NationStates Jolt Archive

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

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).

The version(s) I'm most familar with (though have heard this one as well, to be honest) was same trick but for different reasons, i.e. "you wouldn't like the taste of me Mr Giant , I am but a frail old man/starving young man down on his luck/pettite lady's maid/scrawny old mutt who just happens to talk/whatever, but if you let me make some stone soup... >stone soup..?< Yes, stone soup, then you shall have a meal and I shall taste much better in the morning". Then, in some versions, through the greed of the giant or trickery by the eponimous hero or whatever, the giant swallows the stone itself which either kills him stone (ha!) dead, slows him down (allowing the good guy to escape) or puts him in such pain that the hero is requested to slash open his stomach resulting (again) in either death or injury, but in some versions also releasing someone the protagonist had been searching for/travelling with who had been previously swallowed whole by the giant. Or, sometimes, the Giant is given the 'magic' stone in return for the unconditional freedom of the 'guest' (and perhaps some other gain) and everyone's happy.


There's an awful lot of milage in such a tale, depending on how it fits into the larger saga, what morals are intended and the sensibilities of the audience.

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.
There is one atheist doctrine, and that is that there is no god.

Science is not an atheist doctrine. It is an nonidiot doctrine. (That is, it is held by anyone who is not an idiot.)

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..."
If someone asked me whether the tooth fairy exists, I would say a definite "no". Same goes for God.

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?
The doctrine that you currently believe in always appears to take less faith than any other, not because it doesn't actually need faith, but because you already have all the faith you need.

There is no proof that evolution is untrue.
There is much proof that evolution is true.

Anyone who told you otherwise, lied to you.
I made what I think is a nice post about this here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6911194&postcount=47).

Stop worrying about where we came from. It's not your job. Just enjoy the end product.

The version(s) I'm most familar with (though have heard this one as well, to be honest) was same trick but for different reasons, i.e. "you wouldn't like the taste of me Mr Giant , I am but a frail old man/starving young man down on his luck/pettite lady's maid/scrawny old mutt who just happens to talk/whatever, but if you let me make some stone soup... >stone soup..?< Yes, stone soup, then you shall have a meal and I shall taste much better in the morning". Then, in some versions, through the greed of the giant or trickery by the eponimous hero or whatever, the giant swallows the stone itself which either kills him stone (ha!) dead, slows him down (allowing the good guy to escape) or puts him in such pain that the hero is requested to slash open his stomach resulting (again) in either death or injury, but in some versions also releasing someone the protagonist had been searching for/travelling with who had been previously swallowed whole by the giant. Or, sometimes, the Giant is given the 'magic' stone in return for the unconditional freedom of the 'guest' (and perhaps some other gain) and everyone's happy.


There's an awful lot of milage in such a tale, depending on how it fits into the larger saga, what morals are intended and the sensibilities of the audience.
The point of the story (as I see it) isn't that the stone soup was made to taste better by adding ingredients that are not stone. The point is that the villagers had the means to overcome the famine, but neede help to realize it. I think it's self-reinforcing: Food is scarce, so people hoard every little piece of food they can grab. People hoard food and hide it from others, leading everybody in the village to think that no-one else has any food. This means that there is a famine, so they had better save up what they can get. Etcetera. The traveller tricked the people into sharing their food. The stone is a purely-symbolic gesture of "sharing" by the traveller. Show that you're willing to make the first step toward a worthy goal - no matter how small the step is - and you will soon have many people helping you.

I don't really see a moral in the giant version. Well, other than don't eat rocks.

I don't really see a moral in the giant version. Well, other than don't eat rocks.

Oh there isn't (or at least not in the context of the Feeding of the Five-Thousand sort of way), hence my original confusion as to how relevant /that/ version of the story was. I do agree that the 'passing traveller and villagers' version /is/ very apt, however, it just hadn't stuck in my mind (or even been coerced out by the topicality of the message).

There is one atheist doctrine, and that is that there is no god.

The doctrine that you currently believe in always appears to take less faith than any other, not because it doesn't actually need faith, but because you already have all the faith you need.


I made what I think is a nice post about this here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6911194&postcount=47).

Stop worrying about where we came from. It's not your job. Just enjoy the end product.

See, I would say that "no God" wasn't a doctrine, because it isn't something that the atheistic community 'teaches'... it's more what makes you an atheist.

I don't really see the faith thing, either. If someone asks you to believe something, and you do, that is an act of faith.

If someone asks you to believe something, and you don't - because it doesn't make sense, that isn't an act of faith, that's an act of logic.

I do like the post about the abuse of evolution... I have to admit, at first, that I thought the last line was about a car made of "Marbles"... not marble.

Made me laugh, anyway.

And, worrying about where we came from isn't the same as wanting to know about history.

I have no sense of allegiance to my many and varied mongrel bloodlines... but I am interested in the political and cultural climate of the world over the course of history... curiousity. It's my monkey-side!

I do like the post about the abuse of evolution... I have to admit, at first, that I thought the last line was about a car made of "Marbles"... not marble.
Actually, a car made of marbles is more likely to go somewhere than a car made of marble. At least it has wheel-ish parts capable of rolling.

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).
Perhaps, if I ever have the time. I've always been rather wary of the Wiccan, mostly because (and no offense intended to them, it's just an observation) it seems to attract very young, very impressionable types who are running away from Christianity to something they think is the exact opposite. It's still a womb they want to be encradled in. I would love to explore the more "mature" aspect of it, though.

Well you would be cheering for the wrong reason regardless, people cant levitate by themselves.
Well, according to Jesus they can. All they need is a kernel, a poppyseed, of faith. The power is yours (as Captain Planet used to say).

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.
Sorry, Grave, but I would say his definition and yours are spot on. He's saying the same thing you are. You seem to be looking to contradict everybody, regardless. :-)

Are you still afraid of heights?
Not so much, no. I can walk up to a precipice and look down without fear, where I could never do that before.

Not so much, no. I can walk up to a precipice and look down without fear, where I could never do that before.
Do you remember when you started to feel different? Was it around the time you had the bouncing dream?

but what about dieing. r u scared? at peace with it? what?


I used to be scared of dying - well more the thought of not being here used to freak me out..

But now i couldnt give a damn I know that ive learned of my mistakes and im now happy with who i am after a somewhat bad start in life (behaviour issues) im now settled down and know the difference between right and wrong through expereince and learning of others.

I dont ever beleive in a white room full of gold when we die (this must be a way out of the scared of death bit) but we gain more in the next life where or whatever it is from what good we have done in this life.

Oh there isn't (or at least not in the context of the Feeding of the Five-Thousand sort of way), hence my original confusion as to how relevant /that/ version of the story was. I do agree that the 'passing traveller and villagers' version /is/ very apt, however, it just hadn't stuck in my mind (or even been coerced out by the topicality of the message).
Well done, Milostein. You helped him see a metaphor that made sense to you, and now it is his to own, too.

To answer the question that started this thread... I'm an atheist. Quite honestly, I'm not afraid of death. I tend not to think about it very much. To me, death just means there will be no me any more. Nothing. No afterlife. The absolute end. But hey, in between now and death I've got a life to live and enjoy. ;)

I don't really see the faith thing, either. If someone asks you to believe something, and you do, that is an act of faith.

If someone asks you to believe something, and you don't - because it doesn't make sense, that isn't an act of faith, that's an act of logic.
Faith is not believing in something because someone asked you to believe it. Faith is a step beyond believing, to being sure, even without verification, of the truth of what you believe. It doesn't actually require the intervention of a second party at all.

Do you remember when you started to feel different? Was it around the time you had the bouncing dream?
I don't recall. I don't associate the two events, no.

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).

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

Sounds like the typical evolution of any "spiritual" institution.

START A NEW THREAD: "EVOLUTION OF THE ROBIC SECTS"

I would be more than happy to contribute...! :)

I don't recall. I don't associate the two events, no.
Too bad. My theory was that at some point your subconcious "realized" that there is no reason to be afraid of heights (perhaps beings coerced by your concious side trying to convince it that there isn't any real danger). When the repeated dream showed up the next time, it reflected this change.

Wow! This thing has really grown beyond my expectations.

Thanks for starting this thread, S&W..!

Of course, a few of us kinda hijacked it and spun it to our own purposes,.. but the seed was a pretty good one. :)

Thanks again chief..!

Of course, a few of us kinda hijacked it and spun it to our own purposes,.. but the seed was a pretty good one. :)
Well... What else is there to say about the original topic? The question posed in the original post has already been answered. Lots of times.

Thanks for starting this thread, S&W..!

Of course, a few of us kinda hijacked it and spun it to our own purposes,.. but the seed was a pretty good one. :)

Thanks again chief..!
It's not spinning! it's talk-talk! :-)

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.
People see with more than their eyes.

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.

A great Iakeokeoian warrior once said:

"You go into 'da fight like you play koike'ehi [chips: a "cardgame"]. You gotta figure you' already lost you' bet, and be happy fo' 'dat, 'cause when you' already lost it, you don' gotta worry about it no more. 'Da tricky part is the bein' happy 'bout it. 'Dat's where 'da gods, and 'specially 'Iha', comes in handy."

Let me explain the great "Iha"...

The first letter of iha is "i": means "river/sail/rope/valley"
The second is "h": means "breath/source/current/wind"
The third is "a": means "house/mountain"

The overall meaning of "iha" is: "IS"

One "interpreted" meaning of "iha" is: Provider of life and home.

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)

I've prayed to the god Iakoioioioioioioio to help me out with that, and I'm hoping for a "translation" after tonight's dreaming.

Thank you great one, who speaks the tongue of Iakoioioioioioioio...!

:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
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..!!?

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...

Sounds like I'm not alone in this particular phenomenon. It has gotten harder to do the "soaring" thing over the years, though it still happens occassionally.

The "not-dying" part was the odd part to me. Apparently the "fear" of dying is wearing off to some extent.

I always enjoyed being "way up high"... I've had dreams of falling from low earth orbit,.. and even the fall was pleasant, exhilarating even, but coming near the end was VERY uncomfortable.

But I seem to be resigning myself to it now, perhaps.

Although,... the whacky "space aliens invading and changing people into 'their kind' via their magic zappo ray-gun" dream still creeps me out enormously..!

:D

(( not kidding about the space alien dream.. VERY creepy... ))

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

:)


Ah,... it's nice to see that the god Iakoioioioioioioioio finally got that website up..!

And, YES, it is,... and your point would be......? :)

Let me explain the great "Iha"...

The first letter of iha is "i": means "river/sail/rope/valley"
The second is "h": means "breath/source/current/wind"
The third is "a": means "house/mountain"

The overall meaning of "iha" is: "IS"

One "interpreted" meaning of "iha" is: Provider of life and home.
Actually, it sounds like a houseboat to me. :)

By the way, are these letter meanings from a real language, or did you make them up yourself? (No ofense intended.)

Ah,... it's nice to see that the god Iakoioioioioioioioio finally that website up..!
010010100111010101110011011101000010000001101000011011110111011100100000
011011010110000101101110011110010010000000100010011010010110111100100010
011100110010000001100001011100100110010100100000011101000110100001100101
011100100110010100100000011011110110111000100000011101000110100001100001
011101000010000001100111011011110110010000100111011100110010000001101110
011000010110110101100101001011000010000001100001011011100111100101110111
011000010111100100111111

Although,... the whacky "space aliens invading and changing people into 'their kind' via their magic zappo ray-gun" dream still creeps me out enormously..!

:D

(( not kidding about the space alien dream.. VERY creepy... ))
Hehe, no doubt. Oddly, the most disturbing dreams I have always involve bugs.

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.

Excellent statement of your viewpoint..! :)

I'm glad SOMEBODY can make the creationist/scientific-ist conundrum balance,.. I can't quite, personally, but that's just me.

I also believe that atheists have a religion, as I believe that all humans are incapable of operating without one because it is an inherent quality of being human.

WHAT one believes is irrelevent to being human, much as the color of one's hair is irrelevant to being human.

What one chooses to DO with what one believes in, on the other hand, is the crux of BEING human.

I believe that the "time dialation" effect of the dying brain, the oxygen starved brain, is one "answer", one physical metaphor that all beings with a brain get, one final "gift" from "that which is", to the "during-death" [not after-life] phenomena that we hear about.

As is pain...

Picture this:

His arrow flew true.

The buck fell fast and hard. His antlers hit ground, propping his head up so that he stared straight at the man with the bow.

He felt the pain. He knew he was dying. He could see the reflection of approaching death reflected in his eyes. He'd seen the same thing in the eyes of his fellows who had died. The pain lessened and the journey began.

He felt the pain. He knew he was dying. He could see the reflection of approaching death reflected in his eyes. He'd seen the same thing in the eyes of his fellows who had died. The pain strengthened. He knelt down and wept for what he'd done. He prayed to the spririt of the buck for forgiveness, for understanding that he had to feed his people.

And the day passed,.. and everything passed.

So you admit you didn't die?

You admit you have asperger's syndrome? I have experienced clinical death, while you have yet to experience intelligent thought.

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!

The flower is not there to please you,.. or is it..?

Being nice is being nice. If they're being nice to "get the cheese", why are you being nice..?

We all strive to "get the cheese". What IS the cheese that we all strive for..? :)

You admit you have asperger's syndrome? I have experienced clinical death, while you have yet to experience intelligent thought.
Actually, people with asperger's "syndrome" are bad at socializing, but are often better than average at rational scientific thought.

To answer the question that started this thread... I'm an atheist. Quite honestly, I'm not afraid of death. I tend not to think about it very much. To me, death just means there will be no me any more. Nothing. No afterlife. The absolute end. But hey, in between now and death I've got a life to live and enjoy. ;)
Does the person who thinks of "self" as only electro-chemical reactions in the body think in terms of "no me anymore"? All the physical elements will still be there when the sparks die down; the physical-only "me" doesn't "go" anywhere.

EDIT: I just can't imagine not thinking in terms of an "inner self", and I would like to understand the other viewpoint better.

Does the person who thinks of "self" as only electro-chemical reactions in the body think in terms of "no me anymore"? All the physical elements will still be there when the sparks die down; the physical-only "me" doesn't "go" anywhere.

EDIT: I just can't imagine not thinking in terms of an "inner self", and I would like to understand the other viewpoint better.
Imagine formatting your computer's hard drive. All programs, gone. All data, gone, and not going to come back either. Even if you reinstall, you'll be starting over from scratch. No physical damage was done to anything, but your old computer system is permanently "dead". (Well, it might be possible to restore it from backup, which would be like a disciple following your teachings.)

Does the person who thinks of "self" as only electro-chemical reactions in the body think in terms of "no me anymore"? All the physical elements will still be there when the sparks die down; the physical-only "me" doesn't "go" anywhere.

EDIT: I just can't imagine not thinking in terms of an "inner self", and I would like to understand the other viewpoint better.
as somebody who holds the belief that the self is generated by electrochemical reactions occuring in specific physical structures, i have to say your question here is pretty much its own answer.

the reactions alone, happening in a test tube, would not be a "self," because they are not acting upon the necessary structures. of course, the opposite is also true, in that the structures by themselves are not a "self" either. when the sparks die down, as you put it, the "self" has died down.

when you cut power to a lamp it no longer gives off light, even though the bulb is still there and is physically intact. if you simply plug any old cord into the socket you won't get the light you would from a lamp, because you lack the bulb structure for the energy to act upon. BOTH are necessary for the light.

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

would you make your mind up. one sentence you say its a religion, the second you explicitly say it isnt. make your mind up

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rowellan States
...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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rowellan States
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rowellan States
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rowellan States
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rowellan States
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'?


.."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?"..

[This is all semantics, of course, as we're using WORDS, but...]

Once presented with the concept of "god(s)", we have a choice. To believe it (somehow) or not to believe it (somehow).

I think "faith" may be the "stumbling block here:

"Faith" is derived from the old-indoeuropean "bheidh", which means "expectation of, trust in the future appearance of, awaiting".

Those of faith "expect something to come" to them. They are expectant.

"Belief" is derived, on the other hand, from "leubh", which means "love, desire".

Those who believe "love and desire" something.

The "faithful" expect it. The "believer" loves it, but does not necessarily expect it.

Now,.. back to the top. Once presented with the concept of god(s), one MUST make a choice to "believe" it or not. The agnostic choice is to temporarily NOT believe it.

If you "love" the idea of god(s), then that MAY develop into "expectation" of communion with it/them.

If you don't "love" the idea, then that MAY develop into "expectation" of it's non-existence.

The believer MAY have faith in god(s). The non-believer MAY have faith in no-god(s).

The faithful person "awaits".

The believing person "loves".


Once presented with the Toothfairy, you must choose to believe, or not, and have faith, or not, in your decision.

:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapanga Denise
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.

And there goes our old hero again, being paranoid that someone showing their mind to us all is a "bad evil person for forcing their world view on all of humanity".

The persecution complex continues... :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapanga Denise
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)

Sounds rather like Conan the Barbarian.

Crom never begged..! :)

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.

What is this thing with "UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS" that folks seem to be so hung up on..?

All things related to religion are, by definition, unsupportable, so demanding support for the unsupportable is just plain silly.

Make your statements,.. relpy to what others say,.. but this DEMAND for silly qualifiers to statements is ridiculous.

In other words,... think for yourselves (if you have "book kowledge" on a subject, present it as your own, through the lens of your own mind) and state why you say it.

Is this some weird artifact of "the Church of University Education"..?

Sheesh...! :)

Imagine formatting your computer's hard drive. All programs, gone. All data, gone, and not going to come back either. Even if you reinstall, you'll be starting over from scratch. No physical damage was done to anything, but your old computer system is permanently "dead". (Well, it might be possible to restore it from backup, which would be like a disciple following your teachings.)
Okay, then the "inner self" attitude is like seeing the hard drive and the generated program results from the perspective of the software.

would you make your mind up. one sentence you say its a religion, the second you explicitly say it isnt. make your mind up
Deja vu!

