is what gets me. Our experienses, our accomplishments, our memories, our expressions, our emotions, our thoughts, ideas, our friends, our family, what we build and create, etc. all equal "nothing" because we don't believe in a magical and invisible boogyman in the clouds? Doesn't make much sense to me.


Would it mean much else or make any difference if you were dead for eternity in the ground anyway, as you believe?

If there was a god that wanted me to believe in him, he'd tell me. But he doesn't, so I won't.

Its called faith.


Oh, shit! They're praying! Noooooooo...... *melts*

I just said a prayer for you. lol

Native Americans didn't tell me to "dream about my nothing". You were implying my life is nothing, correct?

All life is precious, even people who have diverse or opposing opinions.

Native Americans didn't tell me to "dream about my nothing". You were implying my life is nothing, correct?

No I was merely refering to what you say is after death.

=The Sacred Toaster]Why do you have to burn in etenal pain even if you are a good person?

If you are a good person I dont think you will burn in hell.

I would say that i and almost everyone should get haven if they are good people. Faith is not really as important as carrying out teachings

Faith is more important.

I do not object to your opinion i just disagree with it

Would it mean much else or make any difference if you were dead for eternity in the ground anyway, as you believe?

Since Atheists believe their existense isn't forever, they charish their lives and value their time on earth even more so. The fact that we come to an end doesn't render life meaningless. In fact it makes it even more important.

Its called faith.

Faith holds no weight. Something as significant as eternal life (or damnation) shouldn't involve guessing games.

I just said a prayer for you. lol

You could've spent that time doing something more constructive and fulfilling, like masturbation.

You could've spent that time doing something more constructive and fulfilling, like masturbation.

Thats my favourite quote right there! :D

Some's you up perfectly, a right w@nker ;)

I am just entering this debate but have been arguing with christians all my life.

Firstly i would like to point out a few things, agnostic and atheist beliefs i believe are infact religions. Both require all the things other religions do except for a god. They both require beliefs and faith (the faith that there is no god or might not be one)

I am an agnostic (might be god but probably not) but i think atheists are pretty good too, and budists, they are neat. I dont have any problems with any religions except for ones that bully people who dont believe in their religion. A pretty obvious example of this is Christians. I have time and time again met christians who tell me im going to burn in hell just because i dont believe in their god, and throughout history it has been documented that christians have tried to destroy other religions and have even punished people for believing in their native religion, calling them "devil worshipers"... well they can all just bugger off.

I used to be a christian but as i came to the end of primary school i quickly saw it to be a load of crap, i think they have some good values but i think they are up themselves too. I also think that they are rather arrogant to suggest that earth is the only place in the universe that has life.

All in all, they can believe what they want, but if they go around telling people they are wrong and they are going to burn in hell and they feel sorry for them, i get really pissed off. :mad:

Also this thread is pretty pointless now, as i have also found time and time again that arguing with christians is like arguing with a brick wall :headbang: as they completly ignore everything you say and just say stuff like "i feel sorry for you" and "ill pray for you"

Atheism = without theism = without belief in a god or multiple gods

Atheism is not a religion, religion is the belief in a god or multiple gods and atheism is the complete opposite. It isn’t a belief it’s the simple truth and base of reasoning.

But I am trough reasoning with religionists because you simply can’t! Only a real atheist understands why. I find religious people to be pitiful and sad. Seriously you don’t have any idea how idiotic you people look in the eyes of an intelligent enlightened man such as the atheist. You think you have all the questions with your holy bible while you can’t even think for your own what life actually is.

I don’t expect religionists to understand it for they never will.
But I don’t really care, die in ignorance, it’s a great waste of the only life you’ll ever have.

Oh yes, join "The Atheistic Confederation"

I am just entering this debate but have been arguing with christians all my life.

Firstly i would like to point out a few things, agnostic and atheist beliefs i believe are infact religions. Both require all the things other religions do except for a god. They both require beliefs and faith (the faith that there is no god or might not be one)

honey, agnosticism CAN'T involve faith, that's the whole point of what it means to be agnostic...to suspend your beliefs due to lack of evidence. i don't know one way or another if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, because i have not seen conclusive evidence either way, so how can you say i have faith in the possible existence of alien intelligence? faith means believing in something for which there is no evidence, but agnosticism is precisely the idea that one should not believe in anything for which there is no evidence. if you have faith, you aren't agnostic.

say stuff like "i feel sorry for you" and "ill pray for you"

When they say that sorta stuff, it's more out of their own ego and insecurity than it is out of any sincere concern for you. It's patronizing.

This interesting website exposes how christianity proliferates: http://www.christianitymeme.org/

will all non-atheists stop posting on this thread (except for me because I started it). I would like to know what Atheists think.

i dont think about death - thats abit sadistic. But to answer the question - i couldnt care, when i die i die and thats the end

ok ok, but atheism requires the belief that there is no god nonetheless

perhaps you would not classify it as a religion because it is god-free but seing as it is in the place of a religion you may classify it as one (imagine a drop down list for religions, agnostic would be the "none" option yes? so atheism is the "no god" religion option)

ok ok, but atheism requires the belief that there is no god nonetheless

perhaps you would not classify it as a religion because it is god-free but seing as it is in the place of a religion you may classify it as one (imagine a drop down list for religions, agnostic would be the "none" option yes? so atheism is the "no god" religion option)

Ok, no. Agnostic would be the 'undecided' option. Athiest would be the 'none' option.

The fundimental difference between a theism with no gods and atheism is (now pay attention all:)

Belief in "no-gods" or a 'lack-of-gods" or any *positive* (believing IN something) form of belief would be a religion, abiet one with no gods.

But athiesm is the disbelief. It is *not* a belief in 'no gods'. It's NO BELIEF. Period. Full stop, that's all, stop trying to tell me that my lack of belief is a belief system.

If you don't believe in the toothfairy, you don't *actively* believe in some 'Non-toothfairy' entity. You simply have no belief in that thing. There's no 'anti-toothfairy' belief that fills the gap for people who don't believe in her. THEY JUST DON'T. End of story.

Please. Stop telling atheists what they believe. It's incredibly, amazingly rude.

i dont think about death - thats abit sadistic. But to answer the question - i couldnt care, when i die i die and thats the end

Not to be pedantic (although I am), but I think you mean 'masochistic', not 'sadistic'. Sadism is pleasure from forcing pain on others, masochism is enjoying pain inflicted on the self. Thinking about death couldn't be sadistic unless a) you have some split-personality where you can force other 'you's to think about things or b) you are making someone *else* think about it

so there you go ;)

Ok, no. Agnostic would be the 'undecided' option. Athiest would be the 'none' option.

The fundimental difference between a theism with no gods and atheism is (now pay attention all:)

Belief in "no-gods" or a 'lack-of-gods" or any *positive* (believing IN something) form of belief would be a religion, abiet one with no gods.

But athiesm is the disbelief. It is *not* a belief in 'no gods'. It's NO BELIEF. Period. Full stop, that's all, stop trying to tell me that my lack of belief is a belief system.

If you don't believe in the toothfairy, you don't *actively* believe in some 'Non-toothfairy' entity. You simply have no belief in that thing. There's no 'anti-toothfairy' belief that fills the gap for people who don't believe in her. THEY JUST DON'T. End of story.

Please. Stop telling atheists what they believe. It's incredibly, amazingly rude.

you have completly missed my point, and been incredibly rude by using an analogy that is completly different to what i was saying

using my suggestion your analogy would work out as you believing that there is no tooth fairy where the hell did you pull this "anit tooth fairy entity" crap from?, you cant just not have any beliefs at all, that would be agnostic you fool, to be atheist requiers the certain belief that there is NO god, you cant have no beliefs and be atheist at the same time in that respect!!!

you stated yourself in your first paragraph that a religion requiring the belief of there being no god is infact a religion and in your second paragraph you attempted to classify atheism as not having beliefs but instead disbeliefs, well time to wake up matey because a disbelief is itself a belief of something not being/existing

FOR THE LAST TIME, NOT HAVING ANY BELIEFS MAKES YOU AGNOSTIC, THEREFORE, ATHEISM IS THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD

Mongelia, Shaed.

This argument is beginning to warp into something that makes little sense.

You made your points, don't twist them.

you have completly missed my point, and been incredibly rude by using an analogy that is completly different to what i was saying

using my suggestion your analogy would work out as you believing that there is no tooth fairy where the hell did you pull this "anit tooth fairy entity" crap from?, you cant just not have any beliefs at all, that would be agnostic you fool, to be atheist requiers the certain belief that there is NO god, you cant have no beliefs and be atheist at the same time in that respect!!!

you stated yourself in your first paragraph that a religion requiring the belief of there being no god is infact a religion and in your second paragraph you attempted to classify atheism as not having beliefs but instead disbeliefs, well time to wake up matey because a disbelief is itself a belief of something not being/existing

FOR THE LAST TIME, NOT HAVING ANY BELIEFS MAKES YOU AGNOSTIC, THEREFORE, ATHEISM IS THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD

ARGH! Agnostic is not having NO belief, it's not having enough evidence to decide which god/spiritual being you believe in. It's belief in *something*, but not something *specific*.

Disbelief is DEFINED as the LACK of belief, not a belief in a 'lack of something'. One is a postive and one is a negative.

i think that atheists should die they dont know how lucky they have it

Okay, I just need to say one thing. Many of the non-Christians here are forgetting that there are different sects of Christianity, and even within those sects there are different beliefs. Everyone is different. If you are evaluating a religion based on how everyone else does it, then you are going about it the wrong way. Religion is a very personal matter. Do some research into the belief system, not the people. If that belief system feels right to you, then go for it. If not, look for something else. Somewhere in this thread, someone said that it shouldn't be left up to faith, because something as important as eternity should not be taken lightly. I agree 100% with that. There are scholars out there who have done a lot of research and came to the conclusion logically that their religion makes sense in the physical realm. I don't know of any off the top of my head for other religions, but for Christianity, I suggest reading "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith," both by Lee Strobel. They are a good starting place for researching Christianity. Not as a group of people, but as a belief system.

I am a Christian. I don't try ramming things down people's throats, I don't tell people they are going to hell, I leave that all up to God. Heck, I'm engaged to be married to an agnostic / atheist. People were not put on earth to judge each other. We were put on this earth as caretakers. We should love everyone, care for everyone. If you tell someone that you feel sorry for someone because they are going to burn in Hell, you are not showing that person much loving care.

As for the topic question, I have asked my fiance about that, too. He says he just tries to live his life to the fullest, and death is just the end. Nothing more, nothing less. He's not scared of it, the only things he is scared of is that he dies before he feels his lifes work is done, or that he dies before me. (He doesn't want me to be in pain over him... he's so sweet. :D )

i think that atheists should die they dont know how lucky they have it
huh? i would say it's the believers who are going to have a nasty shock after death, considering they are spending their lives looking forward to an after-death paradise that doesn't exist. atheists are the ones who know exactly how lucky they are to be alive, since they know it's all they've got.

=New Vinnland]Since Atheists believe their existense isn't forever, they charish their lives and value their time on earth even more so. The fact that we come to an end doesn't render life meaningless. In fact it makes it even more important.

Are you talking about your own life or life in general?

Jesus said.' no man hath greater love than to lay down his own life to save another'.

Would you lay down your precious life on the spot to save someone elses?


Faith holds no weight. Something as significant as eternal life (or damnation) shouldn't involve guessing games.

Faith isnt about guessing its about believing.



You could've spent that time doing something more constructive and fulfilling, like masturbation.

Im well over that.

Are you talking about your own life or life in general?
Would you sacrifice your precious life to save somone elses?

Jesus said.' no man hath greater love than to lay down his own to save another'.

it would depend on the person. a rapist? an abusive parent? a total stranger? hell no. i don't have love for those people, and i don't have any reason to believe their life is worth mine.

but for my brother? you betcha. my lover? without a single regret. my parents? gladly. my good friends, my mentor, my teachers? all yes.

because i value my life, i would not throw it away carelessly. because i value myself, i do not throw my love around like a party favor; i don't love random people, because they may not be worthy of love, and if i were to love all people equally it would devalue my love completely. i agree that giving one's own life to save another is the ultimate sacrifice, and i would certainly do that for one of the people i love or deeply respect, but i would never make that sacrifice lightly or randomly.

it would depend on the person. a rapist? an abusive parent? a total stranger? hell no. i don't have love for those people, and i don't have any reason to believe their life is worth mine.

but for my brother? you betcha. my lover? without a single regret. my parents? gladly. my good friends, my mentor, my teachers? all yes.

because i value my life, i would not throw it away carelessly. because i value myself, i do not throw my love around like a party favor; i don't love random people, because they may not be worthy of love, and if i were to love all people equally it would devalue my love completely. i agree that giving one's own life to save another is the ultimate sacrifice, and i would certainly do that for one of the people i love or deeply respect, but i would never make that sacrifice lightly or randomly.

So if you someone getting their head kicked in you would just keep walking?

So if you someone getting their head kicked in you would just keep walking?
wow, you really like to make stuff up. you did that on another thread, too...why is it that you feel the need to draw conspicuously false conclusions from the clear statements made by people who don't agree with you?

Well I try to be open minded so I think that all gods exist if nothing else because so many people believe in them. But I don't really believe in any god so I'm not sure what I'm counted as.

And I think that what you expect will happen to you after death will happen to you. And about all posts about living your life to the fullest if there is no afterlife you can't really regret your life in any way so it doesn't really matter after all does it?

Actually, no, nihilism is the belief in nothing. Atheism is the fact that you think you have solid proof with common sense that a supernatural being does not /cannot exist.
Right; in other words, the belief in No-God. But this attitude does not take into account "the realm of the subjective". The physical world around us is the only really real world where existence is allowed to happen --the only world science can touch.

It defines God within narrow parameters and then "proves" he is not there. Duh.

And here he goes off again, if its so unbelievable why do you put so much effort into mocking it?

Put a little work into it, Terminalia.

You'd see that, although using the medium of 'comedy', I am actually hinting at what may possibly truth.

Those who don't believe the Bible implicitly, may automatically write off the whole project as one big lie.

Now, one thing I know about stories, is that, deep down, there is always some inspiration, some grain of truth - in every story ever written.

What I'm hinting at there, but you are being too over-zealous to perceive, is possible kernels of truth below the popcorn of mythology:

e.g. Jesus walked on water. Which must be impossible - but not if he was walking in shallows and it only LOOKED like deep water to the people writing it. Or - anyone can walk on water that is cold enough.

e.g. Jesus' body mysteriously dissapears from a cave. Which is impossible - but not if Jesus' followers never PUT THE BODY in the cave - after all, it was already bound in linen, who is to say the BODY ever entered the cave. Who is to say that Jesus' followers didn't remove the body while the guard was off relieving himself.

e.g. Jesus feeds 12,000 people with a few fish and a few loaves of bread. Which is impossible - but not if the NUMBER of people is drastically inflated, or the number of loaves is drastically underestimated. Also - since several of Jesus' followers were fishers by trade, it's not impossible they may have 'replenished his stock', so he would always have 5 fishes, or whatever.
Or - they may have just shared what they had, even though that meant each person only had a tiny amount... but they were 'satisfied' because of the spiritual significance of the act.

They are more of the glass is half empty kind of people. I'll pray for all you atheists.
I disagree with that observation, entirely. People of both sorts are to be found in both athiests and religious folk.

Have you met Grave yet?
Christian hater.

Now, what purpose did that serve?

You made a post, to a third party, just to ATTACK ME?

And I don't HATE anyone.

If you have an issue with me, Terminalia, please at least be 'big' enough to take it to me, rather than flaming me to newbies.

(No offence meant to Nebwbies, there, either - before Terminalia leaps on that, too).

I find the notion that mythology and superstitions are a necessary part of a fulfilling life amusing. Some of us are above wallowing in self-deciet and willful ignorance.
Oh! you were being sarcastic? The first time I read this, I thought it was irony, and I agreed.

Mythology, "superstitions", magic and religion do serve an important role in what makes us human. To deny them is to deny a part of ourselves: the part that looks at a painting and immediately knows it belongs on the hallway, near the staircase, so it must be purchased; the part that passes a church on a cold winter night, and gets a chill of another sort from the sound of the choir singing; the part that starts a bowling ball rolling down that alley, and then tries to coax it over towards the pins with motions and loud speech patterns. Should we stop being human because athiests have "proven" God doesn't exist?

you have completly missed my point, and been incredibly rude by using an analogy that is completly different to what i was saying

using my suggestion your analogy would work out as you believing that there is no tooth fairy where the hell did you pull this "anit tooth fairy entity" crap from?, you cant just not have any beliefs at all, that would be agnostic you fool, to be atheist requiers the certain belief that there is NO god, you cant have no beliefs and be atheist at the same time in that respect!!!

you stated yourself in your first paragraph that a religion requiring the belief of there being no god is infact a religion and in your second paragraph you attempted to classify atheism as not having beliefs but instead disbeliefs, well time to wake up matey because a disbelief is itself a belief of something not being/existing

FOR THE LAST TIME, NOT HAVING ANY BELIEFS MAKES YOU AGNOSTIC, THEREFORE, ATHEISM IS THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD

Dictionary definitions:

Atheist: Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

Agnostic: Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

So - if you don't believe in any gods... you are an atheist.
And - if you believe it is IMPOSSIBLE to know if there are gods, you are agnostic.

Now, do your research before yelling at someone that they are wrong.

huh? i would say it's the believers who are going to have a nasty shock after death, considering they are spending their lives looking forward to an after-death paradise that doesn't exist.
Not exactly. When they die, they won't go to an afterlife, but they never get the chance to realize this, because they will have no conciousness with which to realize it. There is no such thing as a "nasty shock after death".

So if you someone getting their head kicked in you would just keep walking?
Stopping that probably wouldn't cost me my life.

The laying-down-my-life-for-another thing works only when both (a) there is absolutely no possibility of both of us making it out alive, and (b) there is no danger that even though I give up my life it still doesn't save the other person's.

Firstly i would like to point out a few things, agnostic and atheist beliefs i believe are infact religions. Both require all the things other religions do except for a god. They both require beliefs and faith (the faith that there is no god or might not be one)
Belief and faith alone do not make a religion. I have a belief that the liberal government best represents all our interests, and faith that they can do the job well. That doesn't make a religion.

But athiesm is the disbelief. It is *not* a belief in 'no gods'. It's NO BELIEF. Period. Full stop, that's all, stop trying to tell me that my lack of belief is a belief system.
The word "disbelief" is more appropriate. "Disbelief" is not "no belief". Everyone has some sort of opinion about everything, whether or not it is a conscious one --it's what humans do (and very well, too). Where there is opinion, there is the foundation of a belief.

the part that looks at a painting and immediately knows it belongs on the hallway, near the staircase, so it must be purchased
If the painting it pretty, sure. When museums pay millions of dollars for a painting by an adult that looks like it was made by a toddler, then I must question their wisdom.

the part that passes a church on a cold winter night, and gets a chill of another sort from the sound of the choir singing
Huh? Why?

the part that starts a bowling ball rolling down that alley, and then tries to coax it over towards the pins with motions and loud speech patterns.
If I was interested in getting a good score, I'd practice to improve my aim. Asking the ball to cooperate isn't going to help any.

Are you talking about your own life or life in general?

Jesus said.' no man hath greater love than to lay down his own life to save another'.

Would you lay down your precious life on the spot to save someone elses?


You and I have already covered this territory. Not only would I, but I have done. The fact that I am NOT dead doesn't detract from the fact that I made that gesture, and, believe me, I LOVE my life... I wouldn't be happy to lose it, but I would be WILLING to lose it for the right cause.



Faith isnt about guessing its about believing.


Only if you have some reason to believe. Otherwise, it's still just a guess.
Now, I know people that have had very profound experiences, that have forces them to believe (those same experiences might NOT have had that effect on me, though), and they BELIEVE.

On the other hand, many people come by religion by being 'raised' in it - in which case they never REALLY believe, they are just accustomed... conditioned, if you will.

Others 'like the sound of it', like you can buy 'god' from a catalogue.


Im well over that.

Why?

You and I have already covered this territory. Not only would I, but I have done. The fact that I am NOT dead doesn't detract from the fact that I made that gesture, and, believe me, I LOVE my life... I wouldn't be happy to lose it, but I would be WILLING to lose it for the right cause.
Now Jesus, on the other hand. An omnipotent being cannot die - as the bible itself shows by having Jesus be reincarnated - and I'm sure that he knew it from the start.

On the other hand, many people come by religion by being 'raised' in it - in which case they never REALLY believe, they are just accustomed... conditioned, if you will.
I like the word brainwashed.

Others 'like the sound of it', like you can buy 'god' from a catalogue.
You can't!? And I already shelled out $39.95 for my mail-order deity! What a scam!

If the painting it pretty, sure. When museums pay millions of dollars for a painting by an adult that looks like it was made by a toddler, then I must question their wisdom.
hehe

Huh? Why?
Because it touches their heart.

If I was interested in getting a good score, I'd practice to improve my aim. Asking the ball to cooperate isn't going to help any.
But many, many people do. They feel that if they just will it hard enough... Feeling that way doesn't make them "willfully ignorant", just human.
(Note: this is a response to New Vinnland, not Milostein.)

But many, many people do. They feel that if they just will it hard enough... Feeling that way doesn't make them "willfully ignorant", just human.
Ah yes, the human fallacy of assuming that because they can ask each other to do stuff, this should also work for inanimate objects. It's called "wishful thinking", which is basically a nice way of saying "willful ignorance".

Humans are by nature imperfect and fallible. However, they should still strive to the best of their ability to reduce these traits, and not just accept them as "we're human, so it's okay".

Ah yes, the human fallacy of assuming that because they can ask each other to do stuff, this should also work for inanimate objects. It's called "wishful thinking", which is basically a nice way of saying "willful ignorance".
Here you have defined it in terms you can understand, and that's fine; all very rational. That's human, too. In my opinion, though, it does nothing to address (or even describe) what our hypothetical person doing it is doing. He is employing feeling, spirit and will in an actual attempt to manipulate space and time. That he doesn't succeed in his "experiment" is irrelevant; that he attempts to do this is what is important, it is a part of what makes him human.
EDIT: I dare say, it's the part the makes him human.

Humans are by nature imperfect and fallible. However, they should still strive to the best of their ability to reduce these traits, and not just accept them as "we're human, so it's okay".
No offense, but you sound like you really look down on humans. "Ah yes, the human fallacy..."; "imperfect and fallable". Should we all be like Mr. Spock instead? If that's so, then just call me "Bones".

The expectation that man will abandon being human because these human "fallacies" have been shown to be false, illogical and irrational is not realisitic. They are an essential part of who we are.

Here you have defined it in terms you can understand, and that's fine; all very rational. That's human, too. In my opinion, though, it does nothing to address (or even describe) what our hypothetical person doing it is doing. He is employing feeling, spirit and will in an actual attempt to manipulate space and time. That he doesn't succeed in his "experiment" is irrelevant; that he attempts to do this is what is important, it is a part of what makes him human.
EDIT: I dare say, it's the part the makes him human.


No offense, but you sound like you really look down on humans. "Ah yes, the human fallacy..."; "imperfect and fallable". Should we all be like Mr. Spock instead? If that's so, then just call me "Bones".

The expectation that man will abandon being human because these human "fallacies" have been shown to be false, illogical and irrational is not realisitic. They are an essential part of who we are.

Fine with most of this, except the last bit.

The concepts of religion and faith... the aspects considered by some as false, illogical and irrational, are not ESSENTIAL parts of who we are.

Many people live productive, happy lives with no need for religion, superstition or any concepts they can't personally experience or measure.

Athiests are people whom go by FAITH in their belief in the non-existence of a Supreme Being, or Deity. Although they say strong beliefs in their life-style are firm, they constantly have doubts as to why one would believe in such "Religious" things such as the existance of a God.

They go by their own Belief and Faith in their own way, in which they disagree with the object of Sin and disagree with everything the Bible Teaches.

Most claim to have a firm Athiestic Belief, but many are beginning to faulter in their useless quest of disapproving the Christian Faith in all its entirety.

Yes, I know much about Athiests, and how they think. Some just deny completely the existance of Lord God Almighty, others have an open mind to new possibilities. There are many types of Athiests, but all have yet to understand what is beyond their closed eyes.

Fine with most of this, except the last bit.

The concepts of religion and faith... the aspects considered by some as false, illogical and irrational, are not ESSENTIAL parts of who we are.

Many people live productive, happy lives with no need for religion, superstition or any concepts they can't personally experience or measure.
Or they live productive, happy lives with religion, superstition and other concepts they experience everyday but don't recognize as such in themselves, because they have no way to define it in others; all's well. The purpose of myth and religion is to address the inner self. For people who tend to deny their inner self and only look at the world around them, they will never find religion, simply because they are looking for it in the wrong place.

Athiests are people whom go by FAITH in their belief in the non-existence of a Supreme Being, or Deity. Although they say strong beliefs in their life-style are firm, they constantly have doubts as to why one would believe in such "Religious" things such as the existance of a God.

They go by their own Belief and Faith in their own way, in which they disagree with the object of Sin and disagree with everything the Bible Teaches.

Most claim to have a firm Athiestic Belief, but many are beginning to faulter in their useless quest of disapproving the Christian Faith in all its entirety.

Yes, I know much about Athiests, and how they think. Some just deny completely the existance of Lord God Almighty, others have an open mind to new possibilities. There are many types of Athiests, but all have yet to understand what is beyond their closed eyes.
tee hee hee hee hee.

sorry, these just crack me up.

they don't see what YOU see, perhaps, with their "closed eyes." but your eyes are closed to Zeus, Thor, and Pomona, so you're just as blind as they. at least they are consistent in their rejection of the unproven, where as you choose what to believe based on nothing more than your own personal needs and emotions, and then try to pass judgment on people with more self-restraint, honesty, and rationality.

not that i think atheists are right, mind you, they're just a hell of a lot closer than the religious.

Athiests are people whom go by FAITH in their belief in the non-existence of a Supreme Being, or Deity. Although they say strong beliefs in their life-style are firm, they constantly have doubts as to why one would believe in such "Religious" things such as the existance of a God.

They go by their own Belief and Faith in their own way, in which they disagree with the object of Sin and disagree with everything the Bible Teaches.

Most claim to have a firm Athiestic Belief, but many are beginning to faulter in their useless quest of disapproving the Christian Faith in all its entirety.

Yes, I know much about Athiests, and how they think. Some just deny completely the existance of Lord God Almighty, others have an open mind to new possibilities. There are many types of Athiests, but all have yet to understand what is beyond their closed eyes.

Dim, stereotypical and largely erroneous view of the Atheistic 'community'.

Most Atheists do not have FAITH that there is no supreme being, any more than you go by FAITH that there is no Santa Claus. Most atheists just don't believe in god or gods. It's not a matter of faith.

You are right, many atheists question why religious people are religious? It doesn't make sense to see people living a lie. Christians feel the same way looking at atheists. This is the reason most atheists are well-read on religion: if there IS a god, atheists WANT to know... they are not CHOOSING not to believe, they are failing to believe because they see nothing to believe in.

I disagree with the 'object of Sin'. I think there are things that are 'bad', like rape or murder, but I doubt that, for example, eating shellfish is really a morally bad thing - even though it is forbidden in the Old Testament.

But, you are wrong, I'm afraid, to believe that Atheists automatically disagree with everything the bible teaches. Atheists may not always come to the same decisions from the same direction as the bible, but there is a large amount of cross-over between the morality of most atheists and the morality of christianity. Atheists just don't believe that this morality is caused by god.

Finally. Most Atheists start out as christians, jews, etc. They have seen what you see. They WERE (for the most part) religious. They have been 'enlightened' and now see everything a different way. In their own fashion, they are 'born-again'. Don't leap on the stereotype that atheists are atheists just because they don't know any better.

Or they live productive, happy lives with religion, superstition and other concepts they experience everyday but don't recognize as such in themselves, because they have no way to define it in others; all's well. The purpose of myth and religion is to address the inner self. For people who tend to deny their inner self and only look at the world around them, they will never find religion, simply because they are looking for it in the wrong place.

Or maybe because 'religion' doesn't exist. Each argument has validity.

The thing is, I've been religious. I've been 'saved'. Twice, actually.

I am familiar with the internal 'canon' of belief. And it is not a necessity to life - as I found out AFTER I lived the religious life.

I can understand the 'appeal' of religion, but the things it gives can be found in other aspects of life... without the need to resort to the faiths and beliefs, the rituals and rigmarole of an organised religion.

This doesn't make me 'out-of-touch' with my inner self. I am very much 'in-touch' with what goes on inside me, I just don't believe in the reality of the spiritual world. It serves a great purpose symbolically, it is a tool of language and of thought, but is a PERSPECTIVE, rather than a VIEW.

Yes, I suppose lying face down on the kitchen floor, no pulse, no respiration, for a good eight minutes isn't nearly as close to death as being ANESTHETIZED IN A HOSPITAL UNDER CONTROLLED CIRCUMSTANCES, WHILE YOUR HEART AND LUNGS ARE STILL FUNCTIONING.

So you admit you didn't die?

The purpose of myth and religion is to address the inner self. For people who tend to deny their inner self and only look at the world around them, ...
Actually, it's the metaphor-users that are unable to grasp their inner self and must resort to representing it with external objects (such as representing evil as a snake).

wow, you really like to make stuff up. you did that on another thread, too...why is it that you feel the need to draw conspicuously false conclusions from the clear statements made by people who don't agree with you?

Its just a question.

=Milostein]Stopping that probably wouldn't cost me my life.

Possible but, a guy intervened in a similar situation near my place once and he got put into a coma by the buggers, I didnt see it, just heard about it.

Faith isnt about guessing its about believing.

Without logic or evidence, faith is just believing something without reason. I can "have faith" that if I jump off a cliff, I'll fly. But that "faith" isn't going to save me from the harsh reality of gravity, now is it?
Rancid cow excrement has more substance than your "faith".

Actually, it's the metaphor-users that are unable to grasp their inner self and must resort to representing it with external objects (such as representing evil as a snake).

It is said that "god" is merely the external projection of man's ego. (i.e. god was created in man's image).

=New Vinnland]Without logic or evidence, faith is just believing something without reason. I can "have faith" that if I jump off a cliff, I'll fly. But that "faith" isn't going to save me from the harsh reality of gravity

Faith is a strong thing to have, it says in the Bible you could order a mountain to throw itself into the sea if you had enough faith, so levitating off a cliff wouldnt be that big a deal if you truly believed.


Rancid cow excrement has more substance than your "faith".

For you maybe.

I love this quote from Red Dwarf:

LISTER: "Just out of interest: Is Silicon Heaven the same place as human Heaven?"
KRYTEN: "Human heaven? Goodness me, humans don't go to Heaven! No, someone made that up to prevent you all from going nuts!"

Faith is a strong thing to have, it says in the Bible you could order a mountain to throw itself into the sea if you had enough faith, so levitating off a cliff wouldnt be that big a deal if you truly believed.

Then where the hell are all the flying christians?

Faith is a strong thing to have, it says in the Bible you could order a mountain to throw itself into the sea if you had enough faith, so levitating off a cliff wouldnt be that big a deal if you truly believed.
I'd like to see you test that theory.

I'd like to see you test that theory.


So would I ... though I would have a feeling that if they failed it would be atributed to "some unknown lack of faith" or some "inner doubt"

It is real easy to hold that sort of belief when, whenever it is tested and fails it can be atributed to a lack of something.

What exactly is the required level of belief?

I love this quote from Red Dwarf:

LISTER: "Just out of interest: Is Silicon Heaven the same place as human Heaven?"
KRYTEN: "Human heaven? Goodness me, humans don't go to Heaven! No, someone made that up to prevent you all from going nuts!"