It's sarcasm. ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
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.

There is one atheist doctrine, and that is that there is no god.

Science is not an atheist doctrine. It is an nonidiot doctrine. (That is, it is held by anyone who is not an idiot.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
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..."

If someone asked me whether the tooth fairy exists, I would say a definite "no". Same goes for God.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
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?


The doctrine that you currently believe in always appears to take less faith than any other, not because it doesn't actually need faith, but because you already have all the faith you need.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
There is no proof that evolution is untrue.
There is much proof that evolution is true.

Anyone who told you otherwise, lied to you.


I made what I think is a nice post about this here.

Stop worrying about where we came from. It's not your job. Just enjoy the end product.

So all believers in god(s) are idiots. That's an opinion..! Clearly stated..! Excellent..! Not that I agree with it, but Excellently stated. :)

.."If someone asked me whether the tooth fairy exists, I would say a definite "no". Same goes for God."..

..and you'd be a faithful believer in the non-existence of the Toothfairy, which puts you in the same category of the faithful believer in the Toothfairy.

Faith is "awaiting expectation (personal certainty) of a thing".
Belief is "love of a thing".

You await expectantly and with love (pleasure) that the Toothfairy will not appear.

Okay, then the "inner self" attitude is like seeing the hard drive and the generated program results from the perspective of the software.
I think it's more like seeing the software from the perspective of the software.

Random and only slightly relevant link that I just had to share. (http://techfox.keenspace.com/d/20030502.html)

You await expectantly and with love (pleasure) that the Toothfairy will not appear.
Yeah, I guess so... I'd be really annoyed if someone snuck into my room at night just to bring me some coin that hardly has any value.

By the way, could you please stop quoting posts in their entirity when you only respond to a small part? It's annoying to read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by E B Guvegrra
The version(s) I'm most familar with (though have heard this one as well, to be honest) was same trick but for different reasons, i.e. "you wouldn't like the taste of me Mr Giant , I am but a frail old man/starving young man down on his luck/pettite lady's maid/scrawny old mutt who just happens to talk/whatever, but if you let me make some stone soup... >stone soup..?< Yes, stone soup, then you shall have a meal and I shall taste much better in the morning". Then, in some versions, through the greed of the giant or trickery by the eponimous hero or whatever, the giant swallows the stone itself which either kills him stone (ha!) dead, slows him down (allowing the good guy to escape) or puts him in such pain that the hero is requested to slash open his stomach resulting (again) in either death or injury, but in some versions also releasing someone the protagonist had been searching for/travelling with who had been previously swallowed whole by the giant. Or, sometimes, the Giant is given the 'magic' stone in return for the unconditional freedom of the 'guest' (and perhaps some other gain) and everyone's happy.


There's an awful lot of milage in such a tale, depending on how it fits into the larger saga, what morals are intended and the sensibilities of the audience.


The point of the story (as I see it) isn't that the stone soup was made to taste better by adding ingredients that are not stone. The point is that the villagers had the means to overcome the famine, but neede help to realize it. I think it's self-reinforcing: Food is scarce, so people hoard every little piece of food they can grab. People hoard food and hide it from others, leading everybody in the village to think that no-one else has any food. This means that there is a famine, so they had better save up what they can get. Etcetera. The traveller tricked the people into sharing their food. The stone is a purely-symbolic gesture of "sharing" by the traveller. Show that you're willing to make the first step toward a worthy goal - no matter how small the step is - and you will soon have many people helping you.

I don't really see a moral in the giant version. Well, other than don't eat rocks.

There are many interpretations possible (d'uh) of the stone soup story:
*) Sharing is good for the community (famine averted for more people)
*) You can live off fools if you're clever (what did the traveler really give?)
*) Sometimes people JUST DON'T GET IT (the villagers tried to BUY the stone)
*) A smooth tongue and swift feet are a GOOD THING
*) Don't sell your trade secrets
*) etc...

I would add, to the stone soup story, a youth that that learned the trick of the soup stone and used it on the idiot villagers, until they FINALLY figured it out and killed him.

The moral of that would also be manifold:
*) Don't push your luck
*) You don't have to be an elder to be smart
*) Stones are everywhere, many of them behind eyeballs
*) Even idiots will eventually catch on
*) People may not appreciate a fine youth's "catalytic assistance"
*) etc...

And the stone is NOT a purely symbolic anything. It's a worthless (to the soup itself) contribution that looks like a worthy one. A trick,.. but a worthy (to the villagers AND the traveller) trick.

:)

Is it true that Atheist scream "Darwin" as they orgasm?

Is it true that Atheist scream "Darwin" as they orgasm?

usually i go with "holy fuck!"

Okay, then the "inner self" attitude is like seeing the hard drive and the generated program results from the perspective of the software.I think it's more like seeing the software from the perspective of the software.[/url]
Are you using a different context of "see" here? Because if the analogy is with eyes, as mine was, then it's quite impossible for it to "see itself".

Death becomes a loss of "inner self" because the program, in being erased, loses it's "self", that essential perspective.

Is it true that Atheist scream "Darwin" as they orgasm?
No.

Evolution is not a very important theory to atheists, any more than other scientific theories. It's the creationists who make evolution sound important by so vocally opposing it (or rather, their "marble car" version of evolution).

Are you using a different context of "see" here? Because if the analogy is with eyes, as mine was, then it's quite impossible for it to "see itself".

Death becomes a loss of "inner self" because the program, in being erased, loses it's "self", that essential perspective.
I think I'm lost on your definition of "inner self", myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milostein
There is one atheist doctrine, and that is that there is no god.

The doctrine that you currently believe in always appears to take less faith than any other, not because it doesn't actually need faith, but because you already have all the faith you need.


I made what I think is a nice post about this here.

Stop worrying about where we came from. It's not your job. Just enjoy the end product.


See, I would say that "no God" wasn't a doctrine, because it isn't something that the atheistic community 'teaches'... it's more what makes you an atheist.

I don't really see the faith thing, either. If someone asks you to believe something, and you do, that is an act of faith.

If someone asks you to believe something, and you don't - because it doesn't make sense, that isn't an act of faith, that's an act of logic.

I do like the post about the abuse of evolution... I have to admit, at first, that I thought the last line was about a car made of "Marbles"... not marble.

Made me laugh, anyway.

And, worrying about where we came from isn't the same as wanting to know about history.

I have no sense of allegiance to my many and varied mongrel bloodlines... but I am interested in the political and cultural climate of the world over the course of history... curiousity. It's my monkey-side!

.."I don't really see the faith thing, either. If someone asks you to believe something, and you do, that is an act of faith.

If someone asks you to believe something, and you don't - because it doesn't make sense, that isn't an act of faith, that's an act of logic."..


If someone ASKS you to believe in something, they are saying "I love this thing. Do you love this thing?"

If someone TELLS you to believe in something, they are saying "I love thing, and you must also."

You can not impose belief, because you can not impose love.

You CAN impose fear.

If you don't believe in something, you don't love it. But it, as a thing to believe or not, still exists. And if you expect NOT to see it, that expectation is faith.

There are many logics. A logic is just "a naming". The way we "name" things determines their "meaning"...

..and so, back to metaphor. :D

I think I'm lost on your definition of "inner self", myself.
Hey, it's your analogy. I was just trying to work with it. :-)

There are many logics. A logic is just "a naming". The way we "name" things determines their "meaning"...
"That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Hey, it's your analogy. I was just trying to work with it. :-)
I can't give any analogy for the "inner self" of a computer AI if I don't understand what you mean with it for humans.

Is it true that Atheist scream "Darwin" as they orgasm?

Why would they? Unless you happen to be one of his direct descendents he's not your creator.

Besides which, single syllable utterances are generally all I can stretch to at the critical juncture. I think the most eloquent I've ever been is... well, some long vowel sound that makes it sound like I've just had an orgasm, as it happens.

(Is that funny because it's true or is it just me?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
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).


Perhaps, if I ever have the time. I've always been rather wary of the Wiccan, mostly because (and no offense intended to them, it's just an observation) it seems to attract very young, very impressionable types who are running away from Christianity to something they think is the exact opposite. It's still a womb they want to be encradled in. I would love to explore the more "mature" aspect of it, though.

The pre-adolescent and adolescent aspects of Wicca are quite amusing. To me... :)

Rather like playing dress-up and making out on the couch. With the occassional "You're not the boss of me!" and "Hi Mom, I'm at Precinct 12.." spice thrown in.

In this (western) culture, so much of youth's time is spent in anti-parental stuff that it boggles the mind.

The atheist (which is simply anti-judeo/christianity to me [don't try to change my opinion! :) ]) movement is a symptom of some weird blunder within the religious institutions of the west.

The communist, anarchist, and anti-capitalist movements are of like kind.

This "seeking for reentry into a cozy womb" is a great failing of the west.

The youth of the west (and those heavily influenced by the west) have been VERY poorly served by their parents and parent-like-substitutes.

The atheist (which is simply anti-judeo/christianity to me [don't try to change my opinion! :) ]) movement is a symptom of some weird blunder within the religious institutions of the west.
If you call no longer burning nonbelievers at the stake a blunder, then yes. You're right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminalia
Well you would be cheering for the wrong reason regardless, people cant levitate by themselves.

Well, according to Jesus they can. All they need is a kernel, a poppyseed, of faith. The power is yours (as Captain Planet used to say).

Sounds like Yoda....

We have someone similar:

Sounds like Iaouda...

..he was really good at wishin' for stuff.

'Course he never got any stuff,... but that didn't seem to bother him too much. He was havin' some big fun..!

And he became a legend of sorts, and gained a reputation for doing impossible things.

People seem to remember him for his good humor, and persistence, and started just givin' him "attributes" as a sort of "gift" for providing such good entertainment and something to remember of their childhood.

Funny how that works, eh bra'...!? :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Let me explain the great "Iha"...

The first letter of iha is "i": means "river/sail/rope/valley"
The second is "h": means "breath/source/current/wind"
The third is "a": means "house/mountain"

The overall meaning of "iha" is: "IS"

One "interpreted" meaning of "iha" is: Provider of life and home.


Actually, it sounds like a houseboat to me.

By the way, are these letter meanings from a real language, or did you make them up yourself? (No ofense intended.)

:)

And if it were made up.. what would that mean to you..?

(( No,.. I am NOT a psychiatrist...! ))

It is official Ha, which is the "un-interfered-with" language of my people.

(( It is an encoding of english into something "resembling" a polynesian language using the hawai'ian sound set. Hopefully, I'll figure out some way to make it machine translatable [a codec] into a "phonetic english". That may be tricky as my programming skills have atrophied terribly. See http://iakeokeo.home.comcast.net/ Ha Language link (http://iakeokeo.home.comcast.net/)))

:)

And if it were made up.. what would that mean to you..?

(( No,.. I am NOT a psychiatrist...! ))

It is official Ha, which is the "un-interfered-with" language of my people.

(( It is an encoding of english into something "resembling" a polynesian language using the hawai'ian sound set. Hopefully, I'll figure out some way to make it machine translatable [a codec] into a "phonetic english". That may be tricky as my programming skills have atrophied terribly. See http://iakeokeo.home.comcast.net/ Ha Language link (http://iakeokeo.home.comcast.net/)))
Wow. Spreadsheets and everything...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Although,... the whacky "space aliens invading and changing people into 'their kind' via their magic zappo ray-gun" dream still creeps me out enormously..!



(( not kidding about the space alien dream.. VERY creepy... ))

Hehe, no doubt. Oddly, the most disturbing dreams I have always involve bugs.

Sometimes the two merge, and the "tool" of the nasty evil space aliens is a bug-like swarm that spreads from where they shoot their nasty evil "conversion guns".


BLWAEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..!!

Too freakin' creapy..!

:D

(( ..and another REALLY disturbing dream was the "flesh decaying while I'm still alive" dream..! Having parts fall off and bits melt away as ooze does not give particularly restful slumber.

Of course, then there's the "flesh decaying WITH bugs" dream,.. but thinking about that will just give me nightmares...!))

010010100111010101110011011101000010000001101000011011110111011100100000
011011010110000101101110011110010010000000100010011010010110111100100010
011100110010000001100001011100100110010100100000011101000110100001100101
011100100110010100100000011011110110111000100000011101000110100001100001
011101000010000001100111011011110110010000100111011100110010000001101110
011000010110110101100101001011000010000001100001011011100111100101110111
011000010111100100111111

0100100101110100001000000111011001100001011100100110100101100101011100110010110000100000011000010110 1110011001000010000001100100011011110110010101110011011011100010011101110100001000000111001101100101 0110010101101101001000000111010001101111001000000110110101100001011101000111010001100101011100100010 1110001011100010111000100000001000000011101000101001

:)

Translations (http://pete.holidian.com/toys/ascii2bin.php)

0100100101110100001000000111011001100001011100100110100101100101011100110010110000100000011000010110 1110011001000010000001100100011011110110010101110011011011100010011101110100001000000111001101100101 0110010101101101001000000111010001101111001000000110110101100001011101000111010001100101011100100010 1110001011100010111000100000001000000011101000101001
0100000101101000001011000010000001110010011010010110011101101000011101000010111000100000001000000101 0011011011110010000001101001011101000010000001100111011011110110010101110011001000000111010101110000 0010000001100001011011100110010000100000011001000110111101110111011011100010000001101100011010010110 1011011001010010000001100001001000000111100101101111011110010110111100111111

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariddia
To answer the question that started this thread... I'm an atheist. Quite honestly, I'm not afraid of death. I tend not to think about it very much. To me, death just means there will be no me any more. Nothing. No afterlife. The absolute end. But hey, in between now and death I've got a life to live and enjoy.

Does the person who thinks of "self" as only electro-chemical reactions in the body think in terms of "no me anymore"? All the physical elements will still be there when the sparks die down; the physical-only "me" doesn't "go" anywhere.

EDIT: I just can't imagine not thinking in terms of an "inner self", and I would like to understand the other viewpoint better.

"I am a whole person...!" said Iako, to himself, as he watched her burn.

"There is no me-thinking and me-surfing..!"

"There is no me-feeling and me-eating..!"

"Where were you' Aunties, little fella..!?" he heard an elderly woman's voice interrupt his protestations.

"I am..." he started.

The fire grew.

"I am a whole..."

It hurt too much.

"We told you 'da dreams would be bad,.. little one." she said again.

"..a whole.." he forced his thoughts.

"You can't stop it by not breathing,.. you know that..!" she said.

"But I'm trying TO breath, Auntie..!!"

"Then breathe,.. let me go.."

It hurt too much, but the breath came, as a terrible outpouring that emptied his very soul.

"I hate you for goin' away,.. I love you so much...!" he said to himself.

"..and now I'm in you, and you can see that with you' eyes,.. Do you like my last story, little one..?" she said.

The fire grew.

I can't give any analogy for the "inner self" of a computer AI if I don't understand what you mean with it for humans.
There's me. Here's me.

There's two me's: outer me and inner me.

Outer me is a body and inner me can see it when I look in the mirror. "There's me!" Other people can see it too, and call they call it "Hey you!" They talk at outer me, and outer me hears, but it's inner me is who understands.

Inner me has no substance; it exists in thought, feeling and emotion. Consciousness, awareness. Outer me is like a vessel of inner me. Inner me is what I more often refer to when I speak of "me" or "I" ("Here's me!") though sometimes I refer to outer me or the integrated outer-and-inner me. If I die --err, sorry, when I die --inner me will be lost. Whether one believes outer me is animated by inner me (like hardware animated by software), or inner me is an abstact of outer me, there will still be an inescapable loss of "me".

I raised this because I encountered more than once in the religion-related threads on this board an attitude that there is only an electro-chemical stimulation of the brain that creates all thoughts, feelings and emotions, and totally ignores the perception of those as anything important. Outer me perceives, but it is inner me that understands what is perceived, that experiences what is percieved, and can make a decision to initiate action because of it. Inner me exercises intelligence, choice and will. Those things are not in the control of outer me --one need only be knocked unconscious to know this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You await expectantly and with love (pleasure) that the Toothfairy will not appear.

Yeah, I guess so... I'd be really annoyed if someone snuck into my room at night just to bring me some coin that hardly has any value.

By the way, could you please stop quoting posts in their entirity when you only respond to a small part? It's annoying to read.



No,..I will not stop quoting, as it's the only way to establish context within this flat posting structure. :) (..and the mod gods have told me specifically that they CAN NOT institute threaded posts.)

In other words, just ignore the whitespace doofman..! <said with affection!>

So there..! Pffffffffffffffffffffffffttt..!

And the way to PROVE that there (may have been but) is no presently extant Toothfairy is via the very presence of folks like yourself.

If the Toothfairy DID exist,.. and snuck into your room,.. the Toothfairy would die.

Inner me has no substance; it exists in thought, feeling and emotion. Consciousness, awareness. Outer me is like a vessel of inner me. Inner me is what I more often refer to when I speak of "me" or "I" ("Here's me!") though sometimes I refer to outer me or the integrated outer-and-inner me.
Okay. By analogy, this isn't the software's perception of anything. This is the software. Period.

If I die --err, sorry, when I die --inner me will be lost. Whether one believes outer me is animated by inner me (like hardware animated by software),
Wrong. The software is physically present in the hardware as magnetic data on the hard disk and as electrical current in the chips. And there are many parts that work without being controlled by software, just like your heart keeps on beating when you're sleeping.

or inner me is an abstact of outer me, there will still be an inescapable loss of "me".

I raised this because I encountered more than once in the religion-related threads on this board an attitude that there is only an electro-chemical stimulation of the brain that creates all thoughts, feelings and emotions, and totally ignores the perception of those as anything important. Outer me perceives, but it is inner me that understands what is perceived, that experiences what is percieved, and can make a decision to initiate action because of it. Inner me exercises intelligence, choice and will. Those things are not in the control of outer me --one need only be knocked unconscious to know this.
Do you realize that your last sentence actually supports my view?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milostein
Quote:
Okay, then the "inner self" attitude is like seeing the hard drive and the generated program results from the perspective of the software.