Great show, English humour is the best around.

So would I ... though I would have a feeling that if they failed it would be atributed to "some unknown lack of faith" or some "inner doubt"

It is real easy to hold that sort of belief when, whenever it is tested and fails it can be atributed to a lack of something.

What exactly is the required level of belief?

Pretty high.

I'd like to see you test that theory.

Only if you test it with me :)

Hey I call them as I see’s them

And that is what it appears to me when any test of faith fails it is the personal fault of the tester… always be blamed on that


(don’t get me wrong a lot of science is blamed on not ideal conditions or accidents when it really is a failed theory … difference is they work on correcting that sort of thing)

Only if you test it with me :)
Sure.

Except that you don't get to have a parachute should you fail to levitate, because bringing one would constitute a lack of faith. I am under no such restriction.

= UpwardThrust
And that is what it appears to me when any test of faith fails it is the personal fault of the tester… always be blamed on that

Agreed

don’t get me wrong a lot of science is blamed on not ideal conditions or accidents when it really is a failed theory … difference is they work on correcting that sort of thing

With faith you can only correct the amount you have.

Sure.

Except that you don't get to have a parachute should you fail to levitate, because bringing one would constitute a lack of faith. I am under no such restriction.

What if your parachute fails, I guess its just screaming the f word for you then. lol

What if your parachute fails, I guess its just screaming the f word for you then. lol

No, your body will break his fall. ;)
Also, I think the parachute would have a much higher success rate compared to your faith.

=New Vinnland No, your body will break his fall. ;)

Well then I go to Heaven for saving his life.

Also, I think the parachute would have a much higher success rate compared to your faith.

Your right, my faith should be much stronger than his parachute, Im still working on it but.

=Grave_n_idle]You and I have already covered this territory. Not only would I, but I have done. The fact that I am NOT dead doesn't detract from the fact that I made that gesture, and, believe me, I LOVE my life... I wouldn't be happy to lose it, but I would be WILLING to lose it for the right cause.

Great.



Only if you have some reason to believe. Otherwise, it's still just a guess.
Now, I know people that have had very profound experiences, that have forces them to believe (those same experiences might NOT have had that effect on me, though), and they BELIEVE.


How do you know I havent had a profound experience of my own?

On the other hand, many people come by religion by being 'raised' in it - in which case they never REALLY believe, they are just accustomed... conditioned, if you will.

So according to you the only true Christians or Buddhists or Islamics or Hindus can be people who have had deep profound life shattering experiences.



Others 'like the sound of it', like you can buy 'god' from a catalogue.

There you go again insulting my faith, trust me Grave you know nothing about that OK.

Or maybe because 'religion' doesn't exist. Each argument has validity.

The thing is, I've been religious. I've been 'saved'. Twice, actually.

I am familiar with the internal 'canon' of belief. And it is not a necessity to life - as I found out AFTER I lived the religious life.

I can understand the 'appeal' of religion, but the things it gives can be found in other aspects of life... without the need to resort to the faiths and beliefs, the rituals and rigmarole of an organised religion.

This doesn't make me 'out-of-touch' with my inner self. I am very much 'in-touch' with what goes on inside me, I just don't believe in the reality of the spiritual world. It serves a great purpose symbolically, it is a tool of language and of thought, but is a PERSPECTIVE, rather than a VIEW.
All parts of us, that go to make us "us", are essential. You mentioned it earlier --the force that created a world suitable for man is actually (looking at it from the other end) 'evolution' that adapted man to his environment. The mind/heart/soul has evolved over the years, as well as the body.

I believe I am in line with Iaekeokeo here when I say: religion is not something we do, it is something we are. It is a part of us, and we, as participants in life, are an intregral part of it. I don't know what it is that you get from religion that is as good as or better got from life (and power to you) --to me, this says that you are looking for religion outside of yourself; looking for it to come into you; I could be wrong. Same with the 'spiritual world' comment. You seem to be expecting something specific from religion, and (just guessing now) not finding it, you keep turning away?

Okay, enough amateur psychoanalysis; I apologize. I agree religion, as its practiced by organized religious institutions, is not necessary. I like to think I'm living proof of that. ;-) But that doesn't mean that you can't find religion all on your own; religion (belief in something --God, the universe, Bob Hope, whatever --that transcends man) is a part of us, and therefore essential.

Actually, it's the metaphor-users that are unable to grasp their inner self and must resort to representing it with external objects (such as representing evil as a snake).
And the snake is..... ;-)

Have you ever seen The Tick? "Ooh! Shiney!" "You don't get out much, do you?"

All parts of us, that go to make us "us", are essential. You mentioned it earlier --the force that created a world suitable for man is actually (looking at it from the other end) 'evolution' that adapted man to his environment. The mind/heart/soul has evolved over the years, as well as the body.

I believe I am in line with Iaekeokeo here when I say: religion is not something we do, it is something we are. It is a part of us, and we, as participants in life, are an intregral part of it. I don't know what it is that you get from religion that is as good as or better got from life (and power to you) --to me, this says that you are looking for religion outside of yourself; looking for it to come into you; I could be wrong. Same with the 'spiritual world' comment. You seem to be expecting something specific from religion, and (just guessing now) not finding it, you keep turning away?

Okay, enough amateur psychoanalysis; I apologize. I agree religion, as its practiced by organized religious institutions, is not necessary. I like to think I'm living proof of that. ;-) But that doesn't mean that you can't find religion all on your own; religion (belief in something --God, the universe, Bob Hope, whatever --that transcends man) is a part of us, and therefore essential.

I would probably consider secular humanism my religion.

Faith is a strong thing to have, it says in the Bible you could order a mountain to throw itself into the sea if you had enough faith, so levitating off a cliff wouldnt be that big a deal if you truly believed.
Okay, I had to look this one up because it astounded me.

Matthew 17:20 "Because you're not yet taking God seriously," said Jesus. "The simple truth is that if you had a mere kernel of faith, a poppy seed, say, you would tell this mountain, "Move!' and it would move. There is nothing you wouldn't be able to tackle."

The mountain is a literary metaphor, Terminalia: "There is nothing you wouldn't be able to tackle," is the message.

Okay, I had to look this one up because it astounded me.

Matthew 17:20 "Because you're not yet taking God seriously," said Jesus. "The simple truth is that if you had a mere kernel of faith, a poppy seed, say, you would tell this mountain, "Move!' and it would move. There is nothing you wouldn't be able to tackle."

The mountain is a literary metaphor, Terminalia: "There is nothing you wouldn't be able to tackle," is the message.

Including levitating.

No eating of the flesh or drinking of the blood.

Jim2004

No eating of the flesh or drinking of the blood.

Jim2004

???????????

???????????

Athiests diet?
Jim 2004

Big Jim P is speaking of the Eucharist.

And again I ask; where are the flying Christians?

=New Vinnland]Big Jim P is speaking of the Eucharist.

I know what hes talking about, just dont know why he bothered.

And again I ask; where are the flying Christians?

Havent you seen the Flying Nun? :)

The Mayans disappeared too, where the hell are they, invisible like the Celestine Prophecys reckon?

That just means Atheists are narrowminded, You can't see,Hear,touch, smell or taste everything. Some things are just unexplained, open your mind to another realm of thought and feeling, If you can that is.


It seems like you are the narrow minded ones, as you cannot accept other people's beliefs.
I am an Athiest, but what everyone else is is up to them. I won't try to convert anyone to thinking my way. The only difference between me and someone who is 'religious' is that I believe that there is no God, or pantheon of gods, or any other supreme being or deity that rules over us in any way.
I may have the same set of morals that thiests do, but they are drawn from life experiences and my own thoughts and feelings, rather than from religious leaders and the like.
I used to be Roman Catholic, but over a number of years I grew out of it.


As for the subject of the thread, dieing is just one of those things that happens. One day I was born, and one day I'll die. It's what happens in between that matters so I try to ignore it for now, because when my day is up then there won't be anything I can do about it, so why worry?

So would I ... though I would have a feeling that if they failed it would be atributed to "some unknown lack of faith" or some "inner doubt"

It is real easy to hold that sort of belief when, whenever it is tested and fails it can be atributed to a lack of something.

What exactly is the required level of belief?

Hey wait, I know this one... it's 7, isn't it?

Level 7 Faith enables you to float off cliffs....?

Well then I go to Heaven for saving his life.


That's not in the bible, buddy.

There is only one route to 'heaven', according to the good book, and that's not it.

All parts of us, that go to make us "us", are essential. You mentioned it earlier --the force that created a world suitable for man is actually (looking at it from the other end) 'evolution' that adapted man to his environment. The mind/heart/soul has evolved over the years, as well as the body.

I believe I am in line with Iaekeokeo here when I say: religion is not something we do, it is something we are. It is a part of us, and we, as participants in life, are an intregral part of it. I don't know what it is that you get from religion that is as good as or better got from life (and power to you) --to me, this says that you are looking for religion outside of yourself; looking for it to come into you; I could be wrong. Same with the 'spiritual world' comment. You seem to be expecting something specific from religion, and (just guessing now) not finding it, you keep turning away?

Okay, enough amateur psychoanalysis; I apologize. I agree religion, as its practiced by organized religious institutions, is not necessary. I like to think I'm living proof of that. ;-) But that doesn't mean that you can't find religion all on your own; religion (belief in something --God, the universe, Bob Hope, whatever --that transcends man) is a part of us, and therefore essential.

No need to apologise, no offence taken.

I have asked myself many of the same questions you ask. I am not 'expecting' anything from religion. I have been in organised religion, and it rang hollow, I have dabbled a little in less organised religion - and it always seems to me to be an attempt to set structure on things that don't necessarily have or need structure.

It's not that I turn away from religion. It is an irrelevence to me. I still research, I still read, I am still interested in religion - but I am not expecting anything from it. It is art, to me - not science.

Now - Put religion in THAT context, and I have the greatest appreciation for it. As the metaphors and symbols of living, I am very fond of the teaching not only of the Bible, but the Koran, etc. etc.

Re: the evolution of the soul. I would quibble the words (the Old Testament misunderstanding of what 'soul' is), but I agree with your concept of 'spiritual' evolution. To me, however, it is a factor of the increasing cerebration of the evolving mind... a combination of (I guess) Monkey-Brain curiousity with the truly Sapient ability to philosophise. To me, therefore, spirituality is a 'symptom' of mental evolution - just the same as manic-depression might be. Not bad, per se - but not 'necessary'.

My opinion.

No need to apologise, no offence taken.

I have asked myself many of the same questions you ask. I am not 'expecting' anything from religion. I have been in organised religion, and it rang hollow, I have dabbled a little in less organised religion - and it always seems to me to be an attempt to set structure on things that don't necessarily have or need structure.

It's not that I turn away from religion. It is an irrelevence to me. I still research, I still read, I am still interested in religion - but I am not expecting anything from it. It is art, to me - not science.

Now - Put religion in THAT context, and I have the greatest appreciation for it. As the metaphors and symbols of living, I am very fond of the teaching not only of the Bible, but the Koran, etc. etc.

Re: the evolution of the soul. I would quibble the words (the Old Testament misunderstanding of what 'soul' is), but I agree with your concept of 'spiritual' evolution. To me, however, it is a factor of the increasing cerebration of the evolving mind... a combination of (I guess) Monkey-Brain curiousity with the truly Sapient ability to philosophise. To me, therefore, spirituality is a 'symptom' of mental evolution - just the same as manic-depression might be. Not bad, per se - but not 'necessary'.

My opinion.

Interesting... I'm going to think about that for a bit... Are you aware of the concept of the "archetype"? You may find it interesting if it's new to you.

How do you know I havent had a profound experience of my own?


I didn't say you had OR hadn't. You aren't forthcoming, if you have had. If you feel the need to cloak your religion in mystery, and if you take my 'profound experience' concept to be some kind of challenge - then it is saying volumes about you.


So according to you the only true Christians or Buddhists or Islamics or Hindus can be people who have had deep profound life shattering experiences.


Yes. To my thinking, those ARE the only TRUE Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or Moslems. To my thinking, anyone else is playacting. Trying it on. Wearing the religion, not being part of it.


There you go again insulting my faith, trust me Grave you know nothing about that OK.

It's not an insult, and it isn't regarding YOUR faith, unless you make it so.

Others 'like the sound of it', like you can buy 'god' from a catalogue.

Nowhere does that say you. And, you must admit, it is true, that there are 'religious wannabees'.

Once again, though... that you take this as an insult, and directed at you - says a volume about you.

Interesting... I'm going to think about that for a bit... Are you aware of the concept of the "archetype"? You may find it interesting if it's new to you.

You mean the Jungian archetype? I have some passing acquaintance with it... I seem to recall I didn't totally agree with Jung's concepts. I don't accept the 'collective unconscious' as an entity.. I think that what we 'perceive' as a 'collective unconscious' is just our personal unconscious minds, shaped by the stimuli of our envirnoments.

Let me go back to something I was discussing briefly with Willamena, much much earlier... the scientific testing that stimulated areas of the brain, and, as a side-effect, generated 'spiritual' visions. When placed in this experimental situation... the scientists had visions of 'god'. Obviously, this was earth-shattering in it's implication.. imagine if an experiment finally PROVED the observable existence of god?

Obviously, after this, they used other test subjects... other ethnicities and creeds. Almost everyone had a 'spiritual' experience... but each perceived a spiritual experience (or even a vision of god) based on their environment.

The 'journalist' who reported the story also took part in the experiment... but he was a confirmed atheist. The atheist reported 'lucid dreaming', about some adolescent moment... probably something formative, one would imagine - but not a 'religious' moment.

I think this experiment maps what Jung called the 'collective unconscious'... and it seems to confirm what I feel - that our 'archetype' consciousness is... for want of a better analogy, the DOS prompt of the brain... where our consciousness is our operating system (I think my brain is still running Windows '98).

My opinion.

If I am missing something about archetype... please feel free to educate me... I live to learn. Oh, and thankyou for bringing it up.

You mean the Jungian archetype? I have some passing acquaintance with it... I seem to recall I didn't totally agree with Jung's concepts. I don't accept the 'collective unconscious' as an entity.. I think that what we 'perceive' as a 'collective unconscious' is just our personal unconscious minds, shaped by the stimuli of our envirnoments.

Let me go back to something I was discussing briefly with Willamena, much much earlier... the scientific testing that stimulated areas of the brain, and, as a side-effect, generated 'spiritual' visions. When placed in this experimental situation... the scientists had visions of 'god'. Obviously, this was earth-shattering in it's implication.. imagine if an experiment finally PROVED the observable existence of god?

Obviously, after this, they used other test subjects... other ethnicities and creeds. Almost everyone had a 'spiritual' experience... but each perceived a spiritual experience (or even a vision of god) based on their environment.

The 'journalist' who reported the story also took part in the experiment... but he was a confirmed atheist. The atheist reported 'lucid dreaming', about some adolescent moment... probably something formative, one would imagine - but not a 'religious' moment.

I think this experiment maps what Jung called the 'collective unconscious'... and it seems to confirm what I feel - that our 'archetype' consciousness is... for want of a better analogy, the DOS prompt of the brain... where our consciousness is our operating system (I think my brain is still running Windows '98).

My opinion.

If I am missing something about archetype... please feel free to educate me... I live to learn. Oh, and thankyou for bringing it up.

Well, you certainly surprised me. I've never heard the name Jung before, but you pretty much described the most important part of what I was going to talk about. I brought it up because I found it semi-relevant; a connection between pychic energy and religion. Few are aware of it. I would have explained it in a far more specific manner, but again you got the jist of it.

I've also got it on the brain right now, so I guess I was itching to bring it up. It came into play a great deal last Saturday. Call me crazy.

Oh, and I did read that portion of the thread. I didn't post as I didn't have anything to say. As my personal experiences are concerned, no one could ever come close to disproving spiritualism to me. But I can respect the (at least attempted) objectiveness of the experiment.

e.g. Jesus feeds 12,000 people with a few fish and a few loaves of bread. Which is impossible - but not if the NUMBER of people is drastically inflated, or the number of loaves is drastically underestimated. Also - since several of Jesus' followers were fishers by trade, it's not impossible they may have 'replenished his stock', so he would always have 5 fishes, or whatever.
Or - they may have just shared what they had, even though that meant each person only had a tiny amount... but they were 'satisfied' because of the spiritual significance of the act.

My R.E. teacher (a very good one who was a 'small-c' christian with a lot of experience in comparative theology) suggested to us that, in all probability, a lot of the attendees had brought 'packed lunches' but were reluctant to share.

When it was obvious that 'they guy in charge' was willing to share up food, suddenly a number of them got all guility about not doing so and serruppticiously shared out what they had among their less fortunate neighbours, while others with food they couldn't share without comment (a nice bit of beef, or whatever) may have passed the offered food onwards untouched to allow others to partake.

I like this idea. I like it whether the food-sharing was an open secret at the time, or individual attendees thought they were the only ones to 'help out'. I'm not sure if the actual event occured, but the above (theoretical) solution to the situation says more positive things to me about human nature (yes, people are a bit selfish to start with, but then the ice is broken and people are sharing with their fellows) than one guy already with a reputation for divine generosity/goodness waving his hand and making it so...

Well, you certainly surprised me. I've never heard the name Jung before, but you pretty much described the most important part of what I was going to talk about. I brought it up because I found it semi-relevant; a connection between pychic energy and religion. Few are aware of it. I would have explained it in a far more specific manner, but again you got the jist of it.

I've also got it on the brain right now, so I guess I was itching to bring it up. It came into play a great deal last Saturday. Call me crazy.

Oh, and I did read that portion of the thread. I didn't post as I didn't have anything to say. As my personal experiences are concerned, no one could ever come close to disproving spiritualism to me. But I can respect the (at least attempted) objectiveness of the experiment.

Hey, it's all good. There is no such thing as BAD KNOWLEDGE, only what you do with it.

I would never DREAM of trying to 'disprove' spiritualism to you. If you bring me a 'holy book', I might happily dissect it with you, but the belief someone has is theirs, and I never try to touch it.

It just happens that, in my world view, it's not 'real'... but then, in your world view, my world isn't 'real' either. If we can agree to get along anyhow, it's all good.

Faith is a strong thing to have, it says in the Bible you could order a mountain to throw itself into the sea if you had enough faith, so levitating off a cliff wouldnt be that big a deal if you truly believed.

Sounds all very Jedi to me. :)

My R.E. teacher (a very good one who was a 'small-c' christian with a lot of experience in comparative theology) suggested to us that, in all probability, a lot of the attendees had brought 'packed lunches' but were reluctant to share.

When it was obvious that 'they guy in charge' was willing to share up food, suddenly a number of them got all guility about not doing so and serruppticiously shared out what they had among their less fortunate neighbours, while others with food they couldn't share without comment (a nice bit of beef, or whatever) may have passed the offered food onwards untouched to allow others to partake.

I like this idea. I like it whether the food-sharing was an open secret at the time, or individual attendees thought they were the only ones to 'help out'. I'm not sure if the actual event occured, but the above (theoretical) solution to the situation says more positive things to me about human nature (yes, people are a bit selfish to start with, but then the ice is broken and people are sharing with their fellows) than one guy already with a reputation for divine generosity/goodness waving his hand and making it so...

See, here's the biggest problem modern christianity has. There are things done today that are (as you say) open secrets, or that are not worthy of the mention, because EVERYONE does it, or things that don't get mentioned because they aren't important. As you say, the 'packed-lunch' idea is not unlikely, and wouldn't have been considered even WORTHY of mention when the event took place... but, the later readings of the same story made a big deal of it, just because those things were NOT mentioned.

Equally likely, the 'guy up front' could have just got up on a rock and yelled "anyone got any spare food, share it around a bit, thanks", and people have a way of following a charismatic leader.

I think it is good that you searched for the meaning BEHIND the story.

=Grave_n_idle]I didn't say you had OR hadn't. You aren't forthcoming, if you have had. If you feel the need to cloak your religion in mystery, and if you take my 'profound experience' concept to be some kind of challenge - then it is saying volumes about you.

I can cloak it in mystery if I want, thats how I like it to be.


Yes. To my thinking, those ARE the only TRUE Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or Moslems. To my thinking, anyone else is playacting. Trying it on. Wearing the religion, not being part of it.

Sorry but your so wrong, faith doesnt belong to some elite thats been innitiated by some great revelation, anyone can have it, all they have to do is believe.


Nowhere does that say you. And, you must admit, it is true, that there are 'religious wannabees'.

OK I read that wrong, sorry.
Yes there are religous wannabes, they tend to drift from religon to religon, but even then they are at least looking.
Some other religous wannabes I have no time for, would be guys like Jimmy Baker etc, not that all Televangelists are fake, but some certainly are there primarily for the money or their own ego.

Once again, though... that you take this as an insult, and directed at you - says a volume about you. Whatever.

Sounds all very Jedi to me. :)

Yes faith is a force.

It just happens that, in my world view, it's not 'real'... but then, in your world view, my world isn't 'real' either. If we can agree to get along anyhow, it's all good.

Hey, works for me.

I can cloak it in mystery if I want, thats how I like it to be.


It's just a curious take on the christian perspective. Most christians I know are only too happy to give their testimony, knowing that that is the very best way to win souls to christ. Even when challenged on it, you have no testimony... and then you blame me for the conclusions that brings me to.


Sorry but your so wrong, faith doesnt belong to some elite thats been innitiated by some great revelation, anyone can have it, all they have to do is believe.


It's not a matter of elites. I just hold that, if you have never experienced the true Majesty of god, then you have never truely experienced god. The way you attack this, makes me feel that you have no 'earth-shattering' revelation of your own. Maybe I am wrong, but the evidence suggests otherwise.


OK I read that wrong, sorry.
Yes there are religous wannabes, they tend to drift from religon to religon, but even then they are at least looking.
Some other religous wannabes I have no time for, would be guys like Jimmy Baker etc, not that all Televangelists are fake, but some certainly are there primarily for the money or their own ego.


They are 'at least looking'... you say that like it is a good thing? So, when a christian decides that he can't stand all the homophobia of christianity, as taught by the bible (supposedly) - and starts looking into Wicca as a serious prospect, you are ALL FOR his search?

Hey, works for me.

In all seriousness, as I have said before, I live to learn.

If you think there is a big picture I'm missing on the archetype concept, or even some little nuance that you think might skew my perspective, then, by all means, share.

I appreciate being able to discuss issues without people attempting to burst into flames just because they have differing opinions.

I would be happy to list you alongside Willamena and (eventually, after the bleeding stopped) Iakeokeo, as people I can have different opinions with AND STILL discuss religion rationally.

::yawns::

Wasting breath even trying to explain to some people. :rolleyes:

Anywho, back to Life. :)

Including levitating.
And you're welcome to tackle it! Just don't be too disappointed when you don't succeed. It's the effort that counts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcadian Mists
Hey, works for me.


In all seriousness, as I have said before, I live to learn.

If you think there is a big picture I'm missing on the archetype concept, or even some little nuance that you think might skew my perspective, then, by all means, share.

I appreciate being able to discuss issues without people attempting to burst into flames just because they have differing opinions.

I would be happy to list you alongside Willamena and (eventually, after the bleeding stopped) Iakeokeo, as people I can have different opinions with AND STILL discuss religion rationally.

:D

<chuckle-chortle>

"It is",... dude..!

"It is"..!

(( Could be "It am" I suppose, but that sounds rather conceited :) ))

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminalia
Including levitating (christians).

And you're welcome to tackle it! Just don't be too disappointed when you don't succeed. It's the effort that counts.

Christians can't levitate, regardless of faith, except in "dreams", which I do all the time.

..though I'm not a christian per se.

The reason they (or anyone else) can't, of course, is that that would muck up the whole "self determination (what is the phrase I'm looking for here!?)" thing.

If you could just "wish away" the physical boundaries of "it is" (that which IS), then there would be no (physical) consequence for any action, which reduces the "contrast" between any choices makable to zero.

In other words, no rules = chaos.

..and actual "no-rules-chaos" is NOT the kind of chaos that "it is" does.

"It is" does only localized chaos,... not integral macro-chaos.

IE: Perceived chaos, and not blind rampant koo-koo yeehaw chaos! :)

Got that..!? Have a 500 page essay on that in by Wednesday, or Thursday latest.

Good job class....

Hey wait, I know this one... it's 7, isn't it?

Level 7 Faith enables you to float off cliffs....?
No, I'm pretty sure you need to be level 9 for that. ;)

My R.E. teacher (a very good one who was a 'small-c' christian with a lot of experience in comparative theology) suggested to us that, in all probability, a lot of the attendees had brought 'packed lunches' but were reluctant to share.

When it was obvious that 'they guy in charge' was willing to share up food, suddenly a number of them got all guility about not doing so and serruppticiously shared out what they had among their less fortunate neighbours, while others with food they couldn't share without comment (a nice bit of beef, or whatever) may have passed the offered food onwards untouched to allow others to partake.

I like this idea. I like it whether the food-sharing was an open secret at the time, or individual attendees thought they were the only ones to 'help out'. I'm not sure if the actual event occured, but the above (theoretical) solution to the situation says more positive things to me about human nature (yes, people are a bit selfish to start with, but then the ice is broken and people are sharing with their fellows) than one guy already with a reputation for divine generosity/goodness waving his hand and making it so...
I like the story of the stone soup more. It explained this stuff far better than the bible, and didn't involve any supreme deities.

You mean the Jungian archetype? I have some passing acquaintance with it... I seem to recall I didn't totally agree with Jung's concepts. I don't accept the 'collective unconscious' as an entity.. I think that what we 'perceive' as a 'collective unconscious' is just our personal unconscious minds, shaped by the stimuli of our envirnoments.
I too have only a passing familiarity with Jung's studies in 'archetypes', and his 'collective unconscious' baffled me, but the idea of the archetype has been advanced by, and has advanced, the study of mythology, using the working theory that god beings are anthropomorphized embodiments of archetypical images. The mother (who nutures), the father (caretaker), the son (lover-warrior) and daughter (virgin). Archetypes have also been used to develop the mythological motifs found in various cultures all around the world into a road-map of how to read ancient artifacts and languages (read, as in from the perspective of the author).

Let me go back to something I was discussing briefly with Willamena, much much earlier... the scientific testing that stimulated areas of the brain, and, as a side-effect, generated 'spiritual' visions. When placed in this experimental situation... the scientists had visions of 'god'. Obviously, this was earth-shattering in it's implication.. imagine if an experiment finally PROVED the observable existence of god?
How could they ever "prove" it? The experimenters can never actually see what is being envisioned by the subject --the subject's description of it, though first-hand testamony, still amounts to second-hand knowledge.

I like the story of the stone soup more. It explained this stuff far better than the bible, and didn't involve any supreme deities.

Yeah, I like that (that's the one where 'stone' soup is made to taste a bit better by the addition of some salt, carrots, turnips, parsley, etc, and in the end the giant swallows the 'magic' stone and gets stomach ache, but not befor ehte hero gets away from him, right?).

Not sure how it explains the same thing, though. The given interpretation of the 'feeding of the five-thousand' tale was just one that I have found to be an interesting observation that allowed all but the most radical believers and non-believers to share a heritage and take more or less the same message out of it.

(The rabid believers would of course believe strictly that it was a case of divine 'alakazam' while the steadfast non-believers are fairly sure it never happened, but there's a wide spectrum of people in-between who may have varying beliefs about whether it was a 'miracle' and even involved God in any way but can agree that, if it happened anything like stated, something pretty amazing happened.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
You mean the Jungian archetype? I have some passing acquaintance with it... I seem to recall I didn't totally agree with Jung's concepts. I don't accept the 'collective unconscious' as an entity.. I think that what we 'perceive' as a 'collective unconscious' is just our personal unconscious minds, shaped by the stimuli of our envirnoments.

I too have only a passing familiarity with Jung's studies in 'archetypes', and his 'collective unconscious' baffled me, but the idea of the archetype has been advanced by, and has advanced, the study of mythology, using the working theory that god beings are anthropomorphized embodiments of archetypical images. The mother (who nutures), the father (caretaker), the son (lover-warrior) and daughter (virgin). Archetypes have also been used to develop the mythological motifs found in various cultures all around the world into a road-map of how to read ancient artifacts and languages (read, as in from the perspective of the author).


Quote:
Let me go back to something I was discussing briefly with Willamena, much much earlier... the scientific testing that stimulated areas of the brain, and, as a side-effect, generated 'spiritual' visions. When placed in this experimental situation... the scientists had visions of 'god'. Obviously, this was earth-shattering in it's implication.. imagine if an experiment finally PROVED the observable existence of god?

How could they ever "prove" it? The experimenters can never actually see what is being envisioned by the subject --the subject's description of it, though first-hand testamony, still amounts to second-hand knowledge.

Second part first...

Hold your breath for A LONG TIME. A "spiritual experience" WILL happen. Guaranteed.

Back to the First part...

I was thinking the other day... (really!).. and while watching "Endless summer II" (..predictable? :) ) it occured to me that the Fijian kid on the atoll probably had dreams that bear little to no resemblance to mine.

My dreams would be utter nightmare and probably crippling to the poor kid.

His dreams might be nightmarish and/or simply incomprehensible to me.

Thank goodnie that we can't communicate on that level directly.

But I'm sure he "sees" in his dreams. I'm sure he "moves" in his dreams.

I seek to "get above" my dreams. To not be limited by the constant assaulting trauma of them. To see them for what they are, and not to "be" my reaction to them.

My goal in dealing with the gods is in talking with them in a determined way, and convincing them to smile, step aside, and have them remove their "need" to be ferocious and traumatic.

I know I have my own gods. I deal with them regularly, in and out of sleep. I'm not so arrogant as to think that I'm unique. How we deal with our own gods is a personal choice (a blindingly obvious statement).

I, personally, want to get to where my gods are my helpers and not my tormentors. And I am getting there, thank goodness.

Language is how all things, especially living beings, more especially human beings, communicate. It is a VERY inexact method for a VERY good reason.

The clarity of direct communication to another's gods would kill us. :)

as an atheist i am perfectly willing to believe in a religion if someone can offer me some actual proof. dying is simply an abscence of life im not worried about because i won't exist

as an atheist i am perfectly willing to believe in a religion if someone can offer me some actual proof. dying is simply an abscence of life im not worried about because i won't exist


"Actual Proof"...?

How about "Imaginary Proof"..?

Or "REAL Proof"..?

Or "Cool Proof"..?

..just plain old "proof" won't do..?!


What would this proof look like,.. in other words, what about this "proof" would convince you to believe in a religion..?

Yeah, I like that (that's the one where 'stone' soup is made to taste a bit better by the addition of some salt, carrots, turnips, parsley, etc, and in the end the giant swallows the 'magic' stone and gets stomach ache, but not befor ehte hero gets away from him, right?).
Ummm... No giants. You must be thinking of a different stone soup story.

I did a Google search, and found this link (http://spanky.triumf.ca/www/fractint/stone_soup.html).

Second part first...

Hold your breath for A LONG TIME. A "spiritual experience" WILL happen. Guaranteed.
No doubt. :-) But the "proof" in this instance belongs to Man the Observer, looking for evidence in others not-him.

Back to the First part...

I was thinking the other day... (really!).. and while watching "Endless summer II" (..predictable? :) ) it occured to me that the Fijian kid on the atoll probably had dreams that bear little to no resemblance to mine.

My dreams would be utter nightmare and probably crippling to the poor kid.

His dreams might be nightmarish and/or simply incomprehensible to me.

Thank goodnie that we can't communicate on that level directly.

But I'm sure he "sees" in his dreams. I'm sure he "moves" in his dreams.

I seek to "get above" my dreams. To not be limited by the constant assaulting trauma of them. To see them for what they are, and not to "be" my reaction to them.