I think it's more like seeing the software from the perspective of the software.

Are you using a different context of "see" here? Because if the analogy is with eyes, as mine was, then it's quite impossible for it to "see itself".

Death becomes a loss of "inner self" because the program, in being erased, loses it's "self", that essential perspective.

The "software" is the you that sees. (Who's body has eyeballs.)

The "harddrive" is your brain tissue.

When the software is erased, it can't "see" the harddrive anymore, as it now only exists as a memory in the mind of the programmer, and has severd all connection with the harddrive.

The harddrive, after the apparent shock of "erasure", rusts away and is no longer usable as a harddrive.

Of course, the other programs on the network are kinda wondering, "Hmmmm... what happened to apSubTri_47.exe ..!?", assuming they have business with apSubTri_47.exe at all.

No,..I will not stop quoting, as it's the only way to establish context within this flat posting structure. :) (..and the mod gods have told me specifically that they CAN NOT institute threaded posts.)
You can still quote, just quote only the parts you're responding to, rather than quoting the whole post and putting one sentence in blue.

And the way to PROVE that there (may have been but) is no presently extant Toothfairy is via the very presence of folks like yourself.

If the Toothfairy DID exist,.. and snuck into your room,.. the Toothfairy would die.
Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
There are many logics. A logic is just "a naming". The way we "name" things determines their "meaning"...

"That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

.."That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."..

Which is a direct invocation of my (now infamous) "it is"..!

It's not the physical things we deal with in matters logical, it is the meaning of those physical things to us.

And for each realm of "meaning", there is a logic,.. or possibly several!

:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy Pig
Is it true that Atheist scream "Darwin" as they orgasm?



Why would they? Unless you happen to be one of his direct descendents he's not your creator.

Besides which, single syllable utterances are generally all I can stretch to at the critical juncture. I think the most eloquent I've ever been is... well, some long vowel sound that makes it sound like I've just had an orgasm, as it happens.

(Is that funny because it's true or is it just me?)

"GOD" is veritably perfect for said function, as it begins with a deep back-throat plosive (G), carries on with a nicely elongatable DEEP vowel (AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..), followed by an almost droppable "tongue-tip" [can't get much more sensual than that!] plosive (D) to finish it off.

Which may well be why the word started getting used as a meaning for "the big WOW entity" in the first place...

....just a theory. :D


And, yes,.. it's YOU..! It's ALWAYS ABOUT YOU..!

Personally I think Christians would be much more scared about death. How many of you will go to heaven and how many of you will suffer endless torment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The atheist (which is simply anti-judeo/christianity to me [don't try to change my opinion! ]) movement is a symptom of some weird blunder within the religious institutions of the west.

If you call no longer burning nonbelievers at the stake a blunder, then yes. You're right.

Killing people for not loving the same things you love is silly.

My contention is that atheism (as I define it as anti-judeo/christianism) would not exist if some "blunder" had not been perpetrated by western judeo/christian religious institutions. They goofed somehow.

And, in my opinion (like everything I say), that has nothing to do with stupidly killing people.

A group of rabidly atheistic fervor-ful psychotics could very easily have it's own inquisitions and stupid killing of those who don't love what they love.

Oh,.. that's right,... that HAS happened. OK then....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy Pig
Is it true that Atheist scream "Darwin" as they orgasm?


usually i go with "holy fuck!"


That takes too long..! :D

That's what you say WAY after the fact to impress your mate, dude..!

Killing people for not loving the same things you love is silly.
Yes, but it is what prevents people from converting to other, less silly, beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

And if it were made up.. what would that mean to you..?

(( No,.. I am NOT a psychiatrist...! ))

It is official Ha, which is the "un-interfered-with" language of my people.

(( It is an encoding of english into something "resembling" a polynesian language using the hawai'ian sound set. Hopefully, I'll figure out some way to make it machine translatable [a codec] into a "phonetic english". That may be tricky as my programming skills have atrophied terribly. See http://iakeokeo.home.comcast.net/ Ha Language link))

Wow. Spreadsheets and everything...

Oops..! Uh,... I suppose I should post the url for the "offsite forum thingy" too.

I'm kinda working on a simple sim for RP'ing island nations within that map that has reasons for conflict, among other things.

Which I am still working on,.. obviously.

see: Iakeokeo (Warm Tropics) stuff (http://iakeokeo.home.comcast.net)

Anyway, thanks.. ! :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
0100100101110100001000000111011001100001011100100110100101100101011100110010110000100000011000010110 1110011001000010000001100100011011110110010101110011011011100010011101110100001000000111001101100101 0110010101101101001000000111010001101111001000000110110101100001011101000111010001100101011100100010 1110001011100010111000100000001000000011101000101001


0100000101101000001011000010000001110010011010010110011101101000011101000010111000100000001000000101 0011011011110010000001101001011101000010000001100111011011110110010101110011001000000111010101110000 0010000001100001011011100110010000100000011001000110111101110111011011100010000001101100011010010110 1011011001010010000001100001001000000111100101101111011110010110111100111111

0101100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111 1001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001 0110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110 1111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111 0111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111 1001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001 0110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110 1111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111 0111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111 1001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001 0110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110010111000101110001011100010 0001

:D

Translate (http://pete.holidian.com/toys/ascii2bin.php)

0101100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111 1001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001 0110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110 1111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111 0111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111 1001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001 0110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110 1111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111 0111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111 1001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001 0110111101111001011011110111100101101111011110010110111101111001011011110010111000101110001011100010 0001
01110011001011110111100100101111011010010010111101100111 ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
No,..I will not stop quoting, as it's the only way to establish context within this flat posting structure. (..and the mod gods have told me specifically that they CAN NOT institute threaded posts.)

You can still quote, just quote only the parts you're responding to, rather than quoting the whole post and putting one sentence in blue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And the way to PROVE that there (may have been but) is no presently extant Toothfairy is via the very presence of folks like yourself.

If the Toothfairy DID exist,.. and snuck into your room,.. the Toothfairy would die.


Why?

Because you would kill said intruder for trespass with a deadly weapon (the magic wand).

Although, actually, you might simply capture her (I think of it as a "her"), convert to Toothfairyism, and forcibly convert the unbelievers with the help of her magic wand...!

Yeehaw... I love hypodermics,.. er,... hypotheticals..!


Easter Bunny, anyone,.. anyone,.. Bueller,.. anyone...!?

Because you would kill said intruder for trespass with a deadly weapon (the magic wand).

Although, actually, you might simply capture her (I think of it as a "her"), convert to Toothfairyism, and convert the unbelievers with the help of her magic wand...!
I don't like her, but that doesn't mean I'm going to kill her on sight. I'm not that mean. (However, I probably would grab away said wand, either as a punishment or because I want its power for myself. Or both.)

Of course, I'd probably be sleeping when she enters, so I wouldn't be able to catch her.

01110011001011110111100100101111011010010010111101100111 ;)


I don't know what that means...? :)


..and neither do they..!
(translate (http://pete.holidian.com/toys/ascii2bin.php))



Hey,.. how about a whole new thread where everyone speaks in binary..!

Call it the "01010111010101000100011000101110001011100010000100111111" thread..! :D

Okay. By analogy, this isn't the software's perception of anything. This is the software. Period.
Then this analogy doesn't work, as software is electrons on a disk.

The software is physically present in the hardware as magnetic data on the hard disk and as electrical current in the chips. And there are many parts that work without being controlled by software, just like your heart keeps on beating when you're sleeping.
And that's a wonderful objective view of the software. But I'm talking about the self that perceives the world. It has no physical presence, because it is a mental construct, a subjective perspective --like the thoughts, feelings and emotions, as inner me perceives them, are.
EDIT: Okay, so some are emotional constructs.

Do you realize that your last sentence actually supports my view?
How so?

I don't know what that means...? :)
I checked the translation. It's correct.
001111000100001010000001101001011000000110100101100110010100001000111100!

I checked the translation. It's correct.
001111000100001010000001101001011000000110100101100110010100001000111100!

I believe you (aka "I love you", though not in that "particular" way).

<cough>

I just don't know what it MEANS.

I do, on the other hand, know what it says.

What does it mean to you..!? :)

And nothing Freudian, please.....

Then this analogy doesn't work, as software is electrons on a disk.
Your inner self is the software. How your inner self perceives the outer world (and itself!) is how the software perceives the outer world (and itself!). You perceive your outer world through your eyes, and the software perceives its outer world through its network cable.

And that's a wonderful objective view of the software. But I'm talking about the self that perceives the world. It has no physical presence, because it is a mental construct, a subjective perspective --like the thoughts, feelings and emotions, as inner me perceives them, are.
So? The software can have that too. (Refer to my earlier link.)

How so?
You said that your inner self does not control your outer self. In other words, the body is more than just a vessel for the soul.

I believe you (aka "I love you", though not in that "particular" way).
OH NOES!!!!! UR COMPUTAR GOT ENFECTID BI A VERSE!!!!!!111

I just don't know what it MEANS.

I do, on the other hand, know what it says.
"s/x/y/g" is means "replace all instances of 'x' with 'y'". Computer jargon, after the syntax of the "sed" program.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I believe you (aka "I love you", though not in that "particular" way).


OH NOES!!!!! UR COMPUTAR GOT ENFECTID BI A VERSE!!!!!!111


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I just don't know what it MEANS.

I do, on the other hand, know what it says.


"s/x/y/g" is means "replace all instances of 'x' with 'y'". Computer jargon, after the syntax of the "sed" program.

Ah...!

Of course,... but...

Why for I wanna replace all x's with y's..!?

..just curious. :)

Ah...!

Of course,... but...

Why for I wanna replace all x's with y's..!?

..just curious. :)
Sigh.

The message didn't ask for replacing xes with ys. It had two different letters in their place. Apply this search-and-replace to the post of yours that I was replying to.

All I wanted to see is whether you understood why I chose a 01111001011011110111100101101111 as my object-that-goes-up-and-down of choice. It's a 011000110110100001100001, you see. (Figure that one out! Hint: "halfway".)

Your inner self is the software. How your inner self perceives the outer world (and itself!) is how the software perceives the outer world (and itself!). You perceive your outer world through your eyes, and the software perceives its outer world through its network cable.
I'm not explaining "inner self" correctly, then.

So? The software can have that too. (Refer to my earlier link.)
Um, about that cartoon... I really got nothing useful from it.

You said that your inner self does not control your outer self.
Um, no... I said, "Inner me exercises intelligence, choice and will. Those things are not in the control of outer me --one need only be knocked unconscious to know this." Intelligence, choice and will are what control outer me. Consciousness.

Let me try this tack: my hand is a thing; my body is a thing; my eyes are things, and my brain is a thing. The electrons in my brain are things. These things exist in the physical world. I'm thinking of a thing right now. The thought has a physical presence in the form of electrons in the brain, but the substance of that thought has no physical presence --it is the idea as I perceive it, the thing I am thinking of.

In other words, the body is more than just a vessel for the soul.
Oh! something we can agree on. ;-) It's more than a vessel, because outer self is necessary for inner self to exist. Can't have one without the other. "Vessel" is a visual metaphor.

I'm not explaining "inner self" correctly, then.
I think I confused the issue because my two sentences used a different definition of "perceive". Let's try again.

You: outer world -> data inputted by eyes -> interpretation made by inner self.
Computer: outer world -> data inputted by network -> interpretation made by software

Um, about that cartoon... I really got nothing useful from it.
Read the last panel again (and the one-two preceeding it for context). What he's saying is that he's programmed to say "I am pleased to meet you", an objective sound wave produced by various electron movements through its circuit, but whether or not he actually IS pleased (what is "pleased", after all?) is a subjective concept of "inner self". The lion guy does not understand the idea of a robot having emotions, so he assumes that the robot is "just" programmed to say that and "doesn't really mean it". Is he right? You tell me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Ah...!

Of course,... but...

Why for I wanna replace all x's with y's..!?

..just curious.

Sigh.

The message didn't ask for replacing xes with ys. It had two different letters in their place. Apply this search-and-replace to the post of yours that I was replying to.

All I wanted to see is whether you understood why I chose a 01111001011011110111100101101111 as my object-that-goes-up-and-down of choice. It's a 011000110110100001100001, you see. (Figure that one out! Hint: "halfway".)

"Oh,.. steel... track,.... George get joke now..!"

The great god Iakoioioioioioioioioioioioio likes yoyo's. Yoyo's sound like Iakoioioioioioioioio.

:)

I'm not explaining "inner self" correctly, then.


Um, about that cartoon... I really got nothing useful from it.


Um, no... I said, "Inner me exercises intelligence, choice and will. Those things are not in the control of outer me --one need only be knocked unconscious to know this." Intelligence, choice and will are what control outer me. Consciousness.

Let me try this tack: my hand is a thing; my body is a thing; my eyes are things, and my brain is a thing. The electrons in my brain are things. These things exist in the physical world. I'm thinking of a thing right now. The thought has a physical presence in the form of electrons in the brain, but the substance of that thought has no physical presence --it is the idea as I perceive it, the thing I am thinking of.


Oh! something we can agree on. ;-) It's more than a vessel, because outer self is necessary for inner self to exist. Can't have one without the other. "Vessel" is a visual metaphor.

The pattern that is "you" (the inner one) is a consequence of, but not limited to, the stuff it is made of.

When the stuff goes away, the pattern is gone.

When the pattern is gone, the stuff doesn't matter.

When the world goes away, god is gone.

When god is gone, the world doesn't matter.

That's why they call it "MATTER"..!

"Oh,.. steel... track,.... George get joke now..!"

The great god Iakoioioioioioioioioioioioio likes yoyo's.

:)
Well, I repeat: 001111000100001010000001101001011000000110100101100110010100001000111100!

(010000010110111001100100001000000110111001101111001011000010000001110100011010000110010100100000010 0000101010011010000110100100101001001001000000110001101101111011011100111011001100101011100100111010 0011001010111001000100000011010010111001101101110001001110111010000100000011001110110111101101001011 0111001100111001000000111010001101111001000000110001001100101001000000110111101100110001000000110000 1011011100111100100100000011010000110010101101100011100000010000001110111011010010111010001101000001 00000011101000110100001100001011101000010000001101111011011100110010100101110)

Well, speaking for myself as an atheist/agnostic type. I have to say I don't really feel anything about death. I just want to avoid it for as long as possible because what matters is the here and now.

The pattern that is "you" (the inner one) is a consequence of, but not limited to, the stuff it is made of.

When the stuff goes away, the pattern is gone.

When the pattern is gone, the stuff doesn't matter.

When the world goes away, god is gone.

When god is gone, the world doesn't matter.

That's why they call it "MATTER"..!
Haha!

A pattern... I like that. Reminiscent of the Goddess' net (http://inanna.virtualave.net/goddess-head-france.jpg).

I think I confused the issue because my two sentences used a different definition of "perceive". Let's try again.

You: outer world -> data inputted by eyes -> interpretation made by inner self.
Computer: outer world -> data inputted by network -> interpretation made by software
Okay. Machines just spit out responses they are programmed to make, in the form of more electrical outputs. They do not "interpret" because that would require the ability to conceive. Creation is a talent reserved for life-forms and god(s). Humans generate more thoughts, and yes there is more electrical outputs, but that is as far as the comparison of this analogy can go, as far as I understand it. The abstract quality of the thoughts doesn't apply to the machine's software --any conjecture that it does is just science fiction.

I don't think man has created a true AI yet, have they?

Read the last panel again (and the one-two preceeding it for context). What he's saying is that he's programmed to say "I am pleased to meet you", an objective sound wave produced by various electron movements through its circuit, but whether or not he actually IS pleased (what is "pleased", after all?) is a subjective concept of "inner self". The lion guy does not understand the idea of a robot having emotions, so he assumes that the robot is "just" programmed to say that and "doesn't really mean it". Is he right? You tell me.
I see.

How do you know gravity exists? You can't see it, or hear it, or touch it, or feel it. Seriously I can't think of a situation (right now, and I'm pretty tired) that conclusively proves that 'Gravity' exists. And for the record I'm studying astrophysics at college, so this is one of those things I tend to think about a lot.

As an astrophysicist, you should know that Gravity is a useful theory to explain the world around us. We use it to make predictions about how the world will act, and those predictions are useful.

That is what science is really, useful theories that can be used to predict what we observe. Because we can predict things, we can use them. This is what lead to Artesian wells, the prediction of the retrograde motion of Mercury, and all manner of things, from the computer that you are reading this on (which works based on electrodynamics and quantum tunneling).

Science is a mindset, and the mindset is "Saying that it happens 'Because' is not really very useful". And Gravity is one of the useful ideas to come out of that.

Cheers
Grantwold

It's not talked about because that didn't happen./ The whole story passed around fundie christian circles about Darwin's deathbed discantation of evolution has long since been disproven and falsified. Darwin never denounced evolution, nor did he become christian right before he died. You should really try researching sometime; you'd be surprised what you might learn.

I'm afraid that you are only technically correct, Darwin did not become Christian just before his death, Darwin was a fairly devout Christian for his entire life. In fact he was set against the idea of species changing into other species for his entire voyage on the HMS Beagle. It was when he got home and thought about what he had seen that he found himself drawn inexorably to the idea of natural selection as a method of species alteration. He was disturbed a lot by the idea that his theory did not require a God for the creation of a new species, but he found his evidance so compelling that he could not in good conciense refrain from publishing it.

As a breif non sequiter, Darwin was intending to write a significantly longer work than the 'Origin of the Species' became, he was rushed into it because other scientists were working on a similar theory at the time, and announced their intentions to publish, thus giving him a fighting chance to get his book out, which he did.