My goal in dealing with the gods is in talking with them in a determined way, and convincing them to smile, step aside, and have them remove their "need" to be ferocious and traumatic.

I know I have my own gods. I deal with them regularly, in and out of sleep. I'm not so arrogant as to think that I'm unique. How we deal with our own gods is a personal choice (a blindingly obvious statement).

I, personally, want to get to where my gods are my helpers and not my tormentors. And I am getting there, thank goodness.

Language is how all things, especially living beings, more especially human beings, communicate. It is a VERY inexact method for a VERY good reason.

The clarity of direct communication to another's gods would kill us. :)
For me, mythology provides clues --ways to look at things in a rational light (hears all the athiests who don't understand scoffing), as well as a door to explore the inner self to come to an individual concept of god(s).

I have never had a concept of god(s) as tormentor, always rejected the idea instinctively when others mentioned it ("What sort of a God would to this...?!"). God is us, and we are a part of the whole; therefore what he would do is necessarily what we would do.

What would this proof look like,.. in other words, what about this "proof" would convince you to believe in a religion..?

I started a thread to ask that question a while ago, and got flamed for flaming christians. Imagine that.

What would this proof look like,.. in other words, what about this "proof" would convince you to believe in a religion..?

Unquestionable proof of a God or Gods.

Unquestionable proof of a God or Gods.

How do you define 'unquestionable'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by E B Guvegrra
Yeah, I like that (that's the one where 'stone' soup is made to taste a bit better by the addition of some salt, carrots, turnips, parsley, etc, and in the end the giant swallows the 'magic' stone and gets stomach ache, but not befor ehte hero gets away from him, right?).

Ummm... No giants. You must be thinking of a different stone soup story.

I did a Google search, and found this link.

I rather like the "Ulysses and Polyphemus" story as well, though it has nothing to do with the (much more positive) stone soup story. :)

The Stone Soup story is a pretty good metaphor for the existence of "organized" religion itself, actually.

It "primes the pump", via trickery (a CLASSIC and possibly original trait of any "mythological being"), of recognizing that hoarding resources is often not the best way to ensure the continuation of a "society".

The "stone owner" got a "free ride", but the villagers who had nothing survived another day, and those with excess were persuaded to share.

So the stone-owner was a catalyst in helping the villagers see that if they wanted the village to survive, as opposed to just themselves, they needed to share.

Although, you could argue that the villagers didn't get the hint (as witnessed by the fact that they tried to buy the stone) and went back to their old hoarding ways immediately.

But perhaps there was a smart-assed little kid in the village who caught on and went out the next day and found a similar stone and....

Was the "lesson" worth the price of a portion of their food..?

:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Second part first...

Hold your breath for A LONG TIME. A "spiritual experience" WILL happen. Guaranteed.

No doubt. :-) But the "proof" in this instance belongs to Man the Observer, looking for evidence in others not-him.


Quote:
Back to the First part...

I was thinking the other day... (really!).. and while watching "Endless summer II" (..predictable? ) it occured to me that the Fijian kid on the atoll probably had dreams that bear little to no resemblance to mine.

My dreams would be utter nightmare and probably crippling to the poor kid.

His dreams might be nightmarish and/or simply incomprehensible to me.

Thank goodnie that we can't communicate on that level directly.

But I'm sure he "sees" in his dreams. I'm sure he "moves" in his dreams.

I seek to "get above" my dreams. To not be limited by the constant assaulting trauma of them. To see them for what they are, and not to "be" my reaction to them.

My goal in dealing with the gods is in talking with them in a determined way, and convincing them to smile, step aside, and have them remove their "need" to be ferocious and traumatic.

I know I have my own gods. I deal with them regularly, in and out of sleep. I'm not so arrogant as to think that I'm unique. How we deal with our own gods is a personal choice (a blindingly obvious statement).

I, personally, want to get to where my gods are my helpers and not my tormentors. And I am getting there, thank goodness.

Language is how all things, especially living beings, more especially human beings, communicate. It is a VERY inexact method for a VERY good reason.

The clarity of direct communication to another's gods would kill us.


For me, mythology provides clues --ways to look at things in a rational light (hears all the athiests who don't understand scoffing), as well as a door to explore the inner self to come to an individual concept of god(s).

I have never had a concept of god(s) as tormentor, always rejected the idea instinctively when others mentioned it ("What sort of a God would to this...?!"). God is us, and we are a part of the whole; therefore what he would do is necessarily what we would do.

.."No doubt. :-) But the "proof" in this instance belongs to Man the Observer, looking for evidence in others not-him."..

Looking for a key, lost in the dark, by looking under the lamp post, is a curious way to search for what you're looking for. :)

"Gods as Tormentors".

To most cultures, gods are more tormentor than anything else. The reason people pray to gods is for relief from torment, of some type. :)

Once again, this illustrates my differentiation of gods from "it is".

"It is" is not to be negotiated with, as it doesn't care in the least, because it's not capable of doing so.

"The gods", on the other hand, are specifically MADE to be negotiated with.

And what does this have to do with "Atheists Dying"..!!?

I'm a die-hard a-theist, who believes in the gods of his culture, and believes in dealing with them to help him be less anxious in dealing with the trevails of liviing in this world provided to us by "it is" (the great absolute verbal-noun-thingy), and I would prefer to be as little anxious while I die, and have nothing to do but reflect on my life time, knowing that others that I love or could love will live on after I am dead and can do nothing more.

Wow,... one sentence... cool...! :D

trickery (a CLASSIC and possibly original trait of any "mythological being")
It's much more impressive when a normal person manages to achieve something than when the Son of God manages it.

Also, imagine that the story just read "There was a great famine in the city. Then a peddler came to the town, and put a stone in a cauldron, and made soup out of it. And everybody ate of it, and it was a delicious meal, and the villagers offered a great deal of money for the stone, but the peddler refused to sell it and took it with him the next day." Would the story then still succeed at conveying the same message?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
What would this proof look like,.. in other words, what about this "proof" would convince you to believe in a religion..?


I started a thread to ask that question a while ago, and got flamed for flaming christians. Imagine that.

Heh he he he...

Unanswerable questions WILL get that response...!

..Or the "HUH..!?" response,..

..or both. :)

And what IS the difference between an "actual proof" and any other sort of proof..?

I'm only being partially sarcastic. I realize "actual" is often used as a pretty meaningless "intensifier" adjective (I do it all the time), but saying "I would believe if you could provide me with something that I couldn't possibly describe to you or even know myself what it might look like" is a rather hollow statement from a fuzzy (lazy) mind.

The "I'll know it when I see it!" (ie, the infamous "porno-quality") response is about the best I would expect,.. but who knows,.. perhaps someone actually has a better description of that proof would look like.

:)

"Gods as Tormentors".

To most cultures, gods are more tormentor than anything else. The reason people pray to gods is for relief from torment, of some type. :)
Interesting. That hasn't been my experience with prayer, though my experience is limited to books. I've never engage in audible prayer, but I've mostly seen prayer as a psychological trigger of self-empowerment, reinforcement and affirmation. It is all about "self".

I wince when I see on television people praying for God to "handle things" --that's as bad as trusting to Fate to "work things out". That's not what prayer is for, either, in my opinion. (As my good friend Dr. Bob said, "If you trust in things to take their own course, they will --they will take their course, not yours.") Perhaps I am too practical about it.

Once again, this illustrates my differentiation of gods from "it is".

"It is" is not to be negotiated with, as it doesn't care in the least, because it's not capable of doing so.

"The gods", on the other hand, are specifically MADE to be negotiated with.

And what does this have to do with "Atheists Dying"..!!?

I'm a die-hard a-theist, who believes in the gods of his culture, and believes in dealing with them to help him be less anxious in dealing with the trevails of liviing in this world provided to us by "it is" (the great absolute verbal-noun-thingy), and I would prefer to be as little anxious while I die, and have nothing to do but reflect on my life time, knowing that others that I love or could love will live on after I am dead and can do nothing more.

Wow,... one sentence... cool...! :D
Cool. :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
trickery (a CLASSIC and possibly original trait of any "mythological being")


It's much more impressive when a normal person manages to achieve something than when the Son of God manages it.

Also, imagine that the story just read "There was a great famine in the city. Then a peddler came to the town, and put a stone in a cauldron, and made soup out of it. And everybody ate of it, and it was a delicious meal, and the villagers offered a great deal of money for the stone, but the peddler refused to sell it and took it with him the next day." Would the story then still succeed at conveying the same message?

That's not a story,.. that's a description of an event.

Which is precisely your point..! :)

Are we talking about the "sermon on the mount" feeding the multitudes story..? As I've said, I'm not really familiar with the christian/jewish mythos per se.



Imagine the scene:

An old man sits in the town square. He's repeating to himself..

"All those people,.. there were thousands..!"

This draws a couple of town's people. They say..

"What are you talking about old man..?" which they do more out of looking for some amusement than anything else.

"He fed thousands with a single basket of bread and a couple of fish. I was there,.. I'll never forget it..!" says the old man.

"What..!? That's ridiculous you old fool..!" says one of the crowd and leaves.

"How could he do such a thing..?" inquires some naive, perhaps, fellow.

"He was the son of god himself..!" spouts the old codger.

"WHAT..!? That's enough for me..!" and away goes another spectator.

"Why were there thousands of people around him..!?" asks another possibly naive person.

"Ahhhhh... It wasn't for the miraculous food of the flesh, it was for the much more important food of the spirit..!" says the old man, his thousand mile stare suddenly snapping back, directly into the eyes of the assembled audience.

"But how could it be more important than miraculous fish and bread..!? Nothing is more important than eating and surviving..!?" says the same supposedly naive person.

"Oh,... is that right...?" says the now spritely old coot.

And so, the story of the story of the story of the miraculous food continues to do it's work of making people think.

As was intended.

The "trick" lives,.. and is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
]"Gods as Tormentors".

To most cultures, gods are more tormentor than anything else. The reason people pray to gods is for relief from torment, of some type.[/COLOR]

Interesting. That hasn't been my experience with prayer, though my experience is limited to books. I've never engage in audible prayer, but I've mostly seen prayer as a psychological trigger of self-empowerment, reinforcement and affirmation. It is all about "self".

I wince when I see on television people praying for God to "handle things" --that's as bad as trusting to Fate to "work things out". That's not what prayer is for, either, in my opinion. (As my good friend Dr. Bob said, "If you trust in things to take their own course, they will --they will take their course, not yours.") Perhaps I am too practical about it.


.."That hasn't been my experience with prayer, though my experience is limited to books"..

Praying to books..!? Hmmmmmmmmmmm... :)

Anytime you go "GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..! This SUCKS..!" that's a prayer to the god of "Annoying Crap" to knock it off..!

( We call him/her the great god Iakakapitui. [sound it out] )

Your Dr. Bob seems a wise man. No action equals no steering by you. Yup. That's the way it works..!

An old Iakeokeoian prayer, "Iae help us see 'da sand for 'da beach."

We can move the sand,.. the beach is for "it is" to play with.

..although "it is" doesn't really play with stuff. D'uh....... :)

That's not a story,.. that's a description of an event.
A story IS a description of an event. The only difference between the two versions of the stone soup story is into how much detail they go. Obviously, you can't explain every small detail - I don't WANT to know how the individual molecules interacted with each other. But some details do need to be told, otherwise your story would simply be "Somewhere, something happened. Or maybe not."

My point is that the stone soup story in the form in the link I gave has sufficient details to convey the myth's moral, while the version I wrote does not. If E B Guvegrra's interpretation of the biblical deed is indeed correct, then he would still have to admit that it doesn't contain these essential details, rendering it rather useless.

A story IS a description of an event. The only difference between the two versions of the stone soup story is into how much detail they go. Obviously, you can't explain every small detail - I don't WANT to know how the individual molecules interacted with each other. But some details do need to be told, otherwise your story would simply be "Somewhere, something happened. Or maybe not."

My point is that the stone soup story in the form in the link I gave has sufficient details to convey the myth's moral, while the version I wrote does not. If E B Guvegrra's interpretation of the biblical deed is indeed correct, then he would still have to admit that it doesn't contain these essential details, rendering it rather useless.
There's stories ...and then there's stories. The difference is not in the quantity of detail. The difference is in how they are told. Stories told by a master story-teller entertain, teach and move us. "Sufficient detail to convey the myth's moral" may not be sufficient reason to listen to it.

Oh, and I agree: much of the Bible is blah.
EDIT: I disagree it makes them useless. There is sufficient scholarly work on the Bible stories to garner entertainment and lesson from these other sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
That's not a story,.. that's a description of an event.

A story IS a description of an event. The only difference between the two versions of the stone soup story is into how much detail they go. Obviously, you can't explain every small detail - I don't WANT to know how the individual molecules interacted with each other. But some details do need to be told, otherwise your story would simply be "Somewhere, something happened. Or maybe not."

My point is that the stone soup story in the form in the link I gave has sufficient details to convey the myth's moral, while the version I wrote does not. If E B Guvegrra's interpretation of the biblical deed is indeed correct, then he would still have to admit that it doesn't contain these essential details, rendering it rather useless.

A story CAN BE a description of an event, but I was refering to the fact that I didn't get any "storylike" vibe out of that terse description of events that you boiled the "stone soup" story into.

And of course, you're right,.. your version really sucked as having any utitlity at all. :)

I think EB was rationalizing a possible scenario whereby the "loaves and fishes" story could be actually accurate, in that several thousand people didn't go hungry and yet this Jesus guy seemed to feed them.

Once again, it's a story.

Anyone purporting that the "Jesus fed lots with little" actually happened via creating food from the air would have to have some pretty nifty evidence that he actually divied up a pair of fish and a couple of loaves of bread between several thousand people twenty centuries ago, to convince this little black duck that that's what really happened.

But it still works quite nicely, and has a nice middle-eastern first-century feel to it, as a story.

And I like the message. Maybe that's just me. :)

There's stories ...and then there's stories. The difference is not in the quantity of detail. The difference is in how they are told. Stories told by a master story-teller entertain, teach and move us. "Sufficient detail to convey the myth's moral" may not be sufficient reason to listen to it.
I agree that telling the story in a way that captivates the audience is important. However, I specifically didn't say that more detail is better (remember, the molecules and all that). A good storyteller must finely tune how many, and which, details are worth telling, and which are not.

EDIT: I disagree it makes them useless. There is sufficient scholarly work on the Bible stories to garner entertainment and lesson from these other sources.
So basically, it's other people writing their own stories vaguely inspired by the bible. You might as well use this link (http://www.macrowerx.com/~jfusion/ftg/).

But Jesus wasn't finished with them. He called his disciples and said, "I hurt for these people. For three days now they've been with me, and now they have nothing to eat. I can't send them away without a meal--they'd probably collapse on the road."
His disciples said, "But where in this deserted place are you going to dig up enough food for a meal?"
Jesus asked, "How much bread do you have?"
"Seven loaves," they said, "plus a few fish." At that, Jesus directed the people to sit down. He took the seven loaves and the fish. After giving thanks, he divided it up and gave it to the people. Everyone ate. They had all they wanted. It took seven large baskets to collect the leftovers. Over four thousand people ate their fill at that meal. After Jesus sent them away, he climbed in the boat and crossed over to the Magadan hills.
My R.E. teacher (a very good one who was a 'small-c' christian with a lot of experience in comparative theology) suggested to us that, in all probability, a lot of the attendees had brought 'packed lunches' but were reluctant to share.

When it was obvious that 'they guy in charge' was willing to share up food, suddenly a number of them got all guility about not doing so and serruppticiously shared out what they had among their less fortunate neighbours, while others with food they couldn't share without comment (a nice bit of beef, or whatever) may have passed the offered food onwards untouched to allow others to partake...
The explanation does seem to fit well. I suspect it is the comparative theology that provided such a fitting explanation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
There's stories ...and then there's stories. The difference is not in the quantity of detail. The difference is in how they are told. Stories told by a master story-teller entertain, teach and move us. "Sufficient detail to convey the myth's moral" may not be sufficient reason to listen to it.

I agree that telling the story in a way that captivates the audience is important. However, I specifically didn't say that more detail is better (remember, the molecules and all that). A good storyteller must finely tune how many, and which, details are worth telling, and which are not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
EDIT: I disagree it makes them useless. There is sufficient scholarly work on the Bible stories to garner entertainment and lesson from these other sources.

So basically, it's other people writing their own stories vaguely inspired by the bible. You might as well use this link (http://www.macrowerx.com/~jfusion/ftg/).

Heh he he he...!!! :D

I Don' Need No Stinkin' DIYFTK (http://www.macrowerx.com/~jfusion/ftg/) (do it yourself fairy tale kit) to come up with stories..! :)

I got my own head and some teachin' from my Aunties and Granpas to help me just fine with comin' up with stories..!

Let's hear some of YOUR stories, from your head, that you'd use to teach something...?

I'm sure "you can do it" (thanks Rob)..! :D

So basically, it's other people writing their own stories vaguely inspired by the bible. You might as well use this link (http://www.macrowerx.com/~jfusion/ftg/).
No, I specifically said scholars. ;-)

I Don' Need No Stinkin' DIYFTK (http://www.macrowerx.com/~jfusion/ftg/) (do it yourself fairy tale kit) to come up with stories..! :)
I Don' Need No Stinkin' Bible, either!

Let's hear some of YOUR stories, from your head, that you'd use to teach something...?
Well, I remember that earlier in this thread (or the other one), when you/Willamina tried to suggest that metaphors by their nature cannot be disproven, and I claimed that something that cannot be disproven is useless. Of course, that was just me being "negative". Or was it?

A Iakeokeoian colonel, Iakiki, was charged with building a defensive outpost. He was reporting to general Iakeol on the progress of the fortress.

"I guarantee that no enemy will ever be able to break through our walls."

"Wow, that's sure confident. What makes you think the fortress is so safe?"

"Because we didn't build any walls for anyone to break through."

And I'm anticipating that someone is going to flame me for using war as an example, so let me explain myself. Everything one does is a struggle, because if there is nothing to struggle against, then everything is as it should be and there is no need to do anything. Often, this struggle will be against characteristics of your own self, such as writer's block. Even playing games is a struggle against boredom. Clearly, war is one of the greatest possible struggles (great as in big, not good - that it is definitely not) and also a very obvious one, so it works well as a metaphor for struggles in general. By writing this story I do not intend to condone war in any way.

Well, I remember that earlier in this thread (or the other one), when you/Willamina tried to suggest that metaphors by their nature cannot be disproven, and I claimed that something that cannot be disproven is useless. Of course, that was just me being "negative". Or was it?
Actually, I didn't claim that metaphors could not be "disproven" - that concept simply makes no sense (you might as well try to disprove beauty); I asked, Why would you want to?

Once again, this illustrates my differentiation of gods from "it is".

"It is" is not to be negotiated with, as it doesn't care in the least, because it's not capable of doing so.
Did you see the thread about the Math-Gods?
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7010484&postcount=89

You have failed to answer my question, RaidersNation. What exists, other than God (your belief man, not mine,) that can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt?

Not to denigrate anyone's beliefs, whatever they may be, but I have an answer. Assuming you mean "felt" as is physicially touching something, how about love? Or fear? I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch either of those, or any other emotion. However, they certainly exist. If you mean "felt" as an emotional feeling, well, I have felt G-d in the same way I have felt love and fear.

Metaphor, n. to carry over, transfer; a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.

How would someone go about "disproving" a metaphor? If it succeeds in carrying or transferring the meaning of its symbolism to an intended audience, then it is a metaphor. If it doesn't, then it is not.

Not to denigrate anyone's beliefs, whatever they may be, but I have an answer. Assuming you mean "felt" as is physicially touching something, how about love? Or fear? I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch either of those, or any other emotion. However, they certainly exist. If you mean "felt" as an emotional feeling, well, I have felt G-d in the same way I have felt love and fear.
Booya!

Actually, I didn't claim that metaphors could not be "disproven" - that concept simply makes no sense (you might as well try to disprove beauty); I asked, Why would you want to?
The concept of breaking down a nonexistant wall makes no sense either.

My point is that anything that cannot be attacked in any way, does not hold enough enough substance to be of use to anyone. (It is not possible to damage Iakiki's wall, but it's completely useless at providing protection for the soldiers.)

Of course, that doesn't mean I should bomb my own wall to see how sturdy it is. However, my complaints about the various metaphors you guys post always came to mind easily, often even automatically without having to try at all. If I accidentally trip and fly into the wall, or even intentionally attack it with a simple punch, these should not even scratch any decent wall (not to mention the quality of your floor if it caused me to trip). So why does it bother you that I do these things?

Metaphor, n. to carry over, transfer; a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.

How would someone go about "disproving" a metaphor? If it succeeds in carrying or transferring the meaning of its symbolism to an intended audience, then it is a metaphor. If it doesn't, then it is not.
Well, there's claiming that it does not in fact convey the message. There's showing that the message it conveys is bad.

Note: you said "intended audience". Even if you somehow manage to find a good meaning in the metaphor, you do not constitute the entirity of the intended audience. It is an undeniable fact that whatever good messages you might be able to read in the bible, the vast majority of people who read it haven't found it. So even if it is a metaphor for a good message, it's still a badly written one.

Not to denigrate anyone's beliefs, whatever they may be, but I have an answer. Assuming you mean "felt" as is physicially touching something, how about love? Or fear? I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch either of those, or any other emotion. However, they certainly exist. If you mean "felt" as an emotional feeling, well, I have felt G-d in the same way I have felt love and fear.
i have long believed that "God" is nothing more or less than a human emotional state, which is precisely what your statement supports. therefore, i guess we agree...you "feel" God, much as others feel love or anger or happiness, and since that feelings is the only experience you have of God then we should regard God in the same way we do other emotions; fallible, subjective, non-corporeal, and most certainly not the physical creator of anything.

Well, there's claiming that it does not in fact convey the message. There's showing that the message it conveys is bad.

Note: you said "intended audience". Even if you somehow manage to find a good meaning in the metaphor, you do not constitute the entirity of the intended audience. It is an undeniable fact that whatever good messages you might be able to read in the bible, the vast majority of people who read it haven't found it. So even if it is a metaphor for a good message, it's still a badly written one.
Every metaphor has an intended audience, someone to convey meaning to. If it did not, it would fail utterly because communication is a two-way street. Yes, many people today misread the Bible, especially in the Protestant community. The words were written for a receptive audience thousands of years ago. This in no way invalidates it as a "good metaphor". The message reached its intended audience, and still reaches people today. Even if the reaches only one person today, outside its intended audience, it is still a good metaphor.

Why does this bug me? It's entirely a semantical matter, I assure you (i.e. the study of the meaning of words). If it does not convey a message, that does not mean it conveys a bad message, that means it is not a metaphor; and if it conveys a "bad" message, whatever that is, then it succeeds in conveying a message, so it is a metaphor. There is nothing about a metaphor to be "disproven."

Myth is metaphor that speaks to the lowest common denominator of mankind. Myths convey simple messages, usually of an emotional nature --love, humility, respect, kindness. Myth uses metaphor --literary, in word; visual, in imagry; even audible, in song and psalm --to convey simple messages that speak of the human condition --messages of word that speak to the mind; messages of image and music that speak directly to our heart. How can what is read not be personal for every individual? What do we learn from this? Mostly, that we are not alone. That people like us understood the same things we do, from reading and looking at the same things we do, and in the same ways. Ultimately, that is the most important message of all. In my opinion.

The message is not always immediately evident; it doesn't have to be. It can take a spiritual leader or scholar to explain the message to you, or a study that compares relative mythologies, but once it makes sense to you --you personally --then the metaphor kicks in.
"...that's not the message I've heard when I have heard them. I've heard them saying it's in this book --you know, the big black book. It's certainly there, but not in the language that says it's only for this group, or in this group. I've been interested all my life in what we might call comparative mythology. And you see that what these people are saying in that language, these people are saying in this language, and they're getting mixed up, simply because their language is different. If you go into a bakery shop and say you want pain, they'll say, "Oh, we don't have that." But you're asking for bread, which is what they have. And that's the way it is, across the lines. Now, I suppose one could say the prime, great example is the contrasts and affinities of Buddhism and Christianity. The idea of Buddha consciousness is that all beings are Buddha beings, and your whole function in meditation and everything else is to find that Buddha consciousness within and live out of that, instead of the interests of the eyes and ears.

"These can distract us from our own true, deepest being and purpose. And the goal of meditation is to find that inside, and then let that take control. Translate that into Christianity, that is finding the Christ in you. And it's exactly the same idea, and here they call it Christ consciousness; there they call it Buddha consciousness. Well, the figures that represent the two ideas are quite in contrast, in that the Buddhist imagery concentrates on the pacific aspect, you might say --you know, having found peace within and serenity. Whereas the Christian, with Christ crucified, concentrates on the heroic attitude of living life which is tearing you apart, and finding the one within you, in the midst of the turmoil of the world. You have that in Buddhism also, in the idea of the Bodhisattva --the one who has found the eternal within himself, and recognizes it in the world. And so they have a beautiful term: joyful participation in the sorrows of the world. You accept the sorrows for yourself and for the world, in the realization of what the radiance is that a well lived life can bring forth out of this. These are the same things --one in the active, you might say tragic, aspect, and the other in the serene, fulfilled aspect."
~Joseph Campbell

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I Don' Need No Stinkin' DIYFTK (do it yourself fairy tale kit) to come up with stories..!

I Don' Need No Stinkin' Bible, either!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Let's hear some of YOUR stories, from your head, that you'd use to teach something...?

Well, I remember that earlier in this thread (or the other one), when you/Willamina tried to suggest that metaphors by their nature cannot be disproven, and I claimed that something that cannot be disproven is useless. Of course, that was just me being "negative". Or was it?

A Iakeokeoian colonel, Iakiki, was charged with building a defensive outpost. He was reporting to general Iakeol on the progress of the fortress.

"I guarantee that no enemy will ever be able to break through our walls."

"Wow, that's sure confident. What makes you think the fortress is so safe?"

"Because we didn't build any walls for anyone to break through."

And I'm anticipating that someone is going to flame me for using war as an example, so let me explain myself. Everything one does is a struggle, because if there is nothing to struggle against, then everything is as it should be and there is no need to do anything. Often, this struggle will be against characteristics of your own self, such as writer's block. Even playing games is a struggle against boredom. Clearly, war is one of the greatest possible struggles (great as in big, not good - that it is definitely not) and also a very obvious one, so it works well as a metaphor for struggles in general. By writing this story I do not intend to condone war in any way.

.."I Don' Need No Stinkin' Bible, either!"..

EXCELLENT..!! :D

So,... who's forcin' 'ya..! <said with a nifty Susan Graver accent>

I LOVE that story..! I shall steal it, at some point..! :)

Although,.. your follow-up is silly. I condone war just as I condone surgery.

When it's necessary,.. it's necessary. And for very similar reasons.



Oh,... and that IS a very good capture of the Iakeoekoian mindset, by the way.

You wanna hurt us,.. you come on by and try hurt us,.. OK,.. but we got lotta friends who like us alot and would really miss our company, eh bra'...!?

Can you say 'da same..? Hope so, bra'.... 'Dat's why we don' go around hurtin' people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Once again, this illustrates my differentiation of gods from "it is".

"It is" is not to be negotiated with, as it doesn't care in the least, because it's not capable of doing so.

Did you see the thread about the Math-Gods?
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost....84&postcount=89

Eh,.. more weird coincidence..!

We Iakeokeoians have a strange concept of math, and our math gods illustrate that weirdness very well.

The "mathematical bases" god, Iakoioioioioioioioioio, only answers yes or no, and seemingly at random, though there has been no verification of the "trueness" of said randomness.

..but he/she IS a god, so we "believe" it to be random. :)

While the great god Iawonpatetatupateta, the god of counting, does comfort us in our daily "beer can" ritual.

It's GOOD to know how much beer you got, eh bra'..!?

Metaphor, n. to carry over, transfer; a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.

How would someone go about "disproving" a metaphor? If it succeeds in carrying or transferring the meaning of its symbolism to an intended audience, then it is a metaphor. If it doesn't, then it is not.


Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...!

Reduced to "it is" or "it is not"...!

The great "it is" is freakin' EVERYWHERE..!

I am a freakin' PROFIT,...... er,... PROPHET..!

No need to bow,... the prophet of the bum-funkering-blindingly-obvious needs no applause.

:D

The "mathematical bases" god, Iakoioioioioioioioioio, only answers yes or no, and seemingly at random, though there has been no verification of the "trueness" of said randomness.
LOL! :)
(nooooooooo!!!! not binary, please...)

LOL! :)
(nooooooooo!!!! not binary, please...)
0101011101101000011110010010000001101110011011110111010000111111

I accept that i will die and i have no idea what will happen then because it is impossible t omaagine what tis like not to exist.

Whoo ... Great thread guys; strong narrative, nice flow (though it did flag a little around the early fifties). Keep it up.

Special thanks to Grave n Idle (cool name!), Iakeokeo and Willamena for their perserverence and debating skills. Thanks too to Noble Kings, ED Guvegera (sp?) and Rosh-Jetha (gotta love those Texts, Rosh!) for their contributions. And others too numerous to mention. I agree with you all!

And of course, we can't forget Terminalia, the grist without which this thread wouldn't have been half as entertaining!

Now, just so this isn't +1 spam, I'm sometimes an atheist, so here's my take on dying, unprofound as it is:

When I was a child, I was terrified of dying. Kept me awake at nights. When I was young I was scared of dying without achieving anything. Kept me awake talking about it with my mates at nights. Now I'm middle aged, I don't want to die, but I'm not afraid of it except in so far as there's a few things I'd like to do first and I don't want to leave my family without proper provision for their futures. Doesn't keep me awake at nights (or at least not much).

I draw no conclusions from this, but suspect I see a pattern emerging. The jury's still out, but if I get my allotted span, I hope I'll be able to die with a shrug.

Frankly, I'm about as likely to go to this website as I am to go to www.GodHatesFags.com for a "real dose" of Christianity.

You... You mean God doesn't hate fags?

Now, just so this isn't +1 spam, I'm sometimes an atheist, so here's my take on dying, unprofound as it is:

When I was a child, I was terrified of dying. Kept me awake at nights. When I was young I was scared of dying without achieving anything. Kept me awake talking about it with my mates at nights. Now I'm middle aged, I don't want to die, but I'm not afraid of it except in so far as there's a few things I'd like to do first and I don't want to leave my family without proper provision for their futures. Doesn't keep me awake at nights (or at least not much).

I draw no conclusions from this, but suspect I see a pattern emerging. The jury's still out, but if I get my allotted span, I hope I'll be able to die with a shrug.

Firstly,.. thanks for 'da kudos chief,... but I don't debate,.. I pontificate. :)

Secondly, dying with a shrug is a VERY COOL achievement..!

Oddly,.. death has never kept me from sleep,... and I had this very nifty dream about not-dying the other night....

Big huge three mile high building. I get off on the observation deck, one floor below the roof, which is a fully windowed floor. The building starts to fall forward very slowly, such that I will be facing the ground when it hits.

An odd calm falls over me. The fall (tilt) accelerates. Three seconds to impact.

I fully expect to wake up about now.

It doesn't happen. I just sort of "float" out onto the ground and look around for a few seconds.

THEN I wake up..!

What does it mean,.. Batman..!!? :D

I too have only a passing familiarity with Jung's studies in 'archetypes', and his 'collective unconscious' baffled me, but the idea of the archetype has been advanced by, and has advanced, the study of mythology, using the working theory that god beings are anthropomorphized embodiments of archetypical images. The mother (who nutures), the father (caretaker), the son (lover-warrior) and daughter (virgin). Archetypes have also been used to develop the mythological motifs found in various cultures all around the world into a road-map of how to read ancient artifacts and languages (read, as in from the perspective of the author).