Cheers
Grantwold

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chikyota
It's not talked about because that didn't happen./ The whole story passed around fundie christian circles about Darwin's deathbed discantation of evolution has long since been disproven and falsified. Darwin never denounced evolution, nor did he become christian right before he died. You should really try researching sometime; you'd be surprised what you might learn.


I'm afraid that you are only technically correct, Darwin did not become Christian just before his death, Darwin was a fairly devout Christian for his entire life. In fact he was set against the idea of species changing into other species for his entire voyage on the HMS Beagle. It was when he got home and thought about what he had seen that he found himself drawn inexorably to the idea of natural selection as a method of species alteration. He was disturbed a lot by the idea that his theory did not require a God for the creation of a new species, but he found his evidance so compelling that he could not in good conciense refrain from publishing it.

As a breif non sequiter, Darwin was intending to write a significantly longer work than the 'Origin of the Species' became, he was rushed into it because other scientists were working on a similar theory at the time, and announced their intentions to publish, thus giving him a fighting chance to get his book out, which he did.

Cheers
Grantwold

You know, this infantile (an overused word for me lately, as are "juvenile" and "adolescent") preoccupation with religion bashing is getting on my nerves.

When an obviously short-hand word like "fundie" is used, I imagine that the cool new clique, the "anti-judeo/christianists", have been inbreeding with themselves again to the extent that they can safely use their own little internal code and have it be meaningful.

Which is actually OK,.. come to think of it. This identifies them quite well.

Better a target you can see than one you can't, I suppose. :)

Oops..! Uh,... I suppose I should post the url for the "offsite forum thingy" too.

I'm kinda working on a simple sim for RP'ing island nations within that map that has reasons for conflict, among other things.

Which I am still working on,.. obviously.

see: Iakeokeo (Warm Tropics) stuff (http://iakeokeo.home.comcast.net)

Anyway, thanks.. ! :)
I've never role-played before, but if I did, I would choose something like that. :-)

I'm afraid that you are only technically correct, Darwin did not become Christian just before his death, Darwin was a fairly devout Christian for his entire life. In fact he was set against the idea of species changing into other species for his entire voyage on the HMS Beagle. It was when he got home and thought about what he had seen that he found himself drawn inexorably to the idea of natural selection as a method of species alteration. He was disturbed a lot by the idea that his theory did not require a God for the creation of a new species, but he found his evidance so compelling that he could not in good conciense refrain from publishing it.

As a breif non sequiter, Darwin was intending to write a significantly longer work than the 'Origin of the Species' became, he was rushed into it because other scientists were working on a similar theory at the time, and announced their intentions to publish, thus giving him a fighting chance to get his book out, which he did.

Cheers
Grantwold Points well taken. I was not aware of him being a devout christian. My point in that post though was to point out that the story of him decanting his theory of evolution on his deathbed was just that, a story.
I appreciate the correction however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Oops..! Uh,... I suppose I should post the url for the "offsite forum thingy" too.

I'm kinda working on a simple sim for RP'ing island nations within that map that has reasons for conflict, among other things.

Which I am still working on,.. obviously.

see: Iakeokeo (Warm Tropics) stuff (http://iakeokeo.home.comcast.net/)

Anyway, thanks.. !

I've never role-played before, but if I did, I would choose something like that. :-)

The idea will be to have a "space" where you can roleplay a "culture" and, depending on your choices of "resource allocation", illustrate your culture in a way that will "annoy" other cultures or "please" other cultures.

You would annoy others by, say, having such a large population on a large landmass while NOT investing in "cows", which essentially FORCES you to fish the ocean of MUCH more than your "fair share" of fish.

Others might find this objectionable, and make "war" on you,.. which would amount to the loser (it's ALWAYS a 50/50 chance of losing) losing some trivial portion of their population and some resource (mostly having only "pride" value) being destroyed for a short time.

It's essentially an exercise in "counting coup" warfare, that is meant to merely "humiliate" the loser.

But having a "game board" to play act how your made-up "culture" would react to insults and praise sounds like A LOT of fun to me..! :D

Much like what we do here, in the forums, but in a more "organized" way.

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...
The claims come from spectators, many very skeptical, and to this day no one has able to been explain how they do it. The proof is in the testimony of sensible and educated eye-witnesses.

URL: One such testamony in a letter to a newspaper. (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/bcw/b77-4-21.htm) ;-)

Although her name was slandered in her day (1877) by Science, and her speculative explanations may sound dubious to modern ears, I admire her for having the gall to speak her mind to Victorian-era newspapermen (no small feat) and not back down one iota from her testamony of what she had witnessed.

Regretfully, public levitations are not as common as they used to be, due mostly to the ill health of India's poorer (street) people, attributed to the popularity of hard drugs.

Sorry, Grave, but I would say his definition and yours are spot on. He's saying the same thing you are. You seem to be looking to contradict everybody, regardless. :-)

No no no! I'll happily agree - but I think he's defining incorrectly... most atheists don't believe in any god type creations. It's not that they don't believe in Yahweh, or Jehovah, or Allah (although that is probably their ENTRY into Atheism), they simply don't believe in any of the 'god' stuff.

That's very close to the definition of atheism, and a long way from the definition of agnosticism. Too many people seem to think that Atheism means Strong Atheism, and Agnostic is another way of saying Weak Agnosticism.

Maybe the other guy is trying to make the same point I am, but, if so, I think they are trying to bend the definitions...

I checked the translation. It's correct.

Except for the inherant case insensitivity you didn't account for (i.e. first letter)...

001111000100001010000001101001011000000110100101100110010100001000111100!

:)

(Ps: 000000100000001000000100000001000000100000001000100100000101000000100000
001110000110110011000110110001100000110000011000000000000001100000011000)

The claims come from spectators, many very skeptical, and to this day no one has able to been explain how they do it. The proof is in the testimony of sensible and educated eye-witnesses.

URL: One such testamony in a letter to a newspaper. (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/bcw/b77-4-21.htm) ;-)

Although her name was slandered in her day (1877) by Science, and her speculative explanations may sound dubious to modern ears, I admire her for having the gall to speak her mind to Victorian-era newspapermen (no small feat) and not back down one iota from her testamony of what she had witnessed.

Regretfully, public levitations are not as common as they used to be, due mostly to the ill health of India's poorer (street) people, attributed to the popularity of hard drugs.

While I have respect for Helena Blavatsky, her views, her combination of elements of diverse religious elements into one 'uber-religion', her keen interest in the concepts of religion and science, and an obvious encyclopedic knowledge of occult, theological and spiritual material... the fact still remains that she was (apparently) a charlatan. (She was proved to be a charlatan as a 'spiritist' before the founding of the Theosophic movement, and arguments have been put forth by observers about her faking 'psychic phenomena' in her addresses - such as her 'telepathic' messages, the appearance of cups and saucers, or letters, and other 'parlour tricks').

Not that I necessarily set store by what other people say, but this is one of those issues again, where there is no 'proof'. There is no good evidence that Madame Blavatsky was what she claimed to be... a 'messenger' of 'more evolved' beings, who had given her secret esoteric knowledge.

Unfortunately, this doesn't make her the most reliable of witnesses, either.

I do respect what she stood for. I do respect the pressures she rebelled against. I do respect that she was looking for a deeper truth than that offered by her Orthodox upbringing... I just don't consider her a credible informant.

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

Sounds like the typical evolution of any "spiritual" institution.

START A NEW THREAD: "EVOLUTION OF THE ROBIC SECTS"

I would be more than happy to contribute...! :)

I just might do that... yours is the second positive comment that "Robism" has incurred.

Of course, for maximum comic value... I may hold off a few weeks... so that when a thread arrives, and people start debating Bobist, Robist and Rabobic ideals in all earnest, all the 'normal' people will suddenly wonder what they have missed....

Does the person who thinks of "self" as only electro-chemical reactions in the body think in terms of "no me anymore"? All the physical elements will still be there when the sparks die down; the physical-only "me" doesn't "go" anywhere.

EDIT: I just can't imagine not thinking in terms of an "inner self", and I would like to understand the other viewpoint better.

I would imagine that, one the juice stops running, once the current dies down, once the 'life-support' is turned off - the body is dead. This is scientifically observable... the deterioration of brain chemicals is pretty rapid after the 'moment of death', so, even if you somehow re-animated the body, the chemicals in the brain would be non-viable... certainly not to generate the same patterns as before.

If it isn't the same pattern, is it the same self?

By the token of the machinery disintegrating, the 'self' is lost with death. The physical elements that are left are transitory, and certainly cannot support the self anymore.

I'd like to believe that some kind of energy permeates the body (apart from the observable electrical charges), one that could perpetuate consciousness beyond the limits of the 'meat'. I'd like to belive it. I really would. But, I don't.

And there goes our old hero again, being paranoid that someone showing their mind to us all is a "bad evil person for forcing their world view on all of humanity".

The persecution complex continues... :)

Yay! I am a hero!

I don't think I'm being paranoid here, though... when someone's comment basically says "I hope you all realise your mistake before you die" (not in those EXACT words, but pretty close) then they should expect a response that basically says "well, don't hold your breath, and don't be too surprised if that doesn't happen".

I'm not a big fan of preaching to the masses... if we want to discuss it, fine. But there IS a line between saying "this is what I think" and "you're all going to hell, hope you're not too miffed".

Death is a natural process in wich the cells of your body are no longer fed, hence stop working. After loosing all your capacities, your energy and matter will be reused by other living form in a circle.

A huge part will be lost, still.

.."I don't really see the faith thing, either. If someone asks you to believe something, and you do, that is an act of faith.

If someone asks you to believe something, and you don't - because it doesn't make sense, that isn't an act of faith, that's an act of logic."..


If someone ASKS you to believe in something, they are saying "I love this thing. Do you love this thing?"

If someone TELLS you to believe in something, they are saying "I love thing, and you must also."

You can not impose belief, because you can not impose love.

You CAN impose fear.

If you don't believe in something, you don't love it. But it, as a thing to believe or not, still exists. And if you expect NOT to see it, that expectation is faith.

There are many logics. A logic is just "a naming". The way we "name" things determines their "meaning"...

..and so, back to metaphor. :D

And again, I quibble semantics: the non-believer doesn't spend all day with bated breath 'waiting' for 'god' not to appear. The Atheist isn't awaiting any kind of revelation (although most are likely to be more than happy if one were to occur), they have no state of suspension. An option arises (someone says it, they read it in a book, they see a light that looks kind of like a man, etc.) and the person processes that stimulus... the person who said that can't really back it up, the book I read it in is unconvincing and doesn't make sense, the light is just a reflection - not a goblin at the window.

Or they process that information in a different way... hey, good point, this guy is right, there IS a god - this book may be conflicted but I see a kernal of truth, hallelujah - that light... it's some kind of little pixie dude...

In each of the second set of responses, something occurs that takes the person away from the standard processes of day to day thought patterns, and imprints a new matrix. This is what I call the 'leap of faith'.

In each of the first set of responses, the person processes the stimuli in the same fashion as all other stimuli, expecting no different response, and comes up with results consistent with the 'usual' results. Where a difference exists, this is then analysed further, and assimilated or dismissed. This is the logic route.

This is why I believe that 'faith' and 'belief' are extras that the 'believer' uses, and why I argue that Atheism is not a 'belief' as such... that it requires no additional 'faith'.. and that it certainly isn't a religion.

My opinion.

OK.... GOOFY Off-topic Question:

How do you quote WITH the formatting intact..!?

OK.... GOOFY Off-topic Question:

How do you quote WITH the formatting intact..!?




OH..!!!

The "Enhanced Mode" radio button..! :D

Thank You...!!!

Right,... now back to our regularly scheduled programming.... :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Excellent..! Heh he he he he he he...

Sounds like the typical evolution of any "spiritual" institution.

START A NEW THREAD: "EVOLUTION OF THE ROBIC SECTS"

I would be more than happy to contribute...!


I just might do that... yours is the second positive comment that "Robism" has incurred.

Of course, for maximum comic value... I may hold off a few weeks... so that when a thread arrives, and people start debating Bobist, Robist and Rabobic ideals in all earnest, all the 'normal' people will suddenly wonder what they have missed....

Yes, yes, yes....! Do do it..! :)

Excellent..!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And there goes our old hero again, being paranoid that someone showing their mind to us all is a "bad evil person for forcing their world view on all of humanity".

The persecution complex continues...


Yay! I am a hero!

I don't think I'm being paranoid here, though... when someone's comment basically says "I hope you all realise your mistake before you die" (not in those EXACT words, but pretty close) then they should expect a response that basically says "well, don't hold your breath, and don't be too surprised if that doesn't happen".

I'm not a big fan of preaching to the masses... if we want to discuss it, fine. But there IS a line between saying "this is what I think" and "you're all going to hell, hope you're not too miffed".

Yes,.... actually,.. you are a hero..! :)

Well put. I obviously missed the "you're all going to hell, hope you're not too miffed" bit in that other person's post.

Mea culpa entirely...!

I've certainly been known to answer in like kind in MUCH more "aggressive" fashion than yours in this particular case.

I apologize and am at your service in supplication and obeyance.

:D

I do respect what she stood for. I do respect the pressures she rebelled against. I do respect that she was looking for a deeper truth than that offered by her Orthodox upbringing... I just don't consider her a credible informant.
I would think her learning the 'parlour tricks' to the extent where she could practice them well enough to fool (and embarassed) a few well educated peers would make her a more credible witness. I dont' see why it should reflect any on her veracity as an eye-witness to an event that happened far away from the influence of the Theosophical society. I admit she set herself up for failure by taking her trickery too far, but she also quotes in the letter other learned people who witnessed similar leviation events in India.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
.."I don't really see the faith thing, either. If someone asks you to believe something, and you do, that is an act of faith.

If someone asks you to believe something, and you don't - because it doesn't make sense, that isn't an act of faith, that's an act of logic."..


If someone ASKS you to believe in something, they are saying "I love this thing. Do you love this thing?"

If someone TELLS you to believe in something, they are saying "I love this thing, and you must also."

You can not impose belief, because you can not impose love.

You CAN impose fear.

If you don't believe in something, you don't love it. But it, as a thing to believe or not, still exists. And if you expect NOT to see it, that expectation is faith.

There are many logics. A logic is just "a naming". The way we "name" things determines their "meaning"...

..and so, back to metaphor.


And again, I quibble semantics: the non-believer doesn't spend all day with bated breath 'waiting' for 'god' not to appear. The Atheist isn't awaiting any kind of revelation (although most are likely to be more than happy if one were to occur), they have no state of suspension. An option arises (someone says it, they read it in a book, they see a light that looks kind of like a man, etc.) and the person processes that stimulus... the person who said that can't really back it up, the book I read it in is unconvincing and doesn't make sense, the light is just a reflection - not a goblin at the window.

Or they process that information in a different way... hey, good point, this guy is right, there IS a god - this book may be conflicted but I see a kernal of truth, hallelujah - that light... it's some kind of little pixie dude...

In each of the second set of responses, something occurs that takes the person away from the standard processes of day to day thought patterns, and imprints a new matrix. This is what I call the 'leap of faith'.

In each of the first set of responses, the person processes the stimuli in the same fashion as all other stimuli, expecting no different response, and comes up with results consistent with the 'usual' results. Where a difference exists, this is then analysed further, and assimilated or dismissed. This is the logic route.

This is why I believe that 'faith' and 'belief' are extras that the 'believer' uses, and why I argue that Atheism is not a 'belief' as such... that it requires no additional 'faith'.. and that it certainly isn't a religion.

My opinion.

Well put,.. again,.. as usual.

And I take EVERYTHING as opinion, so that's universally granted. :)

This entire realm of discussion is really ABOUT semantics, therefore it's not surprising that semantics plays such a huge part in it.

I do hope that my simple sentences are understandable as a simple train of thought. I like to use short (often repetitive and/or overlapping) statements to walk others through my (emphasis on the MY) thinking.

My basic proposition is:
*) Once faced with a "thing" to believe or not, a choice MUST be made.
*) At that point, you either believe it (love it) or not.
*) Then, you're faced with a choice to have faith (expect) it or not.
*) Faith and Belief are separate things.
*) Atheists have made the choice to not-believe in "the's".
*) Atheists have made a choice to have faith (expectation) in their non-belief.

The "faithful" don't actively "wait around with bated breath (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai1.htm)". They simply have an expectation that their object of faith will eventually "show up" somehow.

And,.. to reiterate (for my own clarity) for the umteenth time:

One can't choose to believe, or not, in something that one has not been presented with for consideration.

BUT,.. one MUST choose to believe, or not, in anything that IS presented for consideration.

And,.. once the choice is made, one either has faith (expectation) in that choice, or not.

(( Of course, NOT having faith in one's choice is "loving it without expecting it" which is an interesting condition, and would, I think, VERY NICELY describe the agnostic. ))

Athiesm and Death vs. Religion and death

Logic vs. Faith

It's seen so many times that it almost becomes boring. Debate is pointless since both sides are intransigent. Now either the heathens are going to rot in a stinking hell-pit for all eternity, or we're going to die and rot. Part of the reason why religion is so popular is because of the fear of eternal damnation. It's like political mudslinging. Either way, it doesn't matter. No one's going to convert just because your arguement is convincing, and if they do.. They probably didn't believe their own arguement in the first place.

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

haha, funny guy, I'm an Atheist, and I trust people and other things. Who ever said that Atheist don't trust? And please do explain why Atheism is stupid and pointless?
And you're right, Atheism isn't a religion, it's something for people with their own view on life, for people who tend not to follow the mob (and the easy way of getting an explination for everything out of a book) and try to figure out everything for theirselfs. Who find a sollution for everything in a logical and explainable way.

Please do not call it stupid and pointless. I doubt that there are many Atheists who call Christianity stupid. Tough I am an Atheist I still let people with other believes be at what they are, tough I don't approve it, I don't say that it's stupid!