I appreciate that concept of 'archetypes', and I do consider it valid, the Mother, the Protector, the Warrior, the Virgin, etc. But, I believe that they are products of our conscious minds imprinted into our unconscious, rather than vice versa. I guess the only way to prove for sure, is to find one of those rare 'wild' children, and, hopefully, be able to get a coherent response over a concept as intangible as psychology...

How could they ever "prove" it? The experimenters can never actually see what is being envisioned by the subject --the subject's description of it, though first-hand testamony, still amounts to second-hand knowledge.

I think what I was going for here, is the fact that science would have finally been able to replicate, under laboratory conditions, a religious 'phenomenon', in as much as they would have been able to 'trigger' a visitation experience. Now, while that is not conclusive on it's own... if you did the same 'experiment' on everyone, and in every case, every person saw 'god' - you have a scientifically replicable phenomenon... which is a lot closer to proof than 'some dusty book said so'. Of course, there is always the idea of the archetype, some people would still argue that all that was being perceived was an image we all store... but still... I don't doubt for a second that some people would claim it as scientific evidence for god.

That said, I have seen people argue that the marble-leached stalagtites under the Lincoln Memorial are 'scientific evidence for god'...

Interesting. That hasn't been my experience with prayer, though my experience is limited to books. I've never engage in audible prayer, but I've mostly seen prayer as a psychological trigger of self-empowerment, reinforcement and affirmation. It is all about "self".



Now, please don't be offended... this isn't any kind of insult, and I probably wouldn't even have to mention this if there were not so many 'hardliners' about.... but are you Wiccan?

Your description of prayer as an empowerment tool, your use of archetypes in your 'personal search'... these ring very much true with some of the Wiccan philosophies I have encountered.

Just asking...

(I think you mentioned christianity somewhere, but I have known Christian Wiccans...so... just thought I'd ask...)

my two cents: death is death. the end

Now, please don't be offended... this isn't any kind of insult, and I probably wouldn't even have to mention this if there were not so many 'hardliners' about.... but are you Wiccan?

Your description of prayer as an empowerment tool, your use of archetypes in your 'personal search'... these ring very much true with some of the Wiccan philosophies I have encountered.

Just asking...

(I think you mentioned christianity somewhere, but I have known Christian Wiccans...so... just thought I'd ask...)
No, I'm not a Wiccan. I know very little about their religion. I don't subscribe to any organized religion. And I take no offense.

Someone said it well in one of the threads, here (perhaps it was you). "Unless you're a religion of one..."

That's me.

And you're welcome to tackle it! Just don't be too disappointed when you don't succeed. It's the effort that counts.

But what if I do? :)

But what if I do? :)
Then I shall cheer you.

Your description of prayer as an empowerment tool, your use of archetypes in your 'personal search'... these ring very much true with some of the Wiccan philosophies I have encountered.
This would make total sense if Wicca practice Tarot, which itself has been revolutionized by Jungian symbolism.

Wow! This thing has really grown beyond my expectations.

Every metaphor has an intended audience, someone to convey meaning to. If it did not, it would fail utterly because communication is a two-way street. Yes, many people today misread the Bible, especially in the Protestant community. The words were written for a receptive audience thousands of years ago. This in no way invalidates it as a "good metaphor". The message reached its intended audience, and still reaches people today. Even if the reaches only one person today, outside its intended audience, it is still a good metaphor.

Why does this bug me? It's entirely a semantical matter, I assure you (i.e. the study of the meaning of words). If it does not convey a message, that does not mean it conveys a bad message, that means it is not a metaphor; and if it conveys a "bad" message, whatever that is, then it succeeds in conveying a message, so it is a metaphor. There is nothing about a metaphor to be "disproven."

Myth is metaphor that speaks to the lowest common denominator of mankind. Myths convey simple messages, usually of an emotional nature --love, humility, respect, kindness. Myth uses metaphor --literary, in word; visual, in imagry; even audible, in song and psalm --to convey simple messages that speak of the human condition --messages of word that speak to the mind; messages of image and music that speak directly to our heart. How can what is read not be personal for every individual? What do we learn from this? Mostly, that we are not alone. That people like us understood the same things we do, from reading and looking at the same things we do, and in the same ways. Ultimately, that is the most important message of all. In my opinion.

The message is not always immediately evident; it doesn't have to be. It can take a spiritual leader or scholar to explain the message to you, or a study that compares relative mythologies, but once it makes sense to you --you personally --then the metaphor kicks in.



A thought occured to me a few months back.

If you wanted to create a "church of atheism", (assuming you would want to do such a thing... there are reasons why you might, like tax-breaks, etc.) then it is all good.

You set up your church.

Now that we have our "Atheist Church" (I'm still not saying such a thing would be a good idea... I don't hold atheism to be a religion, but this is an example... a metaphor, if you will), we begin to attract members. People hear our message of the No Gods, and come to listen. They want to know more, they wnt to know how we live, they want to know why we do the things we do.

Brother Bob sets himself up as speaker for us, and we are all very happy - he tells the commanalty about how we live, and why we do the things we do. Of course, Brother Bob is only representing his own perspective. Let's call it Bobianity.

Brother Rob is more the librarian type, and records our day to day doings. Some of this is objective... there are instructions on how to make cookies. Some is subjective... a hundred and thirty pages are devoted to Brother Rob's theories about the hidden meanings in Bobianity.
Some of it is metaphor... Brother Rob realises that most people don't 'get' Bobianity, and he tries to set up stories to illuminate the path of the Bobian.

Let's call this collection of histories, musings and fables "The Holey Roble" - for it is not perfect, and Rob knows this...

Now, fast forward two thousand years, and see the Bobians and the Robians and the Rabobic Seperatists fighting over the true meaning of the Xingbat III translation of the Roble...

My opinion. (In metaphor).

Even though whenever i have one of those Christianity vs Atheism arguements, i somehow often manage to sound pagan, underneath it all, i'm most probably still an atheist, or at least agnostic. i tend to think of Death as the brother of Sleep, so it's an oblivion of an unimaginable sort. but then again, i've never actually come close to dying, that i know of, so my word's not really much of an expert's. however, have you guys heard of a song called THoughts of a Dying Atheist? by Muse? they're everywhere, so you most probably have, i'll paste you the lyrics (it's a pretty good song too):

Eerie whispers trapped beneath my pillow
Won't let me sleep, your memories

I know you're in this room, I'm sure I heard you sigh
Floating in-between where our worlds collide
It scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see
And it scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see

I know the moments near
And there's nothing we can do
Look through a faithless eye
Are you afraid to die

It scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see
And it scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see

It scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see
And it scares the hell out of me
And the end is all I can see

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]It's just a curious take on the christian perspective. Most christians I know are only too happy to give their testimony, knowing that that is the very best way to win souls to christ. Even when challenged on it, you have no testimony... and then you blame me for the conclusions that brings me to.

I didnt come on here to convert people to Christianity, if my belief interests them to looking into it for themselves, then good.


It's not a matter of elites. I just hold that, if you have never experienced the true Majesty of god, then you have never truely experienced god.

That would be too much information for our fragile human brains to handle, the bible speaks of people being blinded by his light, and falling on their faces to avoid looking as his goodness and power is too overwhelming.


The way you attack this, makes me feel that you have no 'earth-shattering' revelation of your own. Maybe I am wrong, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

What evidence, you havent any.

If I wasnt a Christian I would say so.


They are 'at least looking'... you say that like it is a good thing?

Which it is, being aware of and accepting a higher power exists, is the first step.

So, when a christian decides that he can't stand all the homophobia of christianity, as taught by the bible (supposedly)


Then hes not a true Christian if he/she sees the worlds teachings like PC as more acceptable to Christs or the Bibles.


- and starts looking into Wicca as a serious prospect, you are ALL FOR his search?

I would say thats looking in the wrong direction, but knowing about other religons is handy.

This goes to those Atheists:

Most of you are believing in an end with nothing afterword. ( I think anybody can believe in what they want, even make up a religion.). And some think of what a end would be like, well for those who believe in, well, nothing, then an end would kinda be like nothing, no thoughts, maybe a few memories until your brain rots.

But onto the believing stuff:

Being Jewish, I believe, in my own mind, that all of those who are believeng in life after death, if they believe well enough it can happen, there is no problem with believing in it. This is for some reason a huge problem with those few extremist Atheists. But like I said, if there is no life after death, then you really can't complain at all (considering your dead and all). And only being as young as myself, I still am ready to die at any time, thats what believing in a god is all about.

Well as for the binary comment earlier

01010010 01100101 01101100 01101001 01100111 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01101101 01101001 01101110 01100100


(and yes it does mean something)

Firstly,.. thanks for 'da kudos chief,... but I don't debate,.. I pontificate. :)

Secondly, dying with a shrug is a VERY COOL achievement..!

Oddly,.. death has never kept me from sleep,... and I had this very nifty dream about not-dying the other night....

Big huge three mile high building. I get off on the observation deck, one floor below the roof, which is a fully windowed floor. The building starts to fall forward very slowly, such that I will be facing the ground when it hits.

An odd calm falls over me. The fall (tilt) accelerates. Three seconds to impact.

I fully expect to wake up about now.

It doesn't happen. I just sort of "float" out onto the ground and look around for a few seconds.

THEN I wake up..!

What does it mean,.. Batman..!!? :D
When I was young I had frequent dreams of falling towards the ground. Some of them, I fell from buildings; others, I fell after soaring. I was afriad of heights so it was rather frightening --but it was the height that was frightening me, not the fall or any consideration of death. I'd always wake up before hitting the ground. Then, in a dream, when I was in my late 20's, I actually did hit the ground. I didn't die, just sort of bounced and rolled, and got up. And woke up. I haven't had a falling dream since, nor a soaring dream for that matter.

I wonder if I ever will again...

This would make total sense if Wicca practice Tarot, which itself has been revolutionized by Jungian symbolism.

I know many Wiccans that DO practice Tarot, and I know some that do not. Most seem too, because, I believe, of the use of archetypes in Wicca.

Tarot is like a reference book for the Wiccan, much the same as it purportedly was for the Prieure de Sion.

Then I shall cheer you.

I take it you mean by that as you dont believe I'll levitate, that you will be happy to see me fall a great distance and sustain horrible injuries or even die.

Or did you mean something else?

Lol alright sense I figure no one will get my last post

Take all the ones and 0's and copy them into the "convert to ascii" field of this web site

http://pete.holidian.com/toys/ascii2bin.php

:)

I take it you mean by that as you dont believe I'll levitate, that you will be happy to see me fall a great distance and sustain horrible injuries or even die.

Or did you mean something else?
LOL!

I meant that I shall cheer for you!

Lol alright sense I figure no one will get my last post

Take all the ones and 0's and copy them into the "convert to ascii" field of this web site

http://pete.holidian.com/toys/ascii2bin.php

:)
Thank you. ;-) And so true.

Thank you. ;-) And so true.


hehehe I posted and was like "oh wait not everyone is geeky and me and would recognise it as ascii" lol

LOL!

I meant that I shall cheer for you!


Just joking, anyway dont cheer me cheer God hes the one allowing it to happen.

Just joking, anyway dont cheer me cheer God hes the one allowing it to happen.
That's for you to do, not me. :-) It's not my place.

When I was young I had frequent dreams of falling towards the ground. Some of them, I fell from buildings; others, I fell after soaring. I was afriad of heights so it was rather frightening --but it was the height that was frightening me, not the fall or any consideration of death. I'd always wake up before hitting the ground. Then, in a dream, when I was in my late 20's, I actually did hit the ground. I didn't die, just sort of bounced and rolled, and got up. And woke up. I haven't had a falling dream since, nor a soaring dream for that matter.

I wonder if I ever will again...

As far as I can tell, the fear of falling in dreams is a fear of failure in life, and the way you deal with it in your dream has a lot to do with the way you HAVE handled failure, and the way you WILL handle failure:

“Do not let the fear that you’ll fail, fall or die,
Be the thought that prevents you from learning to fly”.

No, I'm not a Wiccan. I know very little about their religion. I don't subscribe to any organized religion. And I take no offense.

Someone said it well in one of the threads, here (perhaps it was you). "Unless you're a religion of one..."

That's me.

There are actually a large proportion of what-are-called Solitaires, or Solitary Witches, who follow their own paths, but, with the exception of mainly Gardnerian witches (who seem to have loved the whole 'dressing up and doing rituals' elements of christianity, and expaned on those elements in their own way) - most Wiccans seem to follow something of a "path-of-one" anyway. The names you give to your archetypes (Male and/or Female) are your own inspired names - which may be resonant from classical mythology, or may be artifacts of your own.

Similarly, though some Wiccans subscribe to specific codes of practice for ritual, etc. many believe the 'prayer as empowerment' is the key.

I have known Wiccans to take careful stock of a 'spell' as given in one of the many, many textbooks - that calls for all kinds of paraphenalia - and perform that same 'ritual' with a kitchen knife, a cup of water, and a salt-shaker. Metaphor... symbols rather than sacred objects.

You may find it interesting to read around the subject some... just remember, a lot of it is subjective, a lot of people will try to apply rules to ANYTHING, and some people are way too far up themselves. (Anything by Raymond Buckland comes under that heading... read it anyway, by all means).

Whoo ... Great thread guys; strong narrative, nice flow (though it did flag a little around the early fifties). Keep it up.

Special thanks to Grave n Idle (cool name!), Iakeokeo and Willamena for their perserverence and debating skills. Thanks too to Noble Kings, ED Guvegera (sp?) and Rosh-Jetha (gotta love those Texts, Rosh!) for their contributions. And others too numerous to mention. I agree with you all!

And of course, we can't forget Terminalia, the grist without which this thread wouldn't have been half as entertaining!

Now, just so this isn't +1 spam, I'm sometimes an atheist, so here's my take on dying, unprofound as it is:

When I was a child, I was terrified of dying. Kept me awake at nights. When I was young I was scared of dying without achieving anything. Kept me awake talking about it with my mates at nights. Now I'm middle aged, I don't want to die, but I'm not afraid of it except in so far as there's a few things I'd like to do first and I don't want to leave my family without proper provision for their futures. Doesn't keep me awake at nights (or at least not much).

I draw no conclusions from this, but suspect I see a pattern emerging. The jury's still out, but if I get my allotted span, I hope I'll be able to die with a shrug.

*Takes a bow*, but really, I couldn't have done it without the rest of the cast. Take a bow, Willamena... Take a bow, Iakeokeo.

Seriously... I know exactly where you are coming from with the fear of dying thing. I had 'bad dreams' etc. about dying, and I supsect that everyone does, to some extent. To me, this is how we come to terms with our own mortality. First, we realise we are alive. Second, we realise we are separate entities to our family, friends, etc. Third, we observe that all entities end. Finally, we reach a conclusion that we, too, shall end.

In a way, we are not only overcoming the thoughts of our own death, we are also mourning our own demise.

Most of us, I would imagine, then get past this stage, and begin the work of making the interval between what we don't remember, and what we can now not forget, something worthwhile.

My opinion.

That's for you to do, not me. :-) It's not my place.

Well you would be cheering for the wrong reason regardless, people cant levitate by themselves.

Well you would be cheering for the wrong reason regardless, people cant levitate by themselves.

Or at all.

Hmm, I use to be a thiestic evolutionist. Which means, for all you non Creation/Evolution debaters, that I was a person who tried to balance the idea of God and the Bible, with athiestic doctorine like evolution. But, I shall set some things straight.

The fourth definition of "religion" under the Merriam-Webster dictionary is 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Under this premise, we can say that athiest believe there is no God, and believe this using faith. In fact, it takes a lot more faith to believe there is no God, than there is a God, when you get down to the nitty gritty.