Anyway, back on topic. For Atheists this is a hard subject. I believe that when you die, that everything is, ofcourse gone, forever, just blackness. Tough I do think that, maby, a second before you die, you go into some sort of dream, and that dream seems to take an eternity (Einsteins theory of relativity) But actually it's just that second that is taking forever.

ooh yeah All the people who are Atheists and don't have a region yes, join mine

"THE ATHEISTIC CONFEDERATION"

It is and isn't. It has a set of beliefs, But all are based on not believing anything at all.

Umm, atheism is not in any way, shape, or form a religion. I have no idea where you got that idea from. Atheism is simply a term which means the lack of belief in a god.

An atheist can believe a myriad of different things. The only thing that makes him an atheist is not believing in god. Please be aware that saying "I do not believe in a god" is not the same thing as "I believe there is not a god." One is a postive assertion and the other is not. Both statements fall under the tag of atheism but atheism is not exclusive to either mindset. To distinguish between the two, terms such as soft/weak or hard/strong atheist are used.

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

You say it is a religion....and then you say it isn't a religion, please make your mind up!

I would think her learning the 'parlour tricks' to the extent where she could practice them well enough to fool (and embarassed) a few well educated peers would make her a more credible witness. I dont' see why it should reflect any on her veracity as an eye-witness to an event that happened far away from the influence of the Theosophical society. I admit she set herself up for failure by taking her trickery too far, but she also quotes in the letter other learned people who witnessed similar leviation events in India.

Now, don't get me wrong... I am not saying that JUST because you have knowledge of trickery, makes you a bad person to consult on trickery... on the contrary, as they say, "set a thief to catch a thief".

The problem is, if you spend your life crying wolf (and much of her 'work' seems somewhere between plagiarism, mixing other people's stories, and 'crying wolf') then you have to expect that people are going to find your 'impartiality', shall we say, suspect.

She did quote other sources... impartial witnesses who also saw the things she claimed she saw... but, outside of the Theosophic circles, I have seen very little evidence that anyone attested to these 'true happenings'.

Out of 1375 posts on this thread, I wonder why everyone new leaps on that RaidersNation post? It must be on the first page, or something. ;-)

Well put,.. again,.. as usual.

And I take EVERYTHING as opinion, so that's universally granted. :)

This entire realm of discussion is really ABOUT semantics, therefore it's not surprising that semantics plays such a huge part in it.

I do hope that my simple sentences are understandable as a simple train of thought. I like to use short (often repetitive and/or overlapping) statements to walk others through my (emphasis on the MY) thinking.

My basic proposition is:
*) Once faced with a "thing" to believe or not, a choice MUST be made.
*) At that point, you either believe it (love it) or not.
*) Then, you're faced with a choice to have faith (expect) it or not.
*) Faith and Belief are separate things.
*) Atheists have made the choice to not-believe in "the's".
*) Atheists have made a choice to have faith (expectation) in their non-belief.

The "faithful" don't actively "wait around with bated breath (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai1.htm)". They simply have an expectation that their object of faith will eventually "show up" somehow.

And,.. to reiterate (for my own clarity) for the umteenth time:

One can't choose to believe, or not, in something that one has not been presented with for consideration.

BUT,.. one MUST choose to believe, or not, in anything that IS presented for consideration.

And,.. once the choice is made, one either has faith (expectation) in that choice, or not.

(( Of course, NOT having faith in one's choice is "loving it without expecting it" which is an interesting condition, and would, I think, VERY NICELY describe the agnostic. ))

With you all the way... we only differ over the 'application' of 'faith' at the 'choosing' stage. I'm not trying to convince you my conception here is better than yours - let's get that clear straight away - just as I assume you pay the same courtesy.

All I am trying to do is elucidate my idea - that belief isn't something that follows both choices 'as such'. I don't consider disbelief to be quite equivalent to what the word could be ARGUED to mean... 'dis belief' could mean "believing that a thing is not so", but I consider it closer to "NOT believing that a thing is so".

So, in my lexicon: the christian (or whatever flavour of religious person) believes in god (they believe that god is so), whereas the atheist disbelieves god (they don't believe that god is so).

In my image, the agnostic is stood off to one side, hands raised, shaking his head a little, and muttering... "god, you say? I know the word, but WHAT does it MEAN?"

1) Thank you for the: "Well put,.. again,.. as usual."
2) Your "simple sentences" are, as usual, perfectly understandable... although I have occassionaly had to grapple to gain grip on some of your concepts... ;)
3) I didn't realise people DID have "baited" breath... I found that enlightening, and somewhat scary.
4) Reiterating for the umpteenth time is par for the course around here... and is often accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Now, don't get me wrong... I am not saying that JUST because you have knowledge of trickery, makes you a bad person to consult on trickery... on the contrary, as they say, "set a thief to catch a thief".

The problem is, if you spend your life crying wolf (and much of her 'work' seems somewhere between plagiarism, mixing other people's stories, and 'crying wolf') then you have to expect that people are going to find your 'impartiality', shall we say, suspect.

She did quote other sources... impartial witnesses who also saw the things she claimed she saw... but, outside of the Theosophic circles, I have seen very little evidence that anyone attested to these 'true happenings'.
But "crying wolf" isn't really analogous to what she did --that would require that she was, in the end, trying to get people to believe she accomplished something with levitation. She is simply providing testamony about an objective event.

All I am trying to do is elucidate my idea - that belief isn't something that follows both choices 'as such'. I don't consider disbelief to be quite equivalent to what the word could be ARGUED to mean... 'dis belief' could mean "believing that a thing is not so", but I consider it closer to "NOT believing that a thing is so".

Semantics again: :-) "Disbelief" is what happens when someone hears something that conflicts with their own beliefs. The little voice inside says, "No, that can't be right." If it is a person's belief is that there is no God and they hear someone say, "Hey, there is a God," then disbelief kicks in.

Out of 1375 posts on this thread, I wonder why everyone new leaps on that RaidersNation post? It must be on the first page, or something. ;-)

That maybe, or the fact that it seems to be, what i believe they call, flame-bait.

But "crying wolf" isn't really analogous to what she did --that would require that she was, in the end, trying to get people to believe she accomplished something with levitation. She is simply providing testamony about an objective event.

I don't know. A lot of what she did was, I think, capable of being described as "crying wolf". Her 'manifestations' of letters from the 'masters', while maybe harmless trickery, seem designed to gull witnesses into believing she was 'more than she appeared'... in as much as they were designed to show that she had some degree of supernatural power.

It is apparently true that she was much travelled, but that isn't the same thing as having communion with astrally projected mystics (which she also claimed). As I say - I have respect for her and what she did, what she acheived... but I don't necessarily regard her testimony as unbiased.

I guess it all comes down (for me) to one question:

Why would she lie about witnessing levitation?

And (for me) there are several reasons... to fit in with her established personality as a recipient of esoteric knowledge, to further her claims about the 'reality' of the world as she portrayed it, to rail against a system that decried it. Add to this, the fact that she was already established as a 'spiritist' fraud...

I'm not saying she WAS a fraud. I'm not saying that she didn't TRULY witness such events. I'm just saying she doesn't make an unassailable witness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Well put,.. again,.. as usual.

And I take EVERYTHING as opinion, so that's universally granted.

This entire realm of discussion is really ABOUT semantics, therefore it's not surprising that semantics plays such a huge part in it.

I do hope that my simple sentences are understandable as a simple train of thought. I like to use short (often repetitive and/or overlapping) statements to walk others through my (emphasis on the MY) thinking.

My basic proposition is:
*) Once faced with a "thing" to believe or not, a choice MUST be made.
*) At that point, you either believe it (love it) or not.
*) Then, you're faced with a choice to have faith (expect) it or not.
*) Faith and Belief are separate things.
*) Atheists have made the choice to not-believe in "the's".
*) Atheists have made a choice to have faith (expectation) in their non-belief.

The "faithful" don't actively "wait around with bated breath". They simply have an expectation that their object of faith will eventually "show up" somehow.

And,.. to reiterate (for my own clarity) for the umteenth time:

One can't choose to believe, or not, in something that one has not been presented with for consideration.

BUT,.. one MUST choose to believe, or not, in anything that IS presented for consideration.

And,.. once the choice is made, one either has faith (expectation) in that choice, or not.

(( Of course, NOT having faith in one's choice is "loving it without expecting it" which is an interesting condition, and would, I think, VERY NICELY describe the agnostic. ))


With you all the way... we only differ over the 'application' of 'faith' at the 'choosing' stage. I'm not trying to convince you my conception here is better than yours - let's get that clear straight away - just as I assume you pay the same courtesy.

All I am trying to do is elucidate my idea - that belief isn't something that follows both choices 'as such'. I don't consider disbelief to be quite equivalent to what the word could be ARGUED to mean... 'dis belief' could mean "believing that a thing is not so", but I consider it closer to "NOT believing that a thing is so".

So, in my lexicon: the christian (or whatever flavour of religious person) believes in god (they believe that god is so), whereas the atheist disbelieves god (they don't believe that god is so).

In my image, the agnostic is stood off to one side, hands raised, shaking his head a little, and muttering... "god, you say? I know the word, but WHAT does it MEAN?"

1) Thank you for the:
Quote:
"Well put,.. again,.. as usual."


2) Your "simple sentences" are, as usual, perfectly understandable... although I have occassionaly had to grapple to gain grip on some of your concepts...
3) I didn't realise people DID have "baited" breath... I found that enlightening, and somewhat scary.
4) Reiterating for the umpteenth time is par for the course around here... and is often accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Gnashing of teeth started to give me BAD headaches, so I stopped doing it.

I felt MUCH better..! :)

The meaning of words, as usual, is the crux. And nobody is the final arbiter of meaning. (D'UH..!)

So:

You: Not believing it (your preference) :not equals: Believing not it

Me: Not believing it :not equals: Believing not it (my preference)


By Jove, I think we've got it..!
Yes,.. yes,.. I think we've got it..! :)


And you are owed much more praise than I could possibly (or non-embarrassedly) give you for having the wisdom to not degenerate into the "I know you are but what am I...!?" syndrome that I see so much on these forums.

Every now and then you run into a wise person, with THEIR OWN opinions, who can actually speak coherently,... but it happens all too infrequently.

So listen up, and take that a lesson, all you kids out there..! <directed at the non-Grave folks out there..!>

Semantics again: :-) "Disbelief" is what happens when someone hears something that conflicts with their own beliefs. The little voice inside says, "No, that can't be right." If it is a person's belief is that there is no God and they hear someone say, "Hey, there is a God," then disbelief kicks in.

Hmmm. Thought provoking.

But, then.... what about the instance where you have no prior impression?

The person who has never encountered the 'concept' of religion. (Such a person may possibly exist... somewhere....).

This person has no preconception about religion.

Then, one day, someone says "God is good, God is great, Come and pray".

Our little 'innocent' has his first brush with religion... he has heard of the name 'god' but has no idea what it means.

He is then told by the same fellow "God created the world in seven days". He looks around himself, sees that the world is a pretty big place, and starts tugging at his lip, but keeps listening....

He is then told "God created a man from the clay, and a woman from the man". He thinks about what he knows about where men and women come from, and decides that this is too much...

He thinks to himself... "I don't believe that this story is true, I think this god fellow is a fiction".

This isn't disbelief being 'activated' due to the agreement of his inner monologue with his secret disbelief agenda... more like 'disbelief' is the default setting, and, in this instance, the switch wasn't 'flipped'.

My opinion.

Athiesm and Death vs. Religion and death

Logic vs. Faith

It's seen so many times that it almost becomes boring. Debate is pointless since both sides are intransigent. Now either the heathens are going to rot in a stinking hell-pit for all eternity, or we're going to die and rot. Part of the reason why religion is so popular is because of the fear of eternal damnation. It's like political mudslinging. Either way, it doesn't matter. No one's going to convert just because your arguement is convincing, and if they do.. They probably didn't believe their own arguement in the first place.


Excellent..! :)

Beautifully put..!

I especially liked your comparing religion to political theater.

That is a VERY apt description of "institutionalized" religion....

..but it's not a good description of MY (personal) religion.

And, of course, you're dead-on that "if people DO change they didn't really believe what they thought they believed in the first place".

Most excellent.

i no that no one wil go this far bac in thi thread to red this but i justwant to say that y be an athiest atleast if ur a thiest then u can get life after death but all athest get nothing for not doing one thing
i hope all the athists die :) :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Gnashing of teeth started to give me BAD headaches, so I stopped doing it.

I felt MUCH better..! :)

The meaning of words, as usual, is the crux. And nobody is th final arbiter of meaning. (D'UH..!)

So:

You: Not believing it (your preference) :not equals: Believing not it

Me: Not believing it :not equals: Believing not it (my preference)


By Jove, I think we've got it..!
Yes,.. yes,.. I think we've got it..! :)


And you are owed much more praise than I could possibly (or non-embarrassedly) give you for having the wisdom to not degenerate into the "I know you are but what am I...!?" syndrome that I see so much on these forums.

Every now and then you run into a wise person, with THEIR OWN opinions, who can actually speak coherently,... but it happens all too infrequently.

So listen up, and take that a lesson, all you kids out there..! <directed at the non-Grave folks out there..!>


Why, thank you.

Not much more to be said to that!

Seriously. I have been thoroughly enjoying my debate on this topic (which, I note, has rocketed WAY over the thousand posts mark!), and I owe much of this to Willamena and yourself (among a select few), who have inspired me to consider other aspects of the issue, and to search further inside MY OWN concepts.

As I said before, I consider this a learning experience, and that's why I do it.

You: Not believing it (your preference) :not equals: Believing not it

Me: Not believing it :not equals: Believing not it (my preference)

I love this. This is the essence of logic as symbols.

And the crux of OUR debate (between us few at least)... since, it seems, the main difference between us seems to be that our symbols are different colours, but still the same basic shapes. :)

Thanks again.

And the epitaph shall read: "yes,.. I think we've got it..! :)"

i no that no one wil go this far bac in thi thread to red this but i justwant to say that y be an athiest atleast if ur a thiest then u can get life after death but all athest get nothing for not doing one thing
i hope all the athists die :) :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

I'm sorry? Give me a minute, I have to work out what this SAYS before I can work out how to reply....

um.... next time, can you get a grown-up to help you with the tricky parts.... like the words?

oh, by the way: "i hope all the athists die"

I'm sure they will. Everyone does.

I'm sorry but you can't really generalise about atheists, just like you can't generalise about any group of people. It's like asking 'how do Christians feel about death' - there is no answer, because everyone feels differently. Even within the context of one person, it's difficult to make generalisations - people's feelings and perceptions change all the time, depending on thier mood, the situation they are in (for example, someone with a gun pointed at them would be likely to be a lot more afraid of dying than they usually are, even if they don't really fear death), etc. Also, disbelief in God doesn't neccessarily entail disbelief in an afterlife. Buddhists are very often either atheistic or agnostic, yet a belief in reincarnation is central to Buddhism.

I don't know. A lot of what she did was, I think, capable of being described as "crying wolf". Her 'manifestations' of letters from the 'masters', while maybe harmless trickery, seem designed to gull witnesses into believing she was 'more than she appeared'... in as much as they were designed to show that she had some degree of supernatural power.

It is apparently true that she was much travelled, but that isn't the same thing as having communion with astrally projected mystics (which she also claimed). As I say - I have respect for her and what she did, what she acheived... but I don't necessarily regard her testimony as unbiased.

I guess it all comes down (for me) to one question:

Why would she lie about witnessing levitation?

And (for me) there are several reasons... to fit in with her established personality as a recipient of esoteric knowledge, to further her claims about the 'reality' of the world as she portrayed it, to rail against a system that decried it. Add to this, the fact that she was already established as a 'spiritist' fraud...

I'm not saying she WAS a fraud. I'm not saying that she didn't TRULY witness such events. I'm just saying she doesn't make an unassailable witness.
She undoubtedly was a fraud at some things, and a very good one at that (just trusted the servants a bit too much to keep quiet). I just have no reason to think that "establishing credibility" was important to her in this letter, from what I read. I don't think this testamony does anything to further her claims --just the opposite, as she is already, in the letter, which is in reply to another, having to take the defensive against critique.

Hmmm. Thought provoking.

But, then.... what about the instance where you have no prior impression?

The person who has never encountered the 'concept' of religion. (Such a person may possibly exist... somewhere....).

This person has no preconception about religion.

Then, one day, someone says "God is good, God is great, Come and pray".

Our little 'innocent' has his first brush with religion... he has heard of the name 'god' but has no idea what it means.

He is then told by the same fellow "God created the world in seven days". He looks around himself, sees that the world is a pretty big place, and starts tugging at his lip, but keeps listening....

He is then told "God created a man from the clay, and a woman from the man". He thinks about what he knows about where men and women come from, and decides that this is too much...

He thinks to himself... "I don't believe that this story is true, I think this god fellow is a fiction".

This isn't disbelief being 'activated' due to the agreement of his inner monologue with his secret disbelief agenda... more like 'disbelief' is the default setting, and, in this instance, the switch wasn't 'flipped'.

My opinion.
There is always a prior impression. For instance, the 5 year old child who has never had any exposure to religion is encountered with the statement, "There is a God." "What is God?" the child asks, to get an impression. She is told God is invisible, up in the sky looking down on her, etc. She has prior impressions about THESE things, even if she doesn't have a prior impression about God himself. Disbelief kicks in.

I am a Practicing Athiest,
I believe that organised religion is fundamentally wrong! Is a form of dictatorial mind control developed over thousands of years by individuals and groups of individuals who have the inate ability to influence and manipulate weaker or more vulnerable individuals.
A "Practicing Athiest" (because someone out there ws about to ask) is exactly that. A lot of athiests - you know who you are - are willing to go through life under the umbarella term of "Athiest" as a means to simply not think about or challenge religion or there own believe. An that is fine, academic and psychological consideration of religion and believe is not for everyone. I however belong to a group of academics who actively believe that religion is wrong and are dedicated to "debunking" religions (Please excuse me as this is a very simplyfied explaination).
the best way to "de-bunk" anything is to know as much about it as possible.
Read the bible.
Read the Koran
Speak with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Rastapharians, Buddists, Humanists hey even Golfers - learn from them!
I congratulate the individual who possed this thread for his inquisitive nature.

Oh and as a practicing athiest, I am as scared of dying as anyone else but I am more scared of dying painfully. Or just of pain in general really. but there is nothing after death.
NOTHING!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Semantics again: :-) "Disbelief" is what happens when someone hears something that conflicts with their own beliefs. The little voice inside says, "No, that can't be right." If it is a person's belief is that there is no God and they hear someone say, "Hey, there is a God," then disbelief kicks in.



Hmmm. Thought provoking.

But, then.... what about the instance where you have no prior impression?

The person who has never encountered the 'concept' of religion. (Such a person may possibly exist... somewhere....).

This person has no preconception about religion.

Then, one day, someone says "God is good, God is great, Come and pray".

Our little 'innocent' has his first brush with religion... he has heard of the name 'god' but has no idea what it means.

He is then told by the same fellow "God created the world in seven days". He looks around himself, sees that the world is a pretty big place, and starts tugging at his lip, but keeps listening....

He is then told "God created a man from the clay, and a woman from the man". He thinks about what he knows about where men and women come from, and decides that this is too much...

He thinks to himself... "I don't believe that this story is true, I think this god fellow is a fiction".

This isn't disbelief being 'activated' due to the agreement of his inner monologue with his secret disbelief agenda... more like 'disbelief' is the default setting, and, in this instance, the switch wasn't 'flipped'.

My opinion.

.."The person who has never encountered the 'concept' of religion."..

Just take my people (bear with me!)...

Young Iako, 5 years old, who appears AMAZINGLY like a 23 year old, has heard various stories from his mom and Aunties...

..but he's not really into interpreting them, as yet.

This day, that wacky missionary, Father Cruxfetterson, lands on the beach.

The Father, in full Cruxfetterist fervor, rushes to "convert" the kid.

"Pray with me, my son, and be 'SAVED'..!" blurts the good Father, as he kneels near the kid and starts semi-audibly praying.

"Hmmm,... this guy is not my papa,.. and saved for what..!?" considers Iako.

"How come you think you' my papa,.. and what you mumbling about..?" speaks Iako.

"That's not important now, my son, just know that I'm here to save you from wickedness" whispers the good Father, as if somebody he doesn't want to hear him might hear him.

Iako looks around, sees no actual danger, and relents by kneeling like the old guy and mumbling pure gibberish.

"What are you saying, my son..?" asks our would be savior of small mumbling children.

"I'm 'praying' like you.." says the kid.

"Well stop that..! You're being silly..!" admonishes the strict Kristofetterist.

"I'm just being silly like you... What's this 'praying' supposed to DO, anyway..?" inquires the insolent little probable-bastard-son-of-a-heathen.

"That's WAY too complicated to explain now, my son..."

Iako jumped to his feet, "Why you think you' my papa..!" said Iako indignantly, hands on hips, 5 year old scowl on his face.

"These people are infantile..!" thought the good Father.

"Do your people know NOTHING of religion..!?" the vastly superior mind of the kneeling foreigner conjured and emitted through his mouth as words.

"The stories, or the 'woo-woo'...?" spoke Iako, quite matter of factly.

This took the Father aback. "WHAT is he talking about..!" he asked of his god.

The odd expression on the foreign guy's face was an answer, and a question, which Iako decided to answer.

He jumped at the foreigner, firmly grasped his throat, and slowly throttled him.

"You' make a nice shade of purple..." said Iako at the Father's "new look".

Father Cruxfetterson's vision blurred,.. then darkened,.. then the "dream" started.

"OK,.. you' there now,.. time to breathe" said Iako, releasing his grip after strangling the good Father into unconsciousness.



"So,... what you do today at 'da beach..!" enquired Iako's mom during eating time.

"Ahhhh,.. just teaching some foreign guy about religion. He seemed a bit confused."

Atheism is just a religion for people with no ability to trust or even feel beyond their fingers. Atheism is stupid and pointless and is NOT a religion.
Okay I have a problem with this because it is not focused on the original question. The question was what athesists views on death were. It did NOT question if it was a valid religion, it doesn't even say it is a religion. Besides, it is unfair to those who happen to be atheist. If you are wondering I am not one of them. So please reconsider before you jump at a person's beliefs again, because I'm sure you wouldn't want it to happen to you.
For the original question, I don't think it would be much different than what other people believe happens when they die, but it would depend on the peticular person. Of course, this is just a guess. I can't say for sure since I'm not athesist. :)

I however belong to a group of academics who actively believe that religion is wrong and are dedicated to "debunking" religions (Please excuse me as this is a very simplyfied explaination).
the best way to "de-bunk" anything is to know as much about it as possible.
Read the bible.
Read the Koran
Speak with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Rastapharians, Buddists, Humanists hey even Golfers - learn from them!

...then study mythology and learn why all this active protest against religion is really unnecessary.

Practicing Athiest

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Practicing Athiest,
I believe that organised religion is fundamentally wrong! Is a form of dictatorial mind control developed over thousands of years by individuals and groups of individuals who have the inate ability to influence and manipulate weaker or more vulnerable individuals.
A "Practicing Athiest" (because someone out there ws about to ask) is exactly that. A lot of athiests - you know who you are - are willing to go through life under the umbarella term of "Athiest" as a means to simply not think about or challenge religion or there own believe. An that is fine, academic and psychological consideration of religion and believe is not for everyone. I however belong to a group of academics who actively believe that religion is wrong and are dedicated to "debunking" religions (Please excuse me as this is a very simplyfied explaination).
the best way to "de-bunk" anything is to know as much about it as possible.
Read the bible.
Read the Koran
Speak with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Rastapharians, Buddists, Humanists hey even Golfers - learn from them!
I congratulate the individual who possed this thread for his inquisitive nature.

Oh and as a practicing athiest, I am as scared of dying as anyone else but I am more scared of dying painfully. Or just of pain in general really. but there is nothing after death.
NOTHING!

I have a difficult time believing you, considering your spelling and language structure.

But that's just me. :)

Please define what you mean by "religion", as you seem to be talking about "institutionalized religion" as opposed to any other variety of it.

You sound very much like a "mad utopian scientist" from the early 20th century who had formed the "Rationalist League" to cure all societal ills by "SCIENCE".

:D

Pardon my skeptisicm and sarcasm, but I rather thought that Dr. Zarkhov was WAY too old to be anywhere but that cool "Recreation and Retirement Community" on Nova-Mongo Prime...!

...though,.. perhaps,... they're wired to the internet at this point..!

Except for the inherant case insensitivity you didn't account for (i.e. first letter)...
You have out-geeked me. Congratulations.

000000100000001000000100000001000000100000001000100100000101000000100000
001110000110110011000110110001100000110000011000000000000001100000011000)
And E B Guvegrra wins, taking home the grand prize of $0.00!

*) Once faced with a "thing" to believe or not, a choice MUST be made.
*) At that point, you either believe it (love it) or not.
Statement: Willamena has black hair. Do you believe this or not?

The "faithful" don't actively "wait around with bated breath (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai1.htm)". They simply have an expectation that their object of faith will eventually "show up" somehow.
Nothingness cannot "show up". Or it "shows up" continuously, depending on your definition of "show up". But it is nonsense for wait for the appearance of "non-God", because God is always not-here in the same way.

i no that no one wil go this far bac in thi thread to red this but i justwant to say that y be an athiest atleast if ur a thiest then u can get life after death but all athest get nothing for not doing one thing
i hope all the athists die :) :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:
Sure I'll die. In another sixty or so years, I figure. That fast enough for you?

Oh, and learn how to spell.

.."The person who has never encountered the 'concept' of religion."..

Just take my people (bear with me!)...

Young Iako, 5 years old, who appears AMAZINGLY like a 23 year old, has heard various stories from his mom and Aunties...

..but he's not really into interpreting them, as yet.

This day, that wacky missionary, Father Cruxfetterson, lands on the beach.

The Father, in full Cruxfetterist fervor, rushes to "convert" the kid.

"Pray with me, my son, and be 'SAVED'..!" blurts the good Father, as he kneels near the kid and starts semi-audibly praying.

"Hmmm,... this guy is not my papa,.. and saved for what..!?" considers Iako.

"How come you think you' my papa,.. and what you mumbling about..?" speaks Iako.

"That's not important now, my son, just know that I'm here to save you from wickedness" whispers the good Father, as if somebody he doesn't want to hear him might hear him.

Iako looks around, sees no actual danger, and relents by kneeling like the old guy and mumbling pure gibberish.

"What are you saying, my son..?" asks our would be savior of small mumbling children.

"I'm 'praying' like you.." says the kid.

"Well stop that..! You're being silly..!" admonishes the strict Kristofetterist.

"I'm just being silly like you... What's this 'praying' supposed to DO, anyway..?" inquires the insolent little probable-bastard-son-of-a-heathen.

"That's WAY too complicated to explain now, my son..."

Iako jumped to his feet, "Why you think you' my papa..!" said Iako indignantly, hands on hips, 5 year old scowl on his face.

"These people are infantile..!" thought the good Father.

"Do your people know NOTHING of religion..!?" the vastly superior mind of the kneeling foreigner conjured and emitted through his mouth as words.

"The stories, or the 'woo-woo'...?" spoke Iako, quite matter of factly.

This took the Father aback. "WHAT is he talking about..!" he asked of his god.

The odd expression on the foreign guy's face was an answer, and a question, which Iako decided to answer.

He jumped at the foreigner, firmly grasped his throat, and slowly throttled him.

"You' make a nice shade of purple..." said Iako at the Father's "new look".

Father Cruxfetterson's vision blurred,.. then darkened,.. then the "dream" started.

"OK,.. you' there now,.. time to breathe" said Iako, releasing his grip after strangling the good Father into unconsciousness.



"So,... what you do today at 'da beach..!" enquired Iako's mom during eating time.

"Ahhhh,.. just teaching some foreign guy about religion. He seemed a bit confused."

Aaah, yes "The Parable of the Strangled Cruxfetterist"... I know it well.

Strangely unpopular among the 'men of the cloth', that one....

:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
*) Once faced with a "thing" to believe or not, a choice MUST be made.
*) At that point, you either believe it (love it) or not.

Statement: Willamena has black hair. Do you believe this or not?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The "faithful" don't actively "wait around with bated breath". They simply have an expectation that their object of faith will eventually "show up" somehow.

Nothingness cannot "show up". Or it "shows up" continuously, depending on your definition of "show up". But it is nonsense for wait for the appearance of "non-God", because God is always not-here in the same way.

.."Statement: Willamena has black hair. Do you believe this or not?"..

EXCELLENT..!! :D

I believe there is a Willamena,.. even if Willamena is nothing more than myself under a different name, or a scarily programmed computer.

Willamena is only an entity (to me) in the realm of "this discussion area", not in the area of "hair color".

Hair color does not exist in this realm.

Your question is exactly like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

It is utterly irrelevant.

.."Nothingness cannot "show up". Or it "shows up" continuously, depending on your definition of "show up". But it is nonsense for wait for the appearance of "non-God", because God is always not-here in the same way."..

Yes...! Precisely..! God IS always not-there/there in the same way.

And that's what we (believer and disbeliever both) expect..!


(( Pretty cool dodges there,.. eh gang..!? :) ))

Statement: Willamena has black hair. Do you believe this or not?

I do not know Willamena, therefore she may not even exist.
Your statement is not sufficient enough evidence to convince me of the existence of Willamena.

;)

I do not know Willamena, therefore she may not even exist.
Your statement is not sufficient enough evidence to convince me of the existence of Willamena.

;)
Here I am! *waves*

i no that no one wil go this far bac in thi thread to red this but i justwant to say that y be an athiest atleast if ur a thiest then u can get life after death

Not really. Some theists consider that people who do not believe will simply cease to exist after death. Other theistic systems (some polytheistic) hold that the afterlife is not eternal - with humans being simply materialistic mechanisms created by higher beings (gods or spirits, etc).


but all athest get nothing for not doing one thing

Not really. There could be a creator that might grant all humans eternal life or some form of afterlife regardless of our beliefs (since we are so limited and lowly in comparison to the creator(s) or creation). Then again, there might not be such a thing. But you are wrong on both counts.

i hope all the athists die :) :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Genocide? Way to go, showing your superior moral beliefs. But I realize you are a bad apple (and not too smart either) and I will let it slide.

i no that no one wil go this far bac in thi thread to red this but i justwant to say that y be an athiest atleast if ur a thiest then u can get life after death but all athest get nothing for not doing one thing
i hope all the athists die :) :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

*sniff sniff* I smell puppet account.

Anyway, here's my only response to you:

http://www.forbesbookclub.com/bookimages/ingram/076/455/0764553224.gif

If religious people just believe or "have faith" with no proof, how do they know what to believe in? Why shouldn't I believe I have an invisible friend called Walter? It strikes me that the world is complicated enough without making stuff up that you have no evidence of.

If religious people just believe or "have faith" with no proof, how do they know what to believe in? Why shouldn't I believe I have an invisible friend called Walter? It strikes me that the world is complicated enough without making stuff up that you have no evidence of.

The fact that they have no external proof is no reason to assume they're making it up.

Okay fair enough. I guess what I am asking is, if they don't have external proof, what gives them the internal belief? Where does it come from? My guess would be indoctrination but obviously a religious person would disagree. What would they say?

Well, according to Jesus they can. All they need is a kernel, a poppyseed, of faith. The power is yours (as Captain Planet used to say).

Its not yours its Gods, your just a vessel for it.

Are they Christian?

No, Hindus.

Okay fair enough. I guess what I am asking is, if they don't have external proof, what gives them the internal belief? Where does it come from? My guess would be indoctrination but obviously a religious person would disagree. What would they say?

As a fairly liberal religious person, I would respectfully disagree. I have reasons for believing the way I do. Personally, I have proof of my own. It's just not proof to other people. I've had holy water burn an atheist roommate of mine once, as an example. I'm going to assume that about 99% of the atheists on this forum are going to think I'm lying. I don't blame them. Still, I don't require proof because religion isn't something that needs to be proved. It's not a science. As an astronomer, I disrespect science a great deal when it works without proof. Our current views of dark matter and pluto come to mind, but I'm ranting now.

My only point is this: religions don't require proof or institutions or indoctrination. Shamans are individuals. Historically, they were loners and misunderstood members of the community. Hunters very often viewed them as little more than madmen. These shamans chose their life of relative hardship because they saw something others did not. To quote Frank Herbert's Dune,
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see and cannot hear another world all around us?"

Okay fair enough. I guess what I am asking is, if they don't have external proof, what gives them the internal belief? Where does it come from? My guess would be indoctrination but obviously a religious person would disagree. What would they say?
Feeling god.

Its not yours its Gods, your just a vessel for it.
Not mine, no. I agree. Yours.

Not mine, no. I agree. Yours.

nevermind.

So why would god show himself to some and not others? If god exisits why would he damn me by not allowing me to feel his existence? I'm a nice guy. I try to treat others as I would like to be treated.

So why would god show himself to some and not others? If god exisits why would he damn me by not allowing me to feel his existence? I'm a nice guy. I try to treat others as I would like to be treated.
Because "he" is us. You.

Because "he" is us. You.

Okay, I'm going to need more than that. What do you mean?

So why would god show himself to some and not others? If god exisits why would he damn me by not allowing me to feel his existence? I'm a nice guy. I try to treat others as I would like to be treated.

I basically view that problem along with the whole "what's with all the suffering?" thing.

Everyone's life is different. Deal with it. If you don't get a religious experience, you're either at fault somehow or you were never meant to have one. It doesn't make you a bad person. It's one of the millions of details that makes you "you".

So why would god show himself to some and not others? If god exisits why would he damn me by not allowing me to feel his existence? I'm a nice guy. I try to treat others as I would like to be treated.
Okay, I'm going to need more than that. What do you mean?
Why would god show himself to some and not others? Because some want/need to see him and others don't. If god exists, why would he damn you by not allowng you to feel his existence? Because you don't allow it. God doesn't disallow things --you do. The power is yours. God gives you this power. (Hint: god is a part of you)

This just in:

5 out of 5 athiests who have actually died had no comment when they were questioned about the event.

:D

I basically view that problem along with the whole "what's with all the suffering?" thing.

Everyone's life is different. Deal with it. If you don't get a religious experience, you're either at fault somehow or you were never meant to have one. It doesn't make you a bad person. It's one of the millions of details that makes you "you".

You know, I am dealing with it. I am an Athiest and really I can't spend my life worrying about what other people believe. I try to be a good man and if I get evidence to the contrary I will be happy to re-evaluate. But really, the people who's opinions I trust the most in my life have all come to the same conclusion as me.

Actually I can't let that "At fault" bit slide. How the hell am I supposed to know what the rules are. Muslims say one thing Christians say another, Jews another, Hindus another. It's like pick a card, any card.

You know, I am dealing with it. I am an Athiest and really I can't spend my life worrying about what other people believe. I try to be a good man and if I get evidence to the contrary I will be happy to re-evaluate. But really, the people who's opinions I trust the most in my life have all come to the same conclusion as me.
That's a very healthy attitude, and it's good you have advisors you trust.

Actually I can't let that "At fault" bit slide. How the hell am I supposed to know what the rules are. Muslims say one thing Christians say another, Jews another, Hindus another. It's like pick a card, any card.
You can learn the rules by reading. Not necessarily about the Bible; I highly recommend books about mythology.