My personal hobby for the past 6 years has been the debate between Creation and Evolution. I'm not going to lie to you -- I was a Christian, who was going to balance God out with evolution in any plausible way I could. I'm so scientifically inclined that I'm positive I might have gone completely athiest, had I not looked into the facts myself about what science knows about the origins of the universe, and discovered that most doctorine we're force fed in schools about "evolution" has no adequate proof, and in fact points against the idea that the process of evolution ever took place if we look at the whole story that we aren't normally getting (because its 'creationists', and therefor religion. BULL.).

Further studies fairly and mutually between the two ideas continued to point against the probability of evolutionistic ideas in science as fact, to me. As strange as it may sound to most of you here, I now perscribe to scientific ideas that state the process of evolution never occured in the traditional Darwinian since, nor in puncuated equilibrium (which is a fairly new notion). I also believe this planet is not millions of years old due to inadequate methods and prejudice dating conclusions (the planet could be in the thousands of years in age), and that dinosaurs lived amoungst the likes of man (stories of dragons across the world, cave paintings of animals that are undenyingly dinosaurs around the world, and even the mention of two creatures named Behemoth and Leviathan in the Bible, who's descriptions can only fit, logically, with large reptillian animals that we find in the fossil record as dinosaurs). These ideas I am unshakable in, but it is an amazing coincidence that the recordings in the Bible, especcially the book of Genesis, seem to support the evidence based conclusions I have arrived to.

In short, this is a would-be-evolutionist professing his conversion to creationism and Christianity using the "scientific fact" that athiest support their beliefs on. Its all really quite interesting, I suggest you all invest many a great hour into it, and if you'd like to talk to me about such things, I'd be glad to talk to you in email under Havraha@aol.com. :-)

As to what happens when we die? Don't know. I haven't come across any conclusive scientific evidence of what happens then, but I've heard of many stories of tunnels, bright lights, HELL even, and some strange new age stuff from some guy who got hit by lightening twice. Personally, based on my scientific conclusions that our existance makes no rational since without a basis in irrationality, I believe our continual essence goes on to somewhere. And perscribing to the Christian faith, I beleive we go on to Heaven or Hell, depending on our acceptance of sacrifice.

Wow that was like a 10 page jump in like one day, props for you guys.

Someone commented earlier about "Where is the proof," well maybe I'm just a simpleton when it comes to things like this. But I see proof everyday. And I know you atheists will say that my proof isn't really proof. And to you it may not be, but it doesn't have to be as complecated as you all say it is. I see proof that God exists, every step I make. Every plant that I see, every mountian, child, puppy, reflects the hand of God. He made everything, every complecated thing about our universe, he made. I can't see how we all just happen to be here on earth, out of some random event. There is a bigger hand in this then all of you know, I just hope you realize that before you are standing at the pearly gates looking for you name on the VIP List, and then what I like to call the "Bouncer of God," throws you out on your butt. And then you see yourself at the right hand of the Devil. And it's not like on earth, where the Devil can do what you "think" are good things. You willl be in eternal sepperation from God, Hell, and then you'll realize, you messed up. But until then you can keep going on about how its your life, and you need proof, and It's all you, you, you, you. And you don't need anyone, especially God. But I guess that's why God made free will, to show all of us Christians what we are not missing.

That will hopefully be my last really preachy thing written, because I know how much you all hate it.

What do atheists think about dying? Many see it as a natural and inevitable event. Many have absolutely no problem with death - unless it is involuntary death. In that case they either accept it or...

http://www.imminst.org/

Try to fight it as shown in that site. Note, not all participants in that site are atheist, but many are.

As for death itself, it is hard for athiests and agnostics (especially those who do not believe in a soul) to understand death. Speaking for myself as an agnostic, I do not see the person I was at 5 years of age to be the person I am now. My body has changed, nearly every cell has been replaced and the only thing that suggests continuity are memories and outside connections (family, history, friends, etc). Even consciousness is not continuous because the self-aware and conscious area of the brain "shuts off" when you go to sleep. It is like rebooting your computer when you wake up - your self-awareness is restored from memory. So am I experiencing death as in lack of self-awareness during deep sleep, or does death refer to me not being who I used to be as a young boy?

After all, nearly every cell that used to constitute the old me is dead and replaced by fresh cells (even in the neural tissue). But maybe death then is the loss of the information that links us to our past selves. But let's say someone got into an accident and got brain damage in the parts of the brain that hold the memories. Did this person die and become someone else?

Death is a mystery, and not fully understood. Anyone is free to believe what they wish about this matter.

Anyway, that's just my opinion on the matter. Sorry if many of the arguments were repeated from before as this thread is extremely long and hard to keep track of.

I respect all religions, but I just have this one problem. Many have this reason to do nice things for other people, that they will go to heaven or get some good karma and such. Now, are they truly honestly nice individuals, or are they just going through the maze for the cheese?

I will always have respect for an atheist or agnostic that is a nice person. They have the least reason to act morally, and are therefor the most genuine.

Also, I'm a major agnostic and fan of metaphysics. When we die we may very well just come to realize that this physical realm never existed in the first place! Or something like that, maybe.

I'm excited to die! Though, I'm more excited to live!

Or at all.

Yes they can, dont you know about the fahkirs in India?

...with athiestic doctorine like evolution.

There are no "Atheistic Doctrines", unless you consider the whole world of science to be a book of doctrine, and one that can only be allocated to atheists.


The fourth definition of "religion" under the Merriam-Webster dictionary is 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Under this premise, we can say that athiest believe there is no God, and believe this using faith. In fact, it takes a lot more faith to believe there is no God, than there is a God, when you get down to the nitty gritty.


1) Atheists don't "believe there is no god, and believe this using faith"... they simply do not believe that there IS a god. Do you actively disbelieve the Toothfairy? "I hate you, toothfairy... I don't believe in you, so there..."

Do you believe in the god "gibber gumbo"? No... and that's not faith... that's just not believing.

2) How does it take MORE faith to not believe in god? The person who only believes what they can sense and record needs NO faith... or, are you suggesting that NO faith is MORE faith than the person who believes in god has?

My personal hobby for the past 6 years has been the debate between Creation and Evolution. I'm not going to lie to you -- I was a Christian, who was going to balance God out with evolution in any plausible way I could. I'm so scientifically inclined that I'm positive I might have gone completely athiest, had I not looked into the facts myself about what science knows about the origins of the universe, and discovered that most doctorine we're force fed in schools about "evolution" has no adequate proof, and in fact points against the idea that the process of evolution ever took place if we look at the whole story that we aren't normally getting (because its 'creationists', and therefor religion. BULL.).


There is no proof that evolution is untrue.
There is much proof that evolution is true.

Anyone who told you otherwise, lied to you.

Further studies fairly and mutually between the two ideas continued to point against the probability of evolutionistic ideas in science as fact, to me. As strange as it may sound to most of you here, I now perscribe to scientific ideas that state the process of evolution never occured in the traditional Darwinian since, nor in puncuated equilibrium (which is a fairly new notion). I also believe this planet is not millions of years old due to inadequate methods and prejudice dating conclusions (the planet could be in the thousands of years in age), and that dinosaurs lived amoungst the likes of man (stories of dragons across the world, cave paintings of animals that are undenyingly dinosaurs around the world, and even the mention of two creatures named Behemoth and Leviathan in the Bible, who's descriptions can only fit, logically, with large reptillian animals that we find in the fossil record as dinosaurs). These ideas I am unshakable in, but it is an amazing coincidence that the recordings in the Bible, especcially the book of Genesis, seem to support the evidence based conclusions I have arrived to.


Fine. Prove that the world is only a few thousand years old. Then explain how light from distant stars (millions of light years away) is reaching earth now.

Dinosaurs never lived among man. Oh, maybe there was a big lizard somewhere at some point, but the dinosaurs have been gone for millions of years. Try showing some evidence men and dinosaurs ever co-existed.

The Behemoth and the Leviathan have long been observed to be descriptions of Hippopotami and Crocodiles.

Being unshakable in ideas isn't a good thing. You should be open to alternatives.


As to what happens when we die? Don't know. I haven't come across any conclusive scientific evidence of what happens then, but I've heard of many stories of tunnels, bright lights, HELL even, and some strange new age stuff from some guy who got hit by lightening twice. Personally, based on my scientific conclusions that our existance makes no rational since without a basis in irrationality, I believe our continual essence goes on to somewhere. And perscribing to the Christian faith, I beleive we go on to Heaven or Hell, depending on our acceptance of sacrifice.

Once again, there is no evidence of anything but decomposition after death.

Tunnels and lights... chemical deterioration in a dying brain, oxygen starvation, the last flickers of neural current through the optic centres... etc.

It's all been covered. It doesn't mean there is anything after life. It's just how we die.

And how can you claim that science tells you our 'essence' goes somewhere? What science told you you have an 'essence'?

Wow that was like a 10 page jump in like one day, props for you guys.

Someone commented earlier about "Where is the proof," well maybe I'm just a simpleton when it comes to things like this. But I see proof everyday. And I know you atheists will say that my proof isn't really proof. And to you it may not be, but it doesn't have to be as complecated as you all say it is. I see proof that God exists, every step I make. Every plant that I see, every mountian, child, puppy, reflects the hand of God. He made everything, every complecated thing about our universe, he made. I can't see how we all just happen to be here on earth, out of some random event. There is a bigger hand in this then all of you know, I just hope you realize that before you are standing at the pearly gates looking for you name on the VIP List, and then what I like to call the "Bouncer of God," throws you out on your butt. And then you see yourself at the right hand of the Devil. And it's not like on earth, where the Devil can do what you "think" are good things. You willl be in eternal sepperation from God, Hell, and then you'll realize, you messed up. But until then you can keep going on about how its your life, and you need proof, and It's all you, you, you, you. And you don't need anyone, especially God. But I guess that's why God made free will, to show all of us Christians what we are not missing.

That will hopefully be my last really preachy thing written, because I know how much you all hate it.

It's not that we hate it, we just think you are wrong.

You see, to you every flower and tree proves the existence of god... and I'm happy for you.

For me... every flower and tree proves the existence of flowers and trees.

And your 'god' and your 'devil' don't impress or scare like you think they should, because they are fictions. I'm not scared of Dracula, either.

If you had read more about religion, you would see that the 'devil' they seel you at church ISN'T the same as the devil they talk about in the New Testament. You would see that Revelation tries desperately to tie together the HaSatan of the Old Testament with elements of Mithraism and other contemporary religion. You would see that the "Serpent in Eden" is just a plot device from the Gilgamesh epics.

But, feel free to follow your god. Just don't expect people to thank you for trying to force your vision of the world onto them.

I respect all religions, but I just have this one problem. Many have this reason to do nice things for other people, that they will go to heaven or get some good karma and such. Now, are they truly honestly nice individuals, or are they just going through the maze for the cheese?

I will always have respect for an atheist or agnostic that is a nice person. They have the least reason to act morally, and are therefor the most genuine.

Also, I'm a major agnostic and fan of metaphysics. When we die we may very well just come to realize that this physical realm never existed in the first place! Or something like that, maybe.

I'm excited to die! Though, I'm more excited to live!

Yeah, I know what you mean, man. Someone who's "following the maze to the cheese" really doesn't seem to fit into my opinion of a "good religious person". I think the idea is that religion is supposed to teach you something. At some point, it's supposed to pursuade you to do good things for the good of others. When I was younger (maybe 5 years ago?) and starting college, I was getting really fed up with Christianity, because I thought the faith was about getting cheese in a maze, and I came very close to taking up traditional Buddism. I was really impressed by the pilgrim monk's meditation practice: Buddists pray and meditate for the benifit of others, and I really liked what they stood for. However, Christianity (at least Catholicism) is not a selfish religion. It appears that way, sure. But my vision of a good Catholic doesn't fear death, doesn't do good deeds to worm his/her way into heaven, doesn't convert, and doesn't follow the Church without question.

Yes they can, dont you know about the fahkirs in India?

Yes. I do. They are beggars, many of whom CLAIM to be able to do miracles. Some claim levitation, some claim the ability to remove and then replace their own body parts.

Some walk on hot coals, but that isn't a miracle.

And there is no real PROOF of any of these Fakirs ever levitating.

Man, you'll believe anyone's story, just so long as they throw a miracle into it...

Firstly,.. thanks for 'da kudos chief,... but I don't debate,.. I pontificate. :)



I just called it as I saw it (over more recent pages). ;)

Wow that was like a 10 page jump in like one day, props for you guys.

Someone commented earlier about "Where is the proof," well maybe I'm just a simpleton when it comes to things like this. But I see proof everyday. And I know you atheists will say that my proof isn't really proof. And to you it may not be, but it doesn't have to be as complecated as you all say it is. I see proof that God exists, every step I make. Every plant that I see, every mountian, child, puppy, reflects the hand of God. He made everything, every complecated thing about our universe, he made. I can't see how we all just happen to be here on earth, out of some random event. There is a bigger hand in this then all of you know, I just hope you realize that before you are standing at the pearly gates looking for you name on the VIP List, and then what I like to call the "Bouncer of God," throws you out on your butt. And then you see yourself at the right hand of the Devil. And it's not like on earth, where the Devil can do what you "think" are good things. You willl be in eternal sepperation from God, Hell, and then you'll realize, you messed up. But until then you can keep going on about how its your life, and you need proof, and It's all you, you, you, you. And you don't need anyone, especially God. But I guess that's why God made free will, to show all of us Christians what we are not missing.

That will hopefully be my last really preachy thing written, because I know how much you all hate it.


Any god that demands worship deserves NONE of it.

(wish I could remember who said that first...I know it was someone here)

If God would have demanded worship then he wouldn't have given us free will.

I quote:
Tapanga Denise: "If God would have demanded worship then he wouldn't have given us free will."

I quote also:
Tapanga Denise: "There is a bigger hand in this then all of you know, I just hope you realize that before you are standing at the pearly gates looking for you name on the VIP List, and then what I like to call the "Bouncer of God," throws you out on your butt. And then you see yourself at the right hand of the Devil. And it's not like on earth, where the Devil can do what you "think" are good things. You willl be in eternal sepperation from God, Hell, and then you'll realize, you messed up. But until then you can keep going on about how its your life, and you need proof, and It's all you, you, you, you. And you don't need anyone, especially God. But I guess that's why God made free will, to show all of us Christians what we are not missing."

The choice that you purport to give does not seem terribly "free". And I for one cannot believe that God could be so petty and small-minded as that (as you, perhaps?). I must also say that one rarely has the privelege to see such an astounding series of unsupported assertions as can be seen above.

And, in addition, "But I guess that's why God made free will, to show all of us Christians what we are not missing." One would have thought that God gave free will in order that one could choose to be Christian; one can, however, only assume from this sentence that you feel that Christians have no free will (which would, I suppose, at least explain this otherwise perplexing tendency to belief in imaginary people in the sky). I suggest that either you are confused, or crazy, or that you should consider your phrasing more carefully in future.

hope tar doesn't see this :D

The real question here is weather you're an agnostic or an atheist. Most people who say they're atheists are actually agnostic, meaning the don't not believe in any higher power, they just aren't sure what it is, or just don;t follow any set religion.

The real question here is weather you're an agnostic or an atheist. Most people who say they're atheists are actually agnostic, meaning the don't not believe in any higher power, they just aren't sure what it is, or just don;t follow any set religion.

Good try, but incorrect, I'm afraid.

I have posted definitions of Atheist and Agnostic in this thread (I believe.. I usually do in these threads)... which you can find if you care to seach back a few (dozen) pages...

Atheist: Doesn't believe in god.

Agnostic: Doesn't believe it is POSSIBLE to know for sure either way.

When I was young I had frequent dreams of falling towards the ground. Some of them, I fell from buildings; others, I fell after soaring. I was afriad of heights so it was rather frightening --but it was the height that was frightening me, not the fall or any consideration of death. I'd always wake up before hitting the ground. Then, in a dream, when I was in my late 20's, I actually did hit the ground. I didn't die, just sort of bounced and rolled, and got up. And woke up. I haven't had a falling dream since, nor a soaring dream for that matter.

I wonder if I ever will again...
Are you still afraid of heights?