Actually I can't let that "At fault" bit slide. How the hell am I supposed to know what the rules are. Muslims say one thing Christians say another, Jews another, Hindus another. It's like pick a card, any card.

Actually, I agree. Sorry if my message was a bit hazy. I don't believe that any religion is the "right one". The "at fault" bit was poor wording. I meant something closer to this: if you haven't experienced the spiritual world in any way, maybe you're not being open enough to it. It's possible. If you've tried as hard as you can, and nothing works, then don't worry about it and accept it as your proper path. I doubt any God (mine or otherwise) would blame you for trying. Sorry if I sounded a bit eliteist back there.

Cheers dudes. Nice chatting to you all. Better get back to work. :)

atheists don't die..

atheists don't die..
You're thinking of vampires.

You're thinking of vampires.
:sniper:

:sniper:

bullets don't kill vampires.

Are they Christian?No, Hindus.Exactly my point. So according to you, they can levitate without having faith in Christ. Meaning that whatever allows them to levitate is something else and Jesus has nothing to do with it.

EXCELLENT..!! :D

I believe there is a Willamena,.. even if Willamena is nothing more than myself under a different name, or a scarily programmed computer.
Well, that's a start. In fact, I have the same belief as you on this matter. Maybe we should start a church or something.

Willamena is only an entity (to me) in the realm of "this discussion area", not in the area of "hair color".

Hair color does not exist in this realm.

Your question is exactly like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

It is utterly irrelevant.
I have never seen anything that would require a deity to exist. The question of whether there exists a God who has chosen not to affect the world in any way so far, is utterly irrelevant to same world.

Yes...! Precisely..! God IS always not-there/there in the same way.

And that's what we (believer and disbeliever both) expect..!
Believers (of Christianity at least) expect that although God isn't really doing much now, he will do something very visible in the future, and they await this event which will finally prove them right. Non-believers claim that God is always not-doing in the same way. There will never be any time at which God not-does any more than he not-does now. We aren't waiting for anything, because nothing will ever happen.

Exactly my point. So according to you, they can levitate without having faith in Christ. Meaning that whatever allows them to levitate is something else and Jesus has nothing to do with it.

Its faith that allows them to levitate if they can.

Its faith that allows them to levitate if they can.
but faith in WHAT? if i have faith in the Invincible Pink Unicorn, will i be able to levitate just as well as a Christ believer? and, if so, why should anybody believe in any particular religion, rather than simply making up their own?

Its faith that allows them to levitate if they can.
Even if the faith is not in Christ?

So if that is the case, then how is faith in Christ better than any other faith?

atheists don't die..

They do, their dead already.

but faith in WHAT? if i have faith in the Invincible Pink Unicorn, will i be able to levitate just as well as a Christ believer? and, if so, why should anybody believe in any particular religion, rather than simply making up their own?

Its generally accepted that there is a higher power, and if you can be at one with it great things can happen, as for the invisible pink unicorn, its not real sorry, so it wouldnt work.

Its generally accepted that there is a higher power, and if you can be at one with it great things can happen, as for the invisible pink unicorn, its not real sorry, so it wouldnt work.
how do you know the Pink Unicorn isn't real? there is as much evidence for its existence as for your version of God. how do you know that all the "God" you experience isn't the Pink Unicorn? because a bunch of people say so? haven't we learned anything from the Dark Ages? just because a bunch of people believe something doesn't make it any more true, kiddo.

Even if the faith is not in Christ?
So if that is the case, then how is faith in Christ better than any other faith?

For me its what I grew up with and accepted and eventually recognised as being nothing but the absolute truth.
If I had been born in India I'd probably be a devout Hindu, or In Arabia, a Muslim, the point is, regardless, Id still be a strong believer in faith.

Its generally accepted that there is a higher power, and if you can be at one with it great things can happen, as for the invisible pink unicorn, its not real sorry, so it wouldnt work.
Invincible is something else than invisible. It's obviously nonsense for something to be both invisible and pink at the same time.

With that technicality out of the way, please answer the following questions for me, okay?

1. Does Jesus Christ exist?
2. Do the Hindu gods exist?
3. Does the Invincible Pink Unicorn exist?
4. Does supernatural power not directly related to a divine intelligence exist?
5. Can faith in Jesus Christ allow one to levitate?
6. Can faith in the Hindu gods allow one to levitate?
7. Can faith in the Invincible Pink Unicorn allow one to levitate?
8. Can faith in personal power not directly related to a divine intelligence allow one to levitate?

Try to keep your answers consistent. Thank you.

Invisible pink unicorn is freakin awesome. He would whoop Jesus Crist any day.

For me its what I grew up with and accepted and eventually recognised as being nothing but the absolute truth.
If I had been born in India I'd probably be a devout Hindu, or In Arabia, a Muslim, the point is, regardless, Id still be a strong believer in faith.
So if you were born to parent who preached the teachings of the Invincible Pink Unicorn (hey it can happen), would you then believe in said creature?

You see this glowing thing I'm doing right now... yeah, most people can't do that.

how do you know the Pink Unicorn isn't real? there is as much evidence for its existence as for your version of God. how do you know that all the "God" you experience isn't the Pink Unicorn? because a bunch of people say so? haven't we learned anything from the Dark Ages? just because a bunch of people believe something doesn't make it any more true, kiddo.

Well if I die and see a pink unicorn standing before me I'll still call him Jesus, anyway, you work that one out junior.

Jesus Christ levitates the Wang.

You see this glowing thing I'm doing right now... yeah, most people can't do that.
That's from you growing up under high voltage power lines, not faith.

So if you were born to parent who preached the teachings of the Invincible Pink Unicorn (hey it can happen), would you then believe in said creature?

No.

No.
Then why believe in something just as absurd? What proof do you have that a God exists, (Or, for that matter, that an invincible pink unicorn doesn't?), besides the words of OTHER MEN. The bible was written by men.

No.
But you WOULD believe in what your parents preached for any other religion, whether Christianity or Hinduism or Islam. So, what is the difference? And would you realize this difference had you been born to unicorn-worshipping parents?

And if you WOULDN'T follow your parents' beliefs in this case, then what do you think would you believe in lieu of Pink Unicornism?

Bible is part of a conspiracy to control man by a group of few men.

Is it just me or does it look like Rotar is just spamming and adding nothing useful to the discussion?

Some Hindu god may look just as fantasy looking as Blue Eyes Pink Unicorn.
Yest you fail to realize the greatness of Blue Eyes Pink Unicorn. You're such a moron.

The Bible was written by men, but that doesnt mean its something that was purposely intended as a conspiracy to control mens lives.
Love one another... OMG what a horrible conspiracy!

As for the pink unicorn being ridiculous like Jesus Christ as somone put it, all you have done is given it a name, a stupid name, you havent mentioned any of its mystical and holy equine teachings, so how can Jesus be as ridiculous?

So you would base your beliefs on looks? Because why is Blue Eyes Pink Unicorn so hard to believe?

You know what is funny, the Bible says long hair for men is a sin or somehting like that. Look at Jesus.

I saw it on a show, where they argue why the Bible is bullshit. The show was called Bullshit too. It airs on HBO I think.

I saw it on a show, where they argue why the Bible is bullshit. The show was called Bullshit too. It airs on HBO I think.

Christbashers, if they were arguing that Islam was bullcrap, not that they would have the guts too, they would be called bigots.

No, they would be AWESOME AS HELL!!!

As for the pink unicorn being ridiculous like Jesus Christ as somone put it, all you have done is given it a name, a stupid name, you havent mentioned any of its mystical and holy equine teachings, so how can Jesus be as ridiculous?

Jesus Christ is a stupid ass name. That's why everyone with the name today gets their ass kicked around.

In 1000 years, science will kill religion.

Well if I die and see a pink unicorn standing before me I'll still call him Jesus, anyway, you work that one out junior.
not hard to work that out...you've decided you want to believe in Jesus, and lack either the emotional stability, intelligent, or honesty to examine that belief. working you out is roughly as difficult as working out the color of my own t-shirt (green). doesn't it ever bother you that you are so dull?

not hard to work that out...you've decided you want to believe in Jesus, and lack either the emotional stability, intelligent, or honesty to examine that belief. working you out is roughly as difficult as working out the color of my own t-shirt (green). doesn't it ever bother you that you are so dull?
How do you know? How can you make that claim about a complete stranger on an anonymous Internet forum? How do you know what has been examined and what not? I dare say, flinging insults rather demonstrates lack of emotional stability, intellect or honesty.

I'm an atheist and this is what I feel (please bare with me here)...

There are only two things certain in life, birth and death, everything else is is based around you're actions and/or circumstance. I used to be chronicly depressed, personaly I come to terms with death and to be quite frank, death does not matter to me if there is an "other life" after this one because what every wil be will be.

Personaly I do what I do because I choose to and if anyone thinks thats great, then thats fine. But if they don't then i don't really care because I belive what I'm doing is right... (otherwise I would'nt do it! duh!)

and no I don't belive in a "suprime being" and no i don't worpship the devil before anyone asks ;) Personaly if there was a suprime being I'd think they would be pretty annoyed with the human race right about now because all we are doing is destroying everything we get our grubbly little hands on. (the planet, other animals, each other etc etc)

anyway oh yeah if I were to be "judge" at the end of our lifes what gives him the right to judge me?

anyway thats my thoughts and if that offends then I'm sorry but this is how I feel...

How do you know? How can you make that claim about a complete stranger on an anonymous Internet forum? How do you know what has been examined and what not? I dare say, flinging insults rather demonstrates lack of emotional stability, intellect or honesty.
it's not an insult, just an evaluation. i evaluate people based on what they say and how they express the beliefs they hold, and Terminalia has given me ample opportunity to view those qualities in him. whether or not i see him in person is immaterial, since it is his views and not his physical body that i am evaluating. he has expressed that he would believe in Jesus no matter what evidence was presented, and there are only so many explanations for why a person would insist on believing in something beyond all reason.

edit: also, insulting people doesn't necessarily indicate any of the qualities you describe. emotionally stable people often insult others. very very smart people insult others. honest people often insult others. an insult doesn't have to be stupid or a lie to be an insult, nor does somebody have to be emotionally unstable to make an honest, smart insult. :)

Whoa, man, I just stuck my head into this thread and found a full-scale war - why is it that some atheists see religious people as a personal affront and vice versa?

Knowing the volatility of these religious/ethical/political threads (I group them together because they're all minefields), I'll probably get flamed for this even though I'm not taking sides!

it's not an insult, just an evaluation. i evaluate people based on what they say and how they express the beliefs they hold, and Terminalia has given me ample opportunity to view those qualities in him. whether or not i see him in person is immaterial, since it is his views and not his physical body that i am evaluating. he has expressed that he would believe in Jesus no matter what evidence was presented, and there are only so many explanations for why a person would insist on believing in something beyond all reason.
And you ignore the *stated* reasons for believing in favour of flinging insulting evaluations based on your own limited criteria. Brilliant.

I noticed that Terminalia doesn't seem to have tried answering my short questionnaire, even though it's only eight simple yes/no questions. Maybe it's too hard for him?

1. Does Jesus Christ exist?
2. Do the Hindu gods exist?
3. Does the Invincible Pink Unicorn exist?
4. Does supernatural power not directly related to a divine intelligence exist?
5. Can faith in Jesus Christ allow one to levitate?
6. Can faith in the Hindu gods allow one to levitate?
7. Can faith in the Invincible Pink Unicorn allow one to levitate?
8. Can faith in personal power not directly related to a divine intelligence allow one to levitate?

I noticed that Terminalia doesn't seem to have tried answering my short questionnaire, even though it's only eight simple yes/no questions. Maybe it's too hard for him?
Or maybe he went to bed.

Or maybe he went to bed.
He answered later posts...

This is what I don't understand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If religious people just believe or "have faith" with no proof, how do they know what to believe in? Why shouldn't I believe I have an invisible friend called Walter? It strikes me that the world is complicated enough without making stuff up that you have no evidence of.

DO you have an "imaginary friend" named Walter..?

If you do,.. what function does Walter serve for you..?

If you don't,.. why is the idea of Walter of any importance to you..?

I, personally, HAVE proof, to me, of my gods and my "big absolute thingy" (aka "it is").

They and it serve all sorts of functions for me.

You have yuor beliefs too, which server various functions for you.

Is the fact the today was preceeded by yesterday, REALLY proof that tomorrow will follow today..?

Do you believe in (like the idea of), and have faith (expect) that tomorrow will come..?

:)

You know, what I really, really, REALLY, do not understand, is how people can take a feeling (I feel God in me, I cannot see Him, or prove His excistence, or even point Him out, you need to have faith to believe in Him), and turn that into a religion with a whole bunch of rules to tell people how to live their lives.
If you want to believe in God, fine, believe all you want, but on what basis do you then attempt to tell others how to live?

Okay fair enough. I guess what I am asking is, if they don't have external proof, what gives them the internal belief? Where does it come from? My guess would be indoctrination but obviously a religious person would disagree. What would they say?

Why would "a religious person" disagree that they were indoctrinated..?

Most (all?!) institutionalized religious organizations have standard symbols and "metaphors" that they use to facilitate "internal" communications.

The teaching of these things is "indoctrination".

True belief is "love of" something. (Look up the indoeuropean root of "belief" [leubh-])

Belief requires nothing more than that one "love the idea of" something.

It does not require "proof".

So why would god show himself to some and not others? If god exisits why would he damn me by not allowing me to feel his existence? I'm a nice guy. I try to treat others as I would like to be treated.

I must say,... I REALLY like this Foggy person..! :D

Very VERY nice mind,... so far,.... and inquisitively open to boot..!!

Could it be your (Foggy) conception of "god"..?

To me, god (my "it is") shows in all things at all times.

What do you "expect" to (have faith to) see as "god"..?

Can you think of a reason that you might not see what you would "expect" to see..?

Even if the faith is not in Christ?

So if that is the case, then how is faith in Christ better than any other faith?
Faith is something an individual does when they take an idea into them and own it, they believe it to the extent that they are sure, beyond any doubt, that it is true. "Faith in Christ" is faith in the messages of Jesus and the idea of the Christ who dies to save mankind from sin.

The fakir has faith in his gods, too, i.e. faith in their messages and the meaning of their being.

What is the unicorn's message? What spiritual enlightenment does it bring?

He answered later posts...
Some things just can't wait ...and some things can. :-)

This just in:

5 out of 5 athiests who have actually died had no comment when they were questioned about the event.

:D

Heh he he he he..!!

Excellent..! :D


FLASH: Breaking News..!

500 out of 500 stones STILL refuse to admit existence of Planet Earth..!

The conspiracy widens....

Faith is something an individual does when they take an idea into them and own it, they believe it to the extent that they are sure, beyond any doubt, that it is true. "Faith in Christ" is faith in the messages of Jesus and the idea of the Christ who dies to save mankind from sin.

The fakir has faith in his gods, too, i.e. faith in their messages and the meaning of their being.
Sure, I know YOU can answer. I only wanted to see whether Terminalia also has an answer that is consistent with his professed world view.

What is the unicorn's message? What spiritual enlightenment does it bring?
Well, unicorns are generally associated with innocence and purity. Their horn is often described as having healing powers. The color pink also has some obvious connotations in human minds.

They're also often described as shy and elusive. However, they may show themselves to someone who they like, that is, someone in tune with the aforementioned traits of innocence and purity.

Still, they have a sharp horn and a strong legs, if they decide to use them.

So basically, it's a creature that normally encourages being nice and helping each other, but if it decides that you deserves to die then there's not much you can do about it, and it won't show itself unless it thinks you deserve it. Which is different from any other deity how? :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcadian Mists
I basically view that problem along with the whole "what's with all the suffering?" thing.

Everyone's life is different. Deal with it. If you don't get a religious experience, you're either at fault somehow or you were never meant to have one. It doesn't make you a bad person. It's one of the millions of details that makes you "you".


You know, I am dealing with it. I am an Athiest and really I can't spend my life worrying about what other people believe. I try to be a good man and if I get evidence to the contrary I will be happy to re-evaluate. But really, the people who's opinions I trust the most in my life have all come to the same conclusion as me.

Actually I can't let that "At fault" bit slide. How the hell am I supposed to know what the rules are. Muslims say one thing Christians say another, Jews another, Hindus another. It's like pick a card, any card.

.."I try to be a good man and if I get evidence to the contrary I will be happy to re-evaluate."..

PLEASE don't allow yourself to not "be a good man" through evidence of anything..! That would not be doing anyone any favors.

.."How the hell am I supposed to know what the rules are."..

That's the game, good one..! :)

The young bird learns to avoid it's predators,.. what it's supposed to eat,.. and the like.

The "fault" lies not in our stars, but in our selves.

The "fault" part does not mean you've done something "bad" and must be "punished". It means what you would "expect" may be incompatible with what you would "accept".

(( Damn,... I'm so freakin' profound..! :D And utterly without hubris..!! ))

Well, unicorns are generally associated with innocence and purity. Their horn is often described as having healing powers. The color pink also has some obvious connotations in human minds.

They're also often described as shy and elusive. However, they may show themselves to someone who they like, that is, someone in tune with the aforementioned traits of innocence and purity.

Still, they have a sharp horn and a strong legs, if they decide to use them.

So basically, it's a creature that normally encourages being nice and helping each other, but if it decides that you deserves to die then there's not much you can do about it, and it won't show itself unless it thinks you deserve it. Which is different from any other deity how? :)
Jesus is associated with compassion and self-sacrifice. His hands are often described as having healing powers. He was bold and brash, and showed himself to everyone he met. And he had strong legs, too ...I imagine everyone did in those days.

You're right --there is little difference, here. ;-)

These things describe the object, but the spiritual messages are what make the religion. If the pink unicorn had a message of enlightenment, then it may be appropriate to have faith in the message. Faith in the existence of the object is another matter, and not one the religion is founded upon.

(EDIT: I didn't mean to make Jesus sound like a flasher!)

Quote: Iakeokeo

"What is this thing with "UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS" that folks seem to be so hung up on..?

All things related to religion are, by definition, unsupportable, so demanding support for the unsupportable is just plain silly."

That is an unsupported assertion! That is, you are presenting your opinions as facts. Whilst stating one's opinion is hardly a crime, using opinion as a substitute for fact or rational argument is not conducive to progressive debate.

"Make your statements,.. relpy to what others say,.. but this DEMAND for silly qualifiers to statements is ridiculous.

In other words,... think for yourselves (if you have "book kowledge" on a subject, present it as your own, through the lens of your own mind) and state why you say it.

Is this some weird artifact of "the Church of University Education"..?"

Glad to have fooled you; will be starting university in a couple of weeks time!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
EXCELLENT..!!

I believe there is a Willamena,.. even if Willamena is nothing more than myself under a different name, or a scarily programmed computer.

Well, that's a start. In fact, I have the same belief as you on this matter. Maybe we should start a church or something.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Willamena is only an entity (to me) in the realm of "this discussion area", not in the area of "hair color".

Hair color does not exist in this realm.

Your question is exactly like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

It is utterly irrelevant.

I have never seen anything that would require a deity to exist. The question of whether there exists a God who has chosen not to affect the world in any way so far, is utterly irrelevant to same world.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Yes...! Precisely..! God IS always not-there/there in the same way.

And that's what we (believer and disbeliever both) expect..!

Believers (of Christianity at least) expect that although God isn't really doing much now, he will do something very visible in the future, and they await this event which will finally prove them right. Non-believers claim that God is always not-doing in the same way. There will never be any time at which God not-does any more than he not-does now. We aren't waiting for anything, because nothing will ever happen.

.."I have never seen anything that would require a deity to exist."..

And that's an excellent world that you live in..! :)

My world is slightly different.

.."Believers (of Christianity at least) expect that although God isn't really doing much now, he will do something very visible in the future, and they await this event which will finally prove them right. Non-believers claim that God is always not-doing in the same way."..

That may well be true, of SOME people. In fact it's undoubtedly true..!

But that only reflects on THOSE believers. Not,.. well,.. me, for example.

WHAT one believes (loves) and has faith in (expects) is not the issue.

THAT one believes (loves) and has faith (expects) in <insert-thing-here> is the issue.

And my contention is that belief and faith are inherent in all humans, as it is a simple necessary function of perception and interpretation (consciousness).

The WHAT we seize on is the very essence of "free will".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminalia
Its faith that allows them to levitate if they can.


but faith in WHAT? if i have faith in the Invincible Pink Unicorn, will i be able to levitate just as well as a Christ believer? and, if so, why should anybody believe in any particular religion, rather than simply making up their own?

Faith means "expectation".

The "faith" you folks seem to be using seems to mean "magical ju-ju that allows apparent violation of physical laws".

By your definition, Ziggy und Roy were magnificently "faithful"...!

Why would (NOT "do"..!) you ((YOU PERSONALLY!!)) "believe in a particular religion"..?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminalia
Its generally accepted that there is a higher power, and if you can be at one with it great things can happen, as for the invisible pink unicorn, its not real sorry, so it wouldnt work.

Invincible is something else than invisible. It's obviously nonsense for something to be both invisible and pink at the same time.

With that technicality out of the way, please answer the following questions for me, okay?

1. Does Jesus Christ exist?
2. Do the Hindu gods exist?
3. Does the Invincible Pink Unicorn exist?
4. Does supernatural power not directly related to a divine intelligence exist?
5. Can faith in Jesus Christ allow one to levitate?
6. Can faith in the Hindu gods allow one to levitate?
7. Can faith in the Invincible Pink Unicorn allow one to levitate?
8. Can faith in personal power not directly related to a divine intelligence allow one to levitate?

Try to keep your answers consistent. Thank you.

Good one on the invisible visible thing..! Great work..! :)

My answers to the questionaire:

1. Does Jesus Christ exist?
-------yes
2. Do the Hindu gods exist?
-------yes
3. Does the Invincible Pink Unicorn exist?
-------yes
4. Does supernatural power not directly related to a divine intelligence exist?
-------no (no "supernatural power" can exist)
5. Can faith in Jesus Christ allow one to levitate?
-------no (if "levitate" means what the word usually means)
-------yes (if "levitate" doesn't mean what the word usually means)
6. Can faith in the Hindu gods allow one to levitate?
-------no (if "levitate" means what the word usually means)
-------yes (if "levitate" doesn't mean what the word usually means)
7. Can faith in the Invincible Pink Unicorn allow one to levitate?
-------no (if "levitate" means what the word usually means)
-------yes (if "levitate" doesn't mean what the word usually means)
8. Can faith in personal power not directly related to a divine intelligence allow one to levitate?
-------no (if "levitate" means what the word usually means)
-------yes (if "levitate" doesn't mean what the word usually means)

Now my turn:

1. Can god do anything?
2. Can god violate god's own rules?
3. Is the airspeed velocity of an african swallow greater than it's european cousin?
4. Does the african swallow care about the feelings of it's european cousin?
5. Does god care that I ask these questions?
6. Is the asymptotic reconciliation of questions #1 and #2 the very description OF god?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminalia
For me its what I grew up with and accepted and eventually recognised as being nothing but the absolute truth.
If I had been born in India I'd probably be a devout Hindu, or In Arabia, a Muslim, the point is, regardless, Id still be a strong believer in faith.


So if you were born to parent who preached the teachings of the Invincible Pink Unicorn (hey it can happen), would you then believe in said creature?

It's NOT the WHAT....!

It's NOT the WHAT....!!

It's NOT the WHAT....!!

OK,... now that I've invoked the great god "repetition" to make my point, whom I believe in with the UTMOST faith and fervor by the way,... I can get on with my life.

Thank you for the opportunity to vent. :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminalia
No.

Then why believe in something just as absurd? What proof do you have that a God exists, (Or, for that matter, that an invincible pink unicorn doesn't?), besides the words of OTHER MEN. The bible was written by men.

Why is god absurd to you?

Simply because you didn't invent god?

Simply because you don't like people who are "religious"?

Simply because your expectations have not been met?

Bible is part of a conspiracy to control man by a group of few men.

Everything is a conspiracy to those seeking conspiracy.

I DO love it when someone screams "I hate my PARENTS!" in public. It's so damned funny..! :D

And every "government", from each of us controlling our bowels on up, is a "conspiracy" to control the "mass" by a small subset of "that mass".

Rotar would undoubtedly love to see "Incontinentism" in all realms of human endeavor instituted as the official religion.

(( This, by the way, is my view of Anarchism. ))

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminalia
Well if I die and see a pink unicorn standing before me I'll still call him Jesus, anyway, you work that one out junior.


not hard to work that out...you've decided you want to believe in Jesus, and lack either the emotional stability, intelligent, or honesty to examine that belief. working you out is roughly as difficult as working out the color of my own t-shirt (green). doesn't it ever bother you that you are so dull?

Why is "not" not capitalized?

It's "Intelligence" not "intelligent".

Why is "doesn't" not capitalized?

How do you interpret Terminalia to be "dull"..?

Care to guess what this indicates to me about you..?! :)

You know, what I really, really, REALLY, do not understand, is how people can take a feeling (I feel God in me, I cannot see Him, or prove His excistence, or even point Him out, you need to have faith to believe in Him), and turn that into a religion with a whole bunch of rules to tell people how to live their lives.
If you want to believe in God, fine, believe all you want, but on what basis do you then attempt to tell others how to live?

Some people, and you probably fall into this category, like to share good stuff that they find.

It's as simple as that.

But just like any act of kindness, it seems to NEVER go unpunished... :)

picking apart peoples grammar on the internet is rude. especially when you use it as a tool to debate them. please dont do it.

picking apart peoples grammar on the internet is rude. especially when you use it as a tool to debate them. please dont do it.

I'm not debating them. :)

I'm pointing out that superficial interpretations can just as easily be directed at them, as they do to others.

And where are YOUR freakin' capitals..!?

:D

And where are YOUR freakin' capitals..!?I was making a point... see, I left out the apostrophes up there too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milostein
Well, unicorns are generally associated with innocence and purity. Their horn is often described as having healing powers. The color pink also has some obvious connotations in human minds.

They're also often described as shy and elusive. However, they may show themselves to someone who they like, that is, someone in tune with the aforementioned traits of innocence and purity.

Still, they have a sharp horn and a strong legs, if they decide to use them.

So basically, it's a creature that normally encourages being nice and helping each other, but if it decides that you deserves to die then there's not much you can do about it, and it won't show itself unless it thinks you deserve it. Which is different from any other deity how?


Jesus is associated with compassion and self-sacrifice. His hands are often described as having healing powers. He was bold and brash, and showed himself to everyone he met. And he had strong legs, too ...I imagine everyone did in those days.

You're right --there is little difference, here. ;-)

These things describe the object, but the spiritual messages are what make the religion. If the pink unicorn had a message of enlightenment, then it may be appropriate to have faith in the message. Faith in the existence of the object is another matter, and not one the religion is founded upon.

(EDIT: I didn't mean to make Jesus sound like a flasher!)

Holy catfish...! I'm EXACTLY like Jesus,... except for that knee injury thing, and the healing hands thing... and NOT being a flasher. Though people have told me I give pretty good.................................... massages...

The unicorn is the great virtuous enforcer of virtue. A horse (life itself for a horse-people) (the great "ship" that allowed them to survive at all on the plains) with intelligence beyond any meager human being and possessing a weapon of utter trueness (an organic perfection of puncture ["making a point"] literally rising from the "mind" [head]).

Don't fnuckt with a unicorn..!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And where are YOUR freakin' capitals..!?

I was making a point... see, I left out the apostrophes up there too!

D'oh.........!

Hoist on my own petard..! :)

Touche..!

I love it when that happens,.. more laughing all around..!

Excellent..!


:D

Now my turn:

1. Can god do anything?
2. Can god violate god's own rules?
3. Is the airspeed velocity of an african swallow greater than it's european cousin?
4. Does the african swallow care about the feelings of it's european cousin?
5. Does god care that I ask these questions?
6. Is the asymptotic reconciliation of questions #1 and #2 the very description OF god?

1. God can be. Does that count as a "do"? :-) Mankind works very hard at being, too.
2. I first have to ask myself, does my concept of god make any rules? To which the answer is, No; god is, not does. So is my concept of god the equivalent of rules of any sort? I think so: "Be excellent to each other," being an important one.
3 & 4. Dunno.
5. Caring requires a mind. People have minds. People care. God is. I care that you ask these questions. God is a part of me, inner and outer; inner god cares about you, as much as I do.
6. Well look at that...

D'oh.........!

Hoist on my own petard..! :)

Touche..!

I love it when that happens,.. more laughing all around..!

Excellent..!


:D

I love that phrase, "Hoist by my (your) own petard".

It's lovely, isn't it?

And you so rarely get to use it in conversation....

WHAT one believes (loves) and has faith in (expects) is not the issue.

THAT one believes (loves) and has faith (expects) in <insert-thing-here> is the issue.

And my contention is that belief and faith are inherent in all humans, as it is a simple necessary function of perception and interpretation (consciousness).

The WHAT we seize on is the very essence of "free will".
I love this. I'm going to have it engraved and hang it above my computer desk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
WHAT one believes (loves) and has faith in (expects) is not the issue.

THAT one believes (loves) and has faith (expects) in <insert-thing-here> is the issue.

And my contention is that belief and faith are inherent in all humans, as it is a simple necessary function of perception and interpretation (consciousness).

The WHAT we seize on is the very essence of "free will".

I love this. I'm going to have it engraved and hang it above my computer desk.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh........ shucks..........! :D

See what happens when a simple savage get's ahold of a computer,... and a dictionary,... and a working culture that doesn't punish laughing at the most "profound and sacred" things.

What's always on the other side of the laugh..? On the downward slope away from the punchline...?

Wisdom.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh........ shucks..........! :D

See what happens when a simple savage get's ahold of a computer,... and a dictionary,... and a working culture that doesn't punish laughing at the most "profound and sacred" things.

What's always on the other side of the laugh..? On the downward slope away from the punchline...?

Wisdom.

Tacos?

I hope that when I die I am reincarnated as a butterfly so I could flutter around and poop on people but they wouldn't be mad because I was so pretty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Ahhhhhhhhhhh........ shucks..........!

See what happens when a simple savage get's ahold of a computer,... and a dictionary,... and a working culture that doesn't punish laughing at the most "profound and sacred" things.

What's always on the other side of the laugh..? On the downward slope away from the punchline...?

Wisdom.


Tacos?

HEY...! You got....

The Christopher Columbus Posting
#1492





Who is, coincidentally,... a DEAD guy..!

Who liked tacos (http://www.thepolypost.com/story.php?story=1060). (( Fourth paragraph down,.. see the "intimate" connection!! ))


:D

1. Does Jesus Christ exist?
-------yes
2. Do the Hindu gods exist?
-------yes
3. Does the Invincible Pink Unicorn exist?
-------yes
4. Does supernatural power not directly related to a divine intelligence exist?
-------no (no "supernatural power" can exist)
5. Can faith in Jesus Christ allow one to levitate?
-------no (if "levitate" means what the word usually means)
-------yes (if "levitate" doesn't mean what the word usually means)
6. Can faith in the Hindu gods allow one to levitate?
-------no (if "levitate" means what the word usually means)
-------yes (if "levitate" doesn't mean what the word usually means)
7. Can faith in the Invincible Pink Unicorn allow one to levitate?
-------no (if "levitate" means what the word usually means)
-------yes (if "levitate" doesn't mean what the word usually means)
8. Can faith in personal power not directly related to a divine intelligence allow one to levitate?
-------no (if "levitate" means what the word usually means)
-------yes (if "levitate" doesn't mean what the word usually means)
I wasn't actually asking you, but nice answers. I see the logic of your response - you answered in perfect accord with your previous claims that deities exist as metaphors but not as actual supernatural entities. (And yes, "levitate" here is used in the normal dictionary meaning of defying gravity.)

Now my answers...
1. Can god do anything?Super-natural god: No. Metaphor god: Anything that you do while inspired by that god's myths can be said to have been "done by" that god.
2. Can god violate god's own rules?SNG: He doesn't exist, so he cannot do anything, including violating any rules. For that matter, he is not able to have any rules, either. MG: No, because the moment his vessel violates that god's rules, he is no longer acting in the spirit of same god.
3. Is the airspeed velocity of an african swallow greater than it's european cousin?This information can probably be Googled. I'm too lazy to do it now.
4. Does the african swallow care about the feelings of it's european cousin?No.
5. Does god care that I ask these questions?SNG: No. Because a nonexistant being can't care about anything. MG: Only if you care, and if you care because you were inspired to be inquistive by the myths of the God of Swallows.
6. Is the asymptotic reconciliation of questions #1 and #2 the very description OF god?Huh? Please clarify. A description or definition should not contain any questions that it itself does not anwer.

HEY...! You got....

The Christopher Columbus Posting
#1492

Who is, coincidentally,... a DEAD guy..!

Who liked tacos (http://www.thepolypost.com/story.php?story=1060). (( Fourth paragraph down,.. see the "intimate" connection!! ))

:D


Now THAT is just scary... I mean, what were the chances... it was a reply at 1492, and it mentioned Tacos. Twilight Zone music playing in the background.....

Now my answers...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
1. Can god do anything?

Super-natural god: No. Metaphor god: Anything that you do while inspired by that god's myths can be said to have been "done by" that god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
2. Can god violate god's own rules?

SNG: He doesn't exist, so he cannot do anything, including violating any rules. For that matter, he is not able to have any rules, either. MG: No, because the moment his vessel violates that god's rules, he is no longer acting in the spirit of same god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
3. Is the airspeed velocity of an african swallow greater than it's european cousin?

This information can probably be Googled. I'm too lazy to do it now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
4. Does the african swallow care about the feelings of it's european cousin?

No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
5. Does god care that I ask these questions?

SNG: No. Because a nonexistant being can't care about anything. MG: Only if you care, and if you care because you were inspired to be inquistive by the myths of the God of Swallows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
6. Is the asymptotic reconciliation of questions #1 and #2 the very description OF god?

Huh? Please clarify. A description or definition should not contain any questions that it itself anwers.

.."6. Is the asymptotic reconciliation of questions #1 and #2 the very description OF god?"..

Pretty nifty jargon, eh..!? Oh,... and the answer is yes. :)

Everything I say regarding "god" is "always and only" self-referential, so the "ususal rules" don't apply.

The only way to reconcile a "thing" that could both "do ANYTHING" and "not[do ANYTHING]" is for that "thing" to exist in a "space" where that kind of behavior is allowable.

That space is not our "normal" space.

It's "somewhere else". REALLY somewhere else.

It's not the "thing" that this particular whacked-out koan points at,.. it's the "space".

It is "it is".

Not "it exists". Just "it is". Because. Just because...!





The ultimate bad pun.





Infinity can not be grasped.

Infinity can not be grasped.
Then why do you seem to think you understand it so well?

PS. I editted a rather bad mistake in answer #6 in the exact same second that you posted.

And what do you think of my answers #1&2?

i'm an atheist and when it comes to dieing or however it is spelled, i don't want to die because i am enjoying life but if i did die i wouldn't really care. since i don't believe in an afterlife there would be no way of me knowing that i am dead and i won't be able to be angry or sad or anything. since i will have no senses or anything it is just nothingness and in nothingness i am okay.

Infinity can not be grasped.
What is "grasped"? I have no problem with the concept of infinity and eternity, as in the universe(s). I find it rather comforting, really, knowing that even though I'll die, the universe(s) will go on forever. An infinite playground for life-forms